Docstoc

Proposal Easement Modification

Document Sample
Proposal Easement Modification Powered By Docstoc
					                          CITY OF PIEDMONT
                      COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
________________________________________________________________________

DATE:         June 16, 2008

FROM:         Kate Black, City Planner
              Kevin Jackson, Assistant Planner

SUBJECT:    Appeal of Design Review Approval at 3 Maxwelton Road (Application
            #08-0114)
________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION:

   1. Uphold the Planning Commission’s May 12, 2008 decision to approve, in part,
      and deny in part, a design review application at 3 Maxwelton Road subject to
      conditions 1 through 6 on page 5 of this report by reference;

   2. Adopt the Planning Commission’s finding for denial of modifications to the
      exterior wall material on page 5 of this report by reference; and

   3. Adopt the Planning Commission’s findings 1 through 3 for design review
      approval on pages 5 and 6 of this report by reference.

REASONS FOR APPEAL:

Attached is a copy of the appeal, originally filed on May 22, 2008, with an amendment
submitted on June 2, 2008 by Robert Miller, property owner of 81 Maxwelton Road,
which is located across the rear property line from 3 Maxwelton Road. His appeal
documents, which are attached as Exhibits I and J, pages 31 and 32, indicate that his
primary concern is related to a sewer easement that crosses Mr. Parker’s property.

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND APPLICATION HISTORY:

Property Description
The applicant owns two properties that are currently under construction for two new
houses, known as 1 and 3 Maxwelton Road. The property at 1 Maxwelton has been
graded and a retaining wall for the approved residence has been constructed. The
construction of the residence at 3 Maxwelton Road is nearing completion. The applicant
also owns a vacant property to the east of 1 Maxwelton Road that currently has no
address and no vehicular access, and an existing residence to the west of 3 Maxwelton,
built in the 1960s and known as 7 Maxwelton Road. Behind and upslope from 7
Maxwelton Road is a residence owned by the appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Miller, at
81 Maxwelton Road. Behind and upslope from 3 Maxwelton Road is a vacant property




                                                                                         1
owned by the Millers. Exhibit L, page 44 is an area map that shows the properties and
their physical relationships.

Application History
A series of applications for two new houses, dating back to the mid-1990s, have been
submitted for the 1 and 3 Maxwelton Road properties. Exhibit F, page 24 is a chronology
of just the 7 applications submitted by the current applicant, Stephen Parker for the 3
Maxwelton Road property, with the exception of the first application (#04-0325), which
was the house design Mr. Parker purchased with his purchase of the 3 Maxwelton Road
lot. Two of these applications proposed improvements affecting the easement Mr. and
Mrs. Miller are appealing under the current application, and are briefly described below:

Application #06-0264. In September of 2006, the Commission heard an application that
among other modifications, proposed a new two-story stairway that crossed over the
easement, and the Commission required the easement to be relocated slightly so the stairs
would not be in the easement (meeting minutes are attached as Exhibit D, page 20). The
Millers appealed, and subsequent to the Commission meeting but prior to the Council
appeal hearing the applicant showed that the stairs could be redesigned so no conflict
would occur. At the Council appeal hearing, Jonathan Levine, the Commission Chair,
noted that the Commission’s decision did not adversely impact the Millers because no
change to the sewer easement location can occur without the Miller’s consent, and if Mr.
Parker failed to obtain the Miller’s permission, he would not be able to construct the
stairs as proposed. Concerning Mr. Parker’s redesign of the stair subsequent to the
Commission meeting, he noted that per the City’s standard planning practice, Mr. Parker
has the right to modify his stair design subject to staff review and approval. As indicated
in the October 16, 2006, meeting minutes (Exhibit C, page 17), the Council upheld the
Commission approval.

Application #06-0353. A second design review application was heard by the Planning
Commission in March of 2007 (minutes are attached as Exhibit B, page 13). This
application followed several months of negotiations between the attorneys representing
the Millers and the Parkers. Among other modifications, the application formally
proposed the redesign of the stairs, and a realignment of the sewer easement, along with a
catch basin that had been installed by Mr. Parker (contrary to the approved plans) within
the easement. However, as indicated by the meeting minutes, the Millers indicated
concern that the catch basin made it difficult for them to install a sewer line. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the Commission approved the design modifications the
application proposed and concerning the easement, the Commission noted the following:

“The Commission voiced its reluctance to require the proposed modification to the sewer
easement as a condition of project approval, stressing that: (1) this easement issue is a
private matter between property owners; (2) requiring the easement modification as a
condition of project approval could risk empowering the Miller’s with a “veto power”
over the completion of Mr. Parker’s project, especially given indications that the Millers
do not support the easement modification proposal negotiated by the attorneys for both
parties; (3) a hesitation to set a precedent for the transfer of property rights in order for
an applicant to receive project approval; and (4) the fact that based upon expert


                                                                                                2
testimony, the existing sewer easement is capable of accommodating the Miller’s sewer
pipe. “

GENERAL PLANNING PRACTICE CONCERNING EASEMENTS:

Applications for planning permits that propose physical changes to a property are
required to show public easements (sewer easements are the most common) and the
City’s rights-of-way on site plans. As you know, the City does have jurisdiction over City
easements and rights-of-way, and through our encroachment permit process, we generally
permit hardscape improvements such as driveways and walkways, and retaining walls to
encroach, but do not permit residences, garages or other structures to encroach, because
of the cost of removing such structures in order to gain access to the easement to repair a
sewer or widen a street or sidewalk is very high and controversial, the resolution of which
can be an expensive expenditure of taxpayers’ funds. However, removing a paved surface
or a portion of a retaining wall is not as complicated or expensive.

As indicated by the Supplemental Council Agenda Report prepared by City Attorney
George Peyton, the easement at issue under this appeal is a non-exclusive private
easement. Although the City has no jurisdiction over activities within private easements,
we ask applicants to show private easements on their site plans to make sure the
applicants are aware of encumbrances that may exist on their properties, so they don’t
spend fees on architectural plans that later need to be redrawn to address the easements,
and to provide accurate information for neighbors and members of the public during the
public review period of applications. When construction conflicts are proposed involving
a private easement, planning staff encourage the applicant and neighbor to work out the
conflict prior to application approval. In the case of Mr. Parker’s September, 2006
application (heard by the Council in October of 2006), the proposed plan showed a very
large staircase connecting the upper floor of the residence to the lower floor, a portion of
which encroached over the Miller’s sewer easement. The stairway would not be an
inexpensive structure to remove in order to install the Millers’ sewer line or repair it.
Since it was clear that the easement could be relocated to avoid the stair or the stair could
be redesigned to avoid the easement, staff proposed a condition of approval to relocate
the easement slightly to memorialize the solution the applicant agreed to verbally. Staff
had no authority to propose such a condition of approval; it was done to make sure the
record was clear that the applicant had agreed to solve a problem in a specific way.

In the Millers’ appeal, they indicate that they believe the City has changed its policy on
the treatment of private easements, and provide quotes from City officials as the basis of
that claim. However the comments from the Mayor and City Attorney were related to the
law governing the removal of structures that had been constructed over an easement, not
the City’s approval of such structures. There has been no shift in City policy regarding
private easements.




                                                                                                3
CLAIM OF UNAPPROVED CONSTRUCTION WITHIN EASEMENT

In their appeal, the Millers claim that Mr. Parker has made modifications to their sewer
pipe that was installed in July of 2007. While this is a separate matter that is outside of
the Design Review application under appeal, the Building Official has provided a
memorandum that addresses this claim, which is attached as Exhibit E, page 23.

CURRENT APPLICATION DESCRIPTION

The current application proposes to modify the previously approved design for a new
house and site improvements by: changing the height, location and extent of the driveway
and the retaining walls and planting strip along the north side of the driveway; changing
the building material of the exterior walls of the house from stucco with stone veneer
below to stucco throughout; modify windows and doors; expand a rear terrace; add a
mailbox structure at the bottom of the driveway; and add on-grade paths, stairs, guardrail,
gate and retaining walls at the southwest side of the residence.

The features within the private easement approved in this application are an on-grade
concrete path with stucco guardrail (not yet constructed), an on-grade concrete stair, a
concrete masonry retaining wall, and a wrought iron gate which were constructed.

COMMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW DELIBERATIONS:

The Commission’s review of the project centered around the proposed design
modifications that were proposed to the project, and the issue of the proposed changes to
the easement were not discussed. Two written response forms were received: one from
Doug Vance who lives across Moraga Avenue at 970 Moraga, and one from the Millers.
As you can see from their responses (Exhibit K, page 38), both neighbors expressed
frustration that Mr. Parker had already constructed many of the improvements he was
asking approval of, and the Millers expressed frustration that the applicant’s pattern of
requesting further modifications to the design, prolongs the construction time-frame. The
Millers did not attend the hearing, and Mr. Vance spoke of his opposition related to some
of the proposed design modifications. No mention of concerns related to the easement
was made.

The Commission discussed the proposed modifications. Except for Commissioner Thiel,
who objected to the elimination of the wrought iron window grilles and the change to a
split-face block finish on the driveway walls, the Commission felt that most of the
changes were minor in nature and are appropriate. The major exception to this was the
proposed change in the material of exterior walls of the lower portion of the house from
stone veneer to stucco and the proposed change in the material of the driveway wall from
concrete to split-face masonry. The Commission opposed the requested change to stucco
from stone veneer on the lower level of the house stressing that such a change would
lessen the architectural interest and quality of the overall appearance of the home. The
Commission felt that a solid stucco exterior on such a large 4-story home would make the
home too monolithic in appearance and increase its visual massing.



                                                                                              4
COMMMISSION ACTION:

On a 4-1 vote, the Planning Commission denied the proposed change to the building
material of the exterior walls of the house, and conditionally approved the remaining
elements of the application.

Conditions of Approval:
In approving the application, the Commission found the application to be consistent with
the criteria and standards of Section 17.20.9 of the City Code and the Piedmont Design
Review Guidelines, subject to the following conditions:

1. Compliance with the conditions of approval specified as part of the prior approvals on
   the residence at 3 Maxwelton Road, under Building Permit #06-005568, and Design
   Review applications #04-0325, #04-0525, #05-0177, #06-0264, #06-0353, and #07-
   0248 shall extend to this application;

2. The proposed changes to the north side driveway retaining wall in terms of height are
   approved. In terms of material finishes – the wall finish facing the driveway shall be
   split-face block and the side facing Moraga Avenue shall be stucco;

3. The alignment of the driveway skirt wall at the southeast end of the property (right) is
   approved as proposed;

4. The proposed mailbox is approved as submitted, subject to the condition that at a
   minimum 15 ft. clear access be maintained between the mailbox and retaining walls;

5. The proposed exterior finish changes on the house are denied;

6. The exterior finish of any retaining wall facing Moraga Avenue shall be stucco.

PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS

Finding for Denial of the proposed change to the exterior walls of the house:
In voting to deny, in part, the application for Design Review, the Planning Commission
made the following findings of non-compliance with Chapter 17 and the Residential
Design Guidelines:

   17.20.9 (a):       The proposed changes to the building material of the exterior
   walls of the house are not appropriate and therefore are denied.

Findings for Approval for the remainder of the application:
In voting to approve, in part, the application for Design Review, the Planning
Commission made the following findings of compliance with Chapter 17 and the
Residential Design Guidelines:




                                                                                              5
   17.20.9 (a):      The exterior design elements (including but not limited to
   height, bulk, area openings, breaks in the façade, line and pitch of the roof,
   materials, arrangements of structures on the parcel, and concealment of
   mechanical and electrical equipment) are aesthetically pleasing as a whole and
   harmonious with existing and proposed neighborhood development. The
   proposed design changes comply with Design Review Guidelines I-1 and I-5.

   17.20.9 (b):       The design is appropriate, considering its effect on neighboring
   properties’ existing views, privacy and access to direct and indirect light because
   there is no material change from that previously approved. The proposed
   improvements comply with Design Review Guidelines I-2.

   17.20.9 (c):       The safety of residents, pedestrians, and vehicle occupants and
   the free flow of vehicular traffic are not adversely affected, considering the
   circulation pattern, parking layout and points of ingress and egress because there
   is no material change to the driveway or access to the buildings. The addition of
   stairs around the west-side of the property improves life-safety by creating access
   around this side of the house.

INFORMATION FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:

The Design Review Guidelines are provided for reference in Exhibit G, pages 26-29.

The applicants’ proposed findings for variance and design review are provided for
reference in Exhibit H, page 30.

NEW APPEAL CRITERIA:

In July of 2005, the City Council amended Chapter 17 relating to appeals. Section
17.25.6 sets forth the standards of review as follows:

Standard of Review. The standard of review of an appeal from a Planning Commission
decision by the City Council shall not be de novo, and shall be governed by the
following:

       (a)    Deference. Due deference shall be given to the actions of the Planning
              Commission in light of the substantial number of planning applications
              heard by them and the major accumulated group experience that those
              actions represent.

       (b)    Grounds for Overruling Decision. The following will serve as the
              exclusive grounds for overruling all or part of a Planning Commission
              decision:

              (1)     If findings made by the Planning Commission as a basis for its
                      action are not supported by the weight of the evidence



                                                                                         6
               (2)     If there is a significant error in the application of the provisions of
                       Chapter 17 or other provisions of the City Code that is important to
                       sustaining the action by the Planning Commission.

