HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08111992 - D.2 ti
SE
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 'l !
Costa
HARVEY E. BRAGDON a F�iiiiia E _ ,3 Count/
FROM•. _ __
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ti
DATE: August 5, 1992 os�q 60Uri`r't �~
SUBJECT: Rezoning for Davidon Homes (Applicant a Owner) '(2802-RZ) to Planned
Unit District (P-1) together with Final Development Plan (3025-88) and
Tentative Map (SUB 7151) . The property is located west of Reliez
Valley Road at the westerly extension of Hidden Pond Road, in the
Pleasant Hill area. (S.D. II)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Certify the Final. Environmental Impact ', .Report and adopt
findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
related to :Rezoning, Final Development Plan and Vesting
Tentative Map, Exhibit A attached (County Files #2802-RZ,
3025-88 and SUB 7151) with respect to Traffic and Circulation,
adopt alternate finding #2 .
2. Approve as recommended by the Planning Commission and per
declaration of June 16, 1992, of intent to approve Rezoning
application #2802-RZ, Final Development Plan 3025-88 and
Vesting Tentative Map for Subdivision #7151 (all with Amended
Conditions of Approval, Exhibit B attached hereto and by
reference incorporate&'.herein) ; and approve project findings
related to above approval incorporated in the Planning
Commission'sprevious action (Exhibit C attached) .
3 . Introduce the ordinance giving effect to the rezoning;., waiye
reading and set date for adoption of same.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On June 16, 1992 the Board declared their intent to approve the
proposal. At that time the Board also denied appeals to overturn
the Planning Commission's approvals of the project including a
denial in part of the applicant's appeal of certain conditions of
approval. The Board directed review of that portion of the
CONTINUED ON' ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURi
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON August 11 199?, APPROVED AS RZ_1OMMENDED X OTHER X
ITIS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations 1, 2, and 3 are APPROVED; and as recommended
in #3, Ordinance No. 92-58 is INTRODUCED, reading waived and September 8, 1992 is set for
adoption of same; and Supplemental Findings contained in Exhibit D :attached are ADAPTED.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 3;
I .HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORF�ECT, COPY OF AN
AYES:I , TTI-�, TV NOES: TT ACTION TAKEN AND.JENTERED ON TAB
ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MINUTES OF THl -BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON'T THE DATE SHOWN.
_ Contact:Byron Turner - 646-2031
-Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED Augt.st 11 , 1.992
cc: Public Works PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
County Counsel THE BOARRD OF SUPERVISORS_-
Davidon Homes ' ANVCOUXTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY
De ut
A y_ Clerk:
y y
2.
applicant's appeal of the additional widening , of existing Hidden
Pond Road. The review has indicated that although the existing -
portion of Hidden Pond Road of a 28 foot roadway is not standard,
the record shows that it was the intent that it be built to a
reduced width contingent upon no homes fronting on the road and no
parking on both sides. It is the recommendation of staff that
existing Hidden Pond Road remain a 28 foot wide roadway, the
extension of Hidden Pond Road into the project to proposed Reliez .
Valley Highlands Drive be also constructed to a 28 foot width
provided that there be no homes fronting on the road extension and
it is signed for No Parking on both sides. The other internal
public streets are recommended to be a minimum of 32 feet wide to
allow for on street parking. The conditions for approval have been
modified to reflect the above recommendation and other previous
direction by the Board.
i
EXHIBIT A
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA,
RELIEZ VALLEY HIGHLANDS
(COUNTY FILE NOS. 2802-RZ, 3025-88 AND 7151)
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT RELATING TO THE REZONING, DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
These findings are made by the Board of Supervisors of
Contra Costa County, California ( "Board" ) , pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA" ) , Public Resources
Code sections 21000 et seg. , the CEQA Guidelines and County
Regulations promulgated thereunder . These findings include
this Board' s findings and determinations regarding the
certification of the Environmental Impact Report prepared for
the rezoning, development plans and vesting tentative map of
the Reliez Valley Highland project ( "Project" ) , including the
Project ' s impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives,
Statement of Overriding Considerations and mitigation
monitoring program.
I . INTRODUCTION
A. This Project.
This Project includes 81 low density residential
units, located on approximately 70 acres of land in the
unincorporated area of the County ( "Project Site" ) .
Approximately 33 acres of the Project Site will be preserved as
open space. The issuance of Project approvals for the Project
and development of the site pursuant to those approvals is
collectively referred to in these findings as the "Project" .
The property is bounded by Briones Park, the Hidden
Pond Hills Subdivision, the Oakmont Memorial Park Cemetery and
the Queen of Heaven Cemetery. With the exception of the
cemetery and park uses, the character of the area is generally
residential . The Project involves an application for rezoning
from A-2 to P-1 with a preliminary development plan (County
File No . 2802-RZ) , final development plan (County File
No. 3025-88) and vesting tentative subdivision map (Subdivision
No. 7151) . The application for a vesting tentative subdivision
map was complete prior to the County' s adoption of the
1990-2005 General Plan in January of 1991 . Accordingly,
pursuant to state law, development of the Project Site is
governed by the previous General Plan ( "General Plan" ) .
The proposed rezoning would allow 0-3 units per acre,
which is consistent with the site' s land use designation in the
1
General Plan of single-family, low density. This zoning is
also consistent with the 1990-2005 General Plan land use
designation of the site. The Project ' s density under the
vesting tentative subdivision map would be approximately
. 85 units per acre, which is consistent with the General Plan
designation.
i
B. The Environmental Impact Report.
The County prepared the initial study for the Project
dated September 19, 1988, which required an Environmental
Impact Report . The first Environmental Impact Report was
published in January of 1990 . This Environmental Impact Report
was revised andrecirculated for public review and comment on
October 17, 1990. The final EIR was prepared in February of
1991 and certified as complete by the Contra Costa Planning
Commission on February 12, 1991 .
For purposes of these findings, the EIR consists of :
the Draft Environmental Impact Report published on October 17,
1990 ; the Final ;Environmental Impact Report/Responses to
Comments published in February of 1991; all written and oral
comments received on the EIR during the public review process;
the County' s responses to those comments and the appendices to
the EIR and documents incorporated by reference in the EIR.
C. Certification of the EIR.
In adopting these findings, this Board certifies that
the EIR is adequate and complete under CEQA and State and
County Guidelines and Regulations; that the EIR represents the
Board' s independent judgment; and that the EIR was presented
to, reviewed and considered by this Board prior to acting on
the Project . By these findings, this Board ratifies and adopts
the conclusions of the EIR as set forth in these findings,
except where such conclusions are modified by these findings .
This Board further determines that these findings shall control
and that the EIR shall be deemed to be certified subject to the
determinations reached in these findings .
The EIR describes the Project impacts and proposed
mitigation measures in detail . A description of impact and
mitigation measures in these findings is intended as a summary
only.
D. Description of the Record.
The record before this Board relating to the Project
includes, without limitation, the following:
2
i.
1 All studies, letters and other submittals
relating to the Project;
i
21. All staff reports, resolutions, conditions
of approval, mitigation measures, site and landscaping plans
relating to then Project;
i.
31. All documentary and oral evidence received
and reviewed by! County staff, the County Planning Commission
and this Board prior to, during and subsequent to all public
hearings relating to the Project; and
4j. A11 matters of common knowledge, the
County' s General Plan, the County' s 1990-2005 General Plan and
the Environmental Impact Report prepared therefor, the County
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable County Codes,
policies, regulations, standards and specifications .
