Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07242001 - D.8 I l TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR �,,: :..�� County DATE: JULY 24, 2001 SUBJECT: HEARING ON THE APPEAL BY THE CITY OF OAKLEY AND THE OAKLEY- KNIGHTSEN FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION OF THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE MODIFICATIONS TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE CYPRESS LAKES SUBDIVISION. THE PROPERTY IS SOUTH OF DUTCH SLOUGH, SOUTH AND WEST OF SANDMOUND BOULEVARD AND EAST OF BETHEL ISLAND ROAD IN THE BETHEL ISLAND AREA. (SD7562, 2918-RZ, FDP 3032-90) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. CONSIDER the recommendation of the East County Regional Planning Commission (Resolution # 12-2001). CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON July 24, 2001 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER_XX This--matter '.has- been continued to August 14, 2001 at 1:00 p.m. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND XX UNANIMOUS(ABSENT-LV—) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Michael Laughlin 335-1204 ATTESTED July 24, 2001 Community Developmentv JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: County Counsel-Silvano Marchesi SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Public Works-Engineering Services, Heather Ballenger Shea Homes(Applicant) National Investors Financial Inc. (Owner) City of Oakley(Appellant) B EPUTY Oakley-Knightsen Firefighter's Association (Appellant) July 24, 2001 Board of Supervisors File#SD7562, 2918-RZ, FDP3032-90 Page 2 2. ACCEPT the determination that the revisions to the project were considered under the certified FEIR, and that no further environmental review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act. .3. DENY the appeal of the City of Oakley and approve the revisions to the project layout and conditions as approved by the East County Regional Planning Commission on April 23, 2001. 4. DENY the appeal of the Oakley-Knightsen Firefighter's Association since the conditions of approval still require that the project annex to either the Bethel Island Fire Protection District or the Oakley Fire District, a decision that can only ultimately be made by LAFCO. 5. ADOPT the findings as approved by the East County Regional Planning Commission as the basis for this decision. 6. DIRECT staff to file the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk FISCAL IMPACT None. The applicant has paid application fees to process this project and is obligated to pay supplemental fees for staff time and material costs which exceed 100% of the initial fee payment. Conditions of approval require payment of fees and assessments and installation of public improvements at the applicant's expense. BACKGROUND This site involves the property south of Dutch Slough, and bounded by Sandmound Boulevard and Bethel Island Road in the Bethel Island area, better known as the Cypress Lakes Subdivision. The 685.9 acres is a combination of grazing land, grassland, and marshland. There is one residence on the northern portion of the site that would be demolished. A series of privately held "in-holding" properties occur within the external boundaries of the subdivision. On September 28, 1990 an application was made to rezone this site to Planned Unit (P-1) District, with an application for a Final Development Plan as well (File 3032-90). The proposal would subdivide the property for 1,330 units, a golf course, clubhouse, riverboat storage area, day care center, school site, fire station, pedestrian and bicycle system, beach park and open space. Minor changes were made before the Board of Supervisors approved the final plan on June 8, 1993. The final unit count was 1,330 units on a plan dated received June 2, 1992. Permitted extensions under the Subdivision Map Act kept the vesting map active for another 6 years, up to April 15, 1999. On March 1, 1999 the East County Regional Planning Commission approved a three-year extension, extending the life of the approval to April 15, 2002. July 24, 2001 Board of Supervisors File#SD7562, 2918-RZ, FDP3032-90 Page 3 The application was originally approved with nine phases. The previous project engineer,Alan Vail of Carter-Burgess/Vail Engineering, proposed a reduction to five phases which provide for a more logical development progression. This change in phasing is permitted under the conditions of approval, and the condition is suggested to be modified to match the plan for 5 phases. The property was held by National Investors Inc., which was recently disbanded by the courts. Through the calendar years of 1999 and 2000, Brookfield California Land Holdings Inc. was seeking to acquire the property and continued .the processing of plans and information required to file for the final map. Brookfield California Land Holdings Inc. decided not to pursue the project due to other priorities, and Shea Homes is now seeking to develop the property. Shea Homes will be using Mid-Valley Engineering to prepare necessary information to obtain final map approval. Shea Homes submitted revised project plans on January 25, 2001. These plans were then routed to numerous agencies, including the City of Oakley and the Oakley-Knightsen Fire District, for