               (3)     If there is a significant error in the application of the Design
                       Review Guidelines as approved by the City Council from time to
                       time.

               (4)     If it is determined that there is a significant violation of the notice
                       provisions of Section 17.28 or other pertinent notice provisions of
                       Chapter 17 of the Piedmont City Code relating to the hearing(s)
                       leading to the Planning Commission action.

               (5)     If significant errors are discovered after the Planning Commission
                       hearing on which its action was taken in the application, plans,
                       drawings or other materials provided to the Planning Commission
                       as a basis of its decision.

               (6)     If there is a significant error in the application of approved City
                       policies (such as the story pole and site visit policies) that is
                       important to sustaining the action taken by the Planning
                       Commission.

       (d) Burden of Proof. In all appeals pursuant to 17.25.6 the burden of proof shall
       be on the appellant.

Remand. Section 17.25.7 provides an opportunity for the Council to remand the
application back to the Planning Commission:

      “…the City Council acting as the appeal body shall have the option to
      remand the matter to the Planning Commission for further consideration,
      which remand shall include either specific issues to be considered alone or
      direction that the Planning Commission open the entire application for de
      novo review…unless the City Council affirmatively acts to the contrary, no
      additional fees shall be charged to the applicant or appellant relating to the
      remand”

The Council can retain appeal jurisdiction over the entire matter at the time of the remand
and request only an advisory opinion on specific issues from the Planning Commission,
with a final decision to be made by the Council at a subsequent meeting, or the Council
can request that the Planning Commission make the final decision (which decision can be
appealed to the Council). For remand actions, the burden of proof remains with the
appellant.




                                                                                                 7
Definitions: Section 17.25.8 contains the definitions affecting appeals and remands:

(a)       "A significant error" shall mean an error that has or potentially will have an
          important negative impact.

(b)       "Weight of the evidence" shall mean in excess of 50% of the evidence.

(c)       "Substantial evidence" shall mean well in excess of 50% of the evidence, i.e., in
          general terms at least 65% of the evidence.

(d)       “A significant violation" shall mean a violation of the notice provisions that
          would provide insufficient notice to the public to allow reasonable public
          participation.

(e)       "Burden of proof" shall mean that the party shall have the obligation to provide
          evidence or proof significant enough to overcome any other evidence presented.

CEQA COMPLIANCE

The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Article 19, Sections 15300 through 15329.

CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED:

City Council action is required to uphold or overturn the decision of the Planning
Commission.

Date Report Prepared: June 12, 2008

EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A        page 9          May 12, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Exhibit B        page 13         March 12, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Exhibit C        page 17         October 16, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes
Exhibit D        page 20         September 11, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Exhibit E        page 23         Report from Building Official Chester Nakahara
Exhibit F        page 24         Chronology of Parker Applications at 3 Maxwelton
Exhibit G        page 26         Residential Design Review Guidelines
Exhibit H        page 30         Applicant’s Design Review Findings
Exhibit I        page 31         May 22, 2008, Appeal
Exhibit J        page 32         June 2, 2008, Appeal addendum
Exhibit K        page 38         Neighbor Comments
Exhibit L        page 44         Area Map of Properties

Exhibit          separate        Applicant’s Plans for Design Review




                                                                                              8
                                                                                              EXHIBIT A


                         PIEDMONT PLANNING COMMISSION

              Special and Regular Meeting Minutes for Monday May 12, 2008


A Special and Regular Session of the Piedmont Planning Commission was held May 12, 2008, in the Police
Department EOC Room at 403 Highland Avenue and City Council Chambers at 120 Vista Avenue. In
accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) the agenda for this meeting was posted for public
inspection on May 2, 2008.

CALL TO ORDER                    Chairman Thiel called the special session to order at 5:05 p.m. in the
                                 Police Department EOC Room.

ROLL CALL                        Present: Commissioners Jonathan Levine, Jim Kellogg, Melanie
                                 Robertston, Bobbe Stehr, Clark Thiel and Alternate Commissioner
                                 Michael Henn

                                 Staff: City Planner Kate Black, Assistant Planner Kevin Jackson,
                                 Planning Technicians Sylvia Toruno, Gabe Baracker and Cyrus Dorosti
                                 and Recording Secretary Chris Harbert

                                 City Council Liaison: Councilmember John Chiang

REGULAR CALENDAR                 The Commission considered the following items of regular business:

        Design Review            Mr. Stephen Parker is requesting design review to make modifications
        3 Maxwelton Road         to a previously approved design for a new house, including: changes to
                                 the driveway and the retaining walls and planting strip along the north
                                 side of the driveway; changes to the building material of the exterior
                                 walls; window and door modifications; expansion of a rear terrace;
                                 addition of on-grade paths, stairs, gate and retaining walls at the
                                 southwest side of the residence; and addition of a mailbox structure at
                                 the bottom of the driveway.

                                 Similar applications were approved by the Planning Commission on
                                 September 13, 2004, April 11 and June 13, 2005, September 11, 2006,
                                 March 12 and July 17, 2007.

                                 Written notice was provided to neighbors. One negative response
                                 form was received. Correspondence was received from: B.J. Miller,
                                 May 6; Douglas Vance, May 8

                                  Public testimony was received from:

                                  Stephen Parker described the proposed design changes to his project,
                                  stating that it is his intention to complete construction of 3 Maxwelton
                                  by September 2008.

                                  Douglas Vance objected to the change in surface materials to the
                                  exterior of the house and driveway retaining walls, noted that some of
                                  the requested design changes have already been constructed, referenced
                                  earlier drawings (2005) in support of his contention that exterior
                                  lighting has been changed and that the lighting is adversely impacting
                                  adjacent residences and questioned if the proposed location for the
                                  mailbox is acceptable to the Post Office.



                                                                                                             9
                                                            EXHIBIT A



Steve Shirley, Project Contractor, stated that the mailbox location was
discussed with postal authorities and its proposed location is at the edge
of Mr. Parker’s property.

The Commission noted the numerous design changes that have been
made to the project and its concern that the currently proposed changes
in the material of exterior walls will create a “different” look than what
was previously represented and approved. The Commission, with the
exception of Commissioner Thiel, agreed that the proposed changes,
other than those related to the house and driveway retaining wall
finishes, were minor in nature, do not affect the overall quality of the
design and are appropriate – Commissioner Thiel opposed the proposed
elimination of the wrought iron grilles on the windows. The
Commission opposed the requested change to stucco from stone veneer
on the lower level of the house stressing that such a change would
lessened the architectural interest and quality of the overall appearance
of the home. It felt that a solid stucco exterior on such a large 4-story
home would make the home too monolithic in appearance and increase
its visual massing. As to the finish of the driveway retaining walls, the
Commission, with the exception of Commissioner Thiel, supported the
change to a split-face block finish on the driveway side of the property
but requested that the wall façade facing Moraga Avenue retain a
stucco finish – Commissioner Thiel preferred retention of the stucco
and stone finishes on the wall as previously approved. The
Commission further supported the proposed widening of the driveway
and change in location of the driveway skirt wall at the southeast part
of the property to align with the driveway and skirt wall of the adjacent
property.

 Resolution 114-DR-08
 WHEREAS, Mr. Stephen Parker is requesting permission to make
modifications to a previously approved design for a new house,
including: changes to the driveway and the retaining walls and planting
strip along the north side of the driveway; changes to the building
material of the exterior walls; window and door modifications;
expansion of a rear terrace; addition of on-grade paths, stairs, gate and
retaining walls at the southwest side of the residence; and addition of a
mailbox structure at the bottom of the driveway located at 3 Maxwelton
Road, Piedmont, California, which construction requires design review;
and

WHEREAS, after reviewing the application, plans and any and all
testimony and documentation submitted in connection with such
application, and after having visited subject property, the Piedmont
Planning Commission finds that the proposal conforms in part with the
criteria and standards of Section 17.20.9 of the Piedmont City Code,
finding that:

    •    The proposed changes to the building material of the exterior
         walls of the house are not appropriate and therefore are denied.

With regard to the remaining elements of the application,




                                                                             10
                                                             EXHIBIT A


1. The exterior design elements (including but not limited to height,
bulk, area openings, breaks in the façade, line and pitch of the roof,
materials, arrangements of structures on the parcel, and concealment of
mechanical and electrical equipment) are aesthetically pleasing as a
whole and harmonious with existing and proposed neighborhood
development. The proposed design changes comply with Design
Review Guidelines I-1 and I-5.

2. The design is appropriate, considering its effect on neighboring
properties’ existing views, privacy and access to direct and indirect
light because there is no material change from that previously approved.
The proposed improvements comply with Design Review Guidelines I-
2.

3. The safety of residents, pedestrians, and vehicle occupants and the
free flow of vehicular traffic are not adversely affected, considering the
circulation pattern, parking layout and points of ingress and egress
because there is no material change to the driveway or access to the
buildings. The addition of stairs around the west-side of the property
improves life-safety by creating access around this side of the house.

RESOLVED, that based on the findings and facts set forth heretofore,
the Piedmont Planning Commission approves in part the design review
application of Mr. Parker for construction at 3 Maxwelton Road,
Piedmont, California, in accordance with the plans and specifications
on file with the City, subject to the following conditions:

    1.   Compliance with the conditions of approval specified as part
         of the prior approvals on the residence at 3 Maxwelton Road,
         under Building Permit #06-005568, and Design Review
         applications #04-0325, #04-0525, #05-0177, #06-0264, #06-
         0353, and #07-0248 shall extend to this application;

    2.   The proposed changes to the north side driveway retaining
         wall in terms of height are approved. In terms of material
         finishes – the wall finish facing the driveway shall be split-face
         block and the side facing Moraga Avenue shall be stucco;

    3.   The alignment of the driveway skirt wall at the southeast end
         of the property (right) is approved as proposed;

    4.   The proposed mailbox is approved as submitted, subject to the
         condition that at a minimum 15 ft. clear access be maintained
         between the mailbox and retaining walls;

    5.   The proposed exterior finish changes on the house are denied;

    6.   The exterior finish of any retaining wall facing Moraga
         Avenue shall be stucco.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the approval of the Planning
Commission/City Council and any conditions of that approval shall not
extend to any particulars set forth in the documents submitted for the
project which are inconsistent with or in violation of any applicable
law, including but not limited to Chapters 5 and 17 of the City Code,
nor does the approval extend to matters not set forth, or inadequately



                                                                              11
                                                              EXHIBIT A


represented, in submitted documents (whether or not consistent with
applicable law). The City reserves the right to require compliance with
applicable laws and to attach conditions after initial approval is given, if
noncompliance is discovered or additional conditions are considered
necessary and appropriate in light of Commission/Council findings.
Moved by Kellogg, Seconded by Levine
Ayes: Kellogg, Levine, Robertson, Stehr
Noes: Thiel
Absent: None




                                                                               12
                                                                                             EXHIBIT B


                        PIEDMONT PLANNING COMMISSION

                   Regular Meeting Minutes for Monday, March 12, 2007


A Regular Session of the Piedmont Planning Commission was held March 12, 2007, in the City Hall
Council Chambers at 120 Vista Avenue. In accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) the
agenda for this meeting was posted for public inspection on February 26, 2007.

CALL TO ORDER                    Chairman Levine called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. He
                                 announced that Agenda Item #10 (Variance/Design Review, 124
                                 Ronada) has been withdrawn from tonight’s consideration at the
                                 applicant’s request.

ROLL CALL                        Present: Commissioners Arleta Chang, Tamra Hege, Jonathan Levine,
                                 Bobbe Stehr, Clark Thiel and Alternate Commissioner Jim Kellogg

                                 Staff: City Planner Kate Black, Assistant Planner Kevin Jackson,
                                 Building Official Chester Nakahara, Planning Technicians Sharon Lai,
                                 Sylvia Toruno and Christina Acosta

                                 City Council Liaison: Councilmember Garrett Keating

REGULAR CALENDAR                 The Commission considered the following items of regular business:

        Design Review            Mr. Stephen Parker is requesting design review to make modifications
        3 Maxwelton Road         to a prior approval, including but not necessarily limited to: relocation
                                 of a stairway and terrace in the west side yard so that the structure is
                                 not within a sewer easement; changes to the entry walkway and terrace;
                                 modifications to windows and doors; the addition of exterior lighting;
                                 alterations to the interior floor plan; and possible modifications to
                                 easements, the landscape plan, walls and retaining walls.

                                 Public testimony was received from:

                                 Stephen Parker described his proposed design modifications, noting in
                                 particular successful negotiations between himself, the Millers’
                                 attorney and the City related to modifications to the existing sanitary
                                 sewer easement and his willingness to plant two new Coast Live Oak
                                 trees as mitigation in the event any damage has occurred to the Miller’s
                                 existing Coast Live Oak. He also a requested a 3-month extension of
                                 his construction completion deadline because of delays resulting from
                                 errors by his previous contractor – a new construction crew has been
                                 retained.

                                 Betsy Miller stated her belief that the contractor’s location of Mr.
                                 Parker’s storm catch basin within the sanitary sewer easement was
                                 deliberate and she voiced her concerns that the sewer easement
                                 realignment/widening modification proposed by Mr. Parker may not
                                 resolve the situation. She noted her preference for a completely new
                                 sewer easement rather than the proposed tweaking of the existing
                                 easement.

