Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01011979 - R 12 IN 12 Walnut Creek, City of Planning Appeal Subdivision 5065 Walnut Creek Area 1979 C00224 STORED: CDS- EEL #_INDEX # MAP # BOX # ca�vza^. In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California May 22 19 79 In the Matter of Hearing on the Appeals of Secluded Valley Homeowners' Association and the City of Walnut Creek from County Planning Commission Conditional Approval of Tentative Map for Subdivision 5065, Walnut Creek Area. Clayco Corporation, Owner. The Board on May 15, 1979 having granted the appeals of the Secluded Valley Homeowners' Association and the City of Walnut Creek from County Planning Commission conditional approval of the tentative map for Subdivision 5065 (Clayco Corporation, applicant and owner) subject to the Planning Department staff preparing appropriate conditions for Board consideration which would provide access to the proposed subdivision by way of the Rosemont area; and The Board this day having received the recommended Conditions of Approval from the Planning Department; and IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Subdivision 5065 is APPROVED subject to revised conditions (Exhibit A attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof.) PASSED by the Board on May 22, 1979. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: Secluded Valley Homeowners' Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Association Supervisors City of Walnut Creek affixed this 22nd May of May 19 79 Clayco Corporation — Marice Huguet, Jr. Director of Planning � R. OLSSON, Clerk By SSL Deputy Clerk �onda Amdahl 0 0022 . H-24 4/77 15m EXHIBIT "A"" Subdivision 5065 - Conditions Approved by the Board of Su ervisors may 22, 1979 1. This approval is based upon the tentative map having a total of 30 lots with access from Park Terrace Court, dated May 8, 1979. 2. Prior to submittal of the Final Subdivision Map, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of the instrument indicating proof of access. 3• The applicant shall apply to the Board of Supervisors for permission to amend the Deed of "Development Rights" for the purpose of gaining access across the open-space Parcel "A" of Subdivision 4220, 4. Comply with the requirements of the Consolidated Fire District, including the provision of fire hydrants. 5• Comply with the requirements of the Department of Public Works as follows: A. The subdivision shall conform to the provisions in Title 9 of the County Ordinance Code. Any variance therefrom must be specifically applied for and shall not be allowed unless listed on the Planning Commission's con- ditional approval statement. B. Traffic control signs, stop signs, centerline striping on and pavement markings at all stop signs will be required. These details shall be shown on the improvement plans. The subdivider's engineer will be advised by the Public Works Department of the various signs, striping and pavement markings required when the improvement plans are submitted for review. C, Street lights shall be installed on all streets in the subdivision and the entire subdivision shall be annexed to County Service Area L-42 for the maintenance and operation of the street lights. (Ordinance Code Chapter 96-6) D. No mailboxes will be permitted within sidewalk, path or trail area. The placement of mailboxes within the right-of-way shall conform to current standards of the Public Works Department. The subdivider is advised to contact the Postal Service and find a satisfactory arrangement for mail delivery, e. g.; request,in writing, delivery to individual or grouped mailboxes behind the sidewalks. E. Exception from the Subdivision Ordinance is granted to omit sidewalks within the subdivision. F. Any section of the storm drainage system, which conveys storm water to which the public streets contribute flow, shall be installed in a dedi- cated drainage easement. C0C, Subdivision 5065 - Conditions of Approval Page 2 G. Should the construction of Subdivision 5065 be subsequent to the construc- Lion or completion of adjacent subdivision streets, the subdivider of Subdivision 5065 shall provide for adequate temporary protection of the road connections and for advance signing of the construction area. Ii. The following intersections shall be reviewed For signt distance restric- tions and traffic control sign warrants and appropriate improvements installed if included in the circulation plan. Improvements may include but are not limited to, signs, striping, cleaning, lighting, etc. (1) ROSEMONT COURT/HILLTOP CRESCENT. (2) HILLTOP CRESCENT/TERRACE ROAD. (3) ANY OTHER INTERSECTION WITH SIMILAR CONDITIONS. (4) ROSE14ONT CT. /PARK TERRACE. NLH•1sw 5-10-79 Rev. 5/21/79 IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Hearing on the ) Appeals of Secluded Valley ) Homeowners' Association and the ) City of Walnut Creek from County ) Planning Commission Conditional ) May 15, 1979 Approval of Tentative Map for ) Subdivision 5065, Walnut Creek ) Area. ) Clayco Corporation, Owner. ) The Board on April 24, 1979 having continued to this time the hearing on the appeals of Secluded Valley Homeowners' Association and the City of Walnut Creek from County Planning Commission conditional approval of the tentative map for Subdivision 5065 (Clayco Corporation, applicant and owner) to divide 17.3 acres into 30 parcels, Walnut Creek area; and William Brown, President, Secluded Valley Homeowners' Association, having stated that previous agreements prohibited access to the property by way of Bacon Court or Rosemont Court.and having expressed concern for increased traffic; and The following persons having appeared in support of the appeal of the Secluded Valley Homeowners Association: Harold Guilkey, 1189 Bacon Court, Walnut Creek, John Russell, 91 Bacon Court, Walnut Creek; and Nan Watt, President, and Leigh Brite, member, New Larkey Homeowners' Association, having expressed concern for the increased traffic and the cost of improvement to Larkey Lane to accomodate said traffic that would be generated if Larkey Lane is chosen to be the access route into the proposed subdivision; and Supervisor R. I. Schroder having stated that he does not concur with the entire recommendation of the Planning Commission and that after meeting with all interested parties, he felt access to the proposed subdivision should be by way of the Rosemont area and, therefore, having recommended that the Board grant the appeals of the Secluded Valley Homeowners Association and the City of Walnut Creek subject to the Planning Department staff preparing appropriate conditions for Board consideration which would provide access to the proposed subdivision by way of the Rosemont area; and IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendation of Supervisor Schroder is APPROVED. PASSED by the Board on May 15, 1979. I hereby certify that the foreoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Supervisors affixed this 15th day of May, 1979. J. SO 1,R. OLS, C By ) Ronda Amdahl Deputy Clerk CC, Secluded Valley Homeowners' Association City of Walnut Creek Clayco Corporation n Maurice Huguet, Jr. Director of Planning IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Hearing on the ) Appeals of Secluded Valley ) Homeowners' Association and the ) City of Walnut Creek from County ) Planning Commission Conditional ) April 24, 1979 Approval of Tentative Map for ) Subdivision 5065, Walnut Creek ) Area. ) Clayco Corporation, Owner. ) The Board on March 27, 1979 having fixed this time for hearing on the appeals of Secluded Valley Homeowners' Association and the City of Walnut Creek from County Planning Commission conditional approval of the tentative map for Subdivision 5065 (Clayco Corporation, applicant and owner) to divide 17.3 acres into 30 parcels, Walnut Creek area; and Supervisor R. I. Schroder having stated that it was his intent to receive testimony today but that he would prefer not to take action on the matter at this time in order to allow the Board an opportunity to view the site and surrounding area before making a determination as to the appropriate access to the property; and Norm Halverson, Senior Planner, ,County Planning Department, having described the proposal and having advised that the Planning Commission approved the tentative subdivision map subject to the applicant providing appropriate access with final review and approval by Planning staff; and Maurice Huguet, Jr. , attorney representing the applicant, having stated that his client has no legal access to this property and having requested the Board to assist in seeking a solution to the problem; and William Brown, President, Secluded Valley Homeowners' Association, having stated that previous agreements between Secluded Valley Homeowners' Association, the County Planning Commission, and the City of Walnut Creek prohibited access to the property through Bacon Court or Rosemont Court and that the agreed upon access was to be to the north by way of Larkey Lane; and The following persons having appeared in support of the appeal by the Secluded Valley Homeowners' Association: Adrian Dalsey, 190 Hilltop Crescent, Walnut Creek, Lori Griggs, 1733 Springbrook Road, Walnut Creek, Charles Cowden, 124 Rosemont Court, Walnut Creek; and Mayor Dick Hildebrand and Chief of Planning Gary Binger, City of Walnut Creek, having appeared in opposition to a Larkey Lane access to the property and having stated that the Environmental Impact Report for the proposal does not mention any such access; and The following persons having appeared in support of the appeal by the City of Walnut Creel:: Nan Watt, President, New Larkey Area Homeowners Association, Leigh Brite, 946 Sousa Drive, Walnut Creek; and David Lommel, Highland Manor Homeowners Association, having stated that they would be willing to allow access for 15 homes through Rosemont Court if access for the remaining 15 homes would be through Bacon Court; and Mr. Huguet, in rebuttal, having reiterated his request that the Board assist in seeking a solution to the access problem; and Supervisor Schroder having requested the Board to view the site and surrounding area, having stated that he would like an opportunity to work with all interested parties to seek a solution to the problem and, therefore, having recommended that the hearing be continued to May 15, 1979 at 2 p.m.; IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendation of Supervisor Schroder is APPROVED. PASSED by the Board on April 24, 1979. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an ordered entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Supervisors affixed this 24th day of April, 1979. J. R. OLSSON, CLERK By � Ronda n aAmdahl Deputy Clerk cc: Secluded Valley Homeowners` Association City of Walnut Creek Clayco Corporation Maurice Huguet, Jr. Director of Planning 00U2/4 I RECEIVED j rf y1y APR M 105 SUPERUJSOk sLUHRODER RECEIVED� -1H 197 9 RK J.RROLSSON D RVI RS __3 C r r fi G I�,�fi a.i -2�2-�' '.�-'Z/ � --*�•"��Gf../ G�i��,'. 4r�'r�'�' RECEIVED APR 2; 1979 SUPERVISOR SCHRODER April 17, 1979 RECEIVE v L�. Board of Supervisors APR ay 1979 651 Pine Street j. K. ow-.4U N Martinez, California 94553 OARD OF ERVISORS C BR S O 1A Dear Supervisors: The issue of access to proposed Subdivision 5065 will come before the Board of Supervisors on April 24 at 1:30 p.m. Our Homeowners Association would like to reafirm its position on this matter. On February 27, 1979, the Contra Costa County Planning Commission approved Subdivision 5065, but refused to make a ruling on access. The Commission felt that the owner of the property (Clayco Corporation) would have to resolve the problem of access on its own. Needless to say, this decision by the Commission is being appealed by several groups. One appeal is being made by the City of Walnut Creek. The Walnut Creek City Council and Planning Department are in strong agreement with our group that access down Larkey Lane is out of the question!, i The New Larkey Area Homeowners Association strongly urges you to review the information package sent to you by us in February of this year. We feel that in reviewing this information you will find that access thru Larkey Lane would be extremely detrimental to the community as a whole. !! If you need any further information, please feel free to give us a call. We would I be more than happy to arrange a field trip to view all the possible access routes to this subdivision. ! Respectfully yours, THE NEW LARKEX AREA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Nan Watt, President 979 Leroy Lane Walnut Creek, CA. 939-5953 Susan Smith 2314 Larkey Lane Walnut Creek, CA. 939-5953 REASONS RESIDENTS OPPOSE THE ACCESS ROAD BEING CONSIDERED FOR TRACT 5065 TO LARKEY LANE 1. Where as it would add an additional 170 car trips per 15 units per day down Rosemont and an additional 170 car trips per 15 units per day down Bacon, it would add 500 or more car trips per day down Larkey Lane. Due to the fact that to make it economically feasible to the developer to extend the road over to Larkey, he must increase the number of units to 43 or more. 2. Larkey Lane is used daily by many heavy East Bay M.U.D. trucks. 3. Necessary upgrading of existing road bed would necessitate the removal of many frontage properties and possibly the removal of one home at San Luis and Larkey Lane intersection. 4. The construction of the proposed access road would possibly be paid for by the Walnut Creek City Taxpayers while the road would service only the residents of the 43 homes in Tract 5065. 5. The maintenance, fire and police protection of the road would be paid for by the Walnut Creek City Taxpayers. 6. The extensive grading and excavating of the existing terrain would most probably pollute 1 the waters of EBMUD Filtration Plant and cause great amounts of dust and discomfort to the residents in the Larkey Lane area. 7. The opening of the EBMUD access road would invite motorcyclists to the grass covered hills, thereby creating a greater fire hazard. 8. Lower Larkey and San Luis Road are substandard streets and are unable to handle additional traffic. i 9. With present traffic and parking conditions, school buses have frequently been trapped i on the narrow half of Larkey Lane. r 10. Due to cutbacks of many school buses, many children walk to school on substandard streets with no sidewalks or paths. 11. Walnut Creek has been accused of denying access out Larkey Lane after promising access in the past. We wish to point out that according to Article 16 in Ordinance #1144 which reads as follows: Land for a road right-of-way connecting Larkey Lane to Countgy Subdivision No. 4220 shall be granted to the City with the option of using said land for a roadway subject to 2gproval by the City Council and subject to any improvements by the developer of Subdivision No. 4220 or any portion thereof that may be deemed necessary by the City Council. It was subject to approval by the City Council and never actuallyrop mised? The Walnut Creek City Council denied access down Larkey Lane on Nov. 18, 1978. The solution to the above problems would be to stay with the original plan of Rosemont and Bacon Ct. as access roads. RECEIVED APR 2 3 1979 April 20, 1979 SUPERVISOR SCHRODER FRE CEIV2E ,�u Mr. Robert I. Schroeder, Supervisor, ..LP District 3 3338 Mt. Diable Blvd. �,PRay 1979 Lafayette, CA 945+9 j. R. OLSSON RK ARD�TA, Dear Gentlepersons: rlr B . On December 2, 1978, 6:45 P.M., our daughter, Moll was preparing to turn our family car into our driveway at 204 Rheem Blvd., Moraga, CA. Seconds later, an automobile rushing upon her from behind came over the crest of the hill, smashing into her, knocking her head through the side window, rupturing the gas tank, and spinning the car 180 degrees until it slammed against our front bank. The police measured 170 feet of skid marks on the dry road. Accord ing to their charts, this vehicle would have had to be traveling approximately 65 M.P.H. to do so. There was no citation issued to the driver of this car. A week or so later, I requested of Kit Naftzger, Moraga Safety Com- mission, a sign be placed immediately near the top of this hill to warn traffic of the impending danger. I was informed, "these things take time," and that it would do no good anyway without "at least three weeks" patroling of the hill to enforce speed and passing limits. To my knowledge, no patrol cars have been on the hill for such purposes. One sign on the Moraga side of this hill signif_es a cross street; another on the Orinda side signifies a deer crossing. Not only are my family and myself in immediate danger when pulling in and out of the driveway, but children cross the street at the top of the hill to catch the school bus. Persons using neighboring driveways face similar threat and have reported to us "close calls." Less than a week later, another accident occurred on Rheem, this time requiring an ambulance. Mailboxes are sheared by speeding cars along Rheem on a regular basis. While traveling at the posted 30 M.P.H. speed limit, my neighbors, my husband, my daughter and myself are passed daily where there are dou- ble yellow linesog ing up the hill. Permanent controls need to be installed. A yellow blinking light and warning bumps like those on Rheem further down the hill toward Glori- etta are a minimum for our survival. The speed limit must be re- duced and, most important, enforced! 4 • • Page 2 I am asking you to take IMMEDIATE action before people are killed and/or permanently maimed. It would seem to me that now that all of the public officials have been warned of this danger, that with a concern to life and limb, we can expect immediate action. It would also seem to me that since the public entities are aware of this very dangerous condition, that they might be held liable should a disaster result. Thank you for your immediate attention to this and I would appreciate hearing from you. `SSiincerely, Susan Kritsche�j' cc: J. P. Kenny, Supervisor, District 1 Nancy Fanden, Supervisor, District 2 Sunne McPeak, Supervisor, District 4 Eric Hasseltine, Supervisor, District s Barry R. Gross, Mayor of Moraga Susan H. McNulty, Vice Mayor William G. Combs, Councilmember Michael T. Cory, Councilmember John W. Fowler, Councilmember Gary C. Chase, Town Manager Allyn Morton, Chairperson, Moraga Safety Commission Assemblyman Tom Bates Senator John Nejedly Senator Nicholas Petris Congressman Ronald Dellums Congressman George Miller, III Moraga Police Dept. Richard Rainey, Sheriff, Contra Costa County A-PRIi, _S �V150P, R0l3ERT ScmRbDER _ -3338. MT. 3)iABLo BLVD RECEIVED LAFAYEII E APR 2 3 1979 SUPERVISOR SCHRODER 1eAR 51R .. 'PLEA5_ A(,cCl>r -rR(S- LEFIVER AS A STRoN& lis)1PPRcVA2 foR 'fH' USF, o�- LRRK Ey L" AS PO%B LE AC C c5S - roR, S�B'�1V151a� 55065. IT WOWD N5 ICMLy DETRIMEMTAYL. To '>'1E E SA FrtY _ -MA0 `PtoIPLE To -SOY _N CTi+IN6 Or- ARMY- E ARMY.-IN-T; F, -_YOUR_ C00S1.WZAT1CIJ RECEIVE RFRo3A 1979 J. R. OL55ON r£} RK M�,c'os RVISORSA Wnl 1053 Rachele Rd. Walnut Creek, Calif. April 22, 1979 RECEIVED Supervisor Robert Schroder APR 2 3 1979 3338 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Lafayette, Calif., 94549 SUPERVISOR SCHRODER Dear Supervisor Schroder; We ask you to oppose Larkey Lane as a possible access route for proposed Subdivision 50651 ' Larkey Lane is a narrow winding street with several blind intersections; plus, it has a major drainage ditch on each side, and a disjointed intersection with San Luis Road. Any one of these considerations make it a poor choice as an access route. Please remove Larkey Lane from considerntion as a possible access route. Using it as such would pose many safety problems for the residents in this area. We know you understand Walnut Creek's problems from your term on the City Council. You had our support then, and again when you ran for County Supervisor. Please keep up your involve— ment in our area=s problems. We look to you for a solution to the subdivision access problem that will be satisfactory to our community. Sincerely, W_ snore 1d. Swaim F. David Swaim RECEIVED A-rCt4 ('�CLP,a, 1hrC(Iff APR aL( 1979 J. R. OL ZON ,-CL -0 SORS �\'_l 00 224 PROOF OF PUBLICAN This space 10r County Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5 C.C.P.) ZIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Contra Costa oes ft I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. Proof of Publication of Notice of Public Hearing I am the Principal Legal Clerk of the Contra Costa Times. A newspaper of general circulation, printed and pub- ieq lished at 2640 Shadelands Drive in the City of Walnut Creek,County of Contra Costa,94598 fi` y4 z * � i'lDTtC&is 1 c 1� And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper '�flaamj f�bY!df! of general circulation by the Superior Court of the Coun- ty of Contra Costa,State of California,under the date oftN11M - a a. a.a October 22, 1934.Case Number 19764. vKYrwt�M 'troic.. The notice of which the annexed is a printed copy(set in ,� itrlopho�►aettrx`i�/eAtlraNNIeM3Ys : � r"v3aEthsCo�nifraetJetil'�Cow;giNe type not smaller than nonpareil),has been published in . ..... nitl A .�l� RtaMwa ts.litert4�lf�MM► ��.�sXamiwd fer.YMr oMi�rifjf each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not mini{tra�p��. in any supplement thereof on the following dates,to-wit: A t+afwwibw' can= ftaeik�� lbiar: T April 4, all in the year of 1979. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the4 t9Mn foregoing is true and correct. bora {�9z9 x Executed at Walnut Creek,California. On this 4 day of ((//Apri 1 19 79 Y1 0061>2A T-j4 Signature East Bay Newspapers,Inc. Contra Costa Times PROOF OF PUBLICATION P.O.Box 5088 Walnut Creek,Ca.94596 (415)935.2525 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California March 27 , 19 79 In the Matter of Appeals of Secluded Valley Home- owners' Association and the City of Walnut Creek from County Plan- ning Commission Conditional Approval of Tentative Map for Subdivision 5065, Walnut Creek Area. Clayco Corporation, Owner. WHEREAS on the 27th day of February, 1979, the County Planning Commission approved with certain conditions the tentative map for Subdivision 5065, Walnut Creek area, filed by Clayco Corporation; and WHEREAS within the time allowed by law, Secluded Valley Homeowners' Association and the City of Walnut Creek filed with this Board appeals from said action; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that a hearing be held on said appeals before this Board in its Chambers, Room 107, County Administration Building, Martinez, California, on Tuesday, April 24, 1979 at 1:30 p.m. and the Clerk is directed to publish notice of hearing, pursuant to code requirements. PASSED by the Board on March 27, 1979. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Supervisors cc: Secluded Valley Home- affixed this 27th day of March 1979 owners Association City of Walnut Creek Clayco Corporation / J. R. OLSSON, Clerk "c- List of Names Provided By �j 1a,�n,�_..1, Deputy Clerk by Planning "� Director of Planning Diana M. Herman H-24 4/77 15m NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON A PLANNING MATTER Walnut Creek AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday April 24; 1979 , at 1:30 U.M. in Room 7 of the County Administration Building, corner of Pine and Escobar Streets, Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: Appeals of Secluded Valley Homeowners' Association and the City of Walnut Creek from County Planning Commission conditional approval of tentative map for Subdivision 5065, The location of the subject land is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa, State of California,. generally identified as follows (a more precise description may be exan7ned in the office of Director of Planning, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): 17.3 acres located between Bacon Court and Rosemont Court, Walnut Creek area, By order of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California. Date: March 27, 1979 J. R. OLSSON, County Clerk and ex officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra' Costa, State of California By Diana M, Herman, Deputy Clark The Board of SupervRors Contra County °'' ' Caunty Clerk and Ex officio Clerk of the F_Mrs _ County Administration Building Costa Chi Gefsidi^'pOf'" ChiGeraldine Clerk P.O. Box 911 County (415)372,2371 Martinez,California 94553 ���JJ Tom Powers,1st District Nancy Q Fanden,2nd District Robert 1.Schroder.3rd District - Sunne Wright MoPeatr,4th District Eric N.Nasseltine,Sth District March, 27, 1979 CONTRA COSTA TIPSS P.O. ox 5088 2640 Shadelands Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Gentlemen: * Re: Purchase Order 41204 Enclosed is Notice of Hearing on Appeals of Secluded Valley Homeowners' Assoc. and the City of,Walnut: Creek from Count- Planning Commission conditional approval of tentative map fop gubcTivision 5065, Walnut Creek area which we wish you to publish on April 4, 1979 Please sign the enclosed card and r6turn it .to this office. IMMEDIATELY upon the expiration of publication, ,send us an affidavit of publication in order that the Auditor may be authorized to pay your bill. To be charged at the Very truly yours, maximum rate the County J. R. OLSSON, CLERK may pay for legal adver- tising set by the Board f� on April 21, 1970. By Diana�M. Herman, Deputy Clerk 15.4 CcE 1 �3b r' RECEIVED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT r;� (; lq 1979 J. R. n0ST,4(jP4,r+R�B�OA SORSBQNT .De TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: March 19, 1879 111�� �S��SSIII FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesu SUBJECT: APPEAL, Subdivision 5065 Director of Planni I; Appellant - City of Walnut Creek Owner: Clayco C rporation, 1030 Panadero Ct. , Clayton 94517. Engineer: DeBolt Engineering, 401 So. Hartz Avenue, Danville 94526. Appellant: Gary Binger, City of Walnut Creek, 1445 Civic Drive, Walnut Creek 94596. Previous Action: 12-19-79 Planning Commission meeting - Rescheduled to 2-6-79 per request of applicant. 2-6-79 Planning Commission meeting - Closed hearing. Discuss 2/20/79. Decision 2/27/79. Certify EIR, adequate. 2-27-79 Planning Commission meeting - Subdivision approved with conditions. 3-13-79 Appealed to Board of Supervisors - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The following people should be notified of your Board's hearing date and time: Gary Binger William J. Plambeck City of Walnut Creek Clayco Corporation 1445 Civic Drive 1030 Panadero Ct. Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Clayton, CA 94517 E. C. Marriner William E. Brown City of Lafayette Secluded Valley Homeowners' Assn. 251 Lafayette Circle 100 Secluded Place Lafayette, CA 94549 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (See attached list for additional names) Attachments: Letter of Appeal , Resolution of Approval , Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes, EIR, Map. AAD:Isw Board of Supervisors Appeal, Subdivision 5065 Page 2 Maury Huguet Keith and Sharon Hall Turner E Huguet 13 Miramonte Road P. 0. Box 110 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Martinez, CA 94553 Ron and Anne Bergiand David Lommel 101 Hilltop Crescent 21 Midvilie Court Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Chuck Askin Paul Smith 31 Loma Vista 2314 Larkey Lane Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Betsy Page David Mueller 1165 Bacon Way 109 Secluded Place Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Sue Roberts DeBoit Engineering 1030 Circle Creek Dr. 401 So. Hartz Avenue Lafayette, CA 94549 Danville, CA 94526 AAD:lsw 0OG?1 �� —M }tc MYl 1445 CIVIC DRIVE - WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 415-935-3300 City Of March 13, 1979 RECEIVED MAR/6 1979 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS it ONT TA CO. B _ tr De Mr. Eric Hasseltine, Chairman Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Administration Building Martinez, California 94553 SUBJECT: APPEAL - SUBDIVISION NO. 5065 Dear Mr. Hasseltine: At its meeting of February 27, 1979, the Contra Costa County Planning Commission conditionally approved Subdivision No. 5065. In its discussion and motion of approval, the Planning Commission provided that vehicular access to the subject subdivision could be by way of Larkey Lane. On behalf of the Walnut Creek City Council, I hereby appeal this action as it regards potential access to the subdivision by way of Larkey Lane. The submitted tentative map for Subdivision No. 5065 proposed access by way of Rosemont Court (unincorporated area) and Bacon Court (City of Lafayette). No direct access from this subdivision was pro- posed onto Larkey Lane in the City of Walnut Creek. We assumed that the necessary environmental documentation was prepared by the County on that request, although we were not consulted in this effort. At the February 27, 1979, County Planning Commission meeting, in apparent response to opposition from adjacent Lafayette and County residents, the Planning Commission approved the subdivision and provided that one optional means of access could be by way of Larkey Lane. Since, 1) the environmental documentation on this subdivision did not, to our knowledge, evaluate the impact of access by way of Larkey Lane; 2) representatives of the City of Walnut Creek were not requested to address the Planning Commission on this means of access, and 3) the Walnut Creek City Council had months ago discussed and rejected allow- ing access to Subdivision 5065 by way of Larkey Lane (and the results and reasons for this decision were forwarded to your staff at the time this subdivision was applied for), we strongly request that the Board of Supervisors eliminate the potential confusion inherent in the Plan- ning Commission's action. U Q�;' a Mr. Eric Hasseltine, Chairman Board of Supervisors page 2. 3/13/74 We are therefore requesting that the Board of Supervisors amend the Planning Commission's action on Subdivision 5065 by adding an additional condition stating: "No vehicular access to or from Larkey Lane shall be allowed without the expressed approval of the Walnut Creek City Council." Please advise as to the scheduling of this appeal. V r truly yours, GARY BINGER Chief of Planning GB/mr enclosure: $200 appeal fee check cc: City Manager City Attorney City Council Tony Dehaesus, Planning Director Contra Costa County Planning Departm* Contra Planning Commission Members William V.Watton,ai CostaCostaPlrasant Hill—Chairman Albert R.Compaglia County Administration Building, North Wing County Martinez—Vice Chairman P.O. Box 951 Donald E.Anderson Martinez, California 94553 _ Moraga Ellon Brombaeher Anthony A.Dehaesus Director of Planning Richmond William L.Milano Phone: 372-2091 Pittsburg Carolyn D.Phillips Rodeo March 16, 1979 Andrew H.Young Alamo Clayco Corporation 1030 Panadero Court Clayton, .CA 94517 Gentlemen: This is to notify you that Subdivision 5065, Secluded Valley, which was approved by the Planning Commission on February 27, 1979, has been appealed by the City of Walnut Creek and the Secluded Valley Homeowners' Association. Both appeals are being transmitted to the Board of Supervisors. The Board will notify you, the appellants, and all interested parties as soon as a hearing date is scheduled. Should you have questions relative to the above information, please fee) free to contact us. Sincerely yours, Anthony A. Dehaesus Director of Planning �1orman L. Halverson JSenior Planner NLH:Isw ((( cc - City of Walnut Creek Secluded Valley Homeowners City of Lafayette Maury Huguet County Departments File Subd. 5065 DeBolt Engineering 0002-2L- li !� r BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ' STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1� M' In the Matter of the Application for Approval of the Tentative Map of Subdivision Number 5065/ f� �I WHEREAS, a request by Clayco Corporation for approval of a tentative { subdivision map in a Single Family Residential District (R-10) was received by 1; the Planning Department on April 18, 1977; and, j: WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on December 19, 1978, whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and, WHEREAS, on December 19, 1978, the hearing was postponed to I+ February 6, 1979; and j WHEREAS, on February 6, 1979, the Planning Commission having fully J! considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this i matter; and li i WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the Environmental Impact i; Report has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental {{ i ti IQuality Act and the State guidelines and has reviewed, considered and evaluated] 11 the information contained in the said final Environmental Impact Report; and ((+I 1� WHEREAS, upon motion of Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissionjr IIAnderson, seconded by Commissioner Young, it was moved that the public hearing on Subdivision 5065 be CLOSED, that the matter be further discussed by the ! Commission at their February 20, 1979 Study Session, and that a decision be I�I rendered on February 27, 1979. A roll call vote was taken; following is the ij FiCommission's recorded vote: AYES: Commissioners - And-erson, Young, Phillips, Brombacher, Com- ;� paglia, Milano, Walton. NOES: Commissioners - None. If ABSENT: Commissioners - None. 1 t�!{ x224, t ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. 00 << i .I Subdivision Number 5065 �i WHEREAS, on February 27, 1979, the Planning Commission having fully 4� considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission APPROVES i)))t the application for Subdivision 5065, subject to conditions as listed in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and made a part thereof; and, WHEREAS the foregoing approval was made in the motion of Commissioner i4Milano, seconded by Commissioner Brombacher, and adopted at the Planning j( Commission meeting of February 27, 1979, by the following vote: !�( AYES: Commissioners - Milano, Brombacher, Phillips, Compaglia. NOES: Commissioners - Young, Anderson, Walton. i ABSENT: Commissioners - None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. ' �f I WILLIA14 V. WALTON, III I i) Chairman of the Planning Commission f �iCounty of Contra Costa, State of California f 1 ATTEST: Anthony A. Dehaesus Director of Planning Z' 'Nlrman L. Halverson, Senior Planner NLH:Isw r i {i } 1 34 l� I 000224 i I • • EXHIBIT "A" Subdivision 5065 - Conditions Approved by the Planning Commission 2/27/79 1. This approval is based upon the tentative map showing a total of 30 lots with access to be developed by the applicant. The access route is subject to review and approval by the staff and may be returned to the Planning Commission for adjudication of any disagreement. 2. Prior to submittal of the Final Subdivision Map, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of the instrument indicating proof of access. 3. The applicant shall apply to the Board of Supervisors for permission to amend the Deed of "Development Rights" for the purpose of gaining access across the open-space Parcel "A" of Subdivision 4220 and 4380 as necessary. 4. Comply with the requirements of the Consolidated Fire District, including the provision of fire hydrants. 5. Comply with the requirements of the Department of Public Works as follows: A. The subdivision shall conform to the provisions in Title 9 of the County Ordinance Code. Any variance therefrom must be specifically applied for and shall not be allowed unless listed on the Planning Commission's con- ditional approval statement. B. Traffic control signs, stop signs, centerline striping on and pavement markings at all stop signs will be required. These details shall be shown on the improvement plans. The subdivider's engineer will be advised by the Public Works Department of the various signs, striping and pavement markings required when the improvement plans are submitted for review. C. Street lights shall be installed on all streets in the subdivision and the entire subdivision shall be annexed to County Service Area L-42 for the maintenance and operation of the street lights. (Ordinance Code Chapter 96-6) D. No mailboxes will be permitted within sidewalk, path or trail area. The placement of mailboxes within the right-of-way shall conform to current standards of the Public Works Department. The subdivider is advised to contact the Postal Service and find a satisfactory arrangement for mail delivery, e. g. ; request,in writing, delivery to individual or grouped mailboxes behind the sidewalks. E. Exception from the Subdivision Ordinance is granted to omit sidewalks within the subdivision. F. Any section of the storm drainage system, which conveys storm water to which the public streets contribute flow, shall be installed in a dedi- cated drainage easement. 006224 Subdivision 5065 - Conditions Approved 2/27/79 Page 2 G. Should the construction of Subdivision 5065 be subsequent to the construc- tion or completion of adjacent subdivision streets, the subdivider of Subdivision 5065 shall provide for adequate temporary protection of the road connections and for advance signing of the construction area. H. The following intersections if included in the circulation plan shall be designed for a 25-mile per hour horizontal sight distance as outlined in the California Division of Highways "Highway Design Manual": (1) TIBURON COURT/BACON COURT (2) ROSEMONT COURT/PARK TERRACE COURT (3) PARK TERRACE COURT/BELUEDER COURT 1. The following intersections shall be reviewed for signt distance restric- tions and traffic control sign warrants and appropriate improvements installed if included in the circulation plan. Improvements may include but are not limited to, signs, striping, cleaning, lighting, etc. (1) ROSEMONT COURT/HILLTOP CRESCENT (2) HILLTOP CRESCENT/TERRACE ROAD (3) ANY OTHER INTERSECTION WITH SIMILAR CONDITIONS. (4) TIBURON CT./BACON CT. (5) ROSEMONT CT./PARK TERRACE J. Construct improvements to the Stanley Blvd./Pleasant Hill Road intersection as outlined in the 1975 Pleasant Hill Road Study if. necessary because of the ultimate circulation plan. Improvements may include but are not limi- ted to, striping, signing, minor signal modification and the elimination of some driveway access. NLH:Isw 12-14-78 1-26-79 1-30-79 3-1-79 3-5-79 �0o2>2-4 VLL'ASE NU'i' : Lett-ers are ai.tachc:d fres; the, • Cities of Gaf*te and Walnut Creek. Contra Costa County Planning Department CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COIMISSION Staff Report and Recommendations Febuuary 6, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. #1 SUBDIVISION 5065 (Owner: Clayco Corporation): I. INTRODUCTION A request for approval of a tentative subdivision map to subdivide 17.3 acres into 30 lots in a Single Family Residential District (R-10). Subject proposal is located in the ridgelands between the Cities of Walnut Creek and Lafayette and more particularly in the Hilltop Crescent and Bacon Court areas. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for.the proposed subdivision. II. BACKGROUND The site is a parcel of land that was included as a part of Subdivision 4220, submitted in 1971, and encompassed lands to the east and west of Subdivision 5065. The plan (Sub. 4220) contained 140 lots on 67 acres and streets in the subdivision were interconnected to provide adequate circulation. At a later date the subdivision was divided into three separate units, and redesigned so that there was no connection between the three units. The redesign was a result of the objections from the Hilltop Homeowners Association and the Bacon Court Homeowners Association who objected to the use of their inadequate streets for through traffic and "short-cuts." Hearings were held on Subdivision 4220 in late 1971 and early 1972 and the tentative map approved on February 29, 1972 after meetings with the developers and the two associations who endorsed the three phase plan with no interconnecting streets. The design resulted in 77 lots with the 67 acres partitioned into three separate areas. The central area was designated for future development with access from Larkey Lane. The two exterior parcels served by cul-de-sacs from hilltop Crescent containing 40 lots and the westerly portion from Bacon Court containing 37 lots. The area has completely developed as Subdivision 4220 and Subdivision 4380 with the exception of three lots owned by Mr. Plambeck which lie is planning to utilize to gain access over to the central undeveloped area. (Subject Sub. 5065) 111. SITE DESCRIPTION AND DEVELOPMENT The site is a bowl located between the two developed subdivisions approved in 1972. The topography poses no problem towards the development of the lots as shown on the tentative subdivision map. Subdivision 5065 Staff Report and Recommendations -2- The 17.3 acres site has no public or private access and is a land locked parcel. The proposed plan indicates that the site will be developed in two separate cul-de-sacs each containing 15'lots. The two cul-de-sacs will intersect with Park Terrace Court in Subdivision 4220 and Bacon Court in Subdivision 4380. The developer has purchased several lots in each of the subdivisions and intends to bring his access roads over these lots and the adjacent open spaces of Subdivision 4220 and 43380 to gain access to his subdivision. . Permission to use the open space as access must be obtained from the Homeowners Association (Secluded Valley Homeowners Association) and the Board of Supervisors who control the Deed of Development Rights. Attempts to gain access to the north to Larkey Lane through the City of Walnut Creek have failed. The city objects to traffic along the ten acre park and the excessive grading and tree removal in an area which should remain natural. Also the last portion of the access road could require a rather steep grade that would be undesirable to serve the subdivision. On January 16, 1979, the applicant met with the Secluded Palley Homeowners' Association to negotiate an access route across Parcel "A" of Subdivisions 4220 and 4380. The offer was rejected. In discussions with the City of Lafayette, it has been learned that the City will oppose access to the pro- ject from the Bacon Court area, which has been recently annexed into the City of Lafayette. IV. E.I.R. SUMMARY The project would develop 52 single family lots in an extensive system of cul-de-sac streets. This has the advantage of directing a significant percentage of the traffic from the site away from the Stanley Boulevard/ Pleasant Hill Road intersection and the disadvantage of restricted emergency access especially in the event of the blockage of a single access street. County policy regarding the appropriate overall density of development for the site needs clarification, the zoning andthe General Plan appear to be inconsistent. Anticipated requirements for water, sewage, and energy services all could be substantially reduced by implementing mitigation measures outlined in the report. Among the alternatives, Cluster Design and/or Lower Density could provide a development pattern which would reduce many adverse effects. V. STAFF .EVALUATION All services are available to the site and the proposal conforms to the General Plan. The proposal as presented by the applicant appears to be the best solution towards developing the property and concludes the development of the area. Fifteen additional units utilizing the streets from the Hilltop Crescent area and the flacon Court area will have a small incremental impact on the areas. Subdivision .5065 Page 3 The density has been reduced from 52 as discussed in the EiR to 30 units and many of the concerns expressed in the EIR have been minimized as a result. VI. STAFF REC0NENDATION Approve the tentative subdivision map for Subdivision 5065 subject to the applicant obtaining the necessary right-of-way to gain access to the proposed subdivision. NLH:mb 12-13-78 12-14-78 1-30-79 00022`— Conditions for Approval of Subdivision 5065 1. This approval is based upon the tentative map dated November 28, 1978 showing a total of 30 lots. 2. Prior to submittal of the Final Subdivision Map, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of the instrument indicating proof of access from Park Terrace Court and Bacon Court. 3. The applicant shall apply to the Board of Supervisors for permission to amend the Deed of "Development Rights" for the purpose of gaining access across the open-space Parcel "A" of Subdivision 4220 and 4380. 4. Comply with the requirements of the Consolidated Fire District, including the provision of fire hydrants. 