E. Other Controlling Determinations.
1i. All of the mitigation measures adopted in
these findings are hereby imposed as conditions of approval to
the tentative map. The County shall monitor the implementation
of the mitigation measures established by the conditions of
approval, and in these findings in accordance with the
Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted with these findings .
2i. The discussion which follows under the
captions "Facts;" for each category recites some of the
background information relating to the Project . The
discussions under the captions "Findings" contain findings made
by this Board based on the entire record before this Board
including, without limitation, the information which is recited
in the discussion of "Facts" .
This Board intends that these findings and
determinationsbe considered as an integrated whole whether or
not any subdivision of these findings and determinations fails
to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other
subdivision ofithese findings . Any finding or determination
required or permitted to be made by this Board shall be deemed
made. All of the text included in this document constitutes
the findings and determinations of this Board whether or not
any particularicaption, sentence or clause includes a statement
to that effect .;
Although the discussions under the captions "Facts"
below may primarily relate to information in the EIR, each
finding herein 'is based on the entire record, including written
and oral testimony in the record. The omission of any relevant
fact from the summary discussions below is not an indication by
3
i
I'
i
= r
f
this Board that' a particular finding is not based in part on
the omitted fact . This Board' s findings as set forth herein
are based on all of the facts in the record before this Board.
i
Unless otherwise indicated in these findings, all
recommended mitigation measures are determined to reduce any
significant adverse environmental impact of the Project to a
level of insignificance. Further, unless otherwise indicated
in these findings, all mitigation measures themselves are
determined not to result in any potentially significant adverse
environmental impacts .
II . POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH
WILL BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE
i.
This Section II includes this Board' s findings for
Project impactsithat are potentially significant but will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance.
A. Geology, Soils and Seismicity.
11. Facts.
(a) The EIR describes potentially
significant impacts relating to landslides located within and
adjacent to the proposed Project, the construction of several
major fills andravine areas, slopes, expansive soils, moderate
to strong ground shaking, and erosion and sedimentation
resulting fromthe removal of vegetation.
(b) The EIR recommends mitigation measures
designed to mitigate these impacts to a level of
insignificance., The Project shall conform to all Contra Costa
County gradingiand erosion control ordinances . In addition,
the EIR recommends measures governing landslide repairs,
cut-and-fill si:opes, placement of building pads, seismic
protections and erosion control .
2. Findings.
Basedon the EIR, the facts set forth above and the
entire record, !,this Board finds that the above-recommended
mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will mitigate the
impacts listed ;above to a less than significant level .
k
B. Vegetation and Wildlife.
1. Facts.
(a) The EIR concludes that the Project will
have potentially significant impacts on vegetation and
t
4
wildlife, including disturbance to wildlife from construction
activities, andthe loss of approximately 70 acres of valley
Oak Woodland, removal of oak trees, and the endangerment of oak
trees not removed. The EIR states that these impacts could be
reduced to insignificance by development redesign and
configuration, but would otherwise be significant and
unavoidable.
(b) The EIR' s recommended mitigation
measures involve the modification of the Project to incorporate
open space that would provide habitat and corridors for the
movement of wildlife and preserve existing oak trees to the
maximum extent possible . Pursuant to this recommendation, the
Project has been revised to incorporate 32 . 8 acres of open
space, or approximately 46% of the available site. The open
space is predominantly located along the natural oak woodland
ridgeline.
(c) Under the revised land use plan,
existing trees have been preserved to the greatest extent
possible. The revised plan requires the removal of only
68 trees out of' the total 1 , 511 trees existing on site.
Developer has retained a horticultural consultant and
consulting arborist to evaluate the existing trees and
determine their habitat value. The reports of the consulting
arborist indicate that the trees with the greatest habitat
value will be preserved by the preservation of the Project
Site ' s predominant oak woodland ridgeline as open space.
(d) All trees within the site and within
areas affected by the Project have been surveyed and drip lines
are indicated on revised landscaped drawings . Professional
consultants will be retained during grading and construction to
identify and provide professional expertise necessary to
protect the trees which will remain on site.
(e) The preservation of the oak woodland
ridgeline maintains wildlife corridors to open space on
adjacent sites ., The valley oak woodland remaining on the site
will be enhanced and restored.
(f) An oak tree expert and arborist has
been retained to provide professional direction and guidance
for reducing the decline or death of the trees remaining within
the Project boundary, and strict criteria will be provided to
the construction team that will include at a minimum the seven
tree protection guidelines set forth in the EIR.
21. Findings.
Based on the EIR, the facts herein and the entire
record, this Board finds that :
5
(a) The mitigation measures recommended in
the EIR have been incorporated into the Project and will reduce
the Project' s impacts on vegetation and wildlife to a less than
significant level .
(b) The changes to the Project as a result
of these mitigation measures will not cause any new significant
impacts and, accordingly, do not require the preparation of a
subsequent or supplemental EIR.
C. Land Use Policy.
1Facts.
(a) The Project is consistent with the
County' s present land use designation of the site. However,
the EIR identifies an inconsistency with the General Plan' s
Scenic Route policies . The EIR recommends mitigation measures
designed to mitigate to a level of insignificance.
(b) The measures recommended in the EIR
involve redesign and reconfiguration of the Project and the
revised site plan incorporates these measures . The Project
density has been reduced from 132 to 81 homes, representing a
percentage reduction of 37% . Visual impacts are significantly
reduced by the incorporation of a landscaped earth berm at the
southeast edge of the property, which will also afford privacy
for future homeowners and cemetery visitors. Homes along the
southern frontage road facing the Catholic retreat have been
eliminated. Almost all of the existing oak woodland along the
frontage road has been preserved. Views of Project homes from
the Baywood development will be screened by the retention of
trees on a prominent knoll . Grading and tree loss have been
reduced by the elimination or redesign of major streets and
cul-de-sacs, and the property has been thereby screened from
view by the Farm Hill Estates Development . Almost all the
existing tree gr,pves on slopes facing Farm Hill Estates have
been preserved. !
(c) The revised site plan preserves the
ridgeline as viewed from Reliez Valley Road and surrounding
neighborhoods . All lots have been placed in the "grassland
savannah" of thesite, tucked down behind and below the
existing naturaliridge and visible oak ridgeline. The revised
plan "single loads" the Village access road, preserving
existing vistas pf the natural knolls and draws facing the
Catholic retreatiland Baywood Development .
(d) The revised site plan eliminates all
development in the steeply sloped area adjacent to Farm Hill
Estates. Trees in this area are preserved and no cut and fill
6
" r
is anticipated. . Homes facing the Catholic retreat along the
south side of the access road have also been eliminated. These
knolls are leftl'in their natural state with only minor fill ,
and almost all trees are preserved in this area. At the
entrance to theproperty at Hidden Pond Road, custom lots are
sited to reduce grading and provide suitable hillside
development . These homes will be reflective of the split-level
hillside homes existing on similarly sloping lots at other
developments along Reliez Valley Road.
(e) Natural vegetation will be preserved to
the greatest extent possible. Ninety-six percent of the
existing woodland is preserved by the revised site plan, with
only 68 of a total of 1, 511 trees being removed.
i
(f) The amount of cut and fill is
significantly reduced by the revised site plan. The east end
of the site has been significantly redesigned to allow custom
lots to be tailored to the slopes by the use of split pads .
Units have been !ieliminated from the north end of the Project,
where several large specimen trees are retained. The existing
vistas of the natural knolls and draws facing the Catholic
retreat and Baywood Developments will be enhanced by the
reduction of cut and fill relating to the access road.
(g) The revised site plan redesigns the
street pattern and reconfiguration to create a more natural
circulation system with less visible impacts .
2Findings.