                                 Robert Miller criticized Mr. Parker for failing to construct per approved
                                 plans and the Commission for failing to insure and insist that approved



                                                                                                             13
                                                             EXHIBIT B


plans are followed. He also stated his belief that the proposed sewer
easement realignment is insufficient to accommodate his future sewer
lateral and that his Coast Live Oak tree has been severely damaged by
Mr. Parker’s construction crew.

At the request of the Commission, the Building Official and City
Planner noted that the purpose of the non-exclusive easement is for a
private sewer lateral to serve one home. Mr. Parker’s storm sewer
catch basin was located within this easement, contrary to approved
plans. However, even with the catch basin, there is 15” of unobstructed
width in the existing easement for the Miller’s future sewer pipe –
sanitary sewer pipes range in width from 4 to 6 inches.

The Commission voiced its reluctance to require the proposed
modification to the sewer easement as a condition of project approval,
stressing that: (1) this easement issue is a private matter between
property owners; (2) requiring the easement modification as a condition
of project approval could risk empowering the Miller’s with a “veto
power” over the completion of Mr. Parker’s project, especially given
indications that the Millers do not support the easement modification
proposal negotiated by the attorneys for both parties; (3) a hesitation to
set a precedent for the transfer of property rights in order for an
applicant to receive project approval; and (4) the fact that based upon
expert testimony, the existing sewer easement is capable of
accommodating the Miller’s sewer pipe. The Commission also
opposed requiring the planting of additional oak trees as a condition of
project approval, noting that based upon an arborist report, there is no
evidence that the Miller’s oak tree has been damaged. However, the
Commission noted that if Mr. Parker wishes to voluntarily make the
sewer modification and tree planting proposals as a goodwill gesture to
his neighbor, he is free to do so.

The Commission supported approval of the exterior design
modifications to the property, agreeing that they were minor in scope
and consistent with the home’s previously approved architecture. The
Commission also supported the 3-month time extension, agreeing that
Mr. Parker has been making good progress toward project completion.

Resolution 353-DR-06
WHEREAS, Mr. Stephen Parker is requesting permission to make
modifications to a prior approval, including but not necessarily limited
to: relocation of a stairway and terrace in the west side yard so that the
structure is not within a sewer easement; changes to the entry walkway
and terrace; modifications to windows and doors; the addition of
exterior lighting; alterations to the interior floor plan; and possible
modifications to easements, the landscape plan, walls and retaining
walls located at 3 Maxwelton Road, Piedmont, California, which
construction requires design review; and

WHEREAS, after reviewing the application, plans and any and all
testimony and documentation submitted in connection with such
application, and after having visited subject property, the Piedmont
Planning Commission finds that the proposal conforms with the criteria
and standards of Section 17.20.9 of the Piedmont City Code:




                                                                             14
                                                             EXHIBIT B


1. The exterior design elements (including but not limited to height,
bulk, area openings, breaks in the façade, line and pitch of the roof,
materials, arrangements of structures on the parcel, and concealment of
mechanical and electrical equipment) are aesthetically pleasing as a
whole and harmonious with existing and proposed neighborhood
development in that the architectural aspects of the redesign are
consistent with the previously approved architecture of the home.

2. The design is appropriate, considering its effect on neighboring
properties’ existing views, privacy and access to direct and indirect
light because the exterior features of the redesign are minor in nature.
There is no significant change from that of the previously approved
plan.

3. The safety of residents, pedestrians, and vehicle occupants and the
free flow of vehicular traffic are not adversely affected, considering the
circulation pattern, parking layout and points of ingress and egress
because the areas to be modified do not impact circulation patterns.

In addition, the Commission finds:

     •   The location of the existing storm sewer catch basin is
         acceptable. The benefactor of the sanitary sewer easement
         has not established that his use of said easement has been
         adversely affected by the location of this catch basin. The
         City Building Official has testified that the catch basin
         location within the easement should not prevent the laying of
         the neighbor’s sanitary sewer pipe. Although the catch basin
         may make the laying of the sewer pipe a little more difficult, it
         does not prevent the effective use of said easement;

     •   with regard to the neighbors’ Coast Live Oak tree, the
         condition of approval of the prior approval regarding this tree
         shall be maintained. To the extent there are allegations that it
         has not been maintained, there is no evidence from the arborist
         report or from the public that indicates that this tree has been
         damaged in any manner. Absent any evidence that this tree
         has been damaged, the Commission does not require any
         further conditions, although it encourages the applicant to take
         remedial action; and

     •   with regard to the requested 3-month time extension, the
         Commission finds that the applicant has made good progress
         on the structure and that a 3-month time extension is not
         unreasonable given the size and scope of the project. No one
         has demonstrated any adverse effect of granting such an
         extension.

RESOLVED, that based on the findings and facts set forth heretofore,
the Piedmont Planning Commission approves the design review
application of Mr. Parker for construction at 3 Maxwelton Road,
Piedmont, California, in accordance with the plans and specifications
on file with the City, subject to the following conditions:




                                                                             15
                                                              EXHIBIT B


     1.   The approved plans include those submitted on March 7,
          2008, after neighbors were notified of the project and the plans
          were available for public review.

     2.   The approval is subject to the conditions of approval required
          under the prior approvals of applications #04-0525, approved
          by the Planning Commission on April 11, 2005; #05-0177
          approved by the Planning Commission on June 13, 2005; and
          #06-0264 approved by the Planning Commission and upheld
          on appeal by the City Council on October 16, 2006.

     3.   If there is a violation of any Condition established by the
          Planning Commission that lasts in excess of seven (7) days,
          the Director of Public Works shall issue a Compliance Order
          for correction of such violation.

     4.   The construction completion date of September 7, 2007,
          approved under application #06-0264, shall be increased
          through December 15, 2007.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the approval of the Planning
Commission/City Council and any conditions of that approval shall not
extend to any particulars set forth in the documents submitted for the
project which are inconsistent with or in violation of any applicable
law, including but not limited to Chapters 5 and 17 of the City Code,
nor does the approval extend to matters not set forth, or inadequately
represented, in submitted documents (whether or not consistent with
applicable law). The City reserves the right to require compliance with
applicable laws and to attach conditions after initial approval is given, if
noncompliance is discovered or additional conditions are considered
necessary and appropriate in light of Commission/Council findings.
 Moved by Thiel, Seconded by Hege
 Ayes: Chang, Hege, Levine, Stehr, Thiel
Noes: None
Absent: None




                                                                               16
                                                                                             EXHIBIT C


                                    PIEDMONT CITY COUNCIL

                       Regular Meeting Minutes for Monday, October 16, 2006


A Regular Session of the Piedmont City Council was held October 16, 2006, in the City Hall Council
Chambers at 120 Vista Avenue. In accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) the agenda for
this meeting was posted for public inspection on October 12, 2006.

CALL TO ORDER            Mayor McEnroe called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the Pledge of
                         Allegiance.

ROLL CALL                Present: Mayor Nancy McEnroe, Vice Mayor Abe Friedman and
                         Councilmembers Dean Barbieri, John Chiang and Garrett Keating

                         Staff: City Administrator Geoff Grote, City Attorney George Peyton, Police
                         Chief Lisa Ravazza, Public Works Director Larry Rosenberg, Finance Director
                         Mark Bichsel, Recreation Director Mark Delventhal, City Clerk Ann Swift, City
                         Planner Kate Black and Recording Secretary Chris Harbert


REGULAR CALENDAR                 The Council considered the following items of regular business:

Appeal of Planning               The City Planner stated that Mr. and Mrs. Robert Miller are appealing
Commission Decision,             the Planning Commission’s September 11 approval of Mr. Stephen
3 Maxwelton Road                 Parker’s design review application to make modifications to his single
                                 family residence under construction at 3 Maxwelton Road. In
                                 particular, the Millers are appealing the Commission’s Condition #3 of
                                 approval stating that: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the
                                 existing sewer easement to the west of terrace #2 shall be relocated and
                                 approved by the City Engineer so that it does not conflict with the
                                 proposed new stairs. The Planner noted that this sewer easement is for
                                 an undeveloped lot owned by the Millers. Subsequent to the Planning
                                 Commission’s decision, Mr. Parker has submitted plans to redesign the
                                 stairs so that the sewer easement is unaffected. The City Planner
                                 recommended that the Council deny the appeal and uphold the
                                 Planning Commission’s decision, amending Condition #3 to add the
                                 wording: “ or in the alternative, a new design shall be approved by
                                 Staff Design Review which relocates the stairs so as not to encroach on
                                 the sewer easement.”

                                 In addition, the City Planner noted that the Miller’s have requested a
                                 waiver of the $300 appeal fee.

                                 Public testimony was received from:

                                 Jonathan Levine, Planning Commission Chairman, stressed that the
                                 Commission’s decision did not adversely impact the Millers because no
                                 change to the sewer easement location can occur without the Miller’s
                                 consent. If Mr. Parker fails to obtain the Miller’s permission, he cannot
                                 construct the stairs as proposed. He noted that per the City’s standard
                                 planning practice, Mr. Parker has the right to modify his stair design
                                 subject to staff review and approval. Mr. Levine urged that the appeal
                                 be denied.




                                                                                                             17
                                                             EXHIBIT C


Betsy Miller felt that the wording of the Commission’s decision was
misleading. She stated that she did not want the existing sewer
easement relocated and was assured by staff prior to the Commission’s
hearing that this would not take place. However, in reading the
Commission’s decision, she felt that the City did in fact authorize
sewer easement relocation, hence her appeal. The Council assured
Mrs. Miller that the sewer easement issue is a private matter between
property owners and cannot be altered without mutual property owner
consent – the City has no authority to intervene.

Stephen Parker stated his intent to redesign his stairs so that the Miller
sewer easement remains unaffected.

 Resolution 87-06
 WHEREAS, Mr. Stephen Parker is requesting permission to make
modifications to a prior approval to include: stylistic alterations to the
residence; alterations to retaining walls; alignment changes to the
driveway; the addition of a new stairway at the westernmost terrace;
changes to the terraces; a new covered entry and terrace at the front of
the residence; modifications to windows and door; and alterations to the
interior floor plan located at 3 Maxwelton Road, Piedmont, California,
which construction requires design review; and

WHEREAS, the Piedmont Planning Commission conditionally
approved Mr. Parker’s application on September 11, 2006, and this
conditional approval was appealed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Miller; and

WHEREAS, after reviewing the application, plans and any and all
testimony and documentation submitted in connection with such
application and appeal, and after having visited subject property, the
Piedmont City Council finds that the proposal conforms with the
criteria and standards of Section 17.20.9 of the Piedmont City Code:

1. The exterior design elements (including but not limited to height,
bulk, area openings, breaks in the façade, line and pitch of the roof,
materials, arrangements of structures on the parcel, and concealment of
mechanical and electrical equipment) are aesthetically pleasing as a
whole and harmonious with existing and proposed neighborhood
development in that the use of materials, scale and mass of the
proposed improvements are in keeping with the neighborhood and site.
The size of the proposed home is appropriate for the size of the lot and
neighborhood quality is being maintained.

2. The design is appropriate, considering its effect on neighboring
properties’ existing views, privacy and access to direct and indirect
light. The expansion is consistent with setbacks in the neighborhood.

3. The safety of residents, pedestrians, and vehicle occupants and the
free flow of vehicular traffic are not adversely affected, considering the
circulation pattern, parking layout and points of ingress and egress
because there is no additional requirement for off-street parking.

RESOLVED, that based on the findings and facts set forth heretofore,
the Piedmont City Council denies Mr. and Mrs. Miller’s appeal and
upholds the Planning Commission’s approval of Mr. Parker’s design
review application for construction at 3 Maxwelton Road, Piedmont,



                                                                             18
                                                            EXHIBIT C


California, in accordance with the plans and specifications on file with
the City, subject to the following conditions:

1. The approval is subject to the conditions of approval required under
the prior approval of applications #04-0525, approved by the Planning
Commission on April 11, 2005, and #05-0177 approved by the
Planning Commission on June 13, 2005;

2. The proposed changes to the driveway wall are inconsistent in
design with the design of the previously approved wall that continues to
1 Maxwelton Road. The proposed changes to this wall are approved
under the condition that an application is made and approved to make
the same changes to the wall at 1 Maxwelton Road;

3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the existing sewer
easement to the west of Terrace #2 shall be relocated and approved by
the City Engineer so that it does not conflict with the proposed new
stairs, or in the alternative, a new design shall be approved by Staff
Design Review which relocates the stairs so as not to encroach on the
sewer easement.
Moved by Friedman, Seconded by Chiang
Ayes: McEnroe, Friedman, Barbieri, Chiang, Keating
Noes: None
Absent: None
(0080)

Mr. and Mrs. Miller both spoke in behalf of their fee waiver request,
noting that confusion over the Commission’s decision led to the appeal.
In response to Council questions, the City Planner relayed her
conversations with Mr. Miller both before and after the Commission’s
meeting advising Mr. Miller that his easement rights would be
preserved. Mr. Miller maintained that his easement was violated by a
previous owner of the Maxwelton property and by Mr. Parker in
another instance relating to a drain pipe – both actions approved by the
City. The Council assured the Millers that Mr. Parker’s stairs will not
be constructed across their easement.