5. Comply with the requirements of the Department of Public Works as follows:. A. The subdivision shall conform to the provisions in Title 9 of the County Ordinance Code. Any variance therefrom must be specifically applied for and shall not be- allowed unless listed on the Planning Commission's con- ditional approval statement. B. Belvedere and Tiburon Courts shall be connected by a public street. C. Traffic control signs, stop signs, centerline striping on and pavement markings at all stop signs will be required. These details shall be shown on the improvement plans. The subdivider's engineer will be advised by the Public Works Department of the various signs, striping and pavement markings required when the improvement plans are submitted for review. D. Street lights shall be installed on all streets in the subdivision and the entire subdivision shall be annexed to County Service Area L-42 for the maintenance and operation of the street lights. (Ordinance Code Chapter 96-6) E. No mailboxes will be permitted within sidewalk, path or trail area. The placement of mailboxes within the right-of-way shall conform to current standards of the Public Works Department. The subdivider is advised to contact the Postal Service and find a satisfactory arrangement for mail delivery, e. g. ; request,in writing, delivery to individual or grouped mailboxes behind the sidewalks. F. Exception from the Subdivision Ordinance is granted to omit sidewalks within the subdivision. G. Any section of the storm drainage system, which conveys storm water to which the public streets contribute flor, shall be installed in a dedi- cated drainage easement. H. Should the construction of Subdivision 5065 be subsequent to the construc- tion or completion of adjacent subdivision streets, the subdivider of Subdivision 5065 shall provide for adequate temporary protection of the road connections and for advance signing of the construction area. I Conditions for Approval of Subdivision 5065 Page 2 1. The following intersections shall be designed for a 25 mile per hour horizontal sight distance as outlined in the California Division of Highways "Highway Design Manual": (1) TIBURON COURT/BACON COURT (2) ROSEMONT COUNT/PARK TERRACE COURT (3) PARK TERRACE COURT/BELVEDERE COURT J. The following intersections shall be reviewed for sight distance restrictions and traffic control sign warrants and appropriate improvements installed. Improvements may include but are not limited to, signs, striping, cleaning, lighting, etc. (1) ROSEMONT COURT/HILLTOP CRESCENT (2) HILLTOP CRESCENT/TERRACE ROAD (3) ANY OTHER INTERSECTION WITH SIMILAR CONDITIONS. (4) TIBURON CT./BACON CT. (5) ROSEMONT CT./PARK TERRACE K. Construct improvements to the Stanley Blvd./Pleasant Hill Road intersection as outlined in the 1975 Pleasant Hill Road Study. Improvements may include, but are not limited to, striping, signing, minor signal modification and the elimination of some driveway access. NLH:mb 12-14-78 1-26-79 1-30-79 C.00221. CITY COUNCIL Robert©.Roche,Mayor tlorrrman 7U711e U.>ape AG}vr r -y r ; i`•• (1 Welham M,Chdcore �df�� t� _ '• - ' ._ 1j Ned Robinson { Goyle 6,Uilkc np FEB 1,.1 FAYETTE, E.C.Marnner.City Manager February 1, 1979 Planning Commission Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street . Martinez, Ca. 94553 Lady and Gentlemen: At its last meeting the City Council of the City of Lafayette decided unanimously to oppose the Tentative Map for Subdivision No. 5065, which you are scheduled to consider within the next few days. The aspect of this Tentaive Map which is unacceptable to the City of Lafayette is the proposed access to Bacon Court. *** Bacon Court is within the "Bacon-Territory" which was annexed to the City of Lafayette a few-weeks ago. Our Council is concerned about the impact which traffic serving fifteen additional homes will have on the public streets between Subdivision 5065 and Stanley Blvd. It is our Council's belief that the land which comprises Sub- division 5065 is actually within the sphere of influence of the City of Walnut Creek; and that such an official orientation strongly suggests that access to the subdivision should be exclusively from the north and/or east, rather than from the City of Lafayette. Our Council understands the predicament in which the land owner/ developer finds himself. But in their judgement, that situation is not a sufficient reason for them to condone the proposed access for 'Subdivision 5065. Yours very truly, E. C. MAR fiER-- -' -- - City Manager cc: Maurice Huguet Norman Halverson 2/22/79 *** Staff has checked the status of the "Bacon: Territor.I" annexation and it is officiaZZy in the City of Lafayette, annexed 12-29-78. + Norman L. NaLverson Senior Planner l%.\TP:•1 TH. ('1 ltt•i.l:. I..i l•:\\'I:'1'•1'11. <'.\ ILl ci lli �_....---•--•—'—'--...._ ...._._. -- - ..- -._ ... .. 'I'11.1';1'I tr,NIS: 1111-01'u 1 lit VI WI,ICL ,utt 1445 Y1C DRIVE* - WALNUT CItETK, CALIFORNIA 9.1594 -115-935-3300 City Of December 15, 1978 Norm Halverson, Chief - Subdivision Administration Contra Costa County Planning Department r i P. 0. Box 951 Martinez, California Re: Subdivision 5065 Mr. Halverson: - We understand that the issue of access for Subdivision 5065 will tie before the Contra Costa County Planning'Commission on Decem er 19th, 1978. Since the City of Walnut Creek has'been involved in this matter, let me attempt to provide you some background leading up the City (buncil's decision: 1. August, 1972. Planned Development Zoning Ordinance No. 1144 adopted by the City for the Skymont Development in Walnut Creek. This ordinance included a condition which would allow the City to approve access between the subject Subdivision and Larkey Lane. 2. October, 1977. Tile City received a request from owners of the subject subdivision requesting the City to make a determination regarding its connection to Larkey Lane. 3. December, 1977. The City Engineer notified the subdivision owners that access to Larkey Lane through the City park would not be permitted. 4. March, 1978. The subdivision owners submitted plans to the City with a request for comments. 5. June, 1978. City staff responded again opposing access between Larkey Lane and the subject subdivision due to concerns about access through the City park, detrimental traffic impacts on City streets, excessive grading and tree removal, and circuitous and inappropriaLe police and emergency access. 6. . July, 1978. Subdivision owners requested City Council review of above- mentioned City staff position. 7. August, 1978. City Council reviewed issues and directed that a public hearing be held on this matter. 8. September, 1978. Public hearing before City Council. Council took no action but suggested that developer work witli staff, a representative of the City Council and the Board of Supervisors, and the community rIIgk*FLI additional access alternatives, pe 9. October, 1978. Community meeting attended by Councilman Hildebrand, Supervisor Schroder, City staff wherein access and development al- ternatives were discussed. 10. November, 1978. The City Council received a report from Councilman Hildebrand on this issue and concurred in his recommendation (see attached). I trust that this will assist the County in better understanding the City's involvement in this matter. Our file, including all correspondence, is, of course, available for review if you are interested. Sincerely, Gary Binger Chief of Planning Attachments: Council Minutes - November 8, 1978 Letter - November 2, 1978 cc: City Manager Councilman Hildebrand GB:ml C.0� f'�` 1,14 lnut 1445 CIVIC DRIVE - WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNI 1 91596 415-935-3300 November 2, 1978 Dear Resident: RE: ACCESS ALTERNATIVES — SUBD. 5065 (SECLUDED VALLEY) Since you have expressed concern about potential development schemes and access alternatives for the Secluded Valley area, I wanted to brief you of my conclusions. As you may know, Contra Costa County has approved a subdivision of 52 units on approximately 17 acres in the area known as Secluded Valley. . Access to and from this subdivision could be by way -of one or more of three possible points: , (1) Rosemont/Park Terrace; (2) Bacon Court/Bacon Way; or (3) Larkey'Lane. The City of Walnut Creek is involved in this County subdivision due to the fact that if access is to be allowed by way of Larkey Lane, it would require Walnut Creek City Council approval. The City Cour}ci1 held a public hearing on this issue on September 6, 1978. Upon conclusion of this hearing, the City Council authorized me to meet with County Supervisor Bob Schroder, City staff, and affected residents regarding potential compromise solutions. On October 24, a second meeting on this matter took place attended by both myself and County Supervisor Bob Schroder. At that time, the developer of the property presented a revised subdivision proposal calling for 30 units rather than the 52 originally proposed with access for 15 homes by way of Rosemont/Park Terrace and 15 by way of Bacon Way/Bacon Court. Having now spent considerable time discussing tha.s matter with potentially affected residents as well as Planning and Engineering professionals, it is my conclusion that the proposed 30 unit plan without access by way of Larkey Lane is a most reasonable solution, and I will be advising the City Council to concur in this conclusion. second issue which has been discussed in conjunction with this mattar Pertains to future access to the final phase of the Skymont Development by the way of Larkey Larfe. In response to this concern, I will recommend that the City Council direct staff to thoroughly analyze the need and impact of such access in their environmental assessment on any future subdivision proposals. I will be making the above recommendations to the Council at its November 8, meeting. This meeting will be held in the Walnut Creek City Council Chambers start- ing at 7:30 p.m. I would expect that this item will likely not be discussed until after 9:00 p.m. If you have any comments that you would like to address to the City Council on this Issue, I would encourage you to put them in writing and to submit them to the City Clerk before 3:00 p.m. on November 8, so that copies may be made available to the City Council. Si.n}cere. y yours', Richard D. Hildebrand RH/GB:hn Mayor Pro Tem cc: City Council City Council Minutes, tJovcmber a.,_19Zf1 Pat)(. It. ACCESS ALTERNATIVEV'-"SUBDIVISION NO. 50G;, .SECLUDED VALLEY Councilman Hildebrand reported on meetings with the adjacent property owners and Supervisor Schroder held in an attempt to axplore all possible, alter- natives. He reported that the owner of the property in duestion is willing Lo reduce the scope of development .to 30 units with 15 having access through Bacon Court and 15 through Rosemont Court.. Discussion ensued concerning the possi- bility of connecting Larkey Lane and Camino Verde. Motion by Hildebrand, second by Armstrong and unanimously carried to deny access to this subdivision through Larkey Lane. Staff was further directed to require an Environmental Impact Report on Skymont, Phase 111, addressing that connection. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Councilman Hazard reported on the Fast Boy Regional Park District Briones/Mt. Diablo Trail . He also announced fie will be absent from the meeting of November 21, 1978. Councilman Martin reported on interviewing session with the Youth Coun- cil and asked for cldser communication with- the Youth Council. Mayor Pro Tem Hildebrand requested information on Civic Drive/Broadway left turn lanes and urged that they be in place prior to the Christmas holidays. Councilman Armstrong asked., for information on departments' status objectives. Mayor Kovar_ annauneed tile. Mayors' Conference on Deremhcr l�, In Ilrtl'eulr / Pinole. The Mayors' Conference of January 4, 1979 will be hosted by Walnut Creek in the Community Center Building and the Mayor urged Council attendance.' Mrs. Kovar also announced a meeting in the Parkmead area regarding annexation which she and Mr. Foley will attend. She will also attend the citizens' meeting regarding Acalanes High School District's decisions oil high school closure. The Mayor will write a letter to the District stating Council 's position on continued institutional use of the Las Lomas site and reiterating the Council's position on unification of Walnut Creek schools. CORRESPONDENCE Youth Employment Service thanking the City for their contribution Lo YES. Council will ask for an accounting at the end of YES' fiscal year. City of Riverbank opposing lack of State concern for impact of mandated costs. This was noted for the record. Mosquito Abatement District re expiration of term of trustee, James A. Murray. Council directed that Mr. Murray be invited to a meeting for a report. Larry Scheer, Burbank, offering to locate land for low cost housing development. This was referred to the Community Development Department. Livorna Estates Homeowners' Association, Alan Curtis, liullock's and the Planning Commission re South Broadway extension. This was noted qj(v,, ,ricord. INTRODUCTION Counci loran 11i Idrhr•and introd,irr•,' .lark Ivor; room-, r„, r, r,- PLANNING COMMISSION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA 6 February 1979 - Tuesday Pursuant to notification, the Contra Costa County Planning Commission met for a regularly scheduled meeting at 7:30 P.M. , Room #107, County Administration Build- ing, Pine & Escobar Streets, Martinez, California. ROLL CALL ) Present were Planning Commissioners: Donald E. Anderson, William L. Milano, Albert R. Comeaglia, Andrew H. Young, Carolyn D. Phillips, Elton Brombacher and William V. Walton, III. Present from the Planning Department Staff were Messrs. Heinz Fenichel, Harvey Bragdon, Norman L. Halverson and the Recording Clerk. Also present was V. J. Westman, County Counsel's Office and Richard J. Nugent of Public Works Department. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + t + + + + + + + + + + + + + t + + + + SUBDIVISION: PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION #5065 (Owner: Clayco Corporation) A request for approval of a tentative map to subdivide 17.3 acres into 30 lots in a Single Family Residential District (R-10). Subject property is located between Bacon Court and Rosemont Court: Walnut Creek/Lafayette areas (CT-3400) (Parcel #175-060-07) MR. HALVERSON indicated the property on the zoning maps; explained the zoning of the immediate and surrounding area; the existing pattern of development as well as the road developmental pattern in the immediate and surrounding area. He indicated the boundaries of the cities of Walnut Creek and Lafayette; the East Bay Municipal Utility District's filtration plant; the Skywest project and Acalanes Highschool. Access to this proposed project would come from Bacon Way and Hilltop Crescent areas.. This is the proposed subdivision now before the Commission (indicating map on viewing; board). Tho .tcro.-;:; cnmon n(1- From RovnnonC Court. and cont,:; down to :;crve .15 Lots in this arca .incl another' 11r'n1�ornnl i:: to do into Bacon Court and nerve thc: other. 15 lots of this 30-lot subdivision from Bacon Court. This in a part of a project that was hefore..the County Planning*, Commission in 1972 when this was all one piece of ground. The project at that time was approved with the configuration as shown here---this is a ridge in here and this is the Seculded Valley subdivision along with this subdivision here. Subdivision #4220 and this one is #4380, were approved as a part of this entire project. It left this area open with the understanding that there would be access provided at some future date, possibly from Larkey Lane. Well, what is being proposed tonight, as mentioned, is access from Rosemont Court and from Bacon Court. 0 0 • 6 February 1979 The property is zoned R-10 and the proposed lots would be in conformance with the zoning for the area. The applicant's attorney that he be given time to present this and discuss it with the Commmission going into some of the access problems that he has encount- ered with the development of this property. I think the Staff Report fairly well outlines some of the access problems to this land. The property borders the City of Lafayette on one side and the City of Walnut Creek on the other and both have indicated that they would oppose this sub- division with access towards their particular cities. If there are no questions from the Commissioners, the applicant's attorney would like to make his presentation on this. (No questions directed to Mr. Halverson by the Commissioners). MR. MAURICE HUGUET, JR. , Attorney, P. 0. Box 110, Martinez, California. I'm an attorney for the applicant, William Plambeck. We appear before you this evening with a rather serious and unique problem that needs your help and assistance as the planners for Contra Costa County. Unlike many of-your hearings, we do not have before you an issue of density. We do not have a dispute over land use. There is no question as to the quality of the pro- posed project. We have one issue and that is of access. At least three of you will recall this area and the hearings in 1972 by the then developer Envar. The original proposal for Subdivision #4220 consisted of 140 lots and the major concern at that time expressed by the residents in the area was one of through acccess, east and west, Lafayette towards Walnut Creek and vice-versa. As a result of those hearings, three different projects were proposed with the development with the subject property, 17.3 acres left for future develop- ment. Subdivision #1+220 proceeded in 1972 with 39 lots---that's the property Mr. Halver- son is pointing out on the maps. lie's going to point to some of these things on the maps as I .give you a little of the history to refresh the memories of three of you and to bring the four new Commissioners current. That project was served with access from the east by Hilltop Crescent and Park Terrace which lead down into the freeway area. Later on, in 1974, Subdivision #11380 to the west with some 38 lots was approved with access via Bacon Court, Bacon Way and Stanley Boulevard. The thinking at that time was that access to the balance of the property, the 17.3 acres, the subject of this proposed map, which at that time was planned for approximately 70 units, would be through the East Bay MUD property to the north and out Larkey Lane into the City of Walnut Creek. Unfortunately, this accor: wnun neither :-,ecurcd nor provided for at that time and what some of you feared and what your :;i.aff advised and warned against has happened and that is that we have a landlocked parcel of land. ! As a condition of approval, Condition #13 imposed by the Planning Commission in the approval of tentative map Subdivision #4220, you required that the northern a boundary of the property on the map of #4220 not be accepted in its location as shown on the map unless and until evidence was furnished that Last Bay MUD was in agreement with the location of the proposed road around the reservoir site, which traversed the district's property and which would have 63d � Key Lane. • 6 February 1979 Unfortunately, the final map was recorded without that condition being satisfied. In 1974, the exact same language was contained in Condition #9 for Subdivision #4380 and again the final map for that project was recorded without compliance..,-- At a staff conference on February 18, 1972, regarding Subdivision #4220, Mr. Kil- kenny from Public Works Department, Mr. Halverson of Planning Department, the hand- written minutes of that staff meeting noted and I quote: "The East Bay MUD easement must be shown on the map. Reserve and easement so the so the bowl not be landlocked and the problem of access to the north must be re- solved." • Your staff was very much aware of the problems that would be confronted. On Feb- ruary 29, 1972, when the map for 4220 was approved by the Commission, Mr. Dehaesus cautioned the Commission with regard to the access problem saying that the staff still felt that there were problems with the map, the map of 4420, and that those problems would come back to you later on and would have to be dealt with and taken care of at that time. We are now back before you and this is that later on time. Mr. Plambeck has owned the property since June 1977 and he's been trying all that time to resolve the problem of access. fie's worked for over one year with the staff of the City of Walnut Creek in an effort to obtain access to the orig- inally contemplated northern route. The map on the far right (indicated by Mr. Halverson) is the man he presented to the City of Walnut Creek. It shows 43 units a reduction from the original 52 and the earlier mentioned 70 units, with access towards the East Bay MUD area and no access to the existing adjacent subdivisions. It was originally felt by he and his engineer that they had concurrence with the Walnut Creek Staff but as the matter proceeded, there was a change in position and a recommendation against the subdivision although the developer was willing to and expressed his willingness to comply with all of the Walnut Creek conditions including annexation of the property to that city. When the staff rejected the map in Walnut Creek, the matter was taken to the City Council; public hearings were held and ultimately of November 1978, the City of Walnut Creek rejected the proposal with the northern access route. It should be mentioned that in 1972, when your Commission was dealing with the area, the City of Walnut Creek was adopting a zoning ordinance for a PUD project which Mr. Halverson mentioned earlier, Skymount, now known as Summit Ridge and in that ordinance, they made reference to the access needed for this area as well as the southern portion of the Skymount project. I'd just like to read to you from that ordinance two of the conditions that were imposed at that time by the City of Walnut Creck. Condition #12: "Larkev Lane through East Bay MUD property shall be constructed between this development (Skymount) and the valley just east of the East Bay MUD water tank with 26-.feet of pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk on the south side of the street; the developer shall exercise his rights to have East Bay MUD grade the remainder of Larkey Lane or assign this right to the City of Walnut Creek." The other relevant condition to what you're considering tonight is Condition #16 of that ordinance which read: "Land for a road right of way connecting Larkey Lane to County Subdivision 94220 shall be granted to the city with the option of using said land for a roadway subject to approval by the City Council and sub- • 6 February 1979 ject to any approval by the developer of Subdivision #4220 or any portion thereof that may be deemed necessary by the'City Council." The City Council, however, as I mentioned has exercised that discretion now to-.