Based on the EIR, the facts herein and the entire
record, this Board finds that :
(a) The mitigation measures recommended in
the EIR have been incorporated into the Project and will
mitigate the above impacts to a less than significant level .
(b) These mitigation measures will not
cause any new significant impacts, thus do not justify the
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
D. Taffic and Circulation.
2`. Facts.
(a) The EIR describes potentially
significant impacts from increased traffic . These impacts are
not listed as significant and unavoidable.
(b) One significant impact identified in
the EIR relates` to safety concerns on Hidden Pond Road. As
7
. . G
mitigation for this impact, the EIR recommends that Hidden Pond
Road be widened '•to a width of 32 feet, and redesigned with a
design speed of "35 miles per hour . Hidden Pond Road was
constructed in 1986 , and is complemented by utility facilities
and established '( landscaping.
(i) The evidence in the record
indicates that Hidden Pond Road' s present design speed of
25 miles per hour will safely accommodate the Project ' s traffic .
is
(ii) The evidence in the record
indicates that the cost and human disruption of widening Hidden
Pond Road by four feet would outweigh the potential safety
benefits .
(c) Other mitigation measures set forth in
the EIR includepayment of off-site traffic mitigation fees to
mitigate the Project ' s share of commuter traffic on Reliez
Valley Road; limits on access to the site by Project-related
construction traffic; road restoration to mitigate
Project-relatedjconstruction impacts on Reliez Valley Road; and
the provision of at least one emergency access road connection.
2`. Findings.
Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire
record, this Board finds that :
(a) For the reasons set forth above, and in
Section III , significant impacts that will not be mitigated,
the recommended" mitigation measure of widening Hidden Pond Road
to 32 feet is rejected as infeasible.
h
(b) The recommendation that Hidden Pond
Road be redesigned to a design speed of 35 miles per hour does
not address a significant Project impact, and is accordingly
rejected as infeasible.
(c) Except as set forth above, the
mitigation measures recommended in the EIR are hereby adopted
and will mitigate the Project ' s significant impacts to a level
of insignificance .
E. Visual Resources.
1. Facts.
(a) The EIR identifies potentially
significant visual impacts. These impacts described as
significant and`' unavoidable unless the Project is redesigned
and reconfigured as recommended in the EIR. Such redesign and
reconfiguration!' would mitigate the visual impacts to a level of
insignificance..
8
(b) The Project has been redesigned and
reconfigured as !'recommended in the EIR. The visual impact of
the alteration of existing topography has been avoided by
reducing site grading by more than 50% .
(c) The redesigned site use plan eliminates
37% of the originally proposed homes, and sets aside
approximately 46% of the available site as open space. Natural
vegetation ispreserved by the retention of 96% of the oak
trees on site, including the existing oak ridgeline. The
developer will conform to criteria and implement programs
established by the County-approved biologist relating to the
protection and preservation of oak trees, preservation of open
space in wildlife corridors, revegetation of Oak Woodland
habitat, and appropriate landscaping around oak trees .
Homeowners willbe given an informational handbook or manual
describing how to protect and preserve the oaks on their
property.
j (d) The developer has submitted a revised
landscape plan that addresses overall site design, placing
landscape amenities, including landscaped earth berms, trees
and indigenous shrubs so as to screen development from public
view. The view along the ridgelines from Baywood and Reliez
Valley Road will be effectively screened.
(e) The dominant ridgeline element of the
Project Site, the existing oak woodland ridgeline, has been
preserved by the placement of all proposed homes behind and
below it. Proposed development will be generally out of view
of the Reliez Valley Road corridor . The heavily wooded ridge
will remain the dominant feature of the site.
(f) Development on deeply sloping areas has
been restricted`,. All development adjacent to Farm Hill Estates
has been eliminated as have homes along the south side of the
Village access road facing the Catholic retreat . Almost all
trees in these areas have been preserved.
i
(g) Development has been concentrated in
the grassland areas of the site, and grading has been reduced
by approximately 50% . Homesites have been provided that
utilize the natural contour of the land, and many cut or fill
areas have beeneliminated. Project homesites have also been
developed to "tuck" homes into the homesite. Custom homesites
have been provided that allow for homes to follow the contour
of the land with pier and grade beam foundations .
(h) The color and material palette for
Project homes will be earth tones . Landscaping will be
9
{
U
i
designed to blend in with the surrounding native vegetation,
consisting primarily of oak trees and indigenous drought
tolerant plants and shrubs .
(j ) The above listed modifications to the
Project are not expected to have any new significant impacts
requiring further mitigation measures .
(k) The EIR recommends a placement of
rooflines 50 feet below the natural ridgeline . This measure it
intended to preserve the natural oak land ridgeline. However,
it would conflict with the EIR' s land use goals of placing
development away from the steeply sloping areas of the site.
This measure would also reduce native vegetation and require
the removal of significant areas of oak trees in the Reliez
Valley Road view corridor, increasing the feasibility of the
development to neighboring communities . Under the revised site
plan, most development is placed below the natural wood
ridgeline and out of public view. The remainder of the
development is sited in areas where grading will have a minimal
impact . i
r
j; ( 1) The EIR recommends that the water tank
be recessed into the hillside. This measure would require
approximately 20 feet of additional cut slope on the majority
of the Project. ! This would conflict with the aesthetic
guidelines in the EIR, and the EIR' s goal to minimize Project
grading. The Project has been revised to provide for screening
of the water tank in its proposed location by existing and new
trees .
21. Findings.
Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire
record, this Board finds that:
i
(a) The EIR' s recommendations that
rooflines be placed 50 feet below the natural ridgeline, and
that the water tank be recessed into the hillside are rejected
as infeasible because they do not address significant Project
impacts and because they would tend to increase rather than
decrease the Project ' s visual impacts .
(b) Except as set forth above, the
mitigation measures recommended in the EIR are adopted and will
mitigate the Project ' s visual impacts to a level of
insignificance.
10
f
F. Public Services and Utilities.
1 . Facts.
(a) The EIR describes potentially
significant impacts on fire protection services, police
services, water supply, waste water treatment and schools . The
EIR concludes that all of these impacts can be mitigated to a
level of insignificance.
(b) Automatic sprinkler systems will be
installed in the proposed homes to mitigate excessive response
times by the fire department . The Project will comply with
Fire District requirements requiring fire flow for sprinklered
homes and spacing of hydrants . Parking will be restricted to
facilitate emergency vehicle access . A $300-per-lot fee will
be assessed to offset firefighting costs . Access into open
space areas maintained for public or private use will be
maintained at a minimum of 16 feet wide. Open spaces left in
their natural state shall comply with the Fire District ' s weed
abatement standards . The developer will grant an easement for
the East Bay Regional Park District for continued emergency
access to Briones Park land.
(c) The developer will contribute fees to
provide the . 6 additional police staff necessary to serve the
Project .
(d) Landscaping materials will consist of
native and drought tolerant plants . Homes will be fitted with
low water usage, plumbing fixtures .
(e) This site will be annexed to the Contra
Costa Sanitary District prior to any sanitary service to the
site. A ten-foot, exclusive public sewer easement will be
established over the alignment of each public sewer in an
off-street or private street location.
(f) The developer shall contribute to any
in-lieu fees required by the Martinez Unified School District .
2. Findings.
Basedon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire
record, this Board finds that the recommended mitigation
measures related to public services and utilities are adopted
and will mitigate the public services and utilities impacts
listed above to a less than significant level .
11
4
G. Recreation.
1: Facts.
The EIR evaluates a potentially significant impact
relating to continued emergency fire access for the East Bay
Regional Park District to adjacent parkland. The EIR concludes
that this impact can be mitigated to a level of insignificance,
recommending that the developer shall grant East Bay Regional
Park District an access easement for continued fire access to
the adjacent park.