Resolution 88-06
RESOLVED, that the City Council denies Mr. and Mrs. Robert
Miller’s appeal fee waiver request pertaining to their appeal of a
September 11, 2006, Planning Commission decision regarding 3
Maxwelton Road.
Moved by Barbieri, Seconded by Friedman
Ayes: McEnroe, Friedman, Barbieri, Chiang, Keating
Noes: None
Absent: None
(0080)




                                                                           19
                                                                                             EXHIBIT D


                         PIEDMONT PLANNING COMMISSION

                 Regular Meeting Minutes for Monday September 11, 2006


A Regular Session of the Piedmont Planning Commission was held September 11, 2006, in the City Hall
Council Chambers at 120 Vista Avenue. In accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) the
agenda for this meeting was posted for public inspection on August 28, 2006.

CALL TO ORDER                    Chairman Levine called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL                        Present: Commissioners Arleta Chang, Tamra Hege, Jonathan Levine,
                                 Clark Thiel and Alternate Commissioner Bonnie Stehr

                                 Staff: City Planner Kate Black, Assistant Planner Kevin Jackson,
                                 Planning Technicians Sharon Lai, Sylvia Toruno and Christina Acosta
                                 and Recording Secretary Chris Harbert

                                 City Council Liaison: Councilmember Garrett Keating

REGULAR CALENDAR                 The Commission considered the following items of regular business:

        Design Review            Mr. Stephen Parker is requesting design review to make modifications
        3 Maxwelton Road         to a prior approval to include: stylistic alterations to the residence;
                                 alterations to retaining walls; alignment changes to the driveway; the
                                 addition of a new stairway at the westernmost terrace; changes to the
                                 terraces; a new covered entry and terrace at the front of the residence;
                                 modifications to windows and door; and alterations to the interior floor
                                 plan.

                                 Written notice was provided to neighbors. One conditional
                                 affirmative and one negative response form was received.

                                 Public testimony was received from:

                                 Stephen Parker described the proposed design changes intended to
                                 improve the livability of the new home as well as create a more
                                 Mediterranean architectural character. He submitted proposed materials
                                 and color boards for Commission review. He also stated that his
                                 neighbor’s (Robert Miller) sewer easement will be maintained, although
                                 it may be slightly reconfigured. He also noted his intention to submit a
                                 design review application for his property at #1 Maxwelton to make #1
                                 Maxwelton’s driveway wall compatible/consistent with the changes
                                 being made to the wall at #3.

                                 Vicky Barbieri, Project Architect, responded to Commission questions
                                 concerning the use of both natural and faux rock, noting that a natural,
                                 random rock pattern will be achieved. She noted that the submitted
                                 photo rendering is the most accurate representation of the desired
                                 appearance of the rock wall.

                                 The Commission agreed that the proposed design changes will improve
                                 the aesthetics of the property by creating an overall cohesive, well
                                 integrated design in keeping with the natural setting of the lot.




                                                                                                            20
                                                             EXHIBIT D


Resolution 264-DR-06
WHEREAS, Mr. Stephen Parker is requesting permission to make
modifications to a prior approval to include: stylistic alterations to the
residence; alterations to retaining walls; alignment changes to the
driveway; the addition of a new stairway at the westernmost terrace;
changes to the terraces; a new covered entry and terrace at the front of
the residence; modifications to windows and door; and alterations to the
interior floor plan located at 3 Maxwelton Road, Piedmont, California,
which construction requires design review; and

WHEREAS, after reviewing the application, plans and any and all
testimony and documentation submitted in connection with such
application, and after having visited subject property, the Piedmont
Planning Commission finds that the proposal conforms with the criteria
and standards of Section 17.20.9 of the Piedmont City Code:

1. The exterior design elements (including but not limited to height,
bulk, area openings, breaks in the façade, line and pitch of the roof,
materials, arrangements of structures on the parcel, and concealment of
mechanical and electrical equipment) are aesthetically pleasing as a
whole and harmonious with existing and proposed neighborhood
development in that the use of materials, scale and mass of the proposed
improvements are in keeping with the neighborhood and site. The size
of the proposed home is appropriate for the size of the lot and
neighborhood quality is being maintained.

2. The design is appropriate, considering its effect on neighboring
properties’ existing views, privacy and access to direct and indirect
light. The expansion is consistent with setbacks in the neighborhood.

3. The safety of residents, pedestrians, and vehicle occupants and the
free flow of vehicular traffic are not adversely affected, considering the
circulation pattern, parking layout and points of ingress and egress
because there is no additional requirement for off-street parking.

RESOLVED, that based on the findings and facts set forth heretofore,
the Piedmont Planning Commission approves the design review
application of Mr. Parker for construction at 3 Maxwelton Road,
Piedmont, California, in accordance with the plans and specifications
on file with the City, subject to the following conditions:

    1.   The approval is subject to the conditions of approval required
         under the prior approval of applications #04-0525, approved
         by the Planning Commission on April 11, 2005, and #05-0177
         approved by the Planning Commission on June 13, 2005;

    2.   The proposed changes to the driveway wall are inconsistent in
         design with the design of the previously approved wall that
         continues to 1 Maxwelton Road. The proposed changes to this
         wall are approved under the condition that an application is
         made and approved to make the same changes to the wall at 1
         Maxwelton Road;

    3.   Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the existing sewer
         easement to the west of Terrace #2 shall be relocated and




                                                                             21
                                                              EXHIBIT D


         approved by the City Engineer so that it does not conflict with
         the proposed new stairs.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the approval of the Planning
Commission/City Council and any conditions of that approval shall not
extend to any particulars set forth in the documents submitted for the
project which are inconsistent with or in violation of any applicable
law, including but not limited to Chapters 5 and 17 of the City Code,
nor does the approval extend to matters not set forth, or inadequately
represented, in submitted documents (whether or not consistent with
applicable law). The City reserves the right to require compliance with
applicable laws and to attach conditions after initial approval is given, if
noncompliance is discovered or additional conditions are considered
necessary and appropriate in light of Commission/Council findings.
Moved by Chang, Seconded by Hege
 Ayes: Chang, Hege, Levine, Thiel, Stehr
 Noes: None
 Absent: None




                                                                               22
                                                                                 EXHIBIT E


     City of Piedmont
                               Date:         June 11, 2008
        California
                               To:           Kate Black, City Planner

                               From:         Chester G. Nakahara, Building Official

                               Subject:      Sewer issues related to the Appeal of #08-0114
                                             3 Maxwelton Rd.




Contained within Mr. Miller’s appeal of the Planning Commission action on #08-00114
for #3 Maxwelton Rd., reference is made to the recently installed sewer lateral for #81
Maxwelton Rd. which crosses over #3 Maxwelton in an approved easement. Here is the
chronology of events and where the city stands at this point.

July 23, 2007:
Permit #B07-00573 is issued to Robert Miller, owner, and Rhino Rooter, sewer
contractor, for installation of a new sewer lateral to service #81 Maxwelton Rd. in a legal
easement that crosses over the property at #3 Maxwelton Rd.

July 24, 2007:
City sewer inspector Angelo Espinosa performs an inspection of the new sewer lateral for
#81 Maxwelton Rd. Inspection meets all building code requirements and passes.

November 2007:
City sewer inspectors Angelo Espinosa and Ray Haguisan meet Robert Miller at the
subject project at Mr. Miller’s request to observe potential irregularities in the previously
installed sewer lateral. City inspectors notice that the riser pipe for the cleanout is no
longer vertical, but somewhat horizontal. I called Steve Shirley of Bay Area Designer
Builders, the general contractor for the new house at #3 Maxwelton Rd., to inquire if
damage has occurred to #81 Maxwelton’s lateral pipe. He admits that some “digging” has
occurred in the area due to the house improvements in this area, and he will repair the
lateral under a new building permit.

December 21, 2007:
Permit #CAP07-00199 is issued to Stephen Parker and Steve Shirley of Bay Area
Designer Builders to repair the clean-out and re-test the lateral for #81 Maxwelton Rd.
To date, no inspections have been requested for this work.

June 11, 2008 Update:
I have requested from Stephen Parker through his representative, Steve Shirley, that this
section in question of the sewer lateral which services #81 Maxwelton, be exposed and
re-tested for an inspection by our sewer inspector and myself, to verify that it meets all
city codes relating to sewer construction.


                                                                                                23
                                                                                 EXHIBIT F


              CHRONOLOGY OF APPLICATIONS AT 3 MAXWELTON
                    SUBMITTED BY STEPHEN PARKER

Application #04-0325: On September 13, 2004, the Planning Commission conditionally
approved an application for Design Review submitted by the previous property owner to
construct a new single-family residence with three bedrooms, two and a half baths, a
living room, dining room, kitchen, family room, den, laundry room and two car garage.
Site improvements included retaining walls and modifications to the existing driveway.
The property was subsequently purchased by the current property owner/applicant.

Application #04-0525: On April 11, 2005, the Planning Commission conditionally
approved an application for Design Review to modify the previously approved house
design with interior and exterior changes including but not limited to: adding a room
eligible for use as a bedroom; changes to the building and wall setbacks; changes to the
eastern and northwestern patios; new and modified retaining walls (including increased
height); changes to the driveway to permit new open guest parking; and stylistic exterior
modifications including changes to the windows, doors and balconies. The revised plans
also included grade changes different from the grade shown in the previously approved
plans.

Application #05-0177: On June 13, 2005, the Planning Commission conditionally
approved an application for Variance and Design Review to make modifications to the
existing driveway, including widening it at the intersection of Maxwelton Road and down
the driveway approximately 90 feet; and modifying the previous approval by not
changing the previously-approved grade; and adding lighting to the retaining walls. A
variance was granted to exceed the maximum 20% slope of the driveway.

Application #06-0264: On September 11, 2006, the Planning Commission conditionally
approved an application for Design Review to make modifications to the prior approval,
including: stylistic alterations to the residence; alterations to retaining walls; alignment
changes to the driveway; the addition of a new stairway at the westernmost terrace;
changes to the terraces; a new covered entry and terrace at the front of the residence;
modifications to windows and doors; and alterations to the interior floor plan. The
application proposed a new stairway that encroached over the existing sewer easement,
which was not approved by the Planning Commission.

Application #06-0353: On March 12, 2007, the Planning Commission conditionally
approved an application for Design Review to make modifications to the prior approval,
including, but not limited to: relocation of a stairway and terrace in the west side yard so
that the structure is not within a sewer easement; changes to the entry walkway and
terrace; modifications to windows and doors; the addition of exterior lighting; alterations
to the interior floor plan; and possible modifications to easements, the landscape plan,
walls and retaining walls.

Application #07-0248: On July 17, 2007, staff conditionally approved and application for
Design Review to modify the previously approved design for a new house by changing



                                                                                               24
                                                                               EXHIBIT F


the stair and patio off the lower level game room, making door and window
modifications to the west façade, and lowering the base of the master bath bay on the east
façade.

Application #08-0114: The current application proposes to modify the previously
approved design for a new house and site improvements by: changing the height, location
and extent of the driveway and the retaining walls and planting strip along the north side
of the driveway; changing the building material of the exterior walls of the house from
stucco with stone veneer below to stucco throughout; modify windows and doors; expand
a rear terrace; add a mailbox structure at the bottom of the driveway; and add on-grade
paths, stairs, guardrail, gate and retaining walls at the southwest side of the residence.




                                                                                             25
                                                                                     EXHIBIT G


DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES:

Guideline II-1: The scale and mass of the existing residence, once the addition/remodel
has been completed, should maintain compatibility with the scale and mass of the
existing residences in the neighborhood.

Guideline II-2: The scale and mass of the existing residence, once the
addition/remodeling has been completed, should maintain compatibility with the scale
and mass of the existing residences on contiguous parcels and should not overpower or
dominate them.

Guideline II-3: The architectural style, scale, and mass of the addition/remodeling should
be consistent with the architectural style, scale, and mass of the existing residence.

Comments:

   II-3(a):    The objective of Guideline II-3 regarding consistency of architectural
   style, scale and mass is compatibility so that the addition/remodeling cannot be
   distinguished from the original structure. An addition or remodel which looks
   ‘tacked on’ or is immediately apparent to the observer, obviously fails to meet this
   objective.

   II-3(b):    Consistency with respect to architectural style is a matter of breaking
   down the existing residence into its individual components, as listed below, and
   their respective details, and matching them in the design of the addition. Matching
   means consistency in design and construction as defined by rhythm, texture, color
   and materials. Components and details which should be matched include:

           Foundation. The appearance of the foundation of the addition, if it
           will have one, should match the appearance of the foundation of
           the existing residence so that it appears that the two are continuous.
           This is especially important for those portions of the foundation
           which will be visible from the street and adjacent parcels.

           Porches. The construction of additional porches or the
           reconstruction of an existing porch should match any porches
           which were original to the existing residence. Particular attention
           should be given to the porch roof, columns, balustrades and
           railings, which are usually the most visible elements of the porch.
           New elements should be compatible with the design of the existing
           elements. Elements which are inconsistent with the architectural
           style of the residence should be avoided.

           Exterior Stairs. New exterior stairs, or reconstructed existing stairs,
           should be consistent with the architectural style of the house,
           especially if they will be visible from the street. Consistency also



                                                                                                 26
                                                                                   EXHIBIT G


       applies to stair railings. If it is cost-prohibitive to exactly replicate
       the original stair railings, the original design should be followed in
       simplified form.

