HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09221992 - D.1 • - Contra.
TO: , BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Costa
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON County
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: September 17 , 1992 ST9`�ouH cA
SUBJECT: Adoption of findings of approval and conditions of approval for
Subdivision #7451 located in the E1 Sobrante area.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
t
RECOMMENDATIONS G
I
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'
Board's action on this proposal.
i
FISCAL IMPACT
None
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.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON September 22 , 1992 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
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:Arthur Beresford, CDD
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED September 22 , 1992
cc: Public Works PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
JEDCO Engineers, 930 Dwight Way, Ste. 10A COU ADMINISTRATOR
Berkeley, CA 94710
Jan Eakle, 597 La Paloma Rd. BY , DEPUTY
E1 Sobrante, CA 94803
2 .
i
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 for adoption.
On September 15, 1992 Mrsl Jan Eakle raised questions on whether the findings
were correct in that she believed that the Board had closed the hearing on March
24 , 1992 , thus allowing further testimony, rather than continued the item as
listed in the findings.
Staff has listened to the tape of the March 24, 1992 Board hearing on SUB #7451.
There was first a motion by Supervisor Powers to close the hearing. The County
Counsel recommended that the hearing left open for staff imput and be continued
rather than closed as it wiould be over 10 days before the Board would meet and
the Subdivision Map Act requires a decision within 10 days. Chair McPeak then
stated that the action was to continue the public hearing, leave it open and set
April 7 , 1992 as the date for decision. The Board then voted on the motion to
continue the item for hearing conclusion and decision. ,
~ \
~
EXHIBIT A
.-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 7451
1. This applicant isapproved, generally, as shown on the Revised Tentative Map dated,
received March 30, 1992 by the Community Development Department except that the
project ieapproved fora rnaxinnunn of 13 lots. Unless otherwise notod, the fmUmvvinQ
conditions shall b\ complied with before filing the final map. Atleast 3Odays prior to
filing afina| map 'or issuance ofagrading 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
from Hortscienced 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
systu/na Other tre'es not recommended for preservation mthe report may Uaremoved.
Landscape debris shallbadisposed ofmanappropriate 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 thimcondition.
. `
3. With the filing of the Final Map, Covenants, Conditions, and Remtrodono (CC8'R's)
shall be submitted for review by the Community Development Department.
4. Should archaeological materials beuncovered during grading,trenching orother on-site
axcavation(a), earthwork within 30 yards of thase 'mnateria|s shall be stopped until a
professional archaeologist who iscertified bythe Society for California Archaeology
(8C/\) and/or the .S0dety of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA) has had an
opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and Suggest appropriate
rnitiQadon<s>' if deemed necessary.
5. Sewage disposal serving the properties concerned in this application shall be provided
bVthe West Contra Costo Sanitary District. Each individual living unit shall be served
by a separate sewer connection. The eavvany located within the boundaries of the
properties concmn d shallb integral part ofth West Contra Costa Sanitary
umtnoz's sewage collection syat
6' Water supply menx g the properties concerned shall be by the East Bay Municipal
Utility District. Ea I ch individual living unit shall be served by a separate water
connection. Such vVater distribution system located vvitUm the boundaries of the
properties concerned inthis application shall become anintegral part ofthe East Bay
yNunic\p8! Utility District's ovanyU water distribution system.
`
.
\ '
°� |
'
'
.�
'
2' .
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 ~ .'. soil,
andfoundation report meeting the requirements of subdivision ordinance section 94-
4.420 for review and approval of the Planning Geologist. Moaounag mheU 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
to the property acknowledging the approved report by title, author (firm), and data'
calling attention to approved recommendations, and noting that the report isonfile for
public review inthe Community Development Department mfContra Costa County.
�
9. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall oony 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,Monegerngnt(TSW4) P\enfm/raxievvendapprova| ofthaZoning
Administrator (unless otherwise required by a TSM Ordinance). The approved TSM
Plan shall be operative prior tofinal inspection by the Building Inspection Department.
12' Street names shall be acceptable to the Community Development Department and the
West Contra Costa County Fina Protection District.