2. Findings.
Based on the EIR, the facts herein and the entire
record, this Board finds that the above mitigation measure
relating to recreational impacts is adopted as recommended in
the EIR and will mitigate the recreation impact to a less than
significant level .
III. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT WILL NOT BE MITIGATED
i
A. Safety Impacts On Hidden Pond Road.
10 Facts.
(a) The EIR identified a potential safety
impact relatinglto the width of Hidden Pond Road. The present
width of HiddeniPond Road is 28 feet, and the EIR recommends
that it be widened to 32 feet .
(b) There is conflicting data in the record
as to whether the present width of Hidden Pond Road would raise
safety concerns ; after the Project were developed.
(c) Hidden Pond Road is a newly constructed
roadway. It was constructed under an assessment district
formed in 1986, ; and is complemented by established landscaping
and necessary utilities . Widening Hidden Pond Road would
require the removal , reconstruction and replacement of existing
facilities such; as the curb and gutter, curb returns, drainage
structures , landscaping, and telephone and PG&E facilities .
2 Findings.
Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire
record, this Board finds that :
(a) The cost of widening the newly
installed Hidden Pond Road is likely to outweigh the potential
safety benefits1of the additional four feet proposed, and this
mitigation measure is accordingly rejected as infeasible;
12
(b) The likelihood of a safety impact
relating to thet28-foot width of Hidden Pond Road appears to be
marginally significant . This Board accordingly finds that the
impact will remain significant and will not be mitigated, and
is outweighed and overridden as stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations set forth Section V of these findings .
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The EIR evaluates and compares four alternatives to
the proposed Project, including the No Project Alternative, the
Same Density/Clustered Alternative, the Reduced
Density/Cluster'ed Alternative, and the Consultant ' s Mitigated
Alternative. In addition, the EIR examines four off-site
alternatives . I'
This Board finds that the EIR sets forth a reasonable
range of alternatives to the Project to foster informed
decision-making; and informed public participation, and to
permit a reasoned choice. This Board finds that the
alternatives are adequately discussed and evaluated in the
EIR. This Board adopts the findings set forth below regarding
these alternatives .
i.
A. No Project Alternative.
This alternative will preserve existing conditions on
the Project Site for the time being. On-site landslide
activity would be expected to continue, which could result in
the movement ofdebris into adjacent properties located down
slope of the site to the north and south. This Board finds
that this alternative is infeasible and rejects this
alternative for;; the following reasons :
ii
1 . As stated elsewhere in these findings, the
Project ' s significant environmental effects have been reduced
to insignificance by mitigation measures that have been
incorporated into the Project or adopted by this Board except
as set forth in Section III of these findings . The Project
represents environmentally sensitive land use planning, and
will provide housing and other benefits as set forth in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations . These benefits would
not be obtained under this alternative.
2,. The General Plan specifically designates the
Project Site for single-family, low density uses . This
alternative would contravene this planning directive.
B. Same Density/Clustered Alternative.
This alternative provides a development plan with the
same density asp the originally proposed Project, with a
13
i
i
f
clustered land use pattern. This Board finds that this
alternative is infeasible and rejects this alternative for the
following reasons :
1 The alternative contemplates clustering
development on the Project Site by subdividing the Project into
44 separate buildings containing three attached residences per
unit. Surrounding residential uses are detached single-family
homes similar to those proposed in the Project. Accordingly,
this alternative would have new significant impacts relating to
land use compatibility that would not exist under the proposed
Project.
2 :' The primary benefits of this alternative
would be to allow for larger common open space areas, a
reduction in the amount of on-site cut and fill , and
preservation of ' a greater percentage of the site ' s natural
vegetation. These benefits have already been obtained by the
redesign and reconfiguration of the Project represented by the
revised site plan and revised landscaping plan.
C. Reduced Density/Clustered Alternative.
1
This alternative would utilize a clustered-style
development with between 50 and 75 units developed as
single-family detached units with a shared common open space.
This Board finds that this alternative is infeasible and
rejects this alternative for the following reasons :
h
1 . The Project will offer 81 quality homes with
a high standardl, of living. The quality of those homes will be
compromised under this alternative, because the lot size of
Project homes would be substantially reduced. In addition,
this alternative would involve a reduction of at least 6 and
potentially 31 new homes . This alternative would accordingly
not fully realize the benefits set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations .
2!'. By clustering detached single-family
residences, thejalternative would be incompatible with
neighboring Projects with larger lots . This would represent a
significant impact that does not exist under the proposed
Project.
31. This alternative would have reduced impacts
relating to grading, vegetation and wildlife, traffic, visual
impacts, and public services than the Project as originally
proposed. However, as set forth elsewhere in these findings,
mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project or
adopted by this' Board that will reduce these impacts to
insignificance except as set forth in Section III of these
findings .
14
D. Consultant' s Mitigated Alternative.
This alternative involves a cluster-style development
of 30 single-family detached units . This Board finds that this
alternative is infeasible and rejects this alternative for the
following reasons:
1i. The alternative would involve clustered
development near the Silver Hill development which lies to the
north. A development along Silver Hill provides loss of
approximately one-half acre, which will not be compatible with
this alternative. Accordingly, this alternative would involve
a significant new impact relating to land use compatibility.
2!. This alternative would involve a reduction
of 51 lots . This alternative accordingly would not fully
achieve the benefits as set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations . The per-home cost of a new
residence could be expected to rise substantially.
i
31. This alternative would reduce impacts on
vegetation and 'wildlife, visual resources, traffic, and public
services . However, as discussed elsewhere in these findings,
mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project or
adopted by this Board that will reduce the Project ' s
significant impacts to a level of insignificance except as set
forth in Section III of these findings .
E. Alhambra Valley Road Off-Site Alternative.
1,
This o'ff-site alternative is located on the southern
flank of Alhambra Valley Road, north of Briones Regional Park.
This Board finds that this alternative is infeasible and
rejects this alternative for the following reasons :
11. Existing zoning and general plan designation
of the alternate site would allow a maximum of ten units .
Accordingly, development of the 81 units contemplated in the
Project would result in significant land use and land use
compatibility impacts that would not arise with the proposed
Project.
2. This alternative would have greater traffic
impacts on Alhambra Valley Road north of Reliez Valley Road and
on Blue Ridge Road. Geologic and soils impacts would be
similar to worse than those of the proposed Project . The
alternative is }also more likely to support special status
species such as the Diablo Sunflower, Mt . Diablo Fairy Lantern,
and Alameda Whip Snake, and accordingly, there is a higher
probability oflisignificant impact on these species .
15
F. Queen of Heaven Cemetery Off-Site Alternative.
This alternative site is located to the south of the
Project Site and is a portion of the Queen of Heaven Cemetery.
This Board finds that this alternative is infeasible and
rejects this alternative for the following reasons:
I :I This alternative would not reduce any of the
Project' s anticipated environmental impacts . Accordingly,
there is no basis for incurring the increased environmental
impacts that would accompany this alternative.
2J This site may not be available for
residential development, not withstanding its designation in
the General Plan. A Catholic retreat is located on the
northern portion of the site, which appears to be in use.
3 -1 Because of the site' s current use as a
retreat, development of the Project would involve significant
land use impacts that do not exist with the proposed Project .
At present, there are no developed plans directly contiguous to
the site. i
G. Springhill Road off-Site Alternative.
I
This alternative would develop a relatively small site
located to the south of the proposed Project Site. This Board
finds that thisalternative is infeasible and rejects this
alternative for !the following reasons :
l .' This alternative would not reduce any
Project impacts .1; Accordingly, there is no basis for incurring
the increased impacts on vegetation, wildlife, traffic and
circulation listed below.