       Doors. New or replacement doors should be consistent with the
       architectural style of the house, but should also be sensitive to
       maintaining the security of the residence.

       Exterior Wall Covering. The siding used on the exterior walls of
       the addition or remodeled portion of the residence should be
       consistent with the design integrity of the existing residence.
       Where the original siding of the residence has been replaced or is
       covered over with a ‘modern’ siding, e.g. asbestos shingles
       covering wood shingles, the construction of the addition may offer
       the opportunity to restore the entire residence to its original siding.
       Where it is impossible to obtain siding which exactly matches the
       existing siding, a close substitute should be used.

       Ornamentation. The ornamentation and the design details of the
       addition should be consistent with those of the existing structure.
       Conflicting or inappropriate ornamentation should be avoided.

       Windows. The type proportion, placement, details and materials of
       new windows should be compatible with the of the existing
       windows. Individual elements which should be addressed include
       the frame and the pattern of the light defined by the muntins. It is
       not necessary to exactly replicate the pattern of the existing lights,
       but this pattern should be reflected by the new windows.

       Roof. If the addition will have a roof, it should be consistent with
       the design integrity of the existing residence. The geometry of the
       new roof should relate to that of the existing roof. Individual
       design elements which need to be addressed include the type and
       pitch of the roof, cornices, rake or gable-end finish, gutters, roof
       covering, and trim and molding. For example, an addition to a
       residence with a gable roof should extend the existing roof or
       match the pitch of the existing roof.

II-3(c):   Consistency with respect to scale and mass means that the addition or
remodeling should be carefully integrated into the three-dimensional form and
proportional relationships of the existing residence.

II-3(d):    Consistency of scale and mass between the addition/remodeling and
the existing residence is a question of balance. The mass and scale of the former
should not overpower or dominate the latter, yet at the same time it should not
appear as an appendage or something which was ‘tacked on’.



                                                                                               27
                                                                                 EXHIBIT G




Guideline II-4: When a residence is undergoing a major addition/remodeling,
consideration should also be given to the exterior appearance of the garage, if it is visible
from the street, to maintain architectural compatibility.

Guideline II-5: The design of a deck or porch constructed on the downslope side of a
residence should be integrated into the design of the residence and should avoid designs
which appear to increase its effective bulk.

Comments:

   II-5(a):   Decks and porches on the downslope sides of houses which are
   supported by the structure of long posts and braces can appear to be massive and
   overpowering when viewed from below. The support structure itself is often
   unsightly.

   The intent of Guideline II-5 is to avoid such designs and to encourage their
   replacement with designs which reduce the visual impact of such decks and
   porches. Possible alternatives include dividing a single deck or porch into two or
   more terraced levels, or using the roofs of lower levels of the residence as the
   surfaces for a deck or porch serving the upper levels of the residence.

   When these alternatives are not feasible and the use of an overhanging surface is
   desirable, the supporting superstructure should be integrated into the overall
   design of the residence, and the total number of supports and braces should be the
   minimum required for structural safety. Attention to the finished carpentry and
   detailing of the deck or porch consistent with that of the existing residence will
   provide refinement and visual interest. Further, the overall visual impact of the
   support structure, as well as the overhanging deck or porch structure, should be
   softened by plantings, by painting the support structure a color to blend in with
   the house, or by enclosing the superstructure in order to visually integrate it with
   the house.

Guideline II-6: The siting of the addition/remodeling on a lot should be compatible with
the siting of the existing residences along the street on which it fronts. Priority attention
should be given to the siting of the addition/remodeling with respect to the residences on
either side.

Comments:

   II-6(a):   Nothing in this guideline should be interpreted to relieve an
   addition/remodeling of its obligation to conform to the requirements set forth in
   Chapter 17 of the City of Piedmont Code. In the event of a conflict, the latter shall
   prevail.




                                                                                                28
                                                                               EXHIBIT G


   II-6(b):   In the context of Guideline II-6, the phrase ‘be compatible with’ means
   that the addition/remodeling should respect the existing front, side and rear-yard
   setbacks of the houses in the neighborhood so that the overall character of the
   neighborhood in this respect is maintained.

   II-6(c):    If there is a uniform front-yard setback in the neighborhood, the
   addition/remodeling should respect this setback. There must be compelling
   reasons if the new addition/remodeling does not conform to the uniform setback.
   If there exists a range of front-yard setbacks, the setback of the
   addition/remodeling should fall within this range. In either case, uniform or range
   of front-yard setbacks, the setback of the addition/remodeling should ordinarily
   not be less than the residence on either side, unless a lesser setback will not
   significantly obstruct or reduce the view of the streetscape from these existing
   residences.

Guideline II-7: The siting of an addition/remodeling, the exterior location of its windows,
and the exterior location of appliance ventilation and exhaust ports should respect the
visual and acoustical privacy of residences located on contiguous parcels, including their
outdoor yards and open spaces.

Comments:

   II-7(a):    This guideline shall not be interpreted as an outright prohibition of
   side yard windows. Rather, the design of the windows of the addition/remodeling
   should consider their number, size, placement, glazing treatment and dressing in
   order to respect the visual and acoustical privacy of the residences located on
   contiguous parcels. Similarly, the ports or exterior wall openings for clothes dryer
   vents, kitchen and stove exhaust fans, and other appliances should be sensitive to
   their acoustical impacts on adjacent residences.




                                                                                              29
                                                                                  EXHIBIT H


                           Applicants’ Design Review findings
                          submitted with application #08-0114

The criteria and standards required under the City Code for Design Review approval are
provided for the Council’s consideration below. The applicants’ proposed findings are
indicated in bold.

Design Review
(a)   Projects generally subject to design review pursuant to Section 17.20.2.

        (i)     The exterior design elements (including but not limited to height, bulk,
area openings, breaks in the facade, line and pitch of the roof, materials, arrangements of
structures on the parcel, and concealment of mechanical and electrical equipment) are
aesthetically pleasing as a whole and harmonious with existing and proposed
neighborhood development in that:

        The proposed changes are all harmonious to the previously approved plans.
The stone siding on the house has been replaced by stucco, the stucco retaining walls
have been replaced by split face block, and the remaining changes enhance the
utility of the house. The proposed side yard stairs on the west, provides both access
and stability to the hillside, with proper access for the North neighbor for sewer
maintenance. The post for the mailbox provides proper access for neighborly
properties and offers Address signage.

        (ii)   The design is appropriate, considering its effect on neighboring properties’
existing views, privacy and access to direct and indirect light because:

       The entire set of proposed changes will not impact any of the neighbor's
privacy, access, or indirect light.

       (iii) The safety of residents, pedestrians, and vehicle occupants and the free
flow of vehicular traffic are not adversely affected, considering the circulation pattern,
parking layout and points of ingress and egress because:

       The proposed changes will have no negative impact on traffic flow. The
redesigned and relocated mailboxes will improve the ability for employees from city,
municipal services, and neighbors in locating the house.




                                                                                              30
EXHIBIT I




      31
                                                           EXHIBIT J




                               June 1, 2008
     ffi!E:E@:WIEW
Ann Swift, City Clerk

Piedmont City Hall                                    "JU a:? 2008     @
120 Vista Avenue
Piedmont, California 94511                      '''''IT CITY   CLERK
                                                 . Y OF PIEDMONT

Re: Appeal of Decision on 3 Maxwelton Road

Dear	 Ms Swift,

Per Mr. Peytons request, attached you will find the
grounds upon which we have based our appeal of the May 12,

2008 Planning Commission approval for #3 Maxwelton.


17.25.6	 (a) (3) & (6):

     I believe the Planning Commission deviated from

     established City policy when it granted approval to

     build over a dedicated easement.


17.25.6	 (a) (2) & (5):

     I believe the Building Department issued a building

     permit based on erroneous information which led to

     the installation of a sewer system which is not in

     compliance with City code.


Please review the attached and let us know if we can assist

further. The above is the best us NON-LAWYERS can do.





;;iJ~
81 Maxwelton Road

cc: George S. Peyton, City Attorney




                                                                 32
                                                        EXHIBIT J




City Council Agenda Report, October 16 2006:

KATE BLACK wrote, "Although the matter of whether or not
two property owners agree to a private easement location
is a civil matter, staff wanted to make sure that no
construction occurred over the easement.  Thus, staff
proposed a condition of approval for the Planning
Commission's consideration which required the easement to
be relocated to avoid conflict if the applicant wished to
construct the new stair."

City Council Meeting, October 16 2006

KATE BLACK:  "Staff noticed the proposed design, the
stairway proposed to cross over a portion of this sewer
easement and contacted the applicant and mentioned that this
was a problem.  Typically construction is not possible over
an easement. The applicant indicated he could relocate the
easement, nonetheless, even though it seemed a possibility,
in fact a probability, staff proposed a condition of approval
that the easement be relocated for the stairs "


JOHNATHAN LEVINE: (Member Piedmont Planning Commission)
"There is no controversy.  We understand there was a legal
property, there is a legal easement from one property to
another, that is a legal property right which neither the
Planning Commission or the City Council has the right to
impinge upon.  The applicant has to work it out or move the
stairs. The applicant has to go get approval to get the
easement moved or your project is not approved. Right now
he has two choices, he can work our a deal to get the
easement moved, or he can go back to staff and move the stairs."

MAYOR: "Just as an aside, if anyone ever (built over an
easement) they would have to bare the cost of rebuilding the
staircase."

CITY ATTORNEY: "According to the law, if you encroach on an
easement, you have to remoye the encroachment."

MAYOR:   "Not that we'd ever give any permission for that."

CITY ATTORNEY: "It would be a trespass."




                                                              33
                                                            EXHIBIT J




After all those wise words, it never occurred to us that
the	 applicant would return with an almost identical
proposal for the same piece of property, the same
easement, the same sewer pipe, just a different location
for	 the staircase.   Why would any rational person expect
City Staff AND the Planning Commission, to do a complete
180	 and totally disavow their previous policy.   AND if the
City Attorney can be believed, grant a process that is
against the law.    That is why we were not at the Planning
Commission meeting.    We put our trust in common sense.

How	 wrong we were.  What got our attention while watching
the	 proceedings at home was Mr. Kellogg's remark, and I
quote, "THE CONCRETE STEPS COULD BE REMOVED FAIRLY EASILY
IF MAINTENANCE EVER BECOMES NECESSARY".   We verified with
two	 members of City Staff, that considerable "hardscape"
is planned over this easement.   We were unable to get any
specific details.

We have also discovered that a portion of the west side
patio has been built over our existing pipe.    The
original foundation for this deck was jack hammered
away and extended to make room for the new stairway
down to the "game room". The specific "conditions of
approval" for this staircase prohibited any construction
over the easement.  Was this failure to abide by the
"conditions of approval" approved by staff?

At the direction of our attorney, we would like to enter
the	 following into the City record:

     1.	   We do not approve the installation of any

           permanent structure over this easement.


     2.	   We will hold the property owner responsible
           for providing access to the sewer pipe if ever
           the need should arise.

     3.	   We will not be responsible for the replacement
           of any structures which may have to be removed or
           damaged to gain access to this pipe.

     4.	   By issuing a building permit for this structure
           the City of Piedmont is facilitating the building
           of a permanent obstruction over a dedicated easement.

I believe the City should acknowledge that its policy regarding
easements has been revised so the rest of the community can plan
its projects accordingly. (It would also save me $300.)




                                                                  34
                                                       EXHIBIT J




After negotiating an expanded easement, required by
the ~ncroachment of Mr. Parkers storm drain system,
we were ready to install our pipe.  On July 23, 2007
our contractor installed this line with a city permit, and
within the boundaries of our dedicated easement.  At that
time the City required the installation of an additional
clean out in order to be in compliance with City code
(a clean out every 45 feet). An approved inspection stamp
was issued on July 23, 2007.

In November 2007 we discovered this clean out had been

dismantled, without a permit, and the pipe had been left

open. We contacted Mr. Parker's attorney and sent evidence

of this breach to him with a copy to Mr. Chester Nakahara.

We requested this breach be repaired immediately .

While our complaints were never acknowledged by eihter

Mr. Parker or Mr. Nakahara, i t eventually appeared the line

was repaired. We assumed the system had been returned to its

original configuration.


Because of this latest incursion, we inspected the lower

portion of our sewer line.  We located a clean out BUT

it had been relocated four to five feet from its original

location and was no longer in compliance with City code.


Records indicate that on December 21, 2007 a City permit

was issued to #3 Maxwelton for "sewer-clean-out, repair &

test". This permit was signed QY Mr. Parker as Owner/

Contractor/Agent.  Mr, Parker is not the owner of this

sewer, he is not our contractor and he is not our agent.

We were acknowledged as owners of the sewer system in the

"Job Description" section of the permit but nowhere will

you find our signature attesting to our permission to

work on or move this system.   I also find it curious that

my permit application for installation and inspection cost

me a fee of $239.09.  A copy of Mr. Parker's permit for

repair (no relocation mentioned) and inspection shows a fee

of ZERO.


I do not believe the City of Piedmont has the

right to give a second party a permit to dismantle, and

relocate the private property of another. In addition,

if the City issued an "approved inspection" stamp, it has

condoned an installation that does not comply with City code.

All this was done without our knowledge or permission.