comments. The City of Oakley and the Oakley-Knightsen Fire District did not respond to this request for comments from the Community Development Department. Several other developments were proposed adjacent to this site in the early 1990's. These subdivisions include Lesher Lakes, South River and Coronado Estates. These applications were either withdrawn or expired, so there are no large subdivisions with active entitlements adjacent to the site. The County does have an application in for 16 new units north of the project site, with a small commercial site to be developed at a later date. If Shea Homes continues to move forward, filing of the final map would likely occur early next year. Mass grading and infrastructure improvements would likely occur in 2002, with homes in phase 1 occupied by the end of 2003. The project could proceed with a phase per year, with build-out within 5 years depending on sales. The project could take more than five years depending on sales of each phase. Due to the extensive requirements for the filing of the first final map, Shea Homes may apply for an extension for the filing of the first final map in the event that all items are not completed by the April 15, 2002 deadline. The 1993 conditions of approval required the modification of the design of the subdivision to correct internal and external circulation; to work around archaeological sites and to satisfy conditions of reviewing agencies. Shea Homes has prepared revisions to the map which satisfy these conditions of approval as shown on the approved subdivision layout and compliance maps attached for reference. Most of these changes only required review at a staff level or Zoning Administrator hearing level, but some of the substantive changes required approval from the East County Planning Commission. To prevent redundant reviews, staff decided to bring the project back to the East County Planning Commission for a hearing on all of the changes. Staff has taken the original conditions of approval and has modified the text through bold or strikethrough to note the changes requested to be adopted. Substantive changes to conditions of approval include access to the in-holding properties, the use of deep dynamic compaction to consolidate soils under the levees (as opposed to the use of over-excavation and dewatering), and changing the requirement of when the fire station is • • July 24, 2001 Board of Supervisors File#SD7562, 2918-RZ, FDP3032-90 Page 4 built (per the recommendation of the Bethel Island Fire District). Each of these issues is discussed in further detail in the April 2, 2001 and April 23, 2001 staff reports attached for reference. Staff finds that all of the changes that the applicant has made to the project are improvements over the original proposal, and serve to make the project better, with fewer impacts, or the redesign removes design flaws in the original approval. The number of lots may be less than approved as a result of satisfying of conditions, so the impacts of the new proposal may be less than the approved subdivision. No additional review under the California Quality Act(CEQA) is required for these changes. A further discussion of CEQA compliance is discussed as part of the appeal. EAST COUNTY REGIONALPLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS The East County-Regional Planning Commission held two hearings on this matter on April 2, 2001 and April 23, 2001. At the first hearing the Planning Commission took testimony concerning the proposed changes. Topics included interface of the future subdivision occupants and agricultural uses, incorporation of equestrian trails and concerns with construction impacts to existing homes and wells due to fluctuations in the water table. At the second meeting, the Commission reviewed CEQA findings and reviewed information on traffic improvements and fees. The Commission made some further minor modifications to the conditions and unanimously approved the revisions to the project and conditions. APPEALS On May 2, 2001, the Oakley-Knightsen Firefighter's Asssciation filed an appeal of the East County Regional Planning Commission's decision, and the City of Oakley filed an appeal on May 3, 2001. The following responses address the points raised in the two appeal letters, beginning with the Oakley-Knightsen Firefighter's Association letter: Oakley-Knightsen Firefighter's Association Appeal Point: The developer is requesting that the entire area be annexed into the Bethel Island Fire Protection District. Response: The project site is currently within both the Oakley-Knightsen Fire District(southern portion) and the Bethel Island Fire Protection District(northern portion). Condition of approval 66 requires that the project be annexed into one district or the other prior to the filing of the final map for phase 1. This condition has not changed, and a decision has yet to be made by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) on this issue. Over a year ago, the previous project engineer requested a plan for service from the Oakley-Knightsen Fire District and the Bethel Island Fire District. The Bethel Island Fire District responded by noting that the original requirement for a fire station to be built prior to the occupancy of the first