2 .� The site is steeply sloping, thus would
require extensive e grading. Future landslide activity could
threaten development along the ridge crest . Overall , the
impacts relating! to geology and soils could be more significant
than those of the proposed Project .
3 .i. Access to the site would be provided by the
westerly end of Springhill Road. Springhill Road adjacent to
the site is a very ry poorly Paved single lane roadway. The
Project ' s traffic would produce significant safety concerns on
the upper sections of these roads. Project traffic would also
contribute to significant congestion near the elementary school
to a greater extent than would the proposed Project .
4 .i The Springhill Road site contains a greater
diversity of oakl, and associated tree species and wildlife
16
i
habitat than the proposed Project Site. Accordingly, there is
a greater likelihood of significant impacts on wildlife species
than with the proposed site, including the possibility of
impact upon thej,Diablo Sunflower , Mt . Diablo Fairy Lantern, and
the Alameda Whip Snake.
V. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
This Board makes and adopts the following Statement of
Overriding Considerations regarding the impact of the Project
that remains significant after the imposition of mitigation
measures, explaining why Project benefits override and outweigh
these impacts . +This Board finds that the unavoidable impacts
are acceptable in light of the Project benefits . Each of the
matters set forth below is, and dependent of the other matters,
an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project
despite each and every impact that will remain significant .
4
A. Housing.
According to the housing element of the 1990-2005
General Plan, the County is expected to continue to grow at a
rapid pace in the coming years, requiring a substantial
increase in housing stock for all income levels . In addition,
as the County' s population ages, the demand for "move up"
housing will increase significantly. The Project will address
these growing needs by providing 81 high quality homes designed
and constructedfin an environmentally sensitive manner .
B. Landslide Repair.
A number of large landslides are present within the
Project Site. If stabilization measures are not undertaken,
these landslides can be expected to experience continued
movements . Future landslide activity could result in the
movement of debris into adjacent properties to the north and
south, and headward expansion of the landslide area towards the
Project. The Project will involve the repair of substantially
all on-site landslides .
C. Enhancement Of On-Site Vegetation.
Ninety-six percent of the existing woodland will be
Y- P g
preserved. Of the 1, 511 oak trees on site, only 68 trees will
be removed. Two hundred twenty-one new oak trees shall be
planted of 48-inch, 24-inch and 15-gallon box sizes .
D. Financial .
The Project will provide jobs to construction workers
and new customers for nearby commercial centers . The increased
17
i
L
activity at those commercial centers, and increased property
values, will generate tax revenues for the county.
VI . FINDINGS REGARDING MONITORING OR REPORTING OF CEQA
MITIGATION MEASURES
Section 21081 . 6 of the California Public Resources
Code requires this Board to adopt a monitoring or reporting
program regarding mitigation measures adopted in connection
with these findings . This Board hereby adopts the following
program in fulfillment of this requirement :
f
The Developer shall file a written report
with the County Director of Community
Development approximately once every
12 months, beginning 12 months following the
final approval of the Project Applications
by theBoard of Supervisors and continuing
until the public improvements required by
the conditions of approval have been
constructed. The written report shall
briefly state the status in implementing
each mitigation measure which is adopted as
a Condition of Approval or which is
incorporated into the Project and Project
Applications .
Countystaff shall review the written report
and determine whether there is any unusual
and substantial delay of over one year in,
or obstacle to, implementing the adopted or
incorporated mitigation measures that
requires action by County staff. If
Developer requests, the result of this
review'will be provided to Developer in
writing.
If County staff determines that action is
required, the staff and Developer shall
consult and, if possible, agree upon
additional actions to be taken to implement
the mitigation measure(s) which is subject
to therdelay or obstacle. If and only if
the staff and Developer are unable to agree
upon the additional actions to be taken,
then either staff or Developer may bring the
matter before the Planning Commission for
decision whether any action should be taken
and what that action should be; that
decision shall be appealable to the Board of
Supervisors pursuant to the County' s appeal
P
I;
i
18
t
j
procedures for subdivision decisions .
Staff;, the Planning Commission, or the Board
of Supervisors shall be limited to imposing
reasonable actions as permitted by law which
will implement the existing mitigation
measures . In reviewing the timeliness of
the implementation measures, staff shall
consider the project timetable, subject to
reasonable but unanticipated delays due to
weather, economic feasibilities and the like.
i
i
19
EXHIBIT B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR REZONING 2802-RZ, FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
3029-88 AND VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 7151
1. This approval is based upon the preliminary/final development
plan, vesting tentative subdivision map and supporting plans
dated received December 27, 1991 and January 15, 1992,
together with other supporting documents submitted with the
application,� for not more than 81 residential lots, subject to
the conditions listed below. The approval of vesting tenta-
tive map forSubdivision 7151 is contingent on final approval
of Rezoning 2802-RZ and Final Development Plan 3025-88 by the
Board of Supervisors.
i
2 . Prior to filing the Final Subdivision Map or issuance of a
grading permit, whichever occurs first, revised plans shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator,
providing for the following:
A. Verify the complete screening of the visibility of
proposed residential buildings on Lots #18 through #28
as viewed from the Oakmont Memorial Park facilities or
burial .grounds, by either or in combination of additional
buffer ;distance, additional earth berm and lowering of
building heights. If any building is in process of
construction or is constructed visible from Oakmont
Memorial Park facilities or burial grounds as determined
by theZoning Administrator, it would be a violation of
the condition and a stop-work order may be issued or
final building inspection may be withheld to obtain
compliance with corrective measures.
3 . Except as specified in these conditions and the exhibits,
described in Condition #1 above, the guide for development
shall be the Single Family Residential (R-15) district,
subject to the Zoning Administrator's review and approval at
the time of ; issuance of building permits. Any request made
subsequent to the completion of this project for modification
of the standards applicable to this project shall be made by
recommendation of the homeowners association to the Zoning
Administrator, prior to issuance of building permits.
A. Provide for additional rearyard building setback from
, rear down slopes and additional one-story buildings in
the vicinity of Lots 13 through 16, Lots 23 through 28,
and Lots 64 through 66, subject to review and approval by
the Zoning Administrator.
i
i
2 .
B. Prior to issuance of any building permits an overall plan
for lot development shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Zoning Administrator showing proposed
building setbacks, yard distances and number of stories
with one, two or split level buildings.
4. The exhibits referenced in Condition #1 submitted with the
application pertaining to landscaping and supporting documen-
tation are approved, including the preliminary landscape plan,
the tree mitigation plan, the oak tree revegetation plan, the
water tank study for landscape screening, typical yard
landscape plan and the "village" entry plans. Prior to
issuance of any building permits, final landscape plans
pertaining to the above shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Zoning administrator. Special consideration
shall be given to landscaping that mitigates the project
visual impact, trees and shrubs installed as visual mitigation
shall be irrigated and bonded for a period of four years.
Landscaping shall be installed prior to occupancy.
A. Existing trees, particularly oak trees, shall be pre-
servedjas indicted with submitted plans and supporting
documentation. At least 221 oak trees shall be planted
of 23. 48" box size; 45 - 24" box size; and 153 - 15
gallon size. An information booklet for the care and
protection of oak trees shall be provided to all residen-
tial units in the development.
B. Trees in the vicinity of the ridgeline shall be identi-
fied fo.r preservation or elimination. A program shall be
submitted to protect trees to be saved whose dripline is
in the "vicinity of proposed grading.
i
C. A landscape and irrigation plan for each lot shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Adminis-
trator ' prior to issuance of a building permit. New
landscaping shall utilize California Native Species and
conform to the Contra Costa County policy on water
conservation requirements for new development, and shall
be' installed prior to occupancy.