Unless our little sewer pipe falls under the City's

definition of eminent domain, I don't believe they had

to legal authority to transfer ownership rights to Mr. Parker.


We believe the City should require Mr. Parker to re-install

this clean out in its original approved location.   This

would bring it back into compliance with City code.    If not,

we would request a legal document from the City acknowledging

the new location and exempting i t from compliance in

perpetuity.

                                                             35
     PLANNING APPROVAL CODE                                                                                                           PERMIT NUMBER
       04-0325    17.20.4(a)(iii)
                                                            CITY OF PIEDMONT                                    ','
                                                                                                                                        EXHIBIT J
                                                       .'

                                                DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS                                                            CAP07-00199
     PLANNING APPROVAL DATE
                                                                                                                                  APPLICATION RECEIVED:
        12/11/2007 CN                                            120 VISTA AVE. / PIEDMONT, CA 94611
                                                                           PH (510) 420-3050                                              12/1012007
     BUILDING APPROVAL DATE                                                FeU (510) 658-3167                                           ISSUE DATE
        12/11/2007 CN                                                                                                                     12/2112007

JOB ADDRESS:              3 MAXWELTON ROAD                                        APN:         457903601                  VALUATION:       0.00

PERMIT TYPE:              BUILDING              ZONE             A                OCC:         R-3                        CON. TYPE:       TYPE V-N

                                 OWNER                                                                                 CONTRACTOR
NAME                   STEPHEN PARKER                                                  NAME                BAY AREA DESIGNER BUILDERS
ADDRESS                7 MC MURTY COURT                                                ADDRESS             14210 DOOLITTLE DR
CITY/ST ATFJZIP        ALAMEDA                              CA         94502           CITY/STATFJZIP      SAN LEANDRO CA 94578      BUS LIC
PHONE                  5102630348                                                      PHONE               5103519600                LICENSE C:812082     ,
                                                                                                                                                          !
              ARCHITECTIENGINEERIDESIGNER                                                                             JOB DESCRIPTION
NAME                   ACANTHUS ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN                                  SEWER - CLEAN-OUT, REPAIR & TEST FOR LATERAL
ADDRESS                751 BAKERST                                                     AT 81 MAXWELTON ROAD (ROBERT MILLER, OWNER).
ClTY/ST ATFJZIP        SAN FRANCISCO CA 94115     BUS LIC 9926357
PHONE                  4153461572                 LICENSE 26348

 SIDEWALK INSPECTION mandatory upon submittal of permit application in
amount of $5,000 or more, or tbe sale of real estate
SPARK ARRESTER mandatory on every chimney when any permit in excess of
$1,000 is issued.
SMOKE DETECTOR installation mandatory when any permit in excess of
$1,000 is issued.
Contractors or Owner/Builder must provide containment & removal of any & all liquid
                                                                                                                              FEES:
or solid waste in accordance witb the provisions of the ALAMEDA COUNTY CLEAN
WATER PROGRAM Dumping in gutter or street catch basin is prohibited.
Any recipient of VARlANCE or DESIGN REVIEW must use exact materials plans, &
elevations as approved No substitutions of materials or plans is allowed unless City
approval is obtained prior to construction

A5property owner I declare that these proposed improvements__ will __will not
create or contribute to tbe creation of a second unit

                                                                                                 TOTAL FEES                      $
               Date                             Property Owner(s)

OWNERIBUILDER DECLARATION
 I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractors License Law I'm the following reason:
 _      I, as owner of the property, or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work, and the structure is not
        intended or offered for sale. (Sec. 7044 (a) ) , Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply
        to an owner of the property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work themselves or through their own
        employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale .
  _     I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project.
  _     I am exempt under Sec.               , B. & P.c. for this reason:




WORKER'S COMPENSATION DECLARATION
                                                            l'   SIGNATURE OF OWNER/BUILDER                            DATE

I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued r shall not employ any person in any manner so as to
become subject to the Worker's Compensation Laws of California and agree that if           ul ecome subject to the Workers
Compensation provisions of the Labor Code, I shall forthwith          :y with hese ro lsi      or this permit shall be deemed revoked


                                                                                                                       DATE

r hereby affirm that
                   I have a certificate of consent to self-insure, or a certificat of Workers' Compensation Insurance, as required by
Section 3700, Labor Code for the performance of the work f w ich this          r t i Issued.



                                                                                                                       DATE
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
Permit Expiration (Sec. 106.4.4). Every permit issued by the building official under the provisions of this code shall expire by limitation and
become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit, or if the
building or work authorized by such permit is suspended, abandoned, or not inspected at any time after the work is commenced for a period of
180 days. Before such work can be recommended, a new permit shall be first obtained to do so, and the fee therefore shall be one - half the amount
required for a new permit for such work, provided no changes have been made or will be made in the original plans and specifications for such
work, and provided further that such suspension or abandonedment has not exceeded one year. In order to renew action on a permit after
expiration, the permittee shall pay a new full permit fee.
     Any permittee holding an unexpired permit may apply for an extension of the time within which work may commence under that permit when
the permittee is unable to commence work within the time required by this section for good and satisfactory reasons The building official may
extend the time for action by the permittee for a period not exceeding 180 days on written request by the permittee showing that circumstances
beyond the control of the permittee have prevented action from being taken No building permit shall be extended more than once.


OWNER- CONTRACTOR-AGENT
I CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IS TRUE AND
CORRECT. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL LOCAL ORDINANCES AND STATE LAWS RELATING TO BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION AND I MAKE THIS STATEMENT UNDER PENALTY OF LAW. I HEREBY AUTHORIZE REPRESENTA TIVES
OF TIllS CITY/COUNTY T ENTER UP N THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROPERTY FOR INSPECTION PURPOSES. DO NOT
CONCEAL OR COVER           STR      N UNTIL THE WORK IS INSPECTED AND THE INSPECTION IS RECORDED.

                                                                                                     / d-/;)-/        Jo7                     36
                                                                                                               DATE
                                       3 MAXWELTON ROAD                                        CAP07-00199

         PLANNING APPROVAL CODE                                                                                                                 PERMIT NUMBER
/                     17.20.4(a)(i,ii)
                                                                CITY OF PIEDMONT                                                                 EXHIBIT J
                                                    DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS                                                                    B07-00573
         PLANNING APPROVAL DATE
                                                                                                                                             APPLICATION RECEIVED:
            7/23/2007 CN                                         120 VISTA AVE. 1 PIEDMONT, CA 94611
                                                                              I'll (510) 420-3050                                                    7/23/2007
         BUILDING APPROVAL DATE                                              FAX (510) 658-3167                                                    ISSUE DATE
             7/23/2007 CN                                                                                                                            7/23/2007

    JOB ADDRESS:              81 MAXWELTON                                              APN:        457904000                        VALUATION:            6,000.00

    PERMIT TYPE:              SEWER                 ZONE          A                   OCC:          R-3                              CON. TYPE:        TYPE V-N

                                   . OWNER                                                                                       CONTRACTOR
    NAME                 MILLER, ROBERT                                                    NAME                   RHINO ROOTER, INC.
    ADDRESS              81 MAXWELTON RD                                                   ADDRESS                10545 SAN PABLO AVE
    CITY/STATFiZIP       PIEDMONTCA                                       946 18           CITYIST ATFiZIP        EL CERRITO            CA 94530           BUS LIC 9926868
    PHONE                                                                                  PHONE                  5105559592                               LICENSE C:733056

                  ARCHITECTIENGINEERIDESIGNER                                                                                  JOB DESCRIPTION
    NAME                                                                                   REPLACE SEWER LINE ON #81 MAXWELTON &
    ADDRESS                                                                                PART LOCATED ON#3 MAXWELTON.
    CITY/STATFiZIP                                              BUS LIC
    PHONE                                                       LICENSE

     SIDEWALK INSPECTION mandatory upon submittal of penn it application in
    amount of$5,000 or more, or the sale of real estate
    SPARK ARRESTER mandatory on every chimney when any permit in excess of
    $1,000 is issued.
    SMOKE DETECTOR installation mandatory when any permit in excess of
    $1,000 is issued.                               '
    Contractors or Owner/Builder must provide containment& removal of any & all liquid                                                  FEES:
    or solid waste in accordance with the provisions of the ALAMEDA COUNTY CLEAN                      PERMIT INSPECTION FEE                                l54.4l
    WATER PROGRAM Dumping in gutter or street catch basin is prohibited
                                                                                                      PLAN CHECK FEE                                        84.08
    Any recipient of VARIANCE or DESIGN REVIEW must use exact materials plans, &
    elevations as approved No substitutions of materials or plans is allowed unless City              SMlP FEES                                              060
    approval is obtained prior to construction

    As property owner I declare that these proposed improvements~ __ will __ will not
    create or contribute to the creation of a second unit

                                                                                                      TOTAL FEES                            $              239.09
                  Date                              Property OwneI(s)

    OWNERIBUILDER DECLARATION
     I hereby affirm that 1 am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason:
     _    I, as owner of the property, or my employees with wages as their sole compensation will do the work, and the structure is not
          intended or offered for sale. (Sec. 7044 (a) ) , Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply
          to an owner of the property who builds or improves thereon and who does such work themselves or through their own
          employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale .
      _ I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project.

      _ I am exempt under Sec.                 ,13. & P.c. for this reason:




                                                                  SIGNATURE OF OWNER/BUILDER                                     DATE
    WORKER'S COMPENSATION DECLARATION
    1 certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to
    become subject to the Worker's Compensation Laws of California and agree that if I should become subject to the Workers
    Compensation provisions of the Labor Code, I shall forthwith comply W· 1 hesc provisions or this permit shall be deemed revoked



                                                                                                                                 DATE

    1 hereby affirm that 1 have a certificate of consent to self-insure                                   r:J.)¢!~efI1:ation   Insurance, as required by
    Section 3700, Labor Code for the performance of the work..Wi~~l1'l




    UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
    Permit Expiration (Sec. 106.4.4). Every permit         iSS~   . the building of icial under the provisions of this code shall expire by limitation and
    become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit, or if the
    building or work authorized by such permit is suspended, abandoned, or not inspected at any time after the work is commenced for a period of
    180 days. Before such work can be recommended, a new permit shall be first obtained to do so, and the fee therefore shall be one - half the amount
    required for a new permit for such work, provided no changes have been made or will be made in the original plans and specifications for such
    work, and provided further that such suspension or abandonedrncnt h~,: ~'.()t exceeded one year. In order to renew action-on a permit after
    expiration, the permittee shall pay a new full permit fee.
         Any permittee holding an unexpired penn it may apply for an extension of the time within which work may commence under that permit when
    the permittee is unable to commence work within the time required by this section for good and satisfactory reasons The building official may
    extend the time for action by the permittee for a period not exceeding 180 days on written request by the permittee showing that circumstances
    beyond the control of the permittee have prevented action from being taken No building pennit shall be extended more than once.




    I CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REA                                       N AND STATE THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IS TRUE AND
    CORRECT. I AGREE TO CO                                         AL ORDINANCES AND STATE LAWS RELATING TO BUILDING
    CONSTRUCTION AND I MA,KlilltluS                                UN          NALTY OF LAW. I HEREBY AUTHORIZE REPRESENTATIVES
    OF THIS CITY/COUNTY                                                       TlONED PROPERTY FOR INSPECTION PURPOSES. DO NOT
    CONCEAL OR COVER                                                 frllrFl)wORK IS INSPECTED AND THE   PECTION IS RECORDED.

                          1                                                                                              DATE
                                                                                                                                /
                                                                                                                                                            37

                                                                                                      B07-00573
                                           EXHIBIT K


         SUMMARY OF RESPONSES
                FOR


          APPLICANT:   Stephen Parker

ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:   3 Maxwelton Road


      MEETING DATE: May 12, 2008


       APPLICATION #: 08-0114





                                                 38
                                                                                            EXHIBIT K



                                Planning Application Comment Form

                          Please submit this form by 4:30 p.m, May 8, 2008


On Monday, May 12, 2008, the Piedmont Planning Corrnnission will consider the application of

Stephen Parker for Design Review at 3 Maxwelton Road. In evaluating the application, the

Commission will consider the exterior design of the proposed construction including its effect on

neighboring properties' existing view, privacy, access to direct and indirect light and public safety.

Your comments regarding the proposed construction and its effect on your property are welcome.

You may submit comments in writing by completing this form and returning it to City Hall, 120 Vista

Avenue, by 4:30 p.m. Thursday, May 8, 2008. If you wish, you may also attend the public hearing

on the application and express any opinions you so desire.


Name (please print)   ~ ..T    ,k); /1ER,

Address      ~/       fV) -4 ¥i.u e;jJA;y

Telephone Number                                                                                    -..".

Did you review the plans or discuss the project with the applicant? Yes                No
VWe support the application for design review:                        Yes              No               _

Comments:

      C.V~~I-r;n,15-          yOlV    9ILAN-{4--      /VUJ 'mdJi-h~AJ;(/;J              -10
 -71..;5     f~d-evrJ '-jou., frJs o j:JJJ           I:dP   AJJr1/0N.o I -fec.J
 '71) l)N"1' l s L> -f (JC~ S-:; ~t/010 ~




.Signature                                                                    Date                39_
                                         ~@[E[JWJ!®
   EXHIBIT K


                                             MAY 06 2008       <:

                                           PUBLIC WORK/~

                                          crrv OF p,eDM00   i .'