- turn down this access route and furthermore indicated that they didn't wish any access from the southern part of Summit Ridge to bo out Larkey Lane or Camino Verde, which are both Walnut Creek streets. As a result of the process in Walnut Creek and with the involvement of Councilman Hildebrand who had served on your Commission in 1972 and who expressed a great concern and frustration in that he had participated at the County Planning Commiss- ion level in the creation of this problem and with some input and attendance at meetings by Supervisor Schrode, the present map that you see was proposed which was a further reduction in density down to 30 lots with two 15-lot neighborhoods and no through traffic with access out Bacon and Rosemont Courts. This map was endorsed by the Walnut Creek Council when it rejected the other map and they held that access should be via Bacon Court and Rosemont. My client attempted to obtain access to those two streets by offering to purchase the right of way necessary to connect his subdivision to the streets from the Secluded Valley Homeowners Association; but, that effort proved futile recently when the Association voted to reject that access. The Association owns the common area between those public streets mentioned and the subdivision map as Mr. Halverson is point out on the maps---those yellow steet alignments. i Further, to compound the problem that we're faced with, the City of Lafayette just recently annexed the Bacon Court area and they have taken a postition that they oppose access via Bacon Court, Stanley Boulevard, and it's the Councils' postiion in Lafayette that access should be to the north to Walnut Creek. So, we have the two cities telling us to go the other way. We're not asking tonight for your approval of this tentative map for Subdivision #5065. Rather, we're asking for your leadership and assistance to help in the obtaining of a suitable access route for this area which everyone recognizes is suitable for the development of a high-quality single-family residential neighbor- hood. It's so designated on your General Plan and it's zoned R-10. This problem occurred as a result of County approval of the two bordering subdi- visions and only the County can assist in the cure of that problem. If you should have any questions concerning the engineering for the subdivsion or the engineering feasibility for the routes in question, tor. DeBolt is pre- sent and he can answer those questions. He is the owner's engineer. I just might mention that a.: far as the :Cafl recommendal.ion and the condition; which are part of your staff report tonight, we accept those conditions as written with two minor modifications. Condition 02 which reads that the map could be approved with access over Bacon Court and Rosemont Court to be obtained subsequently and we don't feel that you should limit the condition to those two streets or the combination of those two streets in that it might be either or, or it could be this Larkey Lane alignment if vie can get some assistance with the cities in ques- tion. The other condition is 115-E of the Staff Report which Public Works calls for a connection between the two cul-de-sac streets and the proposed development and it . 6 February 1979 is Mr. Plambeck's desire to further mitigate concerns of adjacent home owners that no connecting street between these two 15 lot neighborhoods be built and should it be the feeling of the County that emergency access is necessary, some- thing could be done in that regard without making it a through thoroughfare _ public street. That's all we have to offer tonight, gentlemen. I think you can see our quandry and I think you can see our need for your help. COMMISSIONER MILANO: Mr. Huguet, have you seen the latest conditions given out by Public Works Department? MR. HUGUET: I didn't get the one tonight. Is there a copy available? (Mr. Nugent then provided Mr. Huguet with a copy of the latest Public Works Department condit- ions). I don't think there are really any major changes. There was an item of the side- walks in an earlier one and I think that one has been revised. These conditions, of signalization, etc. , signs, and what have you, I think at those streets, are agreeable. Our engineer can look these over. CHAIRMAN WALTON: Yes, and during your rebuttal, perhaps you can make comment. Is there any other question of the applicant? (No further questions directed to Mr. Huguet by the Commissioners). All right, we'll hear from anyone else in favor of this project who would like to speak. SUSAN ROBERTS, 1030 Circle Creek Drive, Lafayette, California. I would like to speak on behalf of the developer, not per-se on behalf of the developer. Would this be more appropriate during rebuttal? CHAIRMAN WALTON: No, go right ahead. MRS. ROBERTS: Thank you. I would like to read a letter from the Springbrook Homeowners Assocation's President dealing with this matter of Subdivision #5065. "Dear Chairman Walton & Planning Commissioners: The Springbrook Neighborhood Assocation serves to promote the interests of more than 300 households within the area near AcaZanes High School east of Pleasant Hill Road and north of High- way #24. Much of this area has recently been annexted to Lafayette; the remain= ing unincorporated portion is within Lafayette's sphere of influence. "The Springbrook Neighborhood Association reaffirms its position that the subject property be developed with access to the north, connecting with the extension of Larkey Lane in the City of Walnut Creek. It is our understanding that the present owner-developer also prefers this access. In fact, we would surport the Clayco Corporation's development of this property with 43 units and access only to the north. We cannot, however, support the present plan which calls for 30 units half with aeacs via llil.itop Crescent/Rosemont Court and half with access via Bacon Way and Macon Court. "We also vigorously object to Condition 5-E, recommended in the Planning Commiss- ion Staff Report, which calls for the two subdivision cul-de-sacs to be connected by a public street. "The increased traffic impact would unfairly burden residents in this area if the subdivision is developed as now proposed. (Please bear in mind that this area will be burdened by additional traffic when one 14 acre and one 22 acff,V{,pfr; gQ;4 ll►► L I • 6 February 1979 are eventually developed and have access only via Bacon Way/Bacon Court. "We respectfully remind the Planning Commission of the fact, that when this parcel was originally considered for development in Z971-72, there was considerable con- troversy centering on the matter of access for the entire 'Secluded Valley' area and particularly for the subject property. At that time., the Planning Commission requested the deveZopers, Planning Staff and the local residents to work together to arrive at a compromise, which they did. This compromise was publicly supported by all parties and included points that affect the present proposed subdivision, namely: 111. The remaining territory (now Subdivision #5065) should have access to the north connecting with Larkey Lane; and "2. There should be no interconnecting of streets between the three parcels that form the 'Secluded Valley' area which is tract (14220 and tract #4380, and this Subdivision 115065. "In order to guarantee the points arrived at in the compromise, the subject pro- perty (Subdivision 115065) was surrounded on three sides by a continuous buffer or permanent private open space which belongs to the Secluded Valley Homeowners Association (Tracts 4220 and 4380). The proposed development plan calls for violating this open space and the compromise arrived at in good faith with local residents several years ago. "Additionally, the compromise was further strengthened when the City of Walnut Creek passed an ordinance on August 7, 1972, which required the developer of Skymont to grant to the City of Walnut Creek 'land for road right of way connect- ing Larkey Lane to the County Subdivision #4220... ', which is now Subdivision ;15065. "There is both de jure and de facto evidence that Subdivision 115065 should have access to the north only via Larkey Lane in Walnut Creek. We believe the County must bring pressure to bear on the City of Walnut Creek to honor the original intent of its own ordinance. To allow the City of Walnut Creek to renege on the access agreed to in 1972 is both detrimental and unfair to the residents of the area served by the Springbrook Homeowners Association. "This Association outlined our position and concerns to the Director of Planning and the Chief of Environmental Assersvient in a letter dated November 30, 1977, when we reviewed and co.wnentcd in detail on the draft Environmental Impact Report for Subdivision 115065. We refer you to that letter for any more details concern- ing the historical background of this deveZopment and specific comments on the EIR, particularly adverse traffic impacts. "Thank you for considering our concerns. We hope that the compromise local resi- dents uorkcd on and oilvood to in 2.972 will be honored. " /S/ Lori Griggs, Presi- dent, Springbrook Neighbo,hood Assocation. (Above letter is on file with Subdivision 115055). Thank you. CHAIRMAN WALTON: Thank you. Is there anyone else in favor of the project? (No one else appeared to speak in favor). All right, then we'll ask for those in rl opposition. MR. DAVID MUELLER, 109 Secluded Place, Walnut Creek, California. I live in Tract 114380. In 1972, I lived at 1.172 Bacon Way and I've participated in the so-called compromise which lead to the present situation. I was going to speak first tonight. n • • E February 1979 Personally, I agree with everything the last speaker said. To try to bring this all together from the homeowners' viewpoint, i do not represent, officially, any of the homeowners; but, I have been involved in this project for a ,long time and I think most of the people who are involved in this on both sides will eventually agree with what I say. Before I start saying what I want to say, I would ask that all those from this area stand to indicate to the Commission our numbers.(Approximately SO persons rose to indicate interest). One other predication before I get started. I also think I agree with about 99% of what Maurry Huguet said. I think many of us are pleased to see Mr. Plambeck here with plans for this property. We don't much agree with his access plan or the primary plan before this Council. We definitely agree with his alternative on the right side; but, before saying anything about, we are happy to see Mt'. Plambeck and we look forward to seeing Plambeck homes in the valley. To focus on access, my position and I think most of the people here is two fold: First of all, we don't believe that any approval should be given on this subdivis- ion until there is a legal access for this property. We think that whatever happens, this thing is going to have to be worked out either by discussion between the City of Walnut Creek, Lafayette and the County, the Board of Supervisors or whoever is involved; or, it's going to have to be settled in the Courts. But, we think that before any of this transpires and a formal plan is approved, the real question of the access has to be worked out and then everything else can proceed logically. The second position I have is as the young lady said before me: The original plan should be followed and that whatever needs to be done should be done to insure that that plan is followed. Now, the original plan is a very complicated thing. A lot of people do a lot of things. Mr. Huguet reviewed it very well.I think the young lady speaking before me also reviewed it very well. I think---I read the staff report,the one that came out a week or so before the meeting---I'm not sure that contains too much discussion; but, I would commend your attention to the supplementary report of Environmental Science Associates, who is the company who prepared the EIR on this development, which addresses almost entirely the access question. It discusses the various things done in 1971-72 and even 1974-75 and points out what the in- tent of the Commission and the compromise at that time. I believe this is a some- what neutral body and not highly opinionated like myself; yet, I agree with what they say. It's very clear the intent in that particular document. One other question which comes up very frequently and it is why are these neigh- borhood upset about 15 houses. Originally there were to be 70; now it's down to 30; so, why are wp so upset about this? Two reasons: (1) Because there was a compromise and we have borne the burden of the compromise. On(2 the Bacon Way side we do have 39 houses. We were concerned at that time about the 39 houses and on thr: Bacon Way side, we have seen the effects of the 39 houses which have not been imagined but very real. There have been a number of traffic accidents. The EIR records those that were reported to the police but one rather noteable missing traffic accident was the Police Chief of Walnut Creek who has his personal auto sideswiped on Bacon Way by someone out of control. This accident was unreported; so, there are a number of accidents not showing on public records; yet, we all know they happened. Cars get hit. Children come very close to being injured. We are told that there are a number of accidents on the other side. All people from the existing first two ®0a212_1 6 February 1979 portions of this subdivision. These ar, very, vary steep streets. The people who do traffic surveys, the people who take field trips, usually do them during the business day. The traffic is not bad during the day. Nobody lives in the neigh- borhoods during the business day. They live there at nights and on weekends. I would like to take the man who did the traffic report on Bacon Way up and down that street four or five times at 6:30 in the morning in the fog dodging the newspaper lady, the trucks, cars and everything else there when cars are parked all along the sides of the streets. They are not there during the day but at night. On the Rosemont side, a comparable problem exists. What we see is if the traffic is opened up to 15 more house., along with that now 22 vacant land which has access only to the Bacon Way side, we see a considerably larger number of cars than we already have and we already have a very, very bad problem. On the other side, there was a compromise and the arrangement was well aired in the City of Walnut Creek and they even required the dedication of property to allow this northern access to the subdivision. On the other side, they've taken nothing. I admire the efforts of now Councilman Henderson to help us out. I'm a little bit insulted at the compromise since I always thought a compromise was where each side gave a little something in the deal. Well, Walnut Creek has taken no traffic from the subdivision yet they border a major part of it and one can only look at the property and see that a natural access to the subdivision is into Walnut Creek. I'm glad they endorsed the com- promise since it doesn't involve them, what they propose quite frankly. I've covered just about everything in my notes and I will conclude by saying that we very much look forward to seeing a Plambeck development on this property if the access question can be worked out. We who have worked on these projects for almost eight years are very happy to work with the developer. We're very happy to work with the local govenment people to try to work something out where this thing can go into Walnut Creek. We will do everything we can. We are violently opposed to any more traffic coming in the Bacon/Rosemont Way and speaking for the way I vote in the Secluded Valley Homeowners Association, it will go all the way if it has to stop it. We really don't want to have a right. What we want to do is get a solution and work as much as possible with Mr. Plambeck and with this Commission and whomever else to solve this problem along the lines are have discussed. Thank you. (No questions directed to Mr. Mueller by the Commissioners). MR. BILL BROWN, 100 Secluded Place, Walnut Creek, Calif. I'm the Pres. of the Secluded Valley Homeowners Association. My address is Walnut Creek but this area is now in Lafayette. We, as well a; Mr. Mueller and the Spr.ingbrook Association support the developer but not the access that's recommended in the proposed plan. Instead, we support the northern access agreed to in 1972. There were, two purposes for the green belt that was created around Subdivision 115065. One was specifically to avoid any future access taking place through that green belt area to Bacon Court or Rosemont. The second purpose was to provide open space for homeowner association members to relax, wander, walk their dogs, whatever. In fact, the developer at that point agreed to landscape that open space and three others that are scattered throught the rest of the development. Of course, he went under and the landscaping has not been done and the association at this time is trying to figuro oorf�!,Tith i6 February 1979 our limited funding, we can accomplish that landscaping. As soon as we can re- solve the question of how and whether the development will be accomplished down in the bowl. Now, the purpose of providing the open space, as far as we're concerned, is totally destroyed if that access is in fact granted to Bacon and Rosemont. You've now bisected in two places this horse-shoe of open space and any ease of access for people to walk, ride bicycles, wander in ease and enjoy the landscape is pretty much going to be gone with traffic running through. So, I would like you to con- sider that. I think finally the staff report making Condition 1#2 that the developer gain access is really avoiding the problem that was created with County approval all the way along and by rejection by the City of Walnut Creek of the northern access late last year. I think is definitely up to the various public agencies involved with whatever assistance we can provide to resolve the question and not put the monkey on the back of Mr. Plambeck whom as far as we're concerned is doing his best to try .to be a responsible developer. Thank you. MS. BETSY PAGE, 1165 Bacon Way, Walnut Creek, Calif. I've been a member of the Lafayette Commission for five years. You may remember when we were here talking to you about the slope density ordinance that I reminded you that this area has been of considerable concern to our Taffic Commission as we negotiated with the City of Walnut Creek and the County over the subdivisions and the increased amount of traffic in this area. I've attended every meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council as they considered the Skymont development, now known as the Summit Ridge and I've talked with the traffic engineer several times about the traffic problem. They came in with a subdivision reduced to about 600 units. They have now about 160 townhouses ready to be filled and considerable traffic brought into the City of Lafayette. They talked with to us about a second phase to be on the Walnut Creek side and go into, I think, Camino Verde. It's interesting that that phase was not developed first and there is not even a sign of this very high-density project from the Walnut Creek side of the hill.. It's certainly a very imposing, very noticeable project for the City of Walnut Creek, who gets all of the traffic problems. It comes onto our streets; our deputies handle the traffic accidents which are considerable at that light and I learned recently that the second phase is going to be the south side, the Lafayette side, and it's going to spill more traffic. I really feel that this history of working with Walnut Creek about traffic is very important to the consideration that you have on this other development. Why doesn't Walnut Creek, at least in planning for their own subdivisions use their own streets and I certainly think in a case where they had gone so far as to write up and ordinance for this project should comply with and fulfill the re- quirements of their own ordinance. Bacon is a lovely little rural street just 24-ft., wide :with no sidewalks. The traffic going down that hill is considerabla,; it's fast and very hard to back your cars out of the driveways. It's very dangerous for our young people walking to school. We do not have bus transportation incur community any more and our youngsters go down that street and cross Pleasant Hill Road and there are some 30,000 vehicles on Pleasant Hill Road every day. You might he interested to know I ' too that Lafayette is just about ready to start a turn-lane on Pleasant Hill Road by the high school and to improve the intersection at Stanley Boulevard and Pleas- ant Hill Road which is considerably out of line now and really quite dangerous. . 