D. Submit 4 report by a certified arborist relating to trees
that meet, the physical characteristics of Heritage Trees
(Ord. Code Sec. 816-4. 602) to the Zoning Administrator
for review and approval and for recommendation to become
designated Heritage Trees.
E. An information booklet shall be prepared for the care and
protection of oak trees, to be provided to all new
residents to the development.
i
3 .
F. Any proposed fencing adjacent to common areas shall be
open wire mesh, subject to approval by the Community
Development Department prior to installation. Type of
fencing and maintenance shall be incorporated in the
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. Property lines
which 'run across natural upgraded land shall not be
fenced ` in a manner which detracts from the natural
contours or creates visually unattractive areas.
5.. Comply with% the recommendations of the geologic report
submitted with the application. Grading plans shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator
prior to issuance of a grading permit.
A. At least 30 days prior to recording a Final Map, issuance
of a grading permit or installation of improvements,
submitia revised or updated preliminary geotechnical
report per the revised plans for this development,- per
the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-
4 .420, for review and approval by the Zoning Adminis-
trator.? The improvements, grading, and building plans
shall carry out the recommendations of the approved
report.:.
B. Record !a statement to run with deeds to the property
acknowledging the approved reports by title, author
(firm) and date, calling attention to approved recommen-
dations, and noting that the report is on file for public
review :'in the Community Development Department of Contra
Costa County.
C. Prior to issuance of building permits, on parcels of this
subdivision, submit an as-graded report of the engineer-
ing geologist and geotechnical engineer with a map
showing final plan and grades for subsurface drainage,
subdran cleanouts, and pickup and disposal points,
buttress fills with their keyway locations, retaining
walls, ;. and other soil improvements installed during
grading, all as surveyed by a licensed land surveyor or
civil engineer.
D. A grading bond is required for the work necessary to
carry out the recommendations of the preliminary soil
report. Provide sufficient subsurface information to
estimate the cost of required soil improvements, includ-
ing plan and profile of all planned soil improvements.
4.
E. Prior t filing for grading permit for the subdivision,
grading plans shall be submitted for review and approval
by the County Geologist and the Zoning Administrator.
The grading plan shall include a tree preservation plan.
Existing trees to be preserved shall be protected during
grading or building operations by barricade or other
means at the dripline.
F. The grading plan shall show that cut slope or fill
gradients shall not exceed 3 : 1 except as recommended by
a qualified engineering geologist. Any slopes in excess
of 25 feet in height should be bowed as to avoid a flat
appearance. An acceptable erosion control and revegeta-
tion plan shall be submitted to the Building Inspection
Department for approval.
G. Shouldarchaeological materials be uncovered during
grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s) ,
earthwork within 30 yards . of these materials shall be
. stopped until a professional archaeologist who is
certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA)
and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has
had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the
find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) , if deemed
necessary.
6. Prior to the issuance of any building permit and/or grading
permit for work on any lot, the proposed grading, location and
design of the proposed residential building to be located on
that lot shall be first submitted for review and approval by
the Zoning Administrator. Roof shapes, exterior materials and
colors that ' complement the character of surrounding terrain
shall be utilized. Colors of roofs and exterior materials
shall not be reflective from a distance, but shall be such to
reduce visibility from the surrounding area. Building height,
setbacks and bulk shall encourage low profile, or stepped-on-
grade structures.
A. All residential buildings shall have fire resistant roofs
and exterior materials. All residential buildings shall
have fire protection sprinklers per the requirements of
the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Protection
District and shall include sprinklers for garages and
under decks at downslope hillside areas.
7. A hiking trail for pedestrian purposes only shall be dedi-
cated to the East Bay Regional Park District as shown on
submitted plans and constructed as specified by the Park
District. The trail shall connect from existing trail at the
easterly side of Hidden Pond Lane from the Hidden Pond
5.
Road/Hidden Pond Lane intersection extending westerly to the
fire access and trail at the west boundary and connecting at
the boundary of the East Bay Regional Park District (as
established with MS 37-88) .
A. ' Street ''stripping and signing for the trail shall be
provided for the crossing of Hidden Pond Lane.
B. The trail easement shall be widened to 40 foot width at
the rear of Lot 81 tapering westerly to 15 feet at Lot 3
of adjacent Subdivision 6967.
C. Landscaping and open wire mesh fencing shall be provided
at the 'area of Lots 77, 78 and 81, to be shown on the
final landscape plans and maintained by the homeowners
association. Landscaping at this area shall be in
consultation with the existing adjacent residents of
Subdivision 6967 at the common boundary. The maintenance
of the trail facility other than landscaping and fencing
shall be the responsibility of the East Bay Regional Park
District.
D. The purchasers of lots in the vicinity of the riding and
hiking tail shall be advised of this trail and its use by
the general public.
8. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) , Articles of
Incorporation and By-laws for a mandatory homeowners associa-
tion shall be submitted for review by the Community Develop-
ment Department prior to filing the Final Subdivision Map.
The documents shall provide for among other things, the
ownership and maintenance of the common open space, landscape
areas, pathway system, storm drainage facilities, graded
slopes, terraces, and subdrains. The CC&Rs shall prohibit
long term parking of recreational vehicles, and shall specify
that residential homes within the project may be used as a
family day care home.
9. Development rights for Parcels A, B and C shall be deeded in
separate documents to the County as a scenic easement with the
recording of the Final Map.
10. The applicant shall be strongly encouraged to contribute to
the County homeless fund an amount of $500 per dwelling unit
is suggested. The contributed funds shall be placed in trust
with provisions for the deposit, retention, and payment of
funds to beiapproved by the Zoning Administrator.
i
i
6.
11. The provision of the County Child Care Ordinance shall be
complied with prior to recordation of the Final Subdivision
Map.
12 . Comply with , the requirements of the Transportation Systems
Management (TSM) Ordinance (Ord. #87-95) .
13 . At least 30 ;days prior to filing a Final Map, the applicant
shall submit proposed names of the interior roads for the
review and approval of the Community Development Department
and for assignment of addressing.
A. All residences shall have an address visible from the
streetwhich may require illumination.
14. Hours of exterior or interior construction that creates
significant noise shall be limited to 7: 00 A.M. to 5: 00
P.M. ,Monday through Friday, except national holidays. All
construction and transportation equipment shall be muffled in
accordance with State and Federal requirements.
15. The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road, and
utility improvements will require the review and approval of
the Public Works Department:
A. In accordance with Section 92-2 . 006 of the County
Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to the
provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9) .
Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in
this conditional approval statement. Conformance with
the ordinance includes the following requirements:
1) Constructing road improvements along Hidden Pond
Road and Reliez Valley Road.
a); Existing Hidden Pond Road shall remain at 28
foot wide roadway. The extension of Hidden
Pond Road into the project to proposed Reliez
Valley Highlands Drive may be constructed to a
28 foot width provided that there be no homes
fronting on the road extension and it is
signed for No Parking on both sides, subject
to review and approval of the Zoning Adminis-
trator and the Public Works Department.
Otherwise the extension of Hidden 'Pond road to
proposed Reliez Valley Highlands, Drive, shall
have a standard 32 foot roadway as required by
Ordinance. The other internal public streets
shall have a minimum 32 foot wide roadway to
provide for on street parking.
