HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08061991 - S.8 S.$
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this order on August 6, 1991 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson, Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Ridgeline/Hillside Protection and Hillside
Development Policies
Supervisor
or Schroder spoke on the need for clarification relative
to proposals for development in ridgeland and hillside areas so .as to
avoid confusion between landowners and developers. He referred to a
draft paper he had received entitled "Interpretation and Guide for
the General Plan Ridgeline Hillside Protection and Hillside
Development Policies. "
On recommendation of Supervisors Schroder, IT IS BY THE BOARD
ORDERED that this matter is REFERRED to the Director of Community
Development for report to the Board.
I hereby certify that.this Is a true and correct copy Of
an a-.tion taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board nt Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTES7ED, 6 , Z9-21 -
cc: Director, CDD PHIL BATC)(ELOR,Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
BY Deputy
S1JPV:°k-SCHR0DER DIST . 3 TEL No . 415-820-6627
S. $
Interpretation and Guide for the General Plan Ridgeline Hillside
. Protection and Hillside Development Policies
The Board of Supervisors provides the following direction to the
Community Development Department on its interpretation of the County
General Plan ridgeline and hillside protection and , hillside
development policies and their implementation through the adoption of
zoning measures, consideration of development proposals and other
actions. Final interpretation will be made at a time when a specific
project together with its environmental documentation is before the
Board.
1. For land outside the Urban Limit Line, the presence of
substantial hillsides with an average slope in excess of 26$: will be a
factor against modifying the Urban Limit Line to include such land
within it. For land inside the Urban Limit Line but without an urban
designation in the General Plan, hillsides with an average slope in
excess of 26% should generally be avoided for development to the
extent such avoidance is necessary for the County to maintain its
commitment to the 65/35 open space to urban land use ratio.
Otherwise, the same distinctions among significant ridgelines, open
hillsides, and slopes in excess of 26% that are not in the public
viewshed as set forth in Section 2 below shall apply.
2. For land within the urban Limit Line that is designated for
urban use, the hillside protection policy in the 65/35 Land
Preservation Plan and the related ridgeline and hillside protection
and hillside development policies in the General Plan distinguish
among significant ridgelines, open hillsides, and other hillsides with
a slope of 26% .or more, as follows:
a. Development on major scenic ridges as defined in the
General Plan will not be permitted. This complete restriction
reflects the importance of significant ridgelines.
b. Development on open hillsides (i.e. , hillsides within a
public viewshed) is not completely restricted. However, development
on open hillsides will only be permitted if it is sensitively designed
and density is reduced to blend with the topography and minimize
visual impacts such that the visual open space integrity of the scenic
ridgeline and its open hillsides is not materially compromised.
C. Hillsides of 26% or more that are not part of a
significant ridgeline or open hillside shall be protected, but their
development is not restricted like development on significant
ridgelines or open hillsides' because their visual significance is
less. Such protection shall be provided through the development
process by requiring sensitive hillside site planning and design
techniques and by discouraging cut-and-fill pad development. To the
extent. feasible, the intent is to minimize grading, maintain viable
natural vegetation including woodlands, allow for. narrower roads and
increased road grades, and to generally decrease density as slope
increases. Extensive grading shall be discouraged. It will only be
allowed where it can be shown that such grading will not result *in or
increase the potential for slope instability or significant erosion,
an alternative technique with less grading is not feasible under the
circumstances, and the site plan as developed will have a natural
appearance.