I am going to assume this application is not a joke.

I reference items 1 thru 4 (see attached notice
from the Public Works Department).  All these
"modifications" are already in place and have been
for some time.

The driveway is in, the retaining walls are cinder
block.   The exterior walls have been completed in
pink stucco.   There are doors and windows galore.
History would say they are not all where they should
be.  The rear terrace is now an expanded "L" shape.
The space beneath has been enclosed and has an
entrance door.

For years I have seen the Commission require the
the removal of unauthorized construction.  I have
seen them require replacement of windows which were
six inches too wide.  Minor errors in the size and
location of major room and second story additions
have been deemed unacceptable and had to be removed.

If the Commission approves these "modifications", the
citizens of this city should be advised there is a new
design review policy.  First: Build it. Second: Request
design review.   Third: Receive the Commissions blessing.
Fourth: Enjoy.

This project is well into its third year. It has never
been denied any request.  I do not expect this trend to
change now but I do regret the city does not enforce
policy with an even hand.




                                                                    40
                                                                                                   EXHIBIT K



                                      CITY OF PIEDMONT
                                                      CALIFORNIA


  Public Works Deportment


        April 28, 2008

        Dear Property Owner:

          An application for Design Review has been submitted by Stephen Parker, 3 Maxwelton Road. The
          applicatiol),.l?Toposes to make modifications to a previously approved design for a new house,
-----.,in..:..c~lu-~~g:'eti'~ to the driveway and the retaining walls and pl~g.JUjp along the north side of
          the driveW'i.Y;Wanges to the building material ofthe exterior wal~<tbWand door modifications;
     7'~e!W;l..nsion of a rear terracei addition of on-grade paths, stairs, gate and retaining walls at the
          southwest side of the residence; and addition of a mailbox structure at the bottom ofthe driveway.

        The City of Piedmont is notifying surrounding property owners of the application and is inviting
        cormnents on the proposal. The application may be reviewed from 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon and 1 p.m, to
        5 p.m. Monday through Friday in the Department of Public Works at City Hall.

       The City has reviewed the submitted plans for conformance with the City Code but does not verify or
       guarantee the accuracy ofthe information submitted with the application. Any questions or corrments
       regarding the accuracy ofthe submitted plans or the desirability ofthe proposal may be forwarded to
       the Planning Commission by way ofthe enclosed response form.

        Please indicate your opinion ofthe proposed project on the enclosed form and return it to the City by
        4:30 p.m, Thursday, May 8, 2008. Your opinion is one ofthe many considerations for the Planning
        Commission in reaching a decision regarding this application.

       The Piedmont Planning Cormnission will hear this application during their 6:00 p.m. regular session
       meeting of Monday, May 12, 2008, which will be held in the Council Chambers, City Hall. You are
       invited to attend the meeting and to express any opinions you so desire.

       Thank you for your interest.

       Sincerely,


      7L~
       Kevin Jackson

       Assistant Planner





                                                                                                          41
                                      120 VISTA AVE. / PIEDMONT, CA 94611 I (510) 420·3050
                               PIa .ng Application Comment Form
                                                                                                         EXHIBIT K
                          Please submit this form by 4:30 p.m, May 8, 2008

On Monday, May 12, 2008, the Piedmont Planning Commission will consider the application of Stephen Parker for
Design Review at 3 Maxwelton Road. In evaluating the application, the Commission will consider the exterior
design of the proposed construction including its effect on neighboring properties' existing view, privacy, access to
direct and indirect light and public safety. Your comments regarding the proposed construction and its effect on
your property are welcome. You may submit comments in writing by completing this form and returning it to City
Hall, 120 Vista Avenue, by 4:30 p.m. Thursday, May 8, 2008. If you wish, you may also attend the public hearing
on the application and express any opinions you so desire.                                          !F1m:C5 @;U\\:fi rnJ
                                                                                                                   I
Name (please print)	   Douglas M. Vance                                                                    MAY 08 2008
                        970 Moraga Avenue
Telephone Number	       510-654-9998

Did you review the plans?	                                    Yes - - - " - x - - - - - -
                                                                            "-
                                                                                            No - - - - ­
Did you discuss the project with the applicant?               Yes - - - - -                 No       x
                                                                                                 -~-"-------



I/We support the application:	                                Yes _ _~__                    No   _~_"____
                                                                                                     X

Comments:


       In reviewing the plans made available as "Counter Copy" for public review, I have some questions
regarding some of the changes and/or modifications being applied for in this application.

       The application proposes to make modifications and/or changes as follow:

               1.	     The driveway and the retaining walls and planting strip along the north side of
                       the driveway.
               2.	     The building material of the exterior walls.
               3.	     Window and door.
               4.	     Expansion of the rear terrace.
               5.	     Addition of on-grade paths, stairs, gate and retaining walls at the southwest side
                       of the residence.
               6.	     Addition of a mailbox structure at the bottom of the driveway.

              The counter copy file provided for public review included two sets of blueprints, one being the
       previously approved set, and the other the proposed changes via a bubbled designation. Unfortunately, the
       proposed changes set didn't appear to designate or indicate the exact nature of the modifications and/or
       changes being applied for.

               Therefore, when I had a question regarding the shaded area presumably indicating a change in the
       direction of the south east portion of the guardrail/retaining wall, it took a great deal of time and effort on
       the part of the Planning Staff to research and answer my concerns, as the submitted plans were apparently
       inaccurate. However it does appear that the proposed change that is being asked for, has already been
       installed as proposed, rather then as was previously approved. Additionally, inasmuch as it appears that
       portions of the previously approved guardrail/retaining wall have already been installed, where is, and how
       will the driveway lighting be installed as depicted in the approved plans if said feature has already been
       filled with concrete before any approved lighting conduits were installed in the blocks?

                                             Page 1 of2                                                        42
                                                                                               EXHIBIT K

         It appears that a portion of the guardrail/retaining wall that has apparently already been installed is
 not only not been approved yet as built, but also located in a different area then the newly submitted plan
 indicates it is intended to be installed.

        In the last Planning Commission meeting concerning Number 1 Maxwelton, the commissioners
 denied the applicants' proposal for the guardrail/retaining wall design and location for a number of reasons.

         If approval is given to change the location of the presumed approach portion of the
 guardrail/retaining wall at Number 3 Maxwelton before any approval has been given for the design and
 location of essentially the same feature on Number 1 Maxwelton, how with any certainty can you know that
 the two features will join together when the newly proposed plan has an error in the representation of the
 location of proposed retaining wall feature relative to the location of the already approved plan for number 3
 Maxwelton?

          The assumption appears to be that, once you build it, the Commissioners will approve it. Therefore
 now we have an approach for a driveway/roadway to the property proposed to be Number 5 Maxwelton. If
 I recall no traffic report from Moses Wilson or any other qualified engineer has given their opinion or
 approval for additional traffic on the already over-burdened driveway feeding three houses let alone a
 fourth.

         I do not like the proposed change for the materials on any of the retaining walls. The
 Commissioners spent a good deal of time in assessing the previous approvals and came up with a design that
 suited the site quite well. One reason I object to the newly proposed changes is due to the fact that the
 newly proposed finish will not provide the acoustical attributes that the previously approved materials
 afforded the site. As a neighbor directly across the canyon from the building site, noise is a major concern.
 The originally approved materials provided an articulated surface that would tend to disburse the resonating
 adjacent traffic noise. Another reason I prefer the originally approved materials is from an esthetic
 perspective it is more suitable for this site.

        Please see the previously approved plan with this feature. A2.1a , I think you will agree it is more
 pleasing to the eye.



        Thank you for you kind consideration of my comments.




SIGNATU~L                                         DATE




                                       Page 2 of 2                                ~IE@L!:[)WJ~lm
                                                                                         MAY 08 2008
                                                                                     PUBLIC WORKS  43
                                                                                   CITY nr::: P,'EDMON1'
ltlU


                                                                                    EXHIBIT L
            150         140




                                                                                N

       10
                  8
                              6
                                                                                t




                                                                    960




                                                        501               505

                                                  461
                                            457
                                      453
                         449      \                           506                         44
                  433
   425
                   SUPPLEMENTAL COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT




TO:            Piedmont City Council

FROM:          George Peyton, City Attorney    ~
RE:            3 Maxwelton Appeal - Legal Issues

DATED:         June 16,2008


Recommendation: As part of ruling on the Appeal, detennine that the approval by the
Planning Commission of the improvements proposed by Stephen Parker do not impact
the enforcement of any legal rights by Robert and Betsy Miller relating to their sewer
easement.

Background: Questions relating to possible encroachment into the Millers' sewer
easement go back in time. Mr. Miller has previously challenged the ability of Stephen
Parker to maintain a stonn water catch basin constructed in the 5 foot sewer easement
previously granted to Mr. Miller across the property currently owned by Stephen Parker,
including specifically 3 Maxwelton Road, the subject of this Appeal.

        In response to that prior challenge, Mr. Parker's attorney, Kenneth G. Hecht, Jr.,
who is very knowledgeable on easement matters, researched the question, and then
responded directly to me in two separate letters dated January 25, 2007 and February 4,
2007, copies of those letters being attached for your infonnation. Mr. Hecht points out
that the easement held by Mr. and Mrs. Miller is not exclusive in nature, and therefore
Mr. Parker had the legal right to maintain the stonn water catch basin which goes from
well above the surface to some feet under the surface, all within the easement, so long as
it did not prevent the Millers from placing their own sewer pipe in a portion of the sewer
easement. This is specifically spelled out in Mr. Hecht's January 25, 2007 letter.

       The next legal issue has to do with encroachments on, above or near the surface,
which are the essence of this current Appeal by Robert Miller. Mr. Hecht addresses these
questions in his letter to me dated February 4,2007, in which he specifically deals with a
curb and driveway that would cover part of the sewer easement based on the then current
plans of Stephen Parker for 3 Maxwelton Road.

Current Situation: In order to clarify the law as it relates to the current Appeal, I called
Kenneth Hecht on the morning of June 11,2008, described the basis of the current
Appeal, and asked for his comments. Mr. Hecht confinned again that this is a non­
exclusive sewer easement, and while it allows the Millers the full right to reasonably
construct and maintain their sewer pipe, it does not prevent Stephen Parker from building
in or on top of the sewer easement. However, Mr. Hecht made clear that the Millers have



                                                                                               45
the full right to access their sewer pipe, and if Mr. Parker has constructed improvements
that block the Millers reasonable access to their sewer line, then the Millers have the right
to reasonably remove sufficient improvements at such time as it is necessary to get access
to repair, replace or relocate their sewer line within the easement. Mr. Hecht further
recalled that he had carefully explained this portion of the easement law in the presence
of both Robert Miller and Stephen Parker.

New Sewer Easement: It is my understanding that the prior owner of 3 Maxwelton Road,
Ted Dang, had provided the Millers with a recordable sewer easement, but for some
reason it was never recorded. Last year as part of the discussions between Mr. Parker and
the Millers, a new Grant Deed was prepared by Mr. Hecht to provide a 5 foot sewer
easement to the Millers, was signed by Stephen Parker, and recorded on May 24,2007, a
copy of that document being attached. The specific language relating to the sewer
easement is found in Exhibit "A," attached to the Grant Deed. Mr. Hecht pointed out that
if the easement is to be "exclusive" to the Millers, it must so state, and this document
says nothing about exclusivity.

Separate Issue: In Mr. Miller's letter of June 1,2008, with attachments to it, in which he
explains the basis of his Appeal, he raises a totally separate issue that really does not
involve this Appeal, namely the relocation ofa sewer clean-out relating to the Millers'
sewer lateral. This matter is addressed in a separate report dated June 11, 2008, from
Chester Nakahara. I would like to emphasize that while the Millers may have a valid
complaint relating to this matter, and it should be carefully investigated by the City, this
matter is not a valid basis of this Appeal and should be disregarded by the City Council in
considering this Appeal.




                                                                                                46
            ,.-... _ . . . . .
Mil4.Ii4lfl4t.........
                  El
                              g_I_TtTIY.....iI!~
                              ·.lOJ'_ ..-« ! & I ! L 'I']~ •IG~.~li-i1l'iliI._~~.lllDIiiI~.filii'D • • • • • •
                                                       .

                                                         •    il     1Lu.~        ""' ..- .     •             az.DD• •­

                                                                   PLAGEMAN & LUND                                       PAGE   10
       05/11/2008     11:03         510-899-5101




                                                                                  KE:NNE:TI1     G. HECHT. JR.
                                                                                         'u·lI;;c...T@PLAO~MANI.U .. D. co ..




