HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09151992 - 1.55 .. 5
Contra,.
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS = Costa `
� a4dn a.__µ , County;
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON'
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ��
STa ^t
DATE: August 28, 1992 �ouni
SUBJECT: Adoption of findings of approval of Subdivision #7451 located in the
El Sobrante area.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Accept as adequate and in compliance with CEQA, the negative
declaration, posted for this project.
2 . Approve the tentative map for Subdivision #7451 subject to .
attached conditions contained in Exhibit A.
3 . Adopt findings as set forth in Exhibit B as the basis for the
Boards action on this proposal.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On April 7, 1992 after several hearings the Board of Supervisors
declared their intent to :approve Subdivision #7451. The Board had
previously denied the Subdivision and after . granting
reconsideration reheard the project and decided to approve the
project.
The Board further declared their intent to approve the subdivision
for 13 rather than 14 lots requested.
The County Planning Commission had earlier approved the Project for
12 lots. Their approval was appealed by both the applicant and a
neighbor, Mrs. Jan Eakle.
On April 7, 1992 the Board of Supervisors directed that new
findings be developed for their consideration. After thorough
consideration the attached findings are recommended f t ' n.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATUR
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION dFP5OARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(,S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON September 1 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that this matter is DEFERRED to September 22,
1992 at 10: 45 a.m. for decision.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED September 15 , 1992
cc: Public Works PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
JEDCO Engineers, 930 Dwight Way, Ste. !OA ANO COUNT DMINISTRATOR
Berkley, 'CA 94710
_... ,ian Eak i e, 597 La Paloma Rd. BY , DEPUTY
EI Sobrante, CA 94803
Exnibit A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 7451
1. This applicant is approved, generally, as shown on the Revised Tentative Map dated
received May 17, 1990 by the Community Development Department except that the
project is approved for a maximum of twelve (13) lots. Unless otherwise noted, the ✓
following conditions shall be complied with before filing the final map. At least 30
days prior to filing a final map or issuance of a grading permit, a revised site plan will
be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator providing for the
following changes:
A. The creeks set back line between affected lots to be moved to coincide with
the lot lines.
2. At least 30 days prior to filing a final map or issuance of a grading permit for this
development the developer shall submit a site/grading plan detailing how the existing
large trees on the site shall be retained in accordance with the April 22, 1991 report
from Hortscience. Trees shall be accurately identified on the plan. Drip lines of trees
shall be staked during grading on the site to prevent inadvertent damage to tree root
systems. Other trees not recommended for preservation in the report may be removed.
Landscape debris shall be disposed of in an appropriate manner except that the debris
shall not be placed in a sanitary landfill. Prior to finalization of the grading permit, the
applicant shall provide proof that landscaping debris has been disposed of in
accordance with this condition.
3. With the filing of the Final Map, Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's)
shall be submitted for review by the Community Development Department.
'4. Should archaeological 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 Archaeologists (SOPA) has had an
opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate
mitigation(s), if deemed necessary.
5. Sewage disposal serving the properties concerned in this application shall be provided
by the West Contra Costa Sanitary District. Each individual living unit shall be served
by a separate sewer connection. The sewers located within the boundaries of the
properties concerned shall become an integral part of the West Contra Costa Sanitary
District's sewage collection system.
6. Water supply serving the properties concerned shall be by the East Bay Municipal
Utility District. Each individual living unit shall be served by a separate water
connection. Such water distribution system located within the boundaries of the
properties concerned in this application shall become an integral part of the East Bay
Municipal Utility District's overall water distribution system.
7. At least 60 days prior to recording a Final Map, issuance of a grading permit, or
installation of improvements or utilities, submit a preliminary engineering geology, soil,
1
and foundation report meeting the requirements of subdivision ordinance section 94-
4.420 for review and approval of the Planning Geologist. Measures shall be provided
in the report to mitigate any soil instability concerns of the County relative to accept-
ing the road for maintenance purposed.
8. Concurrently with recordation of the Final Map, record a statement to run with deeds
to the property acknowledging the approved report by title, author (firm), and date,
calling attention to approved recommendations, and noting that the report is on file for
public review in the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County.
9. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall carry out the recommendations of the
approved report.
10. Make the approved preliminary engineering geology and soil report available to
prospective buyers of lots of this subdivision.
11 . Prior to the issuance of building permit, the applicants shall submit a detailed
Transportation Systems Management(TSM) Plan for review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator (unless otherwise required by a TSM Ordinance). The approved TSM
Plan shall be operative prior to final inspection by the Building Inspection Department.
12. Street names shall be acceptable to the Community Development Department and the
West Contra Costa County Fire Protection District.