home in the subdivision (Condition 65) was not a reasonable requirement. It was not reasonable because there would not be a critical mass of people in the subdivision to support personnel and the .July 24, 2001 Board of Supervisors File#SD7562, 2918-RZ, FDP3032-90 Page 5 station could sit vacant for a considerable amount of time. Based on this analysis, staff amended the language to state that IF the project were to be annexed to the Bethel Island Fire District, that their recommended plan for service would be adopted as an alternative to the original condition. The Oakley-Knightsen Fire District never responded or provided an alternate plan back to the Community Development Department for consideration or inclusion in the revised conditions of approval. The appeal assumes that a decision was made by the East County Regional Planning Commission to allow the project to be served by the Bethel Island Fire District. This is not the case. The condition requiring that the project be annexed into one district or the other remains, and this decision cannot and was not made by the Planning Commission. On April 4, 2000, the Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a resolution of Application (#2000-162) to LAFCO to.detach the territory from the Oakley Fire Protection District and attach the territory to the Bethel Island Fire Protection District. The hearing before LAFCO on this matter has not been held. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Board of Supervisors deny this appeal since the East County Regional Planning Commission, in their recent action, did not change the requirement that the project be served by one district or the other. This matter will ultimately be decided by LAFCO, and the Oakley Fire Protection District should address their concerns with LAFCO. City of Oakley Appeal Point: Conditions of approval relating to off-site circulation improvements are of particular concern to the City. Response: Pages 2 and 3 of the appeal letter outline conditions placed on the project to improve or provide fees to mitigate traffic impacts. Since these conditions are to an approved Vesting Tentative Map, the County can not increase or modify fees or requirements. An analysis of fees was included as part of the discussion in the April 23, 2001 East County Regional Planning Commission report. At that meeting, Public Works staff outlined the process for the review of improvement plans and payment of fees. At the request of the City of Oakley, condition of approval 84 was modified to note that improvement plans for improvements within the City of Oakley will require approval by the City (although this would have occurred even without a change in the condition based on the County's standard practice of requiring review and approval of improvements within an incorporated area). Since the City of Oakley has not completed their General Plan and the necessary environmental review documents for their Circulation Element, modifications to any conditions of this project would be somewhat speculative until those documents are approved. The Public Works staff stated at the hearings before the East County Planning Commission their commitment to work with the City of Oakley on implementing the improvements required by this project. There is also some flexibility in substituting a slightly different improvement for the one noted in the conditions of approval provided that the developer contribution is not increased, and that the substituted improvement achieves the same traffic mitigation as the improvement stated in the conditions of approval. July 24, 2001 Board of Supervisors File#SD7562, 2918-RZ, FDP3032-90 Page 6 Appeal Point: A subsequent EIR should have been prepared pursuant to CEQA Response: General Discussion An Environmental Impact Report(EIR)was reviewed and adopted by the East County Regional Planning Commission on April 5, 1993, along with a Mitigation Monitoring program. The Board of Supervisors also adopted the Mitigation Monitoring program on June 8, 1993. A copy of the approved Mitigation Monitoring program is attached to the East County Regional Planning Commission staff reports for reference. Copies of the Draft and Final EIR's have been provided to members of the Board of Supervisors for reference. The EIR discussed deep dynamic compaction as a possible method in levee construction. In a thorough review of the environmental review documents and transcripts from hearings, staff has determined that the current proposal does not introduce environmental impacts not discussed or reviewed in the existing environmental review documents. The current proposal and new support documentation has clarified or satisfied some to the environmental issues raised at the time. Mitigation measures for deep dynamic compaction and over-excavation and dewatering are both included in the draft and final EIR documents . Since the EIR was certified, the applicant's have done further archaeological testing to accurately delineate the extent of archaeological resources, to further satisfy the requirements of the approval and Mitigation Monitoring program. In a review of the traffic section within the EIR, 17 intersections were analyzed for project related impacts. Traffic impacts were also analyzed for the