                    PLAGEMAN & LUND LLP
                                                                                               ATTORHEYS AT LAW

                                         1999 HARRISON SiREE:r. SUITE 2700 • OAKL..AND. CA 94612
                                                         TEL SI0/899-S100' F"AX 510/899-6101
                                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                                I
                    January 25, 2007
                                                                                                                                I

                    Mr. George Peyton                                                                                           'j
                    City Attorney
                    City of Piedmont                                                                                             \
                    120 Vista Avenue
                    Piedmont, CA 94611                                                                                           I

                                                                                                                                 I

                              Re:     3 Maxwelton Road Sewer Easement                                                                I
                                                                                                                                     !
                    Dear Mr. Peyton:                                                                                                 i
                                                                                                                                     \
                           This office represents Stephen Parker and in that capacity we have been                                   ,
                    requested to address the issues regarding the sewer easement set forth in the
                    November 13, 200S'letter from William Berland to Stephen Parker, a copy of which is
                    attached.                                                                                                        I

                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                     i
                             It is Mr. Berland's contention, acting on behalf of his clients Mr. and Mrs. Robert                     I
                    Miller. that Mr. Parker is interfering with the Miller's sewer easement which crosses Mr.
                    Rarker's property. Specifically, the Millers are demandIng that Mr. Parker correct the
                                                                                                                                     I
                    "interference".                                                                                                      i
                                                                                                                                         i
                            The Millers appear to be under the incorrect belief that they have an exclusive                              I
                    easement on Mr. Parker's property. SuCh is not the case. The law in California is well                               I

                    selt/ed that unless there is clear evidence that the owner 01 a servient tenement intended                           I

                    to convey an exclusiv@ easement, an easement is not exclusive. City of Pasadena v.                                   \
                    California Michigan Land's Water Co. 17 Cal. 2d 576,578,579 (1941). Neither the legal
                    description of the easement, nor the grant deed itself specifies that the Miller easement
                    is exclusive (see attached deed and easement) and therefore the easement is non­
                                                                                                                                         i
                    exclusive.
                                                                                                                                             \
                    "The owner of the domihant tenement must use his or her easements and rights in such
                    a way as to impose as slight a burden as possible on the servient tenement." Scruby v.
                    Vintage Grapevine, Inc., 37 Cal. App. 4 1h 697,702 (1st Dist 1995). as modified on denial
                    of reh'g (Sept. 6, 1995). The specifications of the width and location of an underground
                    easement alone are not all of the factors that must be considered in determining the
                    burden on the servient tenement. City of Pasadena, 17 Cal. 2d at 580. Other factors
                    that might be inclUded are "the number and size of the pipes, the right 10 shift the pjpes




                    95660.1.997
                                                                                                                                         47
                                                                         ~Jlliiiliiri].mml• • • • •Il• • •I"• • •
El6/11/2El08   11:03     51El-899-6Hll                     PLAGEMAN & LUND                             PAGE        11




         around at will, and the depth at which the pipes are to be laid." Id. at 580-581. By
         preventing Mr. Parker from using his property when such use has not unreasonably
         interfered with Mr. and Mrs. Miller's sewer pipe. and in fact has not interfered with it at
         all, the owners of the dominant tenement are imposing an unreasonable burden on the
         servient tenement.

         "The general rule is clearly established that, despite the granting of an easement, the
          owner of the servient tenement may make any use of the tand that does not interfere
          unreasonably with the easement. ... Furthermore, since he retains the right to use the
          land reasonably himself, he retains also the power to transfer these rights to third
          persons." City of Pasadena, 17 CaL 2d at 579. "Every incident of ownership not
          inconsistent .wIth the easement and the enjoyment of the same is reserved to the owner
          of the servient estate." Scrubv, 37 Cal. App. 4th at 702. The servient tenement owner,
          Mr. Par1<er, may use his land in any manner that he sees fit. providing that it does not
          interfere with Mr. and Mrs. Miller's sewer easement.

          As long as Mr. Parker's plan to run a drain pipe through the easement and to place a
          catch-basin in the easement does not interfere with the reasonable use of the sewer
          easement by the Millers, Mr. Parker may use the Easement property as he sees fit.




                                                        ~~~.;~'
                                                        Kenneth G. Hecht, Jr.




          95660,1.997
                                                                                                              48
                                                             ib.k6"lil.tti.liA   ~.iiiGliiIiIlmiiJ • • • • • •• • • • • •
                                                                                                              ,Z
1Mtt:t1l::m:.a:.Dm • • • • • •
                 •                     J'I'I:JIIII'I~~
                              bll'liBl..
                                                                   PLAGEMAN & LUND                                   PAGE          07
       BG/11/2BB8     11:63     5UI-8'3'3-Gull




                                                                                     KE:NNETH G.         He:.CHT, JR.
                                                                                           l<HECHT@PLJoOE.........U .. o.c:.O""'
                                                                                              DIRECT (5 I 0) 6QQ-e l 33




                 PLAGEMAN ~ LUND                    LLP
                                                                                                    ATTOFlN~YS A"t LAW

                                              1999 HARRISOI'l STFlEET. SUITE 2700 • OAKLAI'lO. CA 04612
                                                                Te:L 510/899-6100' FA)( 510/899-6101


                 February 4, 2007

                 Mr. George Peyton

                 City Attorney

                  City of Piedmont

                 '120 Vista Avenue

                  Piedmont, CA 94611




                        Re: 3 Maxwelton Road Sewer Easement




                 Dear Mr. Peyton:

                 The purpose of this letter is to address what J understand are Mr. Miller's last two concerns
                 regarding his non-exclusive sewer easement across Mr. Parker's property. My letter to you
                 dated January 25. 2007, set forth What I believe to be the current California law regarding the
                 respective rights and obligations or the parties regarding the easement. In that letter I pointed
                 out that being a non-exclusive easement. Mr. Parker has the right to use1he easement property
                 so long as he does not unreasonably interfere with Mr. Miller's use. Mr. Miller's last two areas
                 of concern, I am told, are the curb along the driveway and the driveway itself, both af which
                 cross the easement.



                 Since Mr. Miller's easement is for the installation of an underground sewer line, neither the curb
                 nor the driveway itself will interfere with the sewer line. It is true that when Mr. Miller, or his
                 successor in interest, goes to install the sewer line, it may be necessary to cut the curb and
                 driveway (although augering under them may be a preferred method of installation) but they will
                 not prevent the installation. Please note that when installing the sewer line it will be necessary
                 to excavated the length of the sewer line and the curb and driveway will present no more of a
                 significant problem than the rest of the trenching.




                                                                                                                                    49
06/11/2008    11:03     510-899-6101                      PLAGEMAN   & LUND                          PAGE    08




       Again, I must point out that the existence of the easement does not prevent Mr. Parker from
       using either the surface of the easement (the driveway and curb) or the below ground area, for
       example by installing a parallel line or the existing catch basin.



       I trust that his letter provides you with the information you requested and I ask. that you let me
       know if you would like anything further from me.




                                            v/tcry yours,
                                           ~4!k'f

                                                G. Hecht. Jr.
                                              Kenneth
                                                                                                            I
       Cc: Ms. Kate Black, Piedmont City Planner                                                             I
                                                                                                             I
             Mr. Chester Nakahara, Piedmont City Building Officer                                           .!
             Mr. Stephen Parker                                                                             I
                                                                                                            I

                                                                                                            I




                                                                                                                 50
.fl411.:Dl4.HiI • • • • • •IlIi1I[1j••• lll.t'Ja'llII;. .IIJinf1l~'llli• • •=r.:f..1'E,_IGI;S:liitd1ii,IJUimIiI"_~.lJJl!m[i].mn • • • •IR&.IIE!• • • •
             •                      i u                                                                    ••                 •

                                        510-899-6Hll                                       PLAGEMAN & LUND                                 PAGE       04
        05/11/2008         11:03




                  ~ECOR~~G'~Q~ESlED.:BY-i
                  R,Ol)~rtd\jl)ll~ ,



                  WHeN R~RI)ED MAlLllUSi D'EED:10:
                  Robert·Miller
                  a" Maxwelton,Road:
                  PiedmoniiCalifornia 94618




                                                                      GRANT'OEED
                                                                        .. ...
                                                                        ,.'   :'   '   '     .',',.', "



                  'F;OR .fiI:6'¢6tn31~~AJ't$J4.
                             $Te~HEN·'p .,:P:A~~E:R"a. ~~,t;I:'~an:~,·j;~:,~Qfg.~rn:t;.~,~p'S,I:2(t.:.prqp~r~y

                  ,lie~~BV;~..,:rS.1Qi

                             ROB.ERr MILI,.E~ .an~ B.'ETSY I..M,LL.E'~' ~",T:I:\:l~~$ ,u,"'titerJhe ~n.le(2iJ.Oo:Revocal:ile In~er.vlvo.s· Tl'!Jsl
                  T.HE FO.i.J.:AWIN.G D~$.C8IB;b REALP~.O~~ty                          .:sttuAte· I~ tHE CrTY ,oFPieoMONT•. COUNTY Of
                   ALAMEOA•.STATE,OF.' CA1Ji=OR~lA.P,Esc~iBEi>A~ f9L.~O~S.~                                                                       ,
                             $E'e;EXHlelr"~~




                                                                                                          ..J,.;..,,~~-=--::;,;_,   2007




                                                                                                                                                       51
                                                     *_tiail.liii      ~lJIl!m~.lliiiil • • • • • •
                                                                                      •          az                   .,"I••­
                                                          PLAGEMAN & LUND                           PAGE         05
06/11/2008   11:03      510-899-61 ell

                                                                                                             \




                                                 EXHIBIT "A"


      GRANT OF EASEMENT

       J\ five-fool wide sewer casemenl for the purposes of constructing aod maintaining II private sewel
       laleral to serve one home; enlarged and expanded on its eastern side by approximately 15 indles as
       shown on A tlachment "I" hereto. The center line ofsaid five-foot wide easement is described below.

       REAL PROPERTY in the Cit)' of Piedmont. County of Alameda, State of Califomia. described            i:J
       tol!ows:
                                                                                                                 I
       A portion of the 16.668 IIcre tract of land conveyed by Realty Syndicate Company to Nellie A.
       Max.well by the Deed dated November 23. 1916, and recorded January 11, 1917 in book 2519 of
       Deeds. at Page 260, Official Records of Alameda County, described as follows: .

       COMMENCING at the most eastern corner of said 16.668 acre tract of'land, I11nning thence north
       71° 44' 25" west 235.57 feet; thence south 66" 37' west 2S feet; thence south 72° 13' 00" west 107.47
       feel to the ACTUAL POINT OF BEGINNING. thence south 26& 41' 29" east 22.22 feet; thence south
       51 0 33' 24" east 62.92 feel to the end of the easement.
                                     )




                                                                                                                     52
Mit:t1l4m#t._!E1 • • • • • •
               •            3.Mi11. .IIII:.IIUIIII!ne~~~ •IJfiS.1i
                                                       •         c                                r=U'r..1i&P.'.-~.lUI!Jii1~.mii • • • • • • • • • • • •
                                                                                         imjlll:'ll.       .                   •            ilZ.&

       05/11/2008          11:03            510-899-5101                             PLAGEMAN & LUND                               PAGE   05





             & -..~& 1'"U!.Ii\~
             4._jV'+lIM."'~ ......    .,~




                                I
             ~."   /lI\   ell nr.'"
             ~.~ .•       3




                                                               .
                                                                   ~
                                                                     \ ..
                                                                    .   ..
                                                                         \
                                                                             \
                                                                                     \                 .
                                                                                                                     .
                                                                                                           .~ ~OW\I ha.r....
                                                                                 \                     'f       (MtJle.r)'


                                                                                         ..                \
                                                                                     .
                                                                                              \ . .\
                                                                                                             \ \ 0'
     "




                                                       3 MA'XWElTON ROAl)
                                                      fi.DJ U~TMe.fo.Ir To ~.~. ="'SEM£~,..
                                                   lo'4r-e"'- ~o 'b1

                                                                                                                                          53
-    lJu\c          -rA-e.­
    eL, S1A~E ~DPJ




    Du.rz- t ~f e=            J;f/

    -ric ~&Jc4
    }Jute fiE
      J   . ,...­

     6/ ~/A}-JcE


    ,f2.0Yl)        In    E

     -+0/Lt-J cL ~r;;J
RemDl);,0 (

--rAe   otl;?(),0~L
.(;ujJd»0DV




p~p~, ~s
 helle    Iff/Ui~1
ohu~ IJ oueR­
    S0150'1 e'01i     --'
 OU/L

  pn",uf.:'\--L::= 'i
  1;51~j)~L

             f II <C­
~~-<2 '-<-.'U2 /L

  d15 ;Y}~I0-t(e J
                             1)<





 )J§E        IAe­
     di~,uc..G
     be1Ue{,,;0

C---IIeQU 0
 j
              u.-t "A'l




-toeAr;'oJ-J      0   ~
 ~rO(2J)l c1;(A;JJLA)
 fr;,..zL }..H 2.k)

     )ocp1:w-Y        A
     OLL/L   ~~a:iJ
                      CD) ---'
                                                       ..                           •
                                                   ,   (




                                                           1,1 II
                                                                    / .',   I   I


                                       (



Cit; c.o~s:
                                       )
                                   ,
                                   1

                                   \


bv..; Id;tJi 0 JD7­
EaSeftl QJv1s        :
                                                                                                                   I
                                               ,                                                               (
                                           I
                              j/
                                           I
                                                                                                   ,
                                                                                                   .,.'"
                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                           I



                                                                                              r/
                                                                                          I
                                                                                        ,.'




 f--.i   fOil - -­

bId ioLL
~~~-r~~s
  ~Dlvi(l--\C1Or'(
 13 bu.'llcL

   w'rJ.L,IJ
 r'                      'I
      PP <.(j)}).1

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:27
posted:7/19/2011
language:English
pages:58
Description: Proposal Easement Modification document sample