13. Prior to recording the Final Map for this site, the applicant shall submit a Landscape
Plan conforming to the County's Water Conversation policies.
A. Native, drought-resistant plants shall be used whenever feasible.
B. A minimum of two 15-gallon street trees for each lot except for Lots 1 and 13
where 4 trees shall be planted, to be maintained by the applicant until
occupancy of the residence. The Zoning Administrator shall review and
approve the street tree planting plan. The extra street trees not needed for Lots
5, 6, 7 and 9 shall be planted within the creek setback area. Suitable California
native species may be 5 gallon sized.
14. The creek setback area shall be placed in a scenic easement that will not allow the
erection of structures, patios, lawns or other intensive landscape uses within the creek
setback area. The edge of the creek setback area shall be mounded with a low mound
(1-2 feet tall) and fenced with a low fence (3-4 feet tall). Gates may be installed in the
fence. The scenic easement shall not allow the erection of fences within the creek
setback area other than three strand non-barbed wire fences.
15. Prior to issuance of building permits on the lots of the subdivision, the Zoning
Administrator shall review and approve house plans. Houses shall be kept rather small
(1,800 to 2,500 square feet maximum), decks shall be kept close to the ground (less
than 6 feet above ground) and site grading shall be kept to a minimum.
2
The four (4) reconfigured lots at the end of the cul-de-sac shall provide for at least four
off-street parking spaces, two of which must be placed beyond the setback area.
16. Noise generating construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 A.M. to
5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on State and Federal
holidays. The restrictions on allowed working days may be modified on prior written
approval by the Zoning Administrator. Failure to comply with this condition could lead
to stop work orders for this project.
17. The project sponsors shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal
combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition, and to locate stationary
noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and concrete pumpers as far away
from exiting residences as possible. Failure to comply with this condition could lead
to stop work orders for this project.
18. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator following review by the Building Inspection Department. Dust
shall be kept down by watering which shall be accomplished by a watering truck on
site or from hydrants on site. Failure to comply with this condition could lead to stop
work orders for this project.
19. Residences shall be equipped with illuminated house numbers clearly visible to the
street.
20. The perimeter of the site, other than the creek setback area, shall be fenced with a
suitable 6' tall solid wood fence or an alternative fence agreeable to neighbors of
property owners and the Zoning Administrator.
21 . At least 30-days prior to filing a final map, the applicant will submit a proposed
covenant declaration for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The
covenant shall be used to notify prospective buyers of the presence of a nearby horse
stable operation.
22. 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) Chapter 96-10, "Underground Utilities".
Undergrounding of all utility distribution faculties, including the existing
unities along the La Paloma Road frontage.
3
2) Section 96-14.002, "Improvement of County Streets".
Constructing road improvements along the frontage of La Paloma Road.
Constructing curb, four-foot six-inch sidewalk (width measured from
curb face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and
necessary pavement widening along the frontage will satisfy this
requirement.
The face of curb shall be 10 feet from the ultimate right of way line.
3) Installing street lights and annexing the property to County Service Area
L-100 for maintenance of the street lights. The final number and
location of the lights shall be determined by the County Traffic Engineer.
4) 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 watercourse.
Designing and constructing storm drainage facilities required by the
Ordinance in compliance with specifications outlined in Division 914 of
the Ordinance and in compliance with design standards of the Public
Works Department.
Although the storm drainage system is shown in the proposed tentative
map, comment on the system will be made when the improvement plans
are submitted for review.
5) Installing within a dedicated drainage easement, any portion of the
drainage system which conveys run-off from public streets.
6) Relinquishing "development rights" over that portion of the site is within
the structure setback area of the creek. The structure setback area shall
be determined by using the criteria outlined in Chapter 914-14, "Rights
of Way and Setbacks", of the Subdivision Ordinance.
7) Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer,
payment of review and inspection fees, and security for all improvement
required 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.
8) Submitting a Final Map prepared by a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor.
4
B. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on La
Paloma Road as required for the planned future width of 60 feet.
C. Provide for adequate sight distance at La Paloma Road in accordance with
CALTRANS standards. The applicant should be aware that this may require
performing work out side of the public road right of way and on other parcels
of land. Stop signs on La Paloma will not be considered an acceptable
mitigation measure.
D. 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.
E. Relinquish abutter's rights of access along La Paloma Road with the exception
of the proposed public road intersection.
F. Construct the on-site road system to County public road standards and convey
to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the corresponding 52-foot width right
of way.
G. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a
concentrated manner, from draining across the sidewalks and driveways.