6 February 1979 So, I would just ask that you negotiate very seriously with the City of Walnut Creek in providing the traffic for this project. Thank you. �.J MR. HAROLD GILKEY, Bacon Way , Walnut Creek, California. I was involved in this' development since 1971 when we first heard of it and I agree with almost every- thing the previous speakers have said. There are a few items that I would like to reinforce. First of all, where did the whole idea of access to Larkey Lane originate? You might think .that it orig- inated with the people from Bacon Way or Rosemont Court. I did not. It originated right here in the County with the Planning Staff during the review process with the original developer. So, I don't think that anybody should take the position that it's an unthinkable thing if that access were to occur. Also, I would point out that although Bacon Way and Rosemont Court sides are fully developed areas without open-ended streets pointing into here, to the north that portion of Walnut Creek that we're looking at contains not just Larkey Lane, which is a 60-ft. , right of way with a 40-ft., pavement curb-to-curb.. It also has Camino Verde, also a 40-ft. , curb-to-curb stubbed into it and Ramsey Circle in between the two with a 36-ft. , curb-to-curb paving. All obviously stubbed out there for future extensions and it's just obvious in that undeveloped area that there's going to evolve a plan. As a matter of fact in the letter we got from Mr. Hilde- brand signed "Mayor pro-tem" telling us that they had decided that the access should be to Bacon Way and to Rosemont Court. It also mentions in that letter that there's a second issue that pertains to future access to the final phase of Skymont Development and in response to that concern, he!s recommending that the City Council direct their staff to analyse that need and impact, all of which points to a planning process that they're in for that undeveloped area which can be designed to properly take the traffic that it needs to take and that's the obvious way that it should go. It was thought that this Commission agreed to that back in 1972 and Walnut Creek at that time had every opportunity to be here to object to it. There was no objection voiced by anyone from the City of Walnut Creek to those various hearings. I think it all points out that there's no problem to that northerly access if people would just be reasonable about it. I think the Planning Staff referred to the City of Walnut Creek's objection to that northerly road as far as excessive grading and the tree removal and I would just indicate that the road exists up there and it is about a 16% grade; but, it's very straight and that access road would have no driveways off it and it would serve no lots and as it gets to the top it flattens out to about 13% at the same elevation of the bowl we're speaking of. I'm sure Mr. Plambeck has considered that since there's nothing impossible about doing it. The paving there is about 14-ft., wide but varies up to 16-ft., or 20-ft. , in width. Bacon Way, right now, is only 28-ft. , curb-to-curb and you almost always find cars parked there on both sides which reduces it to 14-ft. , and cars cannot pass on Bacon Way. Right now as you come .in from Larkey Line .iLthoiigh the right of wiry .is stubbed in there, there is a 17-It. , wide paved road that goes .in to thi!. road connect- ing to the northerly boundary of the subdivision and you can drive around on that road to Ramsey Circle. There is no problem if the gates were not there. So, there is no physical problem to circulation in that area. Thank you. MR. PAUL SMITH, 23111 Larkey Lane, Walnut Creek, Calif. I find it interesting when. we speak of Bacon Court we speak of people and when we speak of the opposition, we speak of Walnut Creek. We of Larkey Lane are people. We have the same problems ��aoiic�dc • . 6 February 1979 with the traffic. In the environmental impact report filed by the City of Walnut Creek relative to access on Larkey Lane, that the lower streets that feed Larkey Lane, which are San Luis, lower Larkey Lane are sub-standard streets. You can't pass on them either if there are cars parked on either side. We feel that the-'- added traffic down Larkey Lane is no better a solution than down Bacon Court or Rosemont Court. It seems to put the whole 30 or 40 units down Larkey Lane doesn't seem to be a viable solution at all. They felt that the reason they wanted to not pass that resolution was because of the traffic and the fact that the police and emergency units would not be able to get through if the upper parts of Larkey Lane were blocked. I also have a copy of this report if anyone would like to see it. I also have a petition signed by several hundred people in opposition to the Larkey Lane access route. Thank you. MR. CHUCK ASKIN, 31 Loma Vista, Walnut Creek, Calif. I'm President and represent the Loma Vista Homeowners Association, which is located down-wind from the Rose- mont Court exit of the middle map there (indicating maps on viewing board). I think our association is in basic agreement with most of the remarks that have already been made. I would address myself to three observations. First, I'm quite concerned about the remarks of the developer this evening with respect to the fact that he is not seeking approval of a specific proposal. We have before us three separate detailed maps. We have in the form of the middle map what appears to be a clear and definite proposal. Nevertheless he indicates in respect to one of the condit- ions that he is concerned about allowing for some flexibility with respect to alternating these access routes further down the pipe. I'm concerned about that because I feel that he also indicated that there's been a problem in this area with respect to these agreements being recorded in the past or honored in the past. The homeowners of the various associations feel that the compromise they worked out in 1972 has not been honored and thedeveloper feels that the agree- ments he secured from Walnut Creek and County have not been honored. I think it would be highly irresponsible to approve or to allow this project to go forward without a specific judgement or decision on a specific proposal. If the proposal in the middle is the proposal, then lets vote up or down on that proposal; but, I'm very concerned about the gentleman's remarks that the issue of the access be left open and specifically indicated that even the variation called for in this plan whereby the homes be split between the Bacon Court and Rosemont areas may yield in the future to all of them going out any of the three or four routs. I think its very irresponsible to allow that loophole to exist. He indicated in the opening portion of his remarks that the real issue in this case is one of access and unless the decision is made up or down on access now, I don't think any decision should be made at all. One of the reanons I that is that I think---and being; parochial, this is the type of problem that brings out the parochial interests of all the associations involved. Certainly I don't begrudge the people on Larkey Lane, Bacon Court or any of these areas to be fighting for what they feel is right. Everyone_ is fight- ing essentially for the same thine;. We have a situation in this area of a number of governmental. entities. The City of Walnut Creek has now taken an official pos- ition. Lafayette has taken an official position. We of our association are con- cerned because we are part of the County and we may be squeezed by those decisions 1 and by decisions which yet to be made. Again, due to the inability and problems of the number of governmental interests in this area to look at the problem in an overall context. For example, there are two areas now, two access routes out of the area on the Rosemont side where our association exists inder to get out o6 002211L i6 February 1979 into the community. One is down Harvard Way and the other is over Trinity, the bridge over the freeway, 1-680. There is currently a Ccmmission meeting for• the last year studying an expansion of I-680 and Highway #24 and anyone who lives in Contra Costa County is aware that that particular intersection is generally re garded as the worst traffic intersection in the entire County. At some point, it's pretty clear that some building is going to be done involving that inter- section by widening I-680 and probably #24 and the access of those two freeways onto each other. The problem in terms of our association is that when that gets done, there is no fray according to the State Traffic people and Walnut Creek's traffic people who are oil this Commission, that the bridge which now serves to releive 1/2 half of the traffic on our side of the hill is going to have to be knocked out and because BARTD begins to take its route accross the freeway right at the point where that steep overpass is constructed, there is no way once that freeway is expanded that a bridge can be built across the freeway at that point because BARTD's going to be in the way. That's just one example of what I see as a problem in the inability because of the number of governmental agencies involved in this general area in looking at the overall 'problem. I grant that's a speculative possibility at this point; but I think anybody who looks at reality will recognize that at some point in the relatively near future will see that the freeway is going to be expanded. When it's done, that bridge is going to be knocked out and we're going to have a massive traffic problem at that time. That's my second concern. The third concern is for myself and not for the association although the associa- tion might agree with me; but, to be safe,I'11 speak only for myself. I was not here in 1972 when this original compromise was Worked out. We moved here in 1975. I recall shortly after moving here we wandered into this area and being nieve, I suppose, we thought it nice that this land was left open for Open Space and would be enjoyed for many years to come by many who live inthe area. But, when I think of all the associations and people of this area who are upset, I then have to feel. that the developer has been reasonable; I think think the proposal has been reduced considerably and if there has to be some proposal, it has to be what was originally proposed; but, I can't help feel that a lot more people would be happier if we took advantage if this rare and scenic piece of property were used for the benefit of everyone rather than causing problems. Thank you. (No questions directed to this person by the Commissioners). MR. DAVID LOMMEL, 21 Midville Court, Walnut Creek, Calif. I was here in 1972 and took 5 weeks out of my life to make a presentation to this Commission. Unfortun- ately, I wish I had the powers to lean you all across your tables and paddle your bottoms! But, in all fairness, I would also do that to the City of Walnut Creek because that's the only thing I can think of that would get you to cooperate with the City of Walnut Creek. I believe that that is the only solution to the problems that have been presented to you folks tonight---cooperation with the City of Walnut Creek. It is also now necessary to cooperate with the City of Lafayette. Two of you were present in 1972 when this issue was brought before you and I will share my part of the responsibilities for the problems we have here because I fought very hard to have this end up where it ended up. It was and could be a good ending. One speaker before me said that there are correct and proper accesses out of this property. That would be Pleasant Hill Road and the Ramsey Circle and the Camino Verde exits. Larkey would be good if somebody wanted to pay the money to clean up the mess down there and make it a reasonable exit. It is not at th'sInt O��� x.� • 6 February 1979 reasonable alternative unless someone :pends the money to do that. I can only basically make a request that you do cooperate with the City of Walnut Creek for I do feel that would be the proper solution to this problem. I'm a little upset with having to be here with nothing to sink my hands into because nothing has been �J presented to sink one's teeth into. As an individual speaking here., it is very upsetting to me to have supported that plan with the landscaping that went along with it which was a requirement of the subdivision developer in 1972. I am absolutely ashamed of myself to drive down that freeway now and look up onto that ridge with what you and I have created which is about 15 to 18 houses completely destroying the ridgeline between Walnut Creek and Lafayette. That is one of the greater shames I've had to carry within the last 5 years. I hope somehow this can be corrected at this point. I don't know if it can or not. In defense of the developer, I feel so sorry for that guy---I have two subdivisions , in myself and I know this is going to happen to me in the next 30, 60 or 90 days; but, to come down here to the public hearing and during your presentation, get your conditions of approval after you've spoken is really kind of hard on us folks. It's really tough to go over and get your conditions of approval 30-minutes after your presentation. I've asked many times couldn't you please get those out three days ahead of time. That would really be swell. I also have asked my homeowners not to come this evening. I have perhaps of my 109 homeowners, 80 out of that 109 turned out in 1972. I asked them particularly not to come tonight. But, you do need those people down here to influence the persons in front of me. When something is before you when I need my homeowners, 1 will ask them to be here. f The cooperation of the Planning Commission and staff with the Walnut Creek City Commission and staff never materialized after 1972. There was supposed to be the workings of the two groups to work out the north access including Ramsey Circle, Camino Verde and the Skymount Subdivision, now called "Summit Ridge". The access roads could have been worked out at that time; the cooperation was never there. I have covered all the points I wish to cover this evening,. I hope that you will take the time and effort and give the direction to the people that we need to help us to solve these problems. Thank you. No one else appeared to speak in opposition. CHAIRMAN WALTON: The applicant has time for rebuttal. if he wishes. MR. HUGUET: kir. Chairman, I don't think we really have any rebuttal. Those of your have seen the area recognize that the development of a high-quality resident- ial area would be a vast improvement to the bowl which is left over from the other two projects is full of boulders,pock-marks and unfortunately has become sort of a motorcycle area; so, I think most of the people 'that live close to that area are not exc.i.tod about having it remain in its present open condition and recognize that development is called for; but, the problem .is, bow do wo g(( t in there. Thank- you. hankyou. CHAIRMAN WALTON: Thank you. The hearing is now closed for Commission's determin- ation. ri COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, this being my area, I would be agreeable to have this hearing closed and that the applicant, those people from the area that spoke on this matter tonight should be complimented for their very controlled pre- • 6 February 1979 sentation in what has to be a very emr,Lional situation. But, I'm not satisfied with the staff report that the applicant have approval subject to the applicant obtaining the necessary right of way to gain access to the proposed subdivision. C I think we, ourselves, should come up with a more definitive recommendation if-'+ there are any other alternatives than those proposed by the staff to see if we can meet the concerns expressed. I think I would like to have the full commission discuss this further at our study session of February 20th and then have our decision on February 27th. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I'm not in favor of the proposal we have before us. I do agree with all who have spoken in saying that there already is too much traffic on the streets which serve the present two sub- divisions and I do think it would be a great error to build a new subdivision and expect to add its traffic to the other two subdivision's traffic and at the end of a very long cul-de-sac which I think are very hazardous. As you go down the hill either way, you can't help but be impressed by the narrowness of the streets. I really do feel sorry for the mothers whose children are using those streets and competing with the traffic already using them. (Applause from audience). I'm looking, for a solution which would involve a compromise by the City of Walnut Creek which I think should recognize the fact that there is alternate access from the north and that's the only proper alternate access to this subdivision. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Would you then be willing to discuss this further at our study session meeting? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I think that would be appropriate,. Upon motion of Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner, Young, it was moved that the public hearing on Subdivision #5065, be CLOSED; -that the matter be further discussed by the Commission at their February 20, 1979 Study Session Meeting; that a decision be rendered on February 27, 1979. MR. FENICHEL: Does this motion include the certification of the EIR as being adequate? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Yes, I would include that in the motion just made. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I'll second that. A roll-call vote was taken; following is the Commission's recorded vote: AYES: Commissioners - Anderson, Young, Phillips, Brombacher, Compaglia, Milano, Walton. NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. Motion carried. E TURNER & HUGUET ATTORNEYS AT LAW 924 MAIN STREET Q MARTINEZ.CALIFORNIA 94553 FEB ZE 4 ul PH '19 GORDON B.TURNER 14151 228-3433 MAURICE E.HUGUET.JR. KENNETH R.BRANS February 26, 1979 Mr. Tony Dehaesus, Planning Director County Planning Department Administration Building--North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 -Re: Subdivision 5065 Dear Tony: As the decision for tentative map approval for Subdivision 5065 is before your Commission on Tuesday evening, February 27, I would like to suggest on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Plambeck, a possible solution to the subdivision access dilemma faced by the Commission. If a majority of the commissioners favor the northern access via Larkey Lane, .%rhich the City of Walnut Creek opposes, then the Commission could approve the tentative map with modifications to include a configuration of 43 lots and Larkey Lane access, similar to the map shown them on February 6, condi- tioned upon the City of Walnut Creek withdrawing its opposition and permitting the Larkey Lane access. The Commission's motion should go farther to provide if Larkey Lane access is not obtainable, then the 30 lot map dated March, 1977, Rev. 9-29-78, also before the Commission on February 6, should have Commission approval with its access by way of Bacon Court and Rosemont. As you know, the City of Lafayette opposes Bacon Court access, so the Commission"s approval should provide that if that City's opposition is not withdrawn, the map has approval with its sole access being Rosemont Court, the only street access within the unincorporated area of the County. With the above conditional approval, our client can once again approach the City of Walnut Creek regarding Larkey Lane and if turned down once more, he can contact the City of Lafayette regarding Bacon Court. If unsuccessful with that City, Rosemont Court would be the only approved access for the 30 lot subdivision, and permission from the Board of Supervisors would be requested for condemnation authority across the small area of homeowner- owned open space between the subdivision and Rosemont Court. I realize the above conditional approval is somewhat complex, but it would at least give the tentative map its map approval ®oozes td. Mr. Tony Dehaesus February 26, 1979 Page 2 and allow the developer to proceed with trying to resolve the access with an approved map in hand. Since it is entirely possible that neither the City of Lafayette or Walnut Creek will change their present positions, conditional approval of the map as above outlined will at least preclude the subdivision from being entirely landlocked with potential access to Rosemont Court in the unincorporated area, and yet ca'11 for one more effort at the Larkey Lane access route favored by the subdivisions adjacent to Tract 5065 and the one contemplated by the Commission in 1972 when such adjacent sub- divisions were approved. To either deny the subdivision for lack of access or to approve the same solely with access to a city street which the city in question will not consent to would be tantamount to inverse condemnation of our client's land, the same being left then without any feasible ingress and egress. Would you please see that the enclosed copies of this letter are distributed to your Commission members before the matter is to be acted upon before them Tuesday night. Thank you. Yours very truly, Maurice E. Huguet, Jr. MEH:mec Enclosures: 7 copies for Commissioners cc: Norman Halverson Bill Plambeck 00Q,?P4 for this motion. 27 )%�bruary 11Y79 CHAIRMAN WALTON: Are there any further comments by the Commissioners? (No fur- ther comments). I might just add that I'm going, to be voting for the motion also for this reason: If we could continue this until the litigation was settler?, that would be the pro- per way to handle it; but, that apparently we cannot do because of 884. It is a decision we should make tonight one way or the other and 1 do think that because of the zoning and this development is within the zoning, as has been mentioned, the improvement of Johnson Road and the fact that I think he should have the right to develop his property, I will be voting for the motion. Any further comments before we call the roll? (No further comments from the Commissioners). A roll-call vote was taken; following is the Commission's recorded vote: AYES: Commissioners - Milano, Brombacher, Anderson, Compaglia, Phillips, Walton. NOES: Commissioners - Andrew H. Young. ABSl;N2: Commissioners - None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. Motion carried. r SUBDIVISION: HEARING CLOSED: FOR DECISION: E` SUBDIVISION 05065 (Owner: CLayco Corporation) A request for alqWoval of a tentative map to subdivide 17.3 acres into 30 lots, in a Single Family Residential District (R-10). Subject property is located be- tween Bacon Court and Rosemont Court: 'Walnut Creek/Lafayette area. (CT-3400) (Parcel #175-050-07) MR. DEHAESUS: The public hearing on this application .is clo;eri and it is scheduled for a decision this evening. Does any Commissioner wish further briefing, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN WALTON: We discussed this last week at our study session. Is there any Commissioner who desires further briefing from staff? COMMISSIONER. ANDERSON: No, I don't but--- CHAIRMAN WALTON: I would like to clear that up First. MR. DCIIAhS1J`;: Mr. Chairman, wo have lme:.cnt cl to you .in additinual condition which you might want to consider this evening. It provides, Nome options there for till dCVOloh+•r. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, at our Study session meeting last week, I asked that we re-open this hearing due to the fact that I felt that the people in the Larkey Lane area did not have sufficient notice and that they did not really have an opportunity to speak at the hearing. Vocondly, I think, in I went lauL weak, that ono move of Cori: should he lnade between tier cities of L:.aG yette, Walnut Creek, EBI•IUD and wr County Staff to see if there is some way to come up with a better solution than what is rggg1Fr, n • 27 Pebruary 1914 by the staff. Now, further, .l think t',•• hearing :ItouIC e Opened since if in an way we consider the alternative suggested by the staff tonight, it changes the ball game entirely. If 've are even going to talk or think about access from the northerly route, we're talking; about 113 lots i-.nstead of 30 lots that was discussed at the public hearing;. This changes the ball game. I don't think the people have had a chance to address themselves to this alternative, if we are going to consider this. I would move again that we re-open the hearing, send this back to staff to see if they can work out a better solution on this matter and have a public hearing on this application later on. CHAIRMAN WALTON: Is there a second to that motion? C014MISSIONER YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN WALTON: We have a motion and a second to re-open this hearing. Is there any comment before we vote? COMMISSIONER MILANO: Yeah, I have one comment, Mr. Chairman. I don't think it's going to do a bit of good; but, I will go along with the Commission if they do so vote; however, we've explored every ivenue of getting in and out of this property; we're going to finally have to make up our minds one way or the other. I've given this an awful lot of study and I feel that the project is right. I think the appli- cant has reduced his units down to 30 units and as fat, as me telling those people out .in that area that they can use this; road or that road, I don't wint to do that. I think we can approvc this project and let him find an access. If he can't find an access, that's tough; that's up to him. But, I don't see any reason to delay this any longer. We've visited it on field trip; we've studied it both pro and con. Flr. Anderson suggests brat the pceople along Larkey Lane hadn't been notified. Well, we can have a hearing with those people and they are going to protest to high heaven. We know that. So, that makes three groups unhappy---the Bacon Court, the Rosemont people and the Larkey Lane people all against it. So, Ore will still have to make a decision even after going through that additional amount of hear- ing. We are eithiir g•,oing to approve the subdivision or we are not no matter how more hearings we hold on thi:,. I don't possibly see how can enhance our position as a Commission by delaying taking any action on this, I really don't. At our Study Session Meeting, we ask the staff the question---and I'm going to ask it again: We can approve the project and the applicant will have to come forth with his proof of access, isn't that right, Mr. Dehaesus? MR. DI;IIAI;1II;;: Yo:,, hr,':: g•,ot Io <lrnum:Cr,ttt ht:for•t: hr C.m f.i.lt: his final map that COMMISSIONER MILANO: We don't hdve to approvc his: going; out any particular road, do Wo? MR. DEHAESUS: What you approve is design, configuration of the :Lots, the streets and that kind of thing;. COMMISSIONER MILANO: I hate to pass on a subdivision in this manner; but, I be- lieve the applicant has got himself stuck here and he's going; to have to find his way out of it. I don't think we are within our rights to deny approval of his subdivision since it meets all our expectations and our criteria. That's my feel- ing on this matter. • 27 I'ebruary 1979 ing on this matter•. If you all want ,o continue it, I , g;o along; with it; but, I personally can't see that it's going to do any good. rCHAIPMAN WALTON: I might add that the motion in itself is strictly to re-open the L hearing. My vote went along with that last week and to me that would have been the time to do it so we could give notice to people that we had continued the hearing. I don't think it makes any sense tonight to say that we are going to re-open the hearing if nobody knows that except those people in this room. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Yes, but we could set a date for a future hearing tonight. COMMISSIONER BROMBACHER: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to vote against the motion for the same reasons Mr. Milano gave. I feel as he stated that it's now up to us to make a decision on this .thing. C014MISSIONER YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, if it's the wish of the Commission to approve the application as presented, that is give access from Rosemont and Bacon Court, there's no point in re-opening; it because the only point in re-opening the hear— ing is to give further consideration to the access from the north. CHAIRMAN WALTON: Although, that was discussed at our--- COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yeas, w<, did discuss that point; but, if there's no thought of re-designing the subdivision so there is access from Larkey, there's no need to listen to the people from the Larkey Lane area. CHAIRMAN WALTON: My only objection .Last week to re-opening was the fact that the Larkey Lane people certainly pot the same notification that the Bacon Court people got. I heard a representative from the Larkey Lane group say that he was here and represented them and asked his people to stay home that night. There was an individual. here that said that. In any event, those are my comments. Any further comments from the Commissioners? All right, call the roll on the motion to re-open the hearing. MR. DEHAESUS: I would expect that there will be a following motion setting a date if this is successful? COMMISSIOIIER ANDERSON: Yes. A roll-call vote was taken; following is the Commission's recorded vote: AYES: Commissioners - Anderson, Young,. NOES: Commissioners - Phillips, Brombacher, Compaglia, Milano, Walton. ABSENT: [;onimi.ssioncrs - None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. CHAIRMAN UTALTON: The motion lost. The hearing', is still closed for decision. Comments by Commissioners? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I missed the field trip to this site but I ' took the time to go out this past Sunday and drove around these streets and in the Larkey Lane area and then around to the Bacon Court side and as I indicated earlier, I really think more cnuld he done here as far a:: effort to provide better access and even though this subdivision has been rr.duced, it will impact any area and on both sides. However, in driving around there Sunday, I -think we are down to the 00o? �, 27 February 1.1.179 lessor of two evils 'PI think that 1Iie lessor of thAkro evils would be the staff recommendation and the plan as :-zubmitted which in on the viewing board. I feel that the impact on traffic is less on the Lafayette side. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I will be voting against the application. I do dislike the design. We have courts added onto courts and it seems to me that it will be a very difficult thing to direct people up to that area to find locations. I do think we are breaking faith to some extent with the people who already have bought property on Bacon and Rosemont Courts because they believed that they were the final court and the area in between them would be served from some other direct- ion. I agree that there are problems in getting up there from the Larkey area; but, I don't think that's as bad a problem as we're going to have using the other approach from Bacon and Rosemont. MR. DEHAESUS: Mr. Chairman, we submitted this additional proposal to you because there are various options here in view of the access problem and possibly the Commission might want to consider an action which would allow the developer to choose either one of the three access options that he could establish or acquire.. There is access to Larkey Lane which would allow for 43 lots and access to Rosemont and Bacon Court which is the drawing you see on the board and then the third option would be access to Rosemont Court which would allow 30 lots going out that way. Of course, the map would have to be re-designed to show that. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Yes, but, Mr. Chairman, he's saying that the map would con- sist of 43 lots if it goes out Larkey Lane? MR. DEHAESUS: Out Larkey, yes. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: The thing there that I object to is doing something that has never been talked about before at a public hearing and I think we're making a mistake that the applicant could come .out with 43 lots when we've been talking about 30 lots all along. After the hearing is closed you're admitting new evidence or another factor for making; a decision. I think it's improper. MR. DEHAESUS: In e-arlier hearings there were discussions regarding; more lots than 30 such as 43 and if we go back far enough to 1972---one of the reasons that Mr. Young was talkinF about i:; having streets going out of cul-de-sac streets. Frank- ly, if this had been approved as we recommended back in 1972, 1 don't think we would have the problem vie have today. I don't think we would have the consternation that's been developed. I think this could go on forever and I think something has to be resolved here. The access from Larkey from an environmental standpoint would have more impact and the streets from Bacon Court and Rosemont can absorb 15 or so more lots of traffic generated from those streets. We seem to havo considerahle apprehension from one additional car on a street now clays and I think :onm t i mo.: wo pct ovrr excr,_-1!;ed by th�r t kind of approach. But, rnrvcrLhel ;:::, we: 11tink Lh.it in vi.ow of Lite ccuc:;icl rih.l , prohk•mr: hov(! ;i:: ;I rc::ult of p•lst acL.iou:;, ni,tyhca the dcrveloper :;Mould have, .in option to pur•anc, r!it:hcr one of the:;(- access solution,: and whatever one he's successful at, he could then file his final mal: on that ba,,;Is. As has been pointed out, this is not .an ideal situation and you are confronted with this problem because of past actions; so, I think the options might be allowed for that. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Alr. Chairman, I have to feel that we're going to get this back from the Board of Supervisors for further hearings especially if we consider any of the recommendations you've put before us tonight. CHAIRMAN WALTON:_ I feel a little differently, I guess from anyone who has spoken 0004- • 27 February 1979 but not that much differently- I thirk we have to go 75%k and say that someone is going to object no matter what access we approve. I think we are all aware of that whether it's north, south or, whatever,. I think in trying; to be as fair as we can, we have to go back historically and see what the origna.l plans were and as far as I'm concerned, that means that access should be to the north. I think that's the way it was planned in 1972. I have to feel that even though it may not be the best acess or something that the people of that area want, I still feel that access has to be granted and I think that's the proper place at this point in time to do it. I do not feel that because it's going north it deserves another 13 units. I think we have to recognize the fact that no matter where it comes out, we're talking about an increase in traffic problems and staff is talking about recommending another 13 lots in addition to the 30 that would go south. I personally feel that it should be left at 30 units and send it north. To me, that's not the best of all possible worlds; but, perhaps that is all the world we have hefore us. COMMISSIONER COMPAGLIA: Mr. Chairman, first, I'm voting on 30 units. That's what I understood the application to be about in the first place. Secondly, just previous to this application we approved an application where the tentative map was to be approved subject to the applicant proving he had access from a certain street. The access here proposed are from Bacon Court, Rosemont and Larkey Lane. Now, to say .this hasn't been discussed is foolish. This has been under discussion since 1972. We have before us the records that indicate that Mr. Hildebrand talked about this and a vote was taken to deny access through Lirkt:y Lane. So, I think there will be adequate opportunity for anyone who doc:ri't agree with us to put their case before the Board of Supervisors and if the Board wants to send it back to us, fine. I think this thing demands some action tonight whether you want to vote one way or the other. The way I see this, we have land that has three possible ways out and someway, one of those ways out is going to have to be utilized. So, I'm willing to vote on this for 30 units only and subject to the applicant proving he has access from one of the three routes. CHAIRMAN WALTON: Further comments or is there a motion? COMMISSIONER. MILANO: Is there a motion? CHAIRMAN WALTON: There is no motion as yet. Upon motion of Commissioner Milano, seconded by Commissioner Brombacher, it was moved that the tentative map for Subdivision ff5065 be APPROVED subject to all staff recommended conditions and ;subject to the applicant obtaining the necessary right of way for access to the proposed subdivision. cHAIRMA11 WALTnN: M.cy wo have a l.Ittlo clarif-J,c,ition thrre, Mr. Milano? How many uniL'::^: COMMISSIONLR MILANO: Thirty (30) units. CHAIRMAN WALTON: Thirty units; any type of,access you're suggesting? COMMISSIONER MILANO: Yes. I feel if it's going; to be over 30 units, we definitely should re-open. the hearing. I feel he should have the 30 units and find his own access to the property. COMMISSIONER COMPAGLIA: The introduction to this explains it all: "A request for approval of a tentative subdivision map to subdivide 17.3 acres into 30 lots in a single famil.v residential district, R-10." That's what I'm voting on. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: My question is: This goes before the Board �f® vsors 71 February 1979 so when will the peopl know where an when the accesgoing to be? MR. DEHAESUS: This will not go before the Board of Supervisors unless it's appealed to them. Your action i; final unless appealed. After that, comes the final map. At that point, it's a routine matter before the Board and is not a public hearing. The only reason for---the only review is staff review which is to determine whether it is substantially in compliance with the tentative map approval. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: So, what you're saying is that it will be very difficult for the public to find out at that point---when will the people from Lafayette and Walnut Creek find out what the access it to be? MR. DEHAESUS: I would like to clarify the motion even further: The motion is to approve as per staff recommendation and this is for 30 lots; but, are you includ- ing in that mation•that the applicant would have either one of the three access options to pursue or are we talking about that map there (point to viewing board)? COMMISSIONER MILANO: I was thinking of one of the three accesses. MR. DEHAESUS: Okay, either to Larkey Lane, Rosemont or to Bacon Court or only to Rosemont; but in either case, only 30 lots? And, subject to all other staff conditions and staff approval of the access? COMMISSIONER MILANO: Yeah, subject to staff's approval. The staff will have final approval as to which access, right? MR. DEIIAESUS: The applicant will choose what he wants to do and he will pursue that and if he's successful in either one of those alternatives, then he brings that back to staff and staff will simply review it as to the design situation since we know that the access limitations arc and on that basis, he would then prepare his final subdivision map. There would be no further public hearings on it. COMMISSIONER MILANO: Unless the staff felt the need to bring it back before us? MR. DEHAESUS: Well, we could consuit with some of the neighborhood groups. That's a way of advising them what the access selection has been which we probably would want to do anyway. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I think the effect of this is going to be to have access by way of Rosemont for all of those lots. There is opposition from Lafayette; there's opposition from Walnut Creek to the north. That leaves only the access to Rosemont; so, all of the traffic goes down Rosemont and down the hill. MR. DEHAESUS: Except, Mr. Young, he still will have to acquire the access rights over some land that he.does not own or have title to at this point. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Rut,I think he would have a Food case if lie went to court. He'd get it! MR. DEHAESU,^,: Wnll, but that's conjcctiu c at thi. point. CHAIRMAN WALTON: I think that in that rase,,I would agree with Mr. Young,. I've stated in my opinion that I think the proper access hare would be to the north and I do think that Rosemont would suffer by this particular motion. Any further comments beforQ we have roll call on the motion? COMMISSIONER COMPAGLIA: Well, there's always this thing in the back of my mind that we're starting to discuss things that we didn't discuss before. If we are discussing the staff recommendation and what's before us fine; but, I wouldn't like to change the motion to the extent that we're really not voting on something 1)40v.Y¢1. 27 rebruary 1979 we didn't have a full and complete hearing on. 0 CHAIRMAN WALTON: Well, I don't understand---what aspect of it are you talking about? COMMISSIONER COMPAGLIA: Well, the 30 homes plus the way it's indicated on the c map that you have access out there. If you don't have that, that's what we've been doing a lot of talking to all this time. CHAIRMAN WALTON: Well, on our public hearing on this, I think we were talking about the Larkey Lane exit as a possibility. I believe that's the case. COt•MISSIONER COMPAGLIA: To my recollection, we talked about Mr. Anderson's concern about those people who live on Larkey Lane, whether or not they've had an opportunity for in-put. I don't think we explored that. CHAIRMAN WALTON: All right, the motion before us, simply stated, is to approve Subdivision #5065 with staff's recommendations with the exception of the recommen- dation as to access. COMMISSIONER MILANO: Yes, that's access that meets with staff approval. He may come back with access that is only one route, maybe the staff wouldn't approve of that. I don't want to hold the staff down in any motion that I made that as long as he comes back with one line of access out of there that they should approve it. CHAIRMAN WALTON: All right; then the motion is for 30 units and for any of the three ways of access and staff has final review of that. Is that correct, Mr. Milano? COMMISSIONER MILANO: That's right. MR. IIALVERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that you delete Condition A-B which indicates that there be a connection between Belvedere and Tiburon Courts. COMMISSIONER MILANO: Okay, I'll include that in my motion. COMMISSIONER BROMBACHER: I include that in my second. MR. HALVERSON: I .indicate that since if there is that connection, it would become a through road and I know the people would object to that. CHAIRMAN WALTON: All right. Would you call the roll, please? A roll-call vote was taken; following is the Commission's recorded vote: AYES: Commissioners - Milano, Brombacher, Phillips, Compaglia. NOES: Commissioners - Young, Anderson, Walton. AIt:;CNT: Commi:c:i.cun rr: - None. ABSTAIN: Comm.i.s;;.i,oncrs - None. MR. PEHAESUS: The vutc is 4 to 3. The application is approved. There was no further discussion on this matter. 0002 ­ \ NAPA \ H SONOMA v, so LAN: AM +.,.� r CONTRA` COSTA' STAN PRA *� ` ��� NCISCO., ; .. �e =... _ _ - •.. SITE ALAMEDA SAN.MATEO r r• �.�.�. �\ SANTA CARA �_ --- 17 SANTA CRUZ a ip - - CQun."tr I�n� ONTEREY` FIGURE 1 REGIQNAL LOCATION- . Subdivision 5665 William J. Planbecic ESA-EIR 27-77 am 44 ^ o� � Wale � _. '� � i _ t t�.- •�� � '�\ N ! _� o �- i,. � •fit ' enk � W.A l K '����r•� t� \�v �•• � ��_2�'-J?`—l: • � _ Wal r._:,`. '�o� /ry( B�//y, rr �•' ♦ ♦ �-•- ``rri y1P 1 C� /'tC4 `( Y" F Y \\'�1 • r r "\ +e J^•.i .'` ♦ /moi �• o•� S = f. ` Kmghl_�\ � �o Aealu hu H6 I.� e. ) r .• �a -� �� wp\ /� D.-A !i r .jcr- =•L` - � �`" �C \\\ • � Cry, _ �' !� •Civic Ve enter id J : 'A, I /,.a /n, _ If"I•,a 1 0 24 '�-"_ar a�t/�f BF. 3 t' - �-.or •� .;'Nb a"' B � (((t l _ - J `�- '�})`- `•� �, ...,' Lettind 680 ' • nRoservoh✓ I' - 1. Creep.' �,f .•l �:1„ ,4,.�+ 'r l» d � '� - •\ �,� ` • � ��a' '1���`�`i� I .... /P.rkme�l5 \ter J.�++` r 4.y `•~,�� .� �` �'�.-'• ,`lam- �i�•j�♦"'���� M� FIGURE 2 - SITE LOCATION PO Source - USGS 7.5 minute AN, 0 Q 2000 series, Walnut Creek, CA. 1 n J, to /� ,i .,� \ •J� �..1 — 4 !, _ ry r �� 21 '`a. 20 re Ioo• 9 �' Z>�/ , \EY � / -24 4b 32 28 lN•3. .�_l. / //,f�?�.=r� S` .b .,r.M ,p ,. _.: _—a �t".— i�;: .u..v1 _C..c — JP~� jbvr ��... • ... - µ5'M o .» I "/ �• 'S� o��r,e�1ft, 401 ^. 5 (.013 O-�.•'ViCC eP ♦= i i�If t yi' a i i ,7 - - �I •�• TIBURO. 41 11.1 36 i _�. �fOOAS 511 � U 113 �G 41 nor• C '�'i. li �c ice. f FIGURE 3 SITE MAP Source DeBolt Civil 0 120 Engineering, Danville, Ca. N t e s ucr Y�xKr ero �'�"� 80 `p RpoK 5 R► SJR .yA 'e0 No Scale FIGURE 4 SKETCH MAP ACCESS STREETS iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I. INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION . 2 B. ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION. 3 1. Physical Description . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Existing Use and Surrounding Area . . . . . . . 4 3. Utilities and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 a. Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 b. Sewage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 c. Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 d. Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 e. Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 f. Solid Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Plans, Ordinances and Policies . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Soils and Geology . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Hydrology and Water Quality . . . . . . 14 8. Vegetation and Wildlife . . . . . . . . . 15 9. Recreation and Open Space . . . . . . . 17 10. Social-Economic Characteristics . . . . . . . . 18 11. Air Quality and Noise . . . . 18 12. Historical and Archaeological Aspects . . . . . 19 13. Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 II. IMPACT OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 A. UNABOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS . . . . . . . . 22 B. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . 22 C. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACT . . . . . . . . . 24 D. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED . . . . . . 25 E. QUALIFICATIONS OF EIR PREPARATION AGENCY . . . . . . 26 F. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 V �� �n,a SMIARY The project would develop 52 single-family lots in an extensive system of cul-de-sac streets. This has the advantage of directing a significant percentage of the traffic from the site away from the Stanley Boulevard/Pleasant Hill Road intersection and the disadvan- tage of restricted emergency access especially in the event of the blockage of a single access street. County policy regarding the appropriate overall density of development for the site needs clarification; the zoning and the General Plan appear to be incon- sistent. Anticipated requirements for water, sewage, and energy services all could be substantially reduced by implementing miti- gation measures outlined in the report. Among the alternatives, Cluster Design and/or Lower Density could provide a development pattern which would reduce many adverse effects. Vi `li0ifF� . I. INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSION A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION . The site is located in Contra Costa County, California (See Figure 1), between Lafayette and Walnut Creek (See Figure 2). The site consists of 17.3 acres of land located on the ridge area northwest of the Route 24-Route 680 interchange. The application has been designated Subdivision 5065; it is more specifically identified as Assessor's Parcel 175-060-10. The purpose of the project is to subdivide the land into lots and to construct single-family residential houses on the lots. In addition, the applicant seeks a reasonable return on invested capital. The site is zoned R-10 (single-family residential with a 10,000 square.foot minimum lot size). The applicant is Mr. William J. Planbeck of the CLAYCO Corporation of Clayton, California. The site would be subdivided into 52 parcels ranging in size from 10,000 square feet to 48,100 square feet, with an average lot size of 13,300 square feet (See Figure 3) . A cul-de-sac public and private street system is proposed as extentions from adjacent road- ways (See Figure 3). Streets and utilities would be installed within a year and houses constructed as the lots are sold. The applicant indicates that the houses would be constructed from several standard designs which would be modified according to the purchaser's specifications. Houses would be 2,400 square feet or: larger, with three to five bedrooms, two to three bathrooms and two-car garages. They would have natural gas water heaters and natural gas central forced-air space heaters. Most would probably have central electric air conditioning, and kitchens will probably. be all electric, with installed dishwashers and disposals. The anticipated selling price would range from $125,000 to $150,000. 1 the houses on the site would have views which would include Mt. Diablo as a distant horizon feature. Mitigation Suggested by this Report: • Ibdify grading plans to avoid filling the watercourses on the site (i.e. the north side of lots 9, 10, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and the east side of lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). 2. EXISTING USE AND SURROUNDING AREA Setting The site is presently vacant. Both a sewer line and a water line cross the.property. A paved path, following the sewer line route, is used by bicyclists and pedestrians crossing from the Rosemont Court ridge (Walnut Creek side) to the Bacon Court ridge (Lafayette side), particularly by students attending Acalanes High School. The site is used for visual open space, motorcycling, dogwalking, and, possibly, illegal dumping and excavation. The areas to the east,west, and south of the site are- developed with medium density single family residential houses. The ridge top area to the north of the site-is largely open grassland, however, there is a water storage tank on part of this land. Impact The project would continue the process of single-family residential development in the area. One cul-de-sac subdivision street (Belvedere Court) , serving 21 houses, would be oriented to the Walnut Creek side connecting to Park Terrace Court (see figure 3) . A parallel cul-de-sac street (Tiburon Court) serving 31 houses, would be oriented to the Lafayette side connecting to Bacon Court (see Figure 3). There would be no street connection between the two sections of this subdivision. A total of 52 lots are proposed,ranging in size from 10,000 square feet to 48,100 square feet. Seventeen of the lots would be exactly 10,000 square feet, twenty-four of the lots would be within the range from 10,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet and eleven 3 C002TA b. Sewage The site has been annexed into the service area of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. Sewage collection lines exist in the immediate vicinity of the site. The project would generate an estimated 18,000 gallons of sewage per day which is well within the capacity of the sewage systema No impact. C. Police Setting Police protection is provided by the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office in marked patrol cars. The California Highway Patrol has the primary traffic function and patrols the streets. No substantial problem is anticipated in providing police service.' No impact. d., Fire Setting The site is within the Central Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District. The nearest fire station is located on Mt. Diablo Boulevard approximately 2.0 miles from the site. The normal response time to the site is about 3.5 to 4.5 minutes. Impact . The new homes planned for the site would not necessitate any increase in Fire District equipment or manpower. However, the steep hills in the area may slow Fire District response time. The project proposes cul-de-sac type access to the site. Each cul-de-sac is itself connected to a cul-de-sac. This has occurred two and three times in the development pattern for the area. The result is that a single accidental blockage of Rosemont Court at any point between Hilltop Crescent and Park Terrace Court could prevent emergency access to the eastern portion of the site. Similarly, any accidental blockage of Bacon Way or the lower portion of Bacon Court could prevent emergency access to the westerly portion of the site. The proposed subdivision plan would preclude any future remedy of this situation by preventing through access across the site. The District encourages the use of fire-resistant building materials for house exteriors. 5FN• B. ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY,IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 1. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Setting The site lies near the crest of a ridge which separates the Walnut Creek area from the Lafayette area. The.site is located in a draw formed by the main ridge on the northerly and westerly sides, and a secondary ridge spur on the easterly side (see Figure 2). The, highest elevation on the site is 565 feet and the lowest elevation is 450 feet. The central portion of the site has been subjected to some grading and filling activity which has formed a bench along the westerly side of the draw and some irregular topographic features along the easterly side of the draw (including some excavation - related scarps and the deposit of a number of boulders and rubble piles). The overall result is that much of the site lies within 10 feet of the 500 foot elevation contour. The site is visible only from the land which borders directly on it (i.e. from certain houses on Bacon Court, Galen Drive, Park View Court, Rosemont Court, and Park Terrace Court) . Views from the site are largely restricted by the surrounding hills and homes on those hills, however, the view from the site to the southeast features Mt. Diablo as a distant feature. The area enjoys a mild climate with moderate seasonal variation in temperature. Average precipitation amounts to about 23 inches per year occurring largely as rainfall during the winter months (Rantz, 1971). . Impact The grading plan for the site shows both cuts.and fills of up_ to 20 feet. These would remove the small hills within the draw, and fill -in the watercourses. The .final result-would bea series of level building pads at elevations ranging from 500 to 510 feet with one pad at 515 and two at about 520 feet. Although not specified in the grading plan,it is obvious that filling will also be required to achieve acceptable road grades for the connection of the proposed streets uphill to Park Terrace Court and Bacon Court, both of which are substantially higher than the site. Views from the neighboring properties would be altered by the substitution of roof tops,streets and landscaping for the rubble- strewn,partially graded weedy valley which is now visible . Some of 2 of the lots would be larger than 15,000 square feet. The lots are proposed to be developed with single-familyresidential houses similar to those found on the land around the site. J Mitigation None, 3. tTI'ILITIES AND FACILITIES a. Water Setting The site is within the general service area of East. Bay. .:. Municipal Utilities District. No water is presently used on the site, but it can be made available.from the Bacon'Reservoir which has the capacity to serve from 450 feet to 650 feet-in elevation-.- This levation:This would include all of the proposed lots. During the current drought, water rationing has been instituted but no restriction upon new hookups has yet been instituted. Impact Approximately 600 gallons of water per day would be consumed by each of the dwelling units proposed for the site, for a total` consumption of 31,000 gallons per day. This estimate is based on normal-year conditions of supply and includes the use of water for landscaping. This increase is within the supply capacity of the District during years of normal rainfall. Mitigation Suggested by this Report: • Install low-flow toilets, showerheads, and tags designed to; conserve water, save energy, and reduce sewage flows. • See Ecology mitigation below. 4 Mitigation Suggested by this Report: • Use non-flammable materials for building exteriors. • Provide a minimum of 20 feet of pavement on all public _ and private streets to accommodate fire engines. • Provide secondary emergency access to the project area. 3. Schools Setting The site is within the Walnut Creek Elementary-School District and.the Acalanes High School District. Students .from the site-would attend the Buena Vista Elementary School, the Parkmead Intermediate School or the Acalanes High School, all of which have enrollments below their classroom capacity. Since the project is expected to increase the student popula- tion by about 60 students, no impact. f; Solid Waste Setting No solid waste is produced on-site at the present time, but solid waste is collected in the vicinity by the Valley Disposal Service. It is transported by truck to the Acne Sanitary land fill site near Martinez, which has an expected useful life until the year 2020. :Impact As estimated 5..4 lbs/person/day of solid wastes would be produced, yielding a total of:950 lbs/day for the entire developed site. This is within the capacity of the pick-up and disposal system. 6 Mitigation Suggested by this Report: • Provide each home with a collection area.for recyclable__..., wastes such as newspapers, metal and glass. 4. CIRCULATION* Setting Access to the site is available from Park Terrace Court (on - the east) and from Bacon Court (on the west). The street system providing access to these streets is shown in Figure 4. Existing traffic levels on all of the streets in the access system are judged to be within their maximum capacities. However, a traffic study of Pleasant Hill Road (TJKM, 1975) indicated that traffic congestion occurs at the intersection of Pleasant Hill Road and Stanley Boulevard during morning and evening peak traffic hours. Recent traffic counts at certain locations in the street system are shown in Table I. The easterly access to the site is a series of streets serving a residential area. These streets include Rosemont Court, Hilltop Crescent, and Terrace Road, (see Figure 4). They can be characterized as rural-type roads, mostly without curbs and sidewalks which are frequently lined with landscaping vegetation that obscures sight distances especially at certain intersections. The westerly access to the site is via Bacon Court, Bacon Way, and Stanley Boulevard. (See Figure 4). Bacon Court and Bacon Way are streets which serve a residential area; Stanley Boulevard is a collector street serving a number of residential streets. Impact The project would provide access to the site by constructing two public cul-de-sac streets to be known as Belvedere Court and Tiburon Court. (See Figure 3). Belvedere court would serve 21 houses directly by connecting to Park Terrace Court and thus to the easterly access network. Tiburon Court would serve 27 houses directly and four additional houses via a further, private cul-de-sac exten- sion. Tiburon Court would connect to Bacon Court and thus to the westerly access network. ITFIs section is based upon an analysis of traffic conditions and probable effects provided to FSA by Mr. Arnold A. Johnson of TJK%1 Transportation Consultants. 7 TABLE 1 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing with project - Location AWDT* AWDT* Pleasant Hill Road at Stanley Blvd. 28,000 28,000 Stanley Blvd. near Pleasant Hill Road 6,000 6,000 Bacon Way north of Stanley Blvd. 660 1,000 Rosemont Court west of Hilltop Crescent 230 500 *AWDT = Average Working Day Traffic The estimated traffic increase to the east would be about 220 trips per day, and the increase to the west would be about 325 trips per day. The total traffic volumes resulting from these increases are shown in Table I. While none of the streets affected would have total traffic volumes in excess of their capacity, the traffic oriented to the west would contribute to the congestion problems.which occur at the intersection of Stanley Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road. This will tend to accentuate the need for improvements to Pleasant Hill Road in that area as outlined in the 1975 study of that road. Traffic orien- ted to the east could increase the likelihood of accidents at inter- sections in the road system which have reduced sight distances and no traffic control signs, E.G., Park Terrace Court/Rosemont Court, Rose- mont Court/Hilltop Crescent and Hilltop Crescent/Terrace Road. Mitigation Suggested by this Report; • Implement the recommendations of the 1575 Pleasant Hill Road Study for the intersection of Stanley Boulevard/Pleasant Hill Road. These include, painted left turn lanes, closure of certain high school-driveway openings, provision of bicycle lanes and minor modification of traffic signal equipment. 8 • Provide traffic control signs (e.g., stop/yield signs) at the uncontrolled intersections which have reduced `sight distances (viz; Park Terrace Court/Rosemont-Court', Rosemont Court/Hilltop Crescent, and Hilltop Crescent/ Terrace Road). 5. PLANS, ORDINANCES, AND POLICIES Setting The project site is in an unincorporated portion of the County between the City of Lafayette and the City of Walnut Creek. The County General Plan for the Lafayette Planning;Area:(Area 4), designates the site as "Single-Family Residential - Low Density" (zero to three dwelling units per net acre)* The site is zoned R-10 which allows single-family residential homes with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. The site is also within the "Sphere of Influence" of the City of Walnut Creek which shows it as "Open Space Greenway". This desig- nation would allow zero to two dwelling units per gross acre. This plan also shows a ridgeline trail crossing the site,(from Spri.ngbrook Road to Pleasant Hill Road). Impact The project is in conformance with the R-10 zoning designation of Contra Costa County; however, it is not in conformance with the County Genral Plan. Discounting the two acres of'the site shown for roads, there are 52 lots shown on 15.3 acres fora density of 3.4 units per net acre. It appears that the zoning ordinance is notin conformity with the Genral Plan. The Planning Commission considered the question of inconsistency of zoning with the 1967 General Plan in May, 1973, when amendments to the Lafayette Area Plan were made. In a report to.the Commission at that time, the planning staff noted the.density discrepancy between the General Plan and zoning; specifically referring to an_area of 117 acres (which contains the project site). The staff recommended rezoning to R-20 to correct the discrepancy. 7 e`-use of "net acre" in this instance allows the streets to be omitted from the density calculation. 9e�4.r The planning commission instructed staff "to take the necessary steps to initiate public hearings on the changes to the zoning ordinance recommended in the study_." (Resolution No. 48-1973). The project is not in conformance with the planning designa- tions shown in the Walnut Creek General Plan (for its sphere of influence). The project proposes a three unit per gross acre while the Walnut Creek General Plan shows at most two units per gross acre. Mitigation Suggested by this Report: Resolve the question of the appropriate density for development of this site and revise the size/number of- lots to flots.to conform with the appropriate zoning. 6. .. SOILS AND GEOLOGY Setting - Bedrock at the site consists of light gray, friable, fine- grained sandstone belonging to the marine Cierbo Sandstone of upper Miocene age (7 to 16 million years). In general, the Cierbo Sandstone is a massive, well-indurated unit, and is the most stable of the sedimentary units mapped in the Lafayette - Walnut Creek area. It forms very stable slopes, and stands well in deep cuts. Locally, the Cierbo Sandstone may be difficult to excavate,especially where it occurs as strongly cemented, fossiliferous beds. The site is under- lain by a relatively softer variant of the.unit in extensively jointed beds which dip and are exposed in serveral outcrops toward the northeast at angles of 40 to 60 degrees. Structurally, the site lies near the trough of the Rodeo syncline*; the axis of the east- southeast plunging syncline is mapped through the northernmost portion of the site, (Saul, 1973; Reynolds and Associates; 1971, 1972). Surficial materials at the site consist of slopewash deposits of Quaternary age (less than 3 million years). Slopewash is'composed of angular fragments of bedrock mixed with soil and organic debris. . This material lies on slopes around the site, and on the floor of the amine is a formation of layered rack bent in a 'V' shape. 10 central depression where it achieves depths of up to 30 feet. Slopewash has poor stability on slopes during wet weather, and at least two minor slopewash slides have been mapped on steep-slopes bordering the site. (Saul, 1973; Reynolds and Associates, 1971, 1972; Nilson, T.H. , 1973). Soil at the site has been mapped as Lodo clay loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, which is characterized by medium-to-rapid runoff, moderate-to-high erosion hazard when bare, moderate shrink-swell potential, and very slow rate of infiltration by water (Soil Conservation Service, 1973). Investigations by a soil engineer have shown that site soil consists primarily of fine-to-medium -grained soil with varying amount of sand. The soil column is composed of dark brown sandy clays and silty fine sands underlain by clayey fine to coarse sands, sandy clays, and fractured sandstone. The near-surface, fine-granined soils have low-to-moderate expansive character, and good-to-excellent engineering characteristics for development. (Reynolds and Associates, 1971). Although no known faults traverse or can be projected into the site, the site is located about 2,000 feet southwest of the Franklin fault and one mile northeast of the Las Trampas fault; the activity status of these faults has not been determined (Contra Costa County, 1975a). However, the Franklin fault has been considered generally to be the main trace of the complex Calaveras.fault system.in northern Contra Costa Couty (Contra Costa County, 1975b; Saul, 1973). The portion of the Calaveras fault system designated potentially active by the State Geologist terminates nine miles southeast of the site; other regional, potentially active faults are; the Concord fault five miles northeast of the site,. the Hayward fault nine miles southwest, and the San Andreas fault 28 miles southwest (Jennings, 1975; California Division of Mines and Geology, 1974) . Impacts Fill slopes and slopewash,deposits remaining on steeper, slopes. would be subject to moderate-to-severe erosion and to possible instability caused by seepage of rainwater and of irrigation water. Although major earthquakes can be expected to occur on poten- tially active faults in the San Francisco Bay region within the life- time of the proposed development, effects of ground-shaking on the light, residential structures to be built on this site would be minimal . The extreme shallowness of surficial deposits overlying the Cierbo Sandstone bedrock would reduce expected structural damage 11 C00224 intensity to a very low "value relative, for example, to the intensity that might be experienced by similar structures constructed on deep alluvial deposits (Nichols and Buchanan-Banks, 1974). However, seismic shaking may cause non-structural but life-hazardous damage within the structures including breakage of windows., toppling of water tanks, toppling of shelves, etc. Mitigation Suggested by this Report: • To minimize erosion, perform all grading during a single - dry season and immediately revegetate areas of bare or distrubed soil. • Provide adequate keys and drainage facilities for fills placed on steeper slopes in accordance with recommendations _._ of the soil engineer (Reynolds and Associates, 1971). • Attach water heaters and light fixtures firmly to the frames of structures, and provide flexible connections between underground utility lines and structures to mini- mize life-hazardous non-structural damage from earth- quakes. 7. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Setting The project site lies within the drainage basin of the East Branch of the East Fork of Grayson Creek, and runoff from the site eventually reaches Suisun Bay via Grayson Creek; Walnut Creek, and Pacheco Creek. A topographic saddle causes runoff to drain from the site in two directions. A well-developed Swale drains the northern part of the site in a northerly direction near the existing E.B.M.U.D. water tank. Evidence of a spring (hydrophilic vegetation and the remains of a box structure) is present near the head to this swale.' The southeastern part of the site is drained by a minor swale dropping to the southeast through the Galen Drive - Hilltop Crescent area. 12 Impact Development at the site would increase volumes of storm-water runoff and would contribute a small increment to the cumulative degradation of quality of water entering Suisun Bay. An increase of cumulative flooding hazards in downstream reaches of the drainage . basin would also result. In connection with this, it is noted that the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has proposed the construction of a flood-control detention basin on the East Branch of the East Fork of Grayson Creek, near the southern terminus of Cleaveland Road in Pleasant Hill. The detention basin, as proposed,would moderate flood flows augemented by all anticipated development in upstream areas through the year 2020, including the project site. Soil at the site is subject to moderate to severe erosion when bare. Erosion of site soil could cause sedimentation of downstream properties and drainage facilities if the soil is not adequately, drained and protected. Mitigation Suggested by this Report: • To minimize erosion, perform all grading during a single dry season and immediately revegetate areas of bare or distrubed soil. . • Provide subsurface drainage for fills placed on steeper slopes and for the spring in the northern swale in accordance with recommendations of the soil engineer (Reynolds and Associates, 1971). 8. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE Setting The site is on the lower eastern slopes of the Briones Hills which supports an oak savanna type biotic community augmented by an oak-laurel forest biotic community along the lower creek areas. The vegetation of the site has been substantially altered by human disruption. A single valley oak tree remains standing on the site with the remains of its former companions piled nearby. The 13c� herbs and grasses found on the site are mostly non-native,weedy species common to disturbed areas. Due to the reduced fertility of subsoils left exposed by grading, and to active erosion in several localities perhaps as much as ten percent of the site is barren or at least very sparsely vegetated. Some of the herbs - and grasses noted include wild oat grass, perennial rye grass, brome grass, yellow-star thistle, pigweed, coastal rwgwort, California golden poppy, London rocket, wild caddish, and red- stem fillaree. There are also occasional scattered coyote bush shrubs at various localities on the site. There are two spring/ seep areas on the site (one on the easterly portions of lots 4 and 5 and one at the bottom of the ravine in the northerly portion of lot 10) which support certain moisture-loving plant species. These include: red-stem willow, sedge grass, horse-tail and lady's slipper. Wildlife is substantially restricted by the disruption of the vegetation and by the surrounding urbanization. Wildlife consists , largely of insects and birds with a few terrestrial vertibrates. Some of the species noted include; house finch, scrub jay, English sparrow, white-crowned sparrow, northern alligator lizard, jack- rabbit, and blacktailed deer. The latter appears to rely upon the trickle of water still flowing* from the spring at the northern edge of lot 10. There was also evidence of visits to the site by domestic horses and domestic dogs. No rare or endangered plant or animal species (Powell, 1974; Leach, Brode, and Nicola, 1976) were noted on the site and, judging from the habitat none are considered likely to be associated with it. Impact Virtually all of the vegetation on the site would be destroyed by grading activity associated with the project. This will destroy or drive off the wildlife noted on the site. Species-which move to *Flow was observed in July of 1977 after two successive years . of drought. 14 adjacent suitable habitat will experience an_overall decline in population level proportional to the loss of habitat. It is anticipated that the local deer population which appears to live primarily in the open land to the north, will continue to be able to utilize the spring on the north side of Lot 10, and they may become an irritation to nearby property owners by grazing upon their landscaping. Once landscaping has become established, - certain insects and birds species will invade for example: house- finch, robin, mockingbird, starling and Brewer's blackbird. Several of these are non-native species which are sometimes considered pests. Mitigation Suggested by this Report: • Utilize drought-tolerant vegetation native to northern California for landscaping species to reduce irrigation requirements and to increase the habitat value for native birds. 9. RECREATION .AND OPEN SPACE Setting There are a number of publicly-owned parks a.nd recreation areas in the general vicinity of..the'site; the two nearest of these are the Briones-Regional Park and the Lafayette Reservoir-Recreation Area. Additionally, there are several nearby privately owned County Clubs including golf courses. The City of Walnut Creek has planned a '. ridgeline hiking trail which crosses the site enroute-from Spring- side-Road to Pleasant Hill Road. Impact The future residents of the project would have the benefit of this nearby open space and recreation facilities. The project would effectively preclude complete connectionof the ridgeline trail planned by Walnut Creek. Mitigation None. 15 (30(122t4 t4 i • 10. SOCLAL-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS Setting The population in the vicinity of the site can be characterized as upper-middle income families who own and occupy their own homes. Most-of the heads of households commute to places of employment outside Contra Costa County. Minority ethnic groups constitute less than five percent of the population. Impact The project would provide housing which would belikely to attract people with social and economic characteristics similar to those outlined above. Mitigation None. 11. AIR QUALITY AND NOISE Air Quality The project is not expected to have a significant effect :,_ upon air quality. For,example; the increase in carbon monoxide measured fifty feet from the center of any roadway affected by the. project would be less than 0.5 parts per million (Federal Highway Administration, 1974). This is indicative of the . magnitude of the project's effect upon other air quality parameters. Therefore, no further discussion of air quality effects will be presented. Noise The project is not located close enough to any noise source to be adversely effected by it. Similarly, after construction: is complete the project is not expected to generate sufficient noise to adversely effect adjacent uses. During construction, residents of the homes immediately adjacent will experience daytie construction noise from grading equipment and power tools however, because the site is located within a topographic feature which is lower than 16 adjacent land. Thus noise is not expected to extend beyond the properties which are immediately adjacent. Mitigation .•. Require contractors to certify that construction equipment meets state noise control standards. 12: HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASPECTS Setting According to records on file with Contra Costa County, no historic or archaeologic sites are recorded-on the project:.site. . No.historic resources are mapped within a mile of the site. The- nearest recorded archaeological sites are in the Reliez Valley about a mile west of the site. Impact The project apparently would not have a direct impact-upon historic or archaeologic resources. Mitigation e If archaeologic remains are uncovered during excairation, all work should be-halted and a qualified archaeologist called in to evaluate the final.and recommend further action. 13. ENERGY Setting Natural gas and electric energy is supplied to the site-by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. There is currently no demand- from emandfrom the site for these forms of energy. Impact During construction the project would utilize a substantial but unknown amount of energy to transport workers to and from the site, to fabricate and transport building materials, and to grade the site for access and construction pads. Following construction the homes would require a continuing supply of natural gas and electricity. It is estimated that the 52 units would require about 400,000 killowatt hours of electricity per year (4.0 billion British Thermal Units-at source*) and about 83,000 Therms per year of natural gas per year (8.3 billion British Thermal Units-at source*). This estimate was made assuming that the houses would meet State Energy Commission Standards which become effective in March 1978; thus, the homes are estimated to utilize about 30 percent less energy than similar units constructed prior to 1975. Substantial further energy savings are possible. If all the measures listed below were implemented, perhaps as much as an 80 percent** reduction in energy use, relative to 1975 levels, could be achieved. About 30 percent of this reduction would result if solar energy were used for space heating, about 15 percent if solar energy were used for water heating and about 5 percent for all the other measures combined. Mitigation Suggested by this Report: • See water use mitigation measures. • Utilize solar energy for space heating with a natural gas unit to back up and augment the system. While this measure will result in a significant increase in the first cost of construction, it will also substantially reduce operating (fuel) costs. Therefore, implementation should depend upon its feasibility as determined by a detailed life-cycle costing analysis (see Ruegg, 1975: Schuliz, 1975) to be provided by the developer as input for the design review process. • Orient the long-axis of structures in an east-west direction; Stat�ergy Commission regulations imply that estimates of BTU reguirements should utilize 1 KWH = 10,200 BTU and 1 Therm = 110,000 BTU to allow for energy losses in generation. **This includes the 30 percent reduction resulting from the 1978 standards. 18 0 eaves on the south side should be extended to minimize heat gain during summer months. • Utilize accurate clock-operated thermostats with both day and night settings to control space heating. • Provide attic ventilation adequate to prevent heat buildup to eliminate cooling needs. • Utilize solar energy for domestic water heating with a natural gas unit to back up and augment the system. While this measure will result in a significant increase in the first cost of construction, it will also substantially reduce operating (fuel) costs. Therefore, implementation should depend upon its feasibility as determined by a detailed life-cycle costing analysis (see Ruegg, 1975; Schultz, 1975) to be provided by the developer as input for the design review process. • Utilize accurate thermostats with readings in degrees to control water heating. • Locate water heaters as close as possible to the points of hot water use, and insulate hot water pipes. • Select natural gas appliances for cooking and clothes drying.. • Locate windows and properly insulated skylights to take advantage of natural light in frequently used work areas, e.g, kitchen and sink areas. • Utilize fluorescent lights for installed room lights, e.g., in kitchen and bathroom areas. Overall lighting levels should be the minimum needed for the tasks to be done in the area lighted. Prohibit exterior display or architectural lighting. • Select sodium vapor lamps for street lighting. Street lights should provide the minimum light necessary to insure public health and safety and should be equipped with devices to prevent daylight operation. • Select electric appliances (dishwasher, disposal, clothes washer) on the basis of greatest energy efficiency. • Provide each home with storage bins marked for storage of recyclable materials (glass, cans, newspapers) to encourage eventual transport to a recycling center. 19 000224 II. ENVIRONMMUAL IMPACT ANALYSIS A. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE-IMPACTS • Increased demand for community services.' Increased traffic on local streets. • Possible increased erosion and siltation. • Loss of weedy grassland biotic community. • Increased demand for electricity and natural gas. B. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 1 NO PROJECT If the land were not developed, it would remain as described under existing land use and existing physical conditions. Use as public open space is not likely; the area is not designated for scenic value preservation, recreation, or natural resource use by either Contra Costa County or the City of Walnut Creek. The current site condition is not conducive to agricultural use (e.g. grazing) and the property owner maY argue that all beneficial use of the land is denied to him. However, this alternative would avoid'all of the adverse environmental effects of the project. 20 2. CLUSTER D£SIIN In this alternative, the 52 dwelling units would be arranged in clusters of attached townhouses, garden apartments, or "no side yarc?' single-family detached units. This would leave the remaining - acreage for common open space or recreation use. Usually, this kind of.site design requires less land area for roads. Further, this - alternative would be more compatable with other basic access alterna- tives such as a single access road (from either Bacon Court or Park Terrace Court) or a through access road (connecting Bacon Court with Park Terrace Court) .* It should be noted that when this subdivision was first pro- posed in 1971 (as part of the larger subdivision #4022) it was proposed as a planned development, implying some form of clustering or diversity of housing types. However, the community's preference as more recently expressed in the Lafayette Area Plan (and the- zoning ordinance) is for conventional single-family tract housing. A cluster design could have the beneficial effect of saving the prominent natural features of the land such as the large oak tree and the springs and water courses. These features could be incorporated into the landscaping of the common open area-to help reflect the natural setting. The requirements for grading and associated risks of erosion and siltation would be reduced. If attached units were selected they could be expected_ to have reduced energy requirements, however, the requirements for most other community services would be about the same as for the project. If a single access road were selected all traffic could be directed east (via Park Terrace Court/Rosemont Court) Further additions to traffic at Stanley Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road could thus be avoided without raising traffic volumes on streets to the east above their capacity. If a through access road were selected, the entire area would experience some benefit in the form of improved emergency access (for police, ambulance, and fire units). Throujzh access would allow residents of the site, as well as residents of the area east of the site, to travel to the west thus increasing the traffic reaching the Stanley Boulevard/ Pleasant Hill Road intersection. While this would probably not increase traffic volumes to levels in excess of the capacity of the streets to the west, it would further accentuate the need for improvements to the Stanley Boulevard/Pleasant Hill Road intersection. 3. LOWER DENSITY, LARGER LOTS In this alternative, the parcel would be subdivided into fewer, larger lots . If, for example, -R-20 zoning were in effect, there Access to the site from Larkey Lane (to the north in Walnut Creek) would require aquisition of right-of-way from the East Bay Ntunicipal Utilities District and the City of Walnut Creek; this is most unlikely. 21 conformance with both the county's Lafayette Area Plan and the City of Walnut Creek's General Plan. Most of the environmental effects outlined for the project would be reduced by about one-third. The effects of single access or through access would be similar to those discussed in the Cluster _ design alternative above,except that the absolute traffic volumes of this alternative would be about one-third less. 4. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The site is not suitable for commercial or industrial development, and all planning for the area indicatesthatit is not suitable for higher density residential development. There may be alternate sites suitable for a similar number of single-family - residential units but this option is not open to the property owner and it would leave the question of development of the site open. C. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACT The direct growth impact of the project will be an increase in the Lafayette Planning Area of 180 to 235 People.* The project has no major secondary growth-inducing impacts. Although the new population will have a cumulative impact on demand for public services, no new public facilities that will accomodate further growth are associated with the project or required for it. Undeveloped land lies to the north of the project site; however, the project would not facilitate growth in that direction because its streets dead-end in cul-de-sac development without stubs. *Assuming average household size of 3.4 for minimum. and 4.5 for maximum. The City of Walnut Creek average single-family household size in the 1975 Special Census was 3.4. This assumption may be low, since the houses are anticipated to be large, with 3-5 bedrooms. 22 D. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONTACTED Contra Costa County Mr.' Arnold Jonas - Planning Dept:. Mr. Byron Turner - Planning Dept. Lt. Ken Sandy - Sheriff's Office East Bay Municipal Utilities District Mr. Barney Jackolic Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Mr. Jay McCoy Walnut Creek Elementary School District Dr. Elmo Giulieri Acalanes Union High School District Mr. R. Turner Central Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District Inspector K. Frost Applicant Mr. William Planbeck 23 E. QUALIFICATIONS OF EIR PREPARATION AGENCY This report was prepared by the staff of Environmental Science Associates (ESA), Paul E. Zigman, President, under contract to- Contra Costa County. ESA is a private independent consulting corporation, founded in 1969, and engaged in environmental research and in the preparation of environmental impact documents. The report was prepared under the direction of Thomas Lindenmeyer (B.A. Ecology and Systematic Biology) with assistance. from Joan Cudhea (B.A. Economics), Chalon Carnahan (PHd Hydrology) and Roberta Yackle (B.S. Art Education). 24 BIBLIOGRAPHY California Division of Mines and Geology, 1974, State of California Special Studies Zones, Diablo Quadrangle, California Division. of Mines and Geology, San Francisco. Contra Costa County, 1975 a, Seismic Safety Element, Planning Department Contra Costa County, California. Contra Costa County, 1975b, Seismic Safety Element Technical Background Report, Planning Department, Contra Costa County, California. Federal Highway Administration, 1974, Simplified Analysis Technique for Estimating Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Near Highway Facilities, Appendix B of FHWA-E15-73-0)-F, San Francisco. Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault Map of California with Locations of volcanoes, Thermal Springs, and Thermal Wells, California Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 1, California Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento. Leach, H.R.: J.M. Brode; S.I. Nicola, 1976, At the Crossroads, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Nichols, D.R., and J.M. Buchanan - Banks, 1974, Seismic Hazards and Land-Use Planning, Circular 690, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC. Nilsen, T.H., 1973, Preliminary Photointerpretation Map of Landslide and Other SurficiaZ Deposits of the Concord 7,5-Minute Quadrangle Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, California, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-493, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco, California. Powell, W. Robert, 1974, Inventory of Rare and Endangered vascular Plants of California, California Native Plant Society Special Publication T1, Berkeley. Rantz, S.E., 1971, Mean Annual Precipitation and Precipitation Depth- Duration-Frequency Data for the San Francisco Bay Region, California, Open File Report, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park. Reynolds and Associates, 1971, Hellman Property, Walnut Creek, California, Soil and Geologic Investigation, Project No. 265-1, San Jose. 25 s • Reynolds and Associates, 1972, Geologic Addendwn Report for Secluded VaZZey, Subdivision 4220, Contra Costa County, CaZifornia, Project No. 265-2, San Jose. -Ruegg, Rosalie T., 1975, Solar heating and Cooling in BuiZdings: Methods of Economic Evaluation, NTIS #CONI-75-11070, Springfield Virginia. Saul, R.B., 1973, Geology and Slope Stability of the SW, WaZnut Creek Quadrangle, Contra Costa County, CaZifornia, -Map Sheet 16, California Division of Mines and Geology, San Francisco. Schultz, Jack, 1975, "Solar Heating and Cooling Systems: -A Reality Today" in Energy and the Environment--Proceedings of the Third National Conference, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Daton, Ohio. Soil Conservation Service, 1973, Contra Costa County Soil Survey, Contra Costa Resource Conservation District, Concord. TJKM 1975 Pleasant Hill Road .Traffic Engineering Study TJI(M, Walnut Creek. 26 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF XX Completion of Environmental Impact Report C_ -7Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance Lead Agency Other Responsible Agency Contra Costa County c/o Planning Department P.O. Box 951 Martinez, California 94553 Phone (415) 372-2024 Phone EIR Contact Person_Arnold Jonas Contact Person PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SUBDIVISION 5065 (Applicant: William J. Planbeck) A proposed subdivision of 17.3 acres into o s. ubject property is zoned R-10 and is described as follows: Located on the ridge area northwest of the Freeway Route 24/Route I- 680 interchange between the Cities of Walnut Creek and Lafayette. It is determined from initial study by of the Planning Department that this project does not have a significant effect on the environment. Justification for negative declaration is attached. XX The Environmental Impact Report is available for review at the below address: Contra Costa County Planning Department 4th Floor, North Wing, Administration Bldg. Pine $ Escobar Streets Martinez, California D e Po tedKCNEI�1� �,ILM Final date for review/appeal B ACCQ-�� \u✓L� Planning Depar e t Representative nnn 1(74