13' Prior to recording the Final Mop for this site, the applicant shall submit Landscape
Plan conforming to the County's Water Conversation policies.
A. Native, drought-resistant plants shall be used whenever feasible.
B. A rninirnurn of two 1 5-gallon street trees for each lot except for Lots 1 and 13
xvhena 4 trees shall be planted, to be maintained by the applicant until
occupancy,,of the residence. The Zoning Administrator shall review and
approve thaimtnyattree planting plan. The extra street trees t neededf Lots
5, 6, 7 and 9 shall be planted within the creek setback area. Suitable California
native sped I es may be 5 gallon sized.
14' The k 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
(1-2feet tall) and fenced alow fence (3-4feet taU)' Gates may bminstalled inthe
fence. The ooerio 'aaoennentyhaU not allow the engcdm) of fences within the creek
setback area other than three strand non-barbed vvina fences.
`
|
!
` | .
^ |
. .
3.
�
15. Prior to issuanc6 of building permits on the lots of the subdivision, the Zoning
Administrator shall review and approve house plans. Houses shall bekept rather small
(1.80[] to 2,500 'square feat mnaxirnurn), decks ahmU be kept close to the ground (less
than 6 feet above ground) and site grading shall be kept to a minimum.
!
The f (4) recorifigured lots at the end of the cul-de-sac shall provide for at least four
off-street parking s, two of which must be placed beyond the setback area.
16. Noise generating tuction activities shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 A.M. to
5:00 P.M., Mond I ay through Friday, and shall be prohibited on State and Federal '
workingholidays. The restrictions on allowed
days may be modified on prior written_
approval by the Zoning Administrator. Failure to comply with this condition could lead
to stop work orde�rs for this project.
17. The project sponsors shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal
combustion' enginesgood condition, and to locate_ _'_--_ ,
rating e I quipment such as aircompressors and concrete pumpers aafar away `
from Ung residences as possible. Failure to oorncdy 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 |nspectinn Department. Dust
shall he kept down by watering which shall be accomplished by watering truck on
site or from hydrants on site. Failure to comply with this condition could lead to stop
work orders for this project.
^
79' Residences shall be equipped with illuminated house numbers clearly visible to the '
street.
'
20' The perimeter of the site, other than the cre8k setback area, ehoU be fenced with a
suitable G' tall solid vvmnd 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 oe used to notify prospective buyers of the presence of a nearby horse
stable operation.
22. The following
require the review and approval of1hPublic Works Department:
A. In d of the County Ordinance Code' this
subdivision o of the County Subdivision Ordinance
(Title 9). Any exceptionstherefrom must baspecifically listed inthis conditional
mppr�vd statement. Conformance with the Ordinance includes the following
requirements:
/
`
/
| '
| `
/
^ '
`
4. '
`
1) Chapter 96-10, "Underground Utilities".
Undergrmunding 0fall,utility distribution faculties, including the existing
unities along the LaPaloma Road frontage.
2) Section 96-14.002, ''|rnprmxarnant 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 ofcurb shall be 10 feet from the ultimate right ofway 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 ofthe lights shall badetermined bythe 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 natural watercourse having definable bed and banks Vr10
an existing adequate storm drainage facility which conveys the storm
waters toonatural watercourse.
Designing and constructing atmvnn drainage facilities required by the
Ordinance incompliance with specifications outlined in Division 914 of
the Ordinanceand in compliance with design standards of the Public
Works Department.
Although the storm drainage system iushown inthe proposed tentative
map, comment onthe system will bamade when the improvement plans
are submittedfor review.
\
5> insteUinQ within a dedicated drainage easement, any portion of the
drainage system which conveys run-off from public streets.
6) Relinquishing "development rights"
the s,tructdre setback area of the creek. The structure setback area shall
be
etermined by using the criteria outlined in
'Way and Setbacks", of the Subdivision Ordinance. ' -~--
of |
|
�
i
!
!
.
. ^
' .
|
. |
. .
/
.
.