H. 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.
1. The applicant shall construct creek improvements as called out in the "San
Pablo Creek Watershed Study" and as directed by the Public Works
Department, Flood Control Public.
OR AT THE APPLICANT'S OPTION
Contribute 50.25/square foot of Impervious surface area to the San Pablo Creek
Study mitigation fund, to be used for improvements within the San Pablo Creek
Watershed Study.
J. Install "No Parking" signs along La Paloma Road es directed by the Public
Works Department.
K. Construct curb and gutter, a three foot asphalt concrete sidewalk, necessary
longitudinal and transverse drainage, and necessary pavement widening along
the east side of La Paloma Road.
5
These off-site improvements will extend from the existing frontage
improvements just north of Chabre Court, northerly to McCormick Road
(approximately 375 In. ft.).
The face of the curb shall be 20 feet from the centerline of the road (5 feet
from the existing road right of way line).
L. Install a stop sign on the Subdivision cul-de-sac, La Paloma Court, at its
intersection with La Paloma Road.
ADVISORY NOTES
The following statement are not conditions of approval; however, the developer should be
aware of them prior to requesting building permits.
A. Building Inspection Department:
1 . Preliminary soils report required.
2. Grading plans and permits required.
3. House numbers shall be illuminated.
B. West Contra Costa County Fire Protection District:
Comply with the District's requirements as outlined in their letter dated January 10,
1990, concerning this subdivision.
C. Comply with the requirements of the Park Dedication Fee Ordinance.
D. Public Works Department:
1 . This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish &
Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish &
Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed
construction within this development that may affect and fish and wildlife
resources, per the Fish & Game Code.
2. This project may also be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of
Engineers. The applicant should notify the appropriate district of the Corps of
engineers to determine if a permit is required and if it can be obtained.
3. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the
Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the EI Sobrante Area of Benefit as
adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
6
4. The applicant will be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for
Drainage Area 73 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
AB/aa
SUBVI/7451 C.AB
3/19/91
4/17/91
5/14/91 - Rev-P/C (v)
7
o
Exhibit: B
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FINDINGS RELATING TO SUBDIVISION NO. 7451
I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 22, 1989, JEDCO Engineers (applicant) and M. Awad Al-Khudari
(Owner) filed an application requesting approval of a tentative map (Subdivision No. 7451) to
subdivide 4.58 acres into 14 parcels.
The subject property fronts 370 feet on the westerly side of La Paloma Road,
approximately 70 feet south of the La Paloma Road-McCormick Road intersection in the El
Sobrante area.
For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, a notice of Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance was duly provided by the staff on September 28, 1990, and
written and oral comments were subsequently received.
This tentative map application was duly scheduled for public hearing before the
County Planning Commission ("Commission") on March 26, 1991, at which all interested
persons could appear and be heard. On said date the application was rescheduled for April
23, 1991. On April 23, 1991, there was no quorum of the Commission; therefore, the
application was rescheduled for May 14, 1991. On May 14, 1991, the public hearing was
held by the Commission, and all interested persons were allowed to appear and be heard. On
said date, after closing the public hearing, the Commission approved the application for 12
parcels instead of 14 parcels, subject to specified conditions of approval.
Subsequently, the applicant filed a timely appeal and Mrs. Jean Eakle, a neighbor,
filed a timely complaint from the Commission's decision.
Notice of a hearing before the Board of Supervisors ("Board") on June,9, 1991 was
given, and on that date the Board held a hearing on both the appeal and the complaint, and
the proposed tentative map. The Board held further hearings on June 23, 1991, July 9, and
July 23,. 1991. At each hearing all interested persons were allowed to appear and be heard.
On July 23, 1991, after closing the public hearing and having reviewed and considered
the record, the Board announced its intention to deny the appeal of the applicant and grant the
complaint of Mrs. Eakle, and instructed its staff to prepare findings for a disapproval of
Subdivision No. 7451 at a subsequent meeting. On October 22, 1991, the Board disapproved
the subdivision application without prejudice and adopted findings supporting that decision.
On October 31, 1991, the.applicant and the owner requested that the Board reconsider
its disapproval of the subdivision application. On December 17, 1991, the Board granted the
request to reconsider. On March 24, 1992, the Board held a hearing to reconsider the
subdivision application, and the Board continued the hearing to April 7, 1992.
On or about March 30, 1992, the applicant submitted a revised tentative map,
containing 13 lots (compared with 14 lots in the original tentative map).
On April 7, 1992, the Board, having reviewed and considered the record, including
additional information supplied by the applicant and the revised tentative map, declared its
intention to deny the applicant's appeal and Mrs. Eakle's complaint, approve the negative
declaration, and approve the revised tentative map submitted by the applicant, subject to
conditions, and directed its staff to.prepare appropriate findings for consideration at a
subsequent meeting.