7.
b)` Construct a left turn pocket on Hidden Pond
Road for left turns from Hidden Pond Road onto
Reliez Valley Road. The left turn pocket
shall be a minimum of 75 feet in length and
have a standard 60 foot flare transition
within a 44 foot width at the left turn pock-
et. This widening will allow for one 16 foot
west bound lane (entering Hidden Pond Road) ,
one 12 foot east bound left turn lane, and one
16 foot east bound right turn lane.
c) Widen the west side of Reliez Valley Road
south of Hidden Pond Road along the frontage
of Tract 7144 to provide a 32 foot road width.
Credit will be given for the full cost of
improvements to Reliez Valley Road from the
County's portion of the fees collected in the
area. The jurisdictional fee split has not
been fully resolved yet, but the preliminary
split assigns 69 percent to the County with
Lafayette at 14 percent and Martinez at 17
percent. Credit for engineering will be at
10% of the cost of improvements.
d)' Submit a sketch plan to the Public Works
Department, Road Engineering Division, for
review showing all public road improvements
prior to starting work on the improvement
plans. The sketch alignment plan shall be to
scale and show proposed and future curb lines,
lane striping details and lighting. The
sketch alignment plan shall also include
adequate information to show that adequate
sight distance has been
provided.
2) conveying all storm waters entering or originating
within the subject property, without diversion and
within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a
natural watercourse having definable bed and banks
or to an existing adequate storm drainage facility
which conveys the storm waters to a natural water-
course.
3) Installing, within a dedicated drainage easement,
an portion of the drainage system which conveys
run-off from public streets.
l
8.
4) street lighting generally shall not be allowed.
Any proposal to install street lights shall be
submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review
and approval to take into account the visual im-
pacts of the street lighting.
5) submitting improvement plans prepared by a regis-
tered civil engineer, payment of review and inspec-
tion fees, and security for all improvements re-
quired by the Ordinance code or the conditions of
approval for this subdivision. These plans shall
include any necessary traffic signage and striping
plans for review by the County Traffic Engineer.
6) Submitting a Final Map prepared by a registered
civil engineer or licensed land surveyor.
B. Construct the on-site road system to County public road
standards and convey to the County, by Offer of Dedica-
tion, the corresponding right of way. All public on-site
roadways shall include a foot six inch sidewalk on one
side. "The special paving at village entrances and the
village entry monuments shall be subject to review and
approval by the Zoning Administrator and Public Works
Department.
C. Construct the on-site private road to County private road
standards, and provide a paved turn around at the
terminus. Develop a road maintenance agreement to ensure
maintenance of the private roads.
D. Construct a six foot walkway that extends from the six
foot siidewalk on Hidden Pond Road to the East Bay
Regional Park District Trailhead.
E. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and
conveyed in a concentrated manner, from draining across
the sidewalks and driveways.
F. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering
Services Division, of the acquisition of all necessary
rights ` of entry, permits and/or easements for the
construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road
and drainage improvements.
G. A detailed soils report shall be submitted to the Public
Works Department for review and approval. This report
shall address road and drainage issues regarding:
Slope stability and slide repairs.
9.
Soil erosion and drainage.
Swbdrains.
- Retaining wall design.
On-site road foundations.
Utility trench backfill.
Any recommended geotechnical work for the road or
drainage systems shall be incorporated into the improve-
ment plans. The improvement plans shall be signed by a
licensed Geotechnical Engineer.
H. Although the storm drainage system is shown on the
submitted plan, comment on the system will be made when
the improvement plans are submitted for review. However,
the applicant shall be aware that the "collect and
convey", requirement requires that storm drainage be
carried to an adequate storm drain system or to a natural
water course with defined bed and banks. The vesting
Tentative Map shows discharge into areas that do not meet
this criteria. These discharge locations are to the
northeast of Lot 3, and near the western end of Highlands
Drive. '
I. Any natural water courses or "defined swales" that are to
be discharged into that are above the Tavan Estates area,
or where there is an increase in run-off, must be proven
to be adequate, subject to the review and approval of the
Flood Control District.
J. Grading permit plans and improvement plans shall show
locations designated for buttress fills, . landslide
removal and replacement or other landslide repair,
subsurface and surface drainage facilities, and access
and cleanout structures for such drainage facilities.
Prior to release of grading or improvement bonds, the
developer shall submit as-built plans showing installed
surface and subsurface drainage facilities, drainage
cleanout structures, and buttress kill keyways, as
recommended by the engineering geologist and/or geotechn-
ical engineer and as surveyed by a land surveyor or civil
engineer.
10.
K. Reliez Highlands Drive shall be designed with a design
speed of 25 MPH. Hidden Pond Road shall be designed with
a design speed of 25, MPH. Provide for adequate sight
distance, in accordance with CALTRANS standards, by
providing sight distance easements as required, at the
following intersections:
Hidden Pond Road at Hidden Pond Lane
- Hidden Pond Road at Dana Highlands Court
- Hidden Pond Road at Reliez Highlands Drive
L. The emergency access at the eastern end of Reliez
Highlands Drive shall be a paved 16 foot roadway with two
foot rock shoulders where the slope exceeds 10%, and a 20
foot wide all-weather roadway between Reliez Highland
Drive and Reliez Valley Road. On site the roadway shall
be centered in a 25 foot emergency access easement. The
sidewalk in the vicinity of the emergency access shall be
of adequate structural design to accommodate fire
fighting equipment.
M All project related construction traffic (including
material and equipment delivery) shall be required to
access :the site via Taylor Boulevard and Grayson Road.
Travel ' on Reliez Valley Road shall be limited to the
section between Hidden Pond Road and Grayson Road.
N. The applicant shall perform a survey of the pavement
condition on Reliez Valley Road between Grayson Road and
Hidden Pond Road prior to the commencement of any work on
the site, and after completion of the project. The
surveys shall be subject to the review and approval of
the Public Works Department. The applicant shall perform
any necessary remedial work to the surveyed portion of
Reliez Malley Road, subject to the review and approval of
the Pubic Works Department.
O. Prior to issuance of building permits contribute an
amount,' as determined by the formula (Contribution =
$4. 14 million [520 + number of approved units in SUB
7151] ) , per residential unit to Road Improvement Fee
Trust (;Fund No. 819200-0800) designated for road improve-
ments to the Reliez Valley Road Corridor, or the fee as
adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
P. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering
Services Division, that legal emergency vehicle access is
available to this property from Reliez Valley Road to the
easterly end of Reliez Highland Drive. If access is not
11.
readily, available, the developer shall demonstrate a good
faith effort to acquire or process with condemnation
proceedings.
Q. Develop' a funding source and execute a road maintenance
agreement to ensure maintenance of both emergency vehicle
accesses on site only.
R. The fire access located at the western end of Reliez
Highlands Drive shall be connected to the existing fire
road and be subject to review by the East Bay Regional
Park District. The sidewalk in the vicinity of the fife
access shall be of adequate structural design to accommo-
date fire fighting equipment.
S. The subdivision improvement plans shall include details
of the, emergency vehicle accesses such as grades,
surfacing, width and connections.
ADVISORY NOTES
A. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements
of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Countywide
Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
Certain improvements required by the Conditions of Approval
for this development or the County Subdivision ordinance Code
may be eligible for credit or reimbursement against said fee.
The developer should contact the Public Works Department to
personally determine the extent of any credit or reimbursement
for which he might be eligible.
B. Comply with: the requirements of the Contra Costa County
Consolidated Fire Protection District.
BT/aa
DAV.COA
3/26/92
3/31/92 - P/C Rev. (v)
8/5/92
EXHIBIT C
�.