7) Submitting
pm
�ment 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 p|a.nn for review by the County Traffic Engineer.
8i Submitting a Final Map prepared by a nagiStanad civil engineer or '
" x*euland surveyor.
� |
B. Convey � the County' by Offer of Dedication' additional right of way on La
Paloma Roodamrequired 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 ofway and on other parcels
of land. Stop signs on La Paloma will not be considered an acceptable
mitigation measure.
'
D. Furnish proof 1othe Public VVOrhs Departrnant, Engineering Services Division,
of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for
he construction of Vffaba' temporary or permanent, road and drainage
improvements.
E. Relinquish abutter's rights ofaccess along La Paloma Road with the exception
of the proposed public road intersection. -
F. Construct the on-site road system toCounty public road standards and convey
to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the corresponding 52-foot width right
of way. �
G. Prevent mto,nn dnainaga, originating on the property and 'conveyed in a
concentrated from draining across th id |km and driveways.
H. Subn11L 11 brt::L(;h plan to the Public Works Department, Road Engineering
alignmentDivision, for review showing all public road improvements prior to starting work
on the improvement plans. The sketch plan shall be to scale and
~..~- proposed
s^eu.h m/y I ment plan shall also include adequate information to onovv that
adequate sight distance has been provided.
|' The applicaint shall construct creek improvements
asoaUad out in the "Sen
Pablo Watershed Study" and as directed by the Public Works �
Department, Flood Control Public. '
OR AT THE APPLICANT'S OPTION
. |
/
!
| ^
'
8. -
`
'
Contribute ansfoot ofImpervious surface area tothe San Pablo Creek
Study mitigation fund, to be used for improvements within the San Pablo Creek
Watershed Study.
J. |noteU "0o Parking" signs along La Paloma Road as directed by the Public
Works Department.
K. Conatunt ,curband gutter' athree foot asphalt concrete sidewalk, necessary
`
longitudinal and transverse drainage, and necessary pavement widening o|omg
the east sl e of Lo Paloma Road. .
|
These off-site improvements will extend from the existing frontage
irnprovann nta just north of Cheb/a 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 ing road right Ufway |ine).
l
L. |na1aU o stop sign on the Subdivision cul-de-sac, La Paloma Court' at its
intersection with LaPaloma Road.
ADVISORY NOTES
'
The following statement,arenotoondhdonsufapproval; hovver' 'thedovo|uparmhmuld.ba
aware of them priorto rd I questing building permits.
A. Building Inspection Department:
'
1 ' Preliminary mpi/a report required.
2. Grading plans and parrni1a required. `
3. House numbers shall be illuminated.
B. West Contra CCounty Fire Protection District:
Comply with the Dlistrict's requirements as outlined in their letter dated January 10,
1990, concerning I this subdivision.
C. Comply with theOrdinance.
D. Public Works Department:
1This may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish &
Game. It notify the Department of Fish &
GBnx 47' YountviUe' California 84589' of any proposed
construction, within this development that may affect and fish and vvi|dUfG
resources, perthe Fish 8' Game Coda. .
|
`
'
,
|
' | 7.
'
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 requirement's of the
BhUge/Thoroughfmrg Fee Ordinance for the B Sobnanta Area of Benefit as
adopted by; the Board of Supervisors.
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
SUBV|/7451C'AB '
3/1S/B1
4/17/91
5/14/91 - Rev'P/C (v)
9/15/82 - Rev. B/S (a)
. .
'
|
|
'
'
|
\
EXHIBIT B
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FINDI I GS RELATING TO SUBDIVISION NO. 7451
I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 22, 1989 JEDCO Engineers(Applicant) and M. Awad AI-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 EI 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 , al ter 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.
i
2.
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 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.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD
The administrative record before this Board relating to the project includes, without
limitation, the following:
A. The application for a tentative subdivision map, togethe►._with all documents,
files, and reports on the project maintained by the County Community
Development Department, including all revised plans and amps submitted by
the applicant;
B. All staff reports on the project;
C. All documentary and oral. evidence received and reviewed by the Commission
and this Board before and during the public hearings on the project;
D. The negative declaration on the project, including the initial study, all notices
relating to the negative declaration, and all documents and reports incorporated
by referenceJnto the negative declaration;
E. 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;
J
F. 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 County Ordinance Code; (c) other county policies and
regulations; and (d) applicable state and federal law, rules, and regulations.
i
3.