IL DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD
The administrative. record before this Board relating to-the project includes, without
limitation, the following:
1. The application for a tentative subdivision map, together with all
documents, files, and reports on the project maintained by the County Community
Development Department, including all revised plans and maps submitted by the applicant;
2. All staff reports on the project;
3. All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed by the
Commission.and this Board before and during the public hearings on the project;
4. The negative declaration on the project, including the initial study, all
notices relating to the negative declaration, and all documents and reports incorporated by
reference into the negative declaration;
5. This Board's findings, resolutions, orders, and all other documentation
relating to the°approval of the project, including the conditions of approval attached to this
Board's approval of the project;
6. All.matters of common knowledge and all official enactments and acts of
the County, such as (a) the County's General Plan in effect when-the application for the
project was accepted as complete by the County.on or about September 4, 1990; (b) the
2
County Ordinance Code; (c) other County policies and regulations; and (d) applicable state
and federal law, rules, and regulations.
T Information and evidence received in connection with the request for
reconsideration, including without limitation site views and the applicant's revised tentative
map.
The foregoing listing of items included in the record is not necessarily exhaustive.
III. GENERAL MATTERS
This Board intends that each finding made by it herein is based on all the facts in the
entire record before this Board, including without limitation the information that is recited in
the discussion in each particular category of these findings and including all written and oral
testimony to the Planning Commission and to this Board.
If any finding is rejected by a reviewing court for any reason, this Board intends that
all other findings on the particular subject matter shall remain as the findings of this Board on
the particular matter.
IV. FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Finding 1: There is no substantial evidence that the project will or may have a
significant effect on the environment.
Evidence: All the information contained in the record, in particular the initial
study and the public comments received, and the revised tentative map and site views.
The initial study considered the original proposed tentative map, which included 14
parcels. The revised tentative map consists of 13 parcels, and the lot configuration
has been modified accordingly,
Explanation: The record does not include any substantial evidence that a fair
argument could be made that the project might cause a significant environmental
impact.
Finding 2: The project will not cause a significant impact on traffic safety for motor
vehicles, .bicyclists, or pedestrians.
Evidence: The revised tentative map includes one lot fewer than did the
original tentative map. La Paloma Road will be realigned to provide for adequate
sight distances. Further, La Paloma Road is a collector street. The conditions of
3
approval include a requirement that La Paloma Road be designed so that the sight
distances from the street entering the subdivision meet the appropriate CalTrans
standards.
Explanation: The above project modifications and conditions of approval
relating to the design of La Paloma Road will ensure that any traffic safety impact
caused by the.project is less than significant. Among other factors, the redesign of
and improvements to La Paloma Road will improve sight distances and other aspects
of traffic safety.
Findings 3: The project will not result in significant exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards.
Evidence: The report of the County Planning Geologist dated February 15,
1990, and the subsequent Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation conducted by Abel R.
Soares & Associates, Inc., dated March 20, 1990, demonstrate that the site is suitable for the
proposed development. The conditions of approval require that additional engineering,
geology, soil and foundation reports meeting the requirements of County Ordinance Code
section 94-4.420 be approved by the Planning Geologist prior to recording the Final Map,
issuing a grading permit or installing improvements or utilities.
Explanation: The existing information indicates that the project can be built to
comply with County standards. The conditions of approval and subsequent review by the
Planning Geologist will ensure that County standards will be met and that no significant
exposure to geologic hazards will occur.
Finding 4: The number of housing units was not reduced as a mitigation measure or
project alternative for a particular significant environmental effect. (Pub. Resources Code,
§.21085)
Evidence: The County has found that the project will not have a significant
effect on the environment and has not required a reduction of housing units. The concerns
regarding the design of La Paloma Road and the geology of the site are not related to the
number of units.
Explanation: The revised tentative map and conditions of approval requiring
that CalTrans standards for site distances be met is the reason for approval of the revised
tentative map. The reduction of lots to 13 in the revised tentative map is not the reason for
approval.
4
V. FINDINGS PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND
COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
Finding 5: The revised tentative map, together with the provisions for its design and
improvement, is consistent with the County General Plan.
Evidence: Both the previous County General Plan, as amended by the 1980 El
Sobrante Area General Plan Amendment, and the 1990-2005 County General Plan (adopted
on January 29,'1991), call for single family residential high-density on the site. This would
permit 5 to 7.2 dwelling units per net acre.. However, the Plan also provides that unique
environmental characteristics may justify a reduced number of units or intensity of use than is
normally allowed. The overall density of the project is 3.44 dwelling units for net acre.