Resolution No. 28-1992
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 'COUNTY OF CONTRA
COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDAT-
IONS ON THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN ZONING BY DAVIDON HOMES (APPLICANT
& OWNER) , (2802-RZ) , IN. THE ORDINANCE CODE SECTION PERTAINING TO
THE PRECISE ZONING FOR THE PLEASANT HILLJMARTINEZ AREA OF SAID
COUNTY.
WHEREAS, at request by DAVIDON HOMES (Applicant & Owner) ,
(2802-RZ) , to rezone approximately 70 acres of land from General
Agricultural District (A-2) to Planned Unit District (P-1) and
71. preliminary development plan, was received by the Community Devel-
opment Department on June 17, 1988; and
WHEREAS, simultaneously, the applicant filed Final Development
Plan #3025-88, 'and Vesting Tentative Map (Subdivision #7151) ,
requesting approval of a single family residential project to be
heard concurrently with the rezoning application; and
E
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared and
distributed for this project; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a
public hearing was held by the County Planning Commission on
Tuesday, May 8, 1990, whereat all persons interested therein might
appear and be heard regarding the environmental impact report; and
WHEREAS, on' May 8, 1990, ...the Planning Commission closed the
public hearing regarding the environmental impact report and
directed that written comments will be received through May 24,
1990; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impact report, including responses
to written comments, was scheduledfor a Closed hearing of the
Planning Commission July 24, 1990, which was rescheduled to August
28, 1990, October 9, 1990 and to November 3, 1990; and
WHEREAS, in response to written comments, a revised
environmental impact report was prepared and the scheduled hearing
of November 3, 1990, was continued to November 27, 1990, to provide
public notice of [the revised environmental impact report; and
WHEREAS, on, November 27, 1990, the Planning Commission re-
opened the public hearing for further testimony and then again
closed the hearing for additional written comments through December
28, 1990 and fora decision on January 22, `1991; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission meeting of January 22 , 1991
was canceled andrescheduled for February 12, 1991, at which time
the environmental impact report was determined to be complete and
adequate and a date was set for a field trip to the site and area;
and
M 3 .
# Resolution .No. 28-1992 .
rtz - -- - ible with the- surrounding area. Lot sizes are comparable
with thoseof the adjacent residential areas.
4. The proposal which provides for a harmonious integrated
_ plan of'' residential and related facilities together -with
open space preserving existing trees, justifies exceptions
from the normal application of the code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman and Secretary of this
Commission will'. ' sign and attest the certified copy of this
resolution and deliver -the same to the Board of Supervisors all in
accordance with the Government Code of the State of California.
The instruction by the Planning Commission to prepare this
y= resolution was given by motion of the Commission on Tuesday, March
Jy 31, 1992, by_ thelfollowing vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Clark,Gaddis, Woo, Accornero,
TMY Terrell. .
NOES: Commissioners - Helene T. Frakes.
ABSENT: ` Commissioners - None. r
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None.
I, Marvin J Terrell, Chairman of the Planning Commission of
the County of Contra Costa, State of California, hereby certify
that the foregoing was duly called and held in accordance with the
law on Tuesday, April 28, 1992, and that this resolution was duly
and regularly passed and adopted by the following vote of the
Commiss- ion:
AYES: € Commissioners - CLMK, kCORNERO, FRAKES, Ibo, TERRELL.
NOES: ! Commissioners - NONE.
ABSENT: Commissioners - CARMEN GADDIS.
ABSTAIN: ? Commissioners - GONE,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following appeals were
submitted on these applications: (See attached letters for
details) .
1. Farm Hill Estates Homeowner's Association, April 3 , 1992 .
(1101 Silver Hill Court, Lafayette, California) .
2. Davidon ;Homes by Ann Danforth of McCutcheon, Doyle, Brown
and Emersen, April 9, 1992. (1331 No. California Blvd. ,
{
i
6 r
S Y[
r Findx•r�' s 1Map :
z .
c c C r C.
P 2
,, s { r,
P-1
ZKO
•yi.•.}�;ir::ri i•'%,:r{1::til?.yiv1•`y;wy ........ J�
i�:v{'r i• �ss.!:�r i'{`i:s}ro :}:•:•..
s•'}.'•::• }is.ltrf n}{gym••' :^•f'::.ti >ii{:••.;:'Y.•r::s lir`:%rfi.
A.2
i A"•2
R•10
2 T Y i QLEA$4NT �IlLt. Area
Rezone
From o�-------
l� �ZN �� TERREl1 =` y Chair of the Contra Costa County
Planning Co"MmissiOn, State of California, do hereby certify
that this is a true and correct copy of PAGE. K-12 DF THE 15"= TTv
l�7$ 7-ONWO MAP
indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning
H- Commission lin the matter of DAVIDON NDME3
2802-Rz ,
Chair of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission,State of California
ATT
r tar y t ontra Costa County
anning Co. ssion, State of Calif.
' f
i. D.2
EXHIBIT D
IN ADDITION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS, FOLLOWING ARE
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDING FOR APPROVAL OF THE REZONING (2802-RZ), FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN (3025-88), AND THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (7151).
1. The significant environmental effects identified in the EIR have been mitigated to a
level of insignificance by changes or alterations that have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project, or imposed as conditions of approval. No subsequent
or supplemental environmental impact report is required because the changes and
modifications to the Project do not require major revisions to the EIR. The changes and
modifications to the Project do not involve new significant environmental impacts that
were not discussed in the final EIR. The changes and modifications to the Project in
the aggregate reduced the density and the intensity of land uses and the resulting
environmental effects,thereby constituting a mitigation of the impacts identified in the
EIR.
2. The Rezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map and Final Development Plan provide for 81
residential units on the 70-acre site consistent with the land designations prescribed
in the General Plan providing for single-family low density residential uses. The
location and sizeof the Project site, the nature of the established uses of the property
in the vicinity, and the desirability of retaining some discretionary authority with
respect to the areas set aside as open space, landscaping plans, and grading
restrictions, indicate that a P-1 planned unit district zoning designation is appropriate
for the Project site. These factors and constraints, and the desire to create an
integrated plan for such district, create unusual circumstances and conditions which
affect the Project site.
3. The Project has attributes to be an attractive development that will fit harmoniously
into and have «no substantial adverse effects upon adjacent or surrounding
development. Specifically,the conditions of approval will require landscape screening,
reduced building heights and additional setbacks to reduce visual impacts on
surrounding communities. A substantial portion of the Project site has been set aside
as open space.
4. The project including the Tentative Subdivision Map and the Housing needs in this area
of Contra Costa {County has been considered; and also the regional housing needs as
it relates to the public service needs of County residents and the available fiscal and
environmental resources.
5. No evidence has been presented that would require denial of the Tentative Subdivision
Map under Government Code section 66474. The Project is unlikely to either cause
substantial environmental damage, substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or
their habitat, or cause serious public health problems.
6. The residential units are to be oriented to the maximum extent possible to provide for
future passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities.
i
7. Traffic congestion will be mitigated by presently projected improvements and by
conditions of approval posed on the Project. These conditions include requiring on-
and off-site roadway improvements, and contributions by the Applicant to improve
traffic facilities.
8. The record shows that existing Hidden Pond Road was built with a reduced roadway
width contingent upon no homes fronting on the road and no parking on both sides.
The evidence presented indicates that Hidden Pond Road's present design speed of 25
miles per hour will safely accommodate the Project's traffic, and that the cost and
disruption of widening Hidden Pond Road by four feet would outweigh any potential
safety benefits.
9. These findings including the findings and other determinations set forth in Exhibits A,
B, C and D are to be considered and integrated whole whether or not any of these
findings fail to cross-reference or incorporate by reference.
BT/cw
RZXV:2802-RZ.EXD
8/11/92
f:
;