G. 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.
Ill. GENERAL MATTERS
This Board intends that each finding made by it herein is base don all 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 findings 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 not 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 approval include a requirement that La Paloma Road be designed
iso that the sight distance from the street entering the subdivision meet the
appropriate CALTRANS standards.
i
4.
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.
Finding 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, Section 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 area 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.
I
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.
�a
5.
i
5.
Evidence: Both the previous County General Plan, as amended by the 1980 EI
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 EI 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.
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.)
i
6.
Finding 9: The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
Evidence: Both the existing County General Plan, as amended by the EI
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 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 explanation 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.
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.
i
i
'i
7.
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.
i
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-prices 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.
SPVII/7451 .AB
9/17/92
i
I,
I
I
RECEIVE®
TRANSCRIPT OF A PORTION OF THE BOARD OF S PE VRg- 1992
HEARING ON SUB #7451 ON MARCH 24, 99
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
Supervisor McPeak: Thank you. That concludes the rebuttal. Do you have any other
questions you want to ask of anyone.
Supervisor Powers: I'd move to close the public hearing.
Supervisor McPeak: It's.been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed. That passes unanimously. So, the hearing is closed. Mr. Powers.
Supervisor Powers: I would like to have the opportunity to sit down with staff and explore
some of the questions that were raised in the testimony of some of the individuals including
this sight distance issue and the issue of the stop sign and the issue of the way the road
impacts the adjacent houses and driveways and the like, so I'd like to put this over for
decision to the next Board meeting.
Victor Westman: Out of an excess of caution, could I suggest then that we leave the hearing
open at least to hear from staff as to any proposed additional conditions and any comments
on those, otherwise we also run into the literal language of the Subdivision Map Act that does
say you're supposed to make.a decision within ten days after you close the hearing.
Supervisor Powers: Okay, because this won't come back for two weeks then because we
don't have a meeting in one week.
Victor Westman: But leave the hearing open and fix it two weeks from now for the limited
purpose of addressing your questions and any proposed conditions concerning them..
Supervisor Powers: Yes. Fine. That's okay. Is that okay. (Supervisor Fanden, fine)
Supervisor McPeak: Okay, then the action is to actually continue the public hearing, leave it
open and continue the decision until April 14 or April 7 I'm sorry for decision and we'll place
it on the 10:45 A.M. calendar. May I ask a question of staff just so that I can get an idea
before we then are in a position of voting. Staff was recommending Option A. That is a
change from what had been the previous position of Option C. Can you explain the reasons
for the change.
Dennis Barry: Basically, the staff had recommended to the County Planning Commission the
approval of 14 lots, the Commission in fact approved 12, and at this point staff is saying we
would uphold the Commission approval.
Supervisor McPeak: And it was the Board before who had denied but not on your
recommendation.
Dennis Barry: That's correct.
2.
4
Supervisor McPeak: So, you didn't switch. Could. Would you explain why we are switching.
Or considering a switch. Just summarize the changes in the proposal since it was before us
before.
r
Dennis Barry: Basically, the refinement of the information on the sight distances is the key
piece of information that the Board considered when you decided to reconsider this
application. The safety of the approaches and as I understand Supervisor Powers comments
he would like additional information or refinement and discussion with staff on particularly the
approaches to the other driveways, the sight distances involved 'and the vertical alignments,.
vertical curves going into the other driveways.
Supervisor McPeak: Thank you.
Supervisor Powers: Yeah, I'd like to explore the stop sign situation too. To see if that means
anything.
Supervisor McPeak: Alright, all those in favor of the motion, say aye. Opposed. That passes
unanimously to continue the item for the hearing conclusion and decision on April 7th at
10:45 A.M. Thank you.
SPVII/Notes.AB