There is a creek running through the site that the County wishes to preserve. There are also
numerous trees on the site that are worth preserving.
Explanation: The lower density is appropriate in order to preserve the creek
and the numerous trees on the site. The conditions of approval require that the creek setback
area be placed in the scenic easement to prevent the erection of structures, patios, lawns or
other intensive landscape uses within the creek setback area. These factors combine to make
a lower density appropriate, and the Board finds that they constitute unique environmental
characteristics that justify a reduced number of units.
Finding 6: The project is consistent with and conforms to the applicable zoning
regulations in the County Ordinance Code.
Evidence: The site is zoned R-7. The minimum lot size in this zoning district
is 7,000 square feet. The proposed lot sizes range from 7,317 square feet to 26,625 square
feet.
Explanation: All of the lots are larger than-the minimum lot size. No variance
is requested or required under the zoning ordinance.
Finding 7: The project and the tentative map are consistent with the open-space
element.
Evidence: The density is well-designed, is of a suburban character, and is in
the low-to-middle range of the density designated in the plan.
Explanation: The open-space element for the El Sobrante area contains policies
Nos. 3-186 and 3-191. This project is consistent with these two policies and the other
policies contained in the open-space element.
Finding 8: The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed.
5
Evidence: The site is physically similar to the surrounding area, which is
developed with single-family residences and a condominium complex.
Explanation: Other residential-projects have been successfully completed in the
immediate area. Vehicular access and egress can be created to meet CalTrans standards.
(See Section IV, Finding No. 2.)
Finding 9: The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
Evidence: Both the existing County General Plan, as amended by the El
Sobrante Area General Plan Amendment, and the 1990-2005 County General Plan, adopted
on January 29, 1991, call for single family residential high-density on the site. This would
permit 5 to 7.2 dwelling units per net acre. However, the Plan also provides that unique
environmental characteristics may justify a reduced number of units or intensity of use than is
normally allowed. There is a creek running through the site that the County wishes to
preserve. There are also numerous trees on the site that are worth preserving.
Explanation: The lower density is appropriate in order to preserve the creek
and the numerous trees on the site. The conditions of approval require that the creek setback
area be placed in the scenic easement to prevent the erection of structures, patios, lawns or
other intensive landscape uses within the creek setback area. These factors combine to make
a lower density appropriate, and the Board finds that they constitute unique environmental
characteristics that justify a reduced number of units. All of the lots are larger than the
minimum lot size. No variance is requested or required under the zoning ordinance.
Finding 10: The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage.
Evidence and Explanation: See the findings, evidence, and explanations cited
in Section IV of this Findings.
Finding 11: The design of the subdivision is not likely to substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
Evidence and Explanation: There are no known rare or endangered species on
the site, either on land or in the creek. The conditions of approval will help preserve the
riparian habitat. The subdivision is designed to avoid damage to the creek.
Finding 12: The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health
problems.
Evidence and Explanation: There is no evidence that the design of
subdivisions is likely to cause public health problems, and there is no such evidence
concerning this subdivision.
6
Finding 13: The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, required
by the public at large, for access through, or use of the property within, the subdivision. ,
Evidence and Explanation: There are no easements for the public at large that
are affected by this subdivision.
Finding 14: The discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in or add to
violation of existing regional water quality control board requirements.
Evidence and Explanation: The conditions of approval require that there be
sewer hookups as approved by the West Contra Costa Sanitary District. These additional 13
homes will not result in any violation.
Finding 15: The design of the subdivision would provide, to the extent feasible, for
future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities.
Evidence and Explanation: The conditions of approval require that the zoning
administrator review and approve house plans. All applicable building code requirements
must be met, including passive or natural heating or cooling standards.
Finding 16: The subdivision is consistent with the provisions of Government Code
section 66412.3, in that it considers the housing needs of the region and balances these needs
against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental
resources.
Evidence and Explanation: The project is consistent with the General Plan and
the Zoning Ordinance, which call for single-family residential uses. The project is in
character with other developments in the area. There is a growing demand in the region for
moderately-priced single-family housing. This project will help meet that demand. Neither
the public service needs of the region's residents or the fiscal or environmental resources of
the region will be burdened by this small project.
VI. CONCLUSION
The Board hereby notes that since its decision of October 22, 1991 it has received the
applicant's revised tentative map, further information and evidence, and site views. Taking
into consideration the entire record, the Board declares that the above findings are supported
by substantial evidence in the entire record. Such additional evidence has caused the Board to
make the.above findings and rescind its earlier findings.
7
N