year 2000 and up to the year 2010. The traffic section does not specifically list projects included in the buildout scenarios, but some of the larger projects that didn't get built surrounding the Cypress Lakes project would have been included in the analysis, potentially showing a degradation of level of service at intersections that may not have occurred. However, other developments further south in Oakley and surrounding communities may have developments which may not have been included in the cumulative analysis. Regardless, the project's impacts analyzed remain the same and will not change since the unit count and amenities have not changed with the current proposal. Improvements to intersections, streets and payment of impact fees will still be required. A new traffic analysis would likely identify that some existing conditions have changed (or that the year 2000 projections may differ), but the mitigation measures required for the project would be similar. Therefore, an updated traffic analysis is not recommended for this project. A cumulative analysis of traffic impacts is a standard component of most EIR's. It is used to determine if the project being considered, when combined with other proposed projects expected to be built (usually within the next 10-15 years), would cause significant impacts. Rarely do these scenarios play out into the future as planned, since development is predicated on many factors that are difficult to predict. Nonetheless, the analysis conducted for the July 24,2001 Board of Supervisors File#SD7562, 2918-RZ, FDP3032-90 Page 7 Cypress Lakes project more than adequately addressed the CEQA requirements for cumulative analysis, and additional traffic studies are not warranted. Further studies and approvals are required prior to the start of construction. A wetlands habitat mitigation monitoring program is required, with a review by the Department of Fish and Game. A lake operation and maintenance plan is also required. A stormwater run-off plan and ground water management plan is required to assure that nitrogen rich run-off from the golf course is correctly discharged. These reports were required as part of the mitigation monitoring program, and staff will monitor this development to assure that these reports are submitted and the recommendations are followed. Attached for reference is a letter from Shea Homes dated June 18,2001 that also provides a response to the CEQA issues from their perspective. Their letter and tables also outline the approximate fees they will pay for traffic improvements and various public services and utilities. Review of CEQA Section 15162 The appeal letter cites CEQA Section 15162 which is a list of items that the lead agency(in this case the County) must use to determine if a subsequent EIR is necessary. Prior to the Planning Commission hearings, staff conducted a thorough review of the draft and final EIR documents, the applicant's proposed changes and the requirements of CEQA to determine that the final EIR was still adequate and addressed the proposed changes. Staff offers the following support discussion to substantiate that the requirements of Section 15162 of CEQA have been met: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The changes proposed to the subdivision as part of this review are changes to satisfy conditions of approval or are minor in nature. The changes were required to lessen environmental impacts (such as avoiding the archaeological mound, locating the child care center away from the lake for safety and moving a portion of the levee to the west on Sandmound Boulevard to improve levee appearance for neighbors) and to reduce exposure of residents to construction related impacts (the proposal to use deep dynamic compaction instead of over-excavation). Since the number of units or the components of the project have not changed at all, there is clearly no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Note that the CEQA section above sates that there must be substantial changes in the project not changes surrounding the project. The appeal letter from the City of Oakley incorrectly applies this section to look at changes in the City of Oakley and various intersections which is not a CEQA requirement since the basic project has not changed. July 24, 2001 Board of Supervisors File #SD7562, 2918-RZ, FDP3032-90 Page 8 The appeal letter indicates that the FEIR focused exclusively on the use of over- excavation, which is not correct. Both methods are given equal weight on page 3-157 of the draft EIR, and an extra paragraph is provided on page 3-158 to discuss the potential for subsidence (a negative impact of over-excavation, but not deep dynamic compaction). Both methods are noted on the impact summary table on page 2-20 of the draft EIR and pages 2-20 and 2-21 of the final EIR, and are given equal weight and discussion. Vibration monitoring is recommended for deep dynamic compaction, but is not expected to exceed safe limits beyond 150 feet from the excavation site, and would not affect any adjacent residences. A balanced discussion and responses occur throughout the response to comments in the final EIR (see pages 4-67, 4-74, 4-76, 4-79, 4-81, 4-86, 4-90, 4-110, 4-114, 4-138, 4-145, 4-242, 4-255, 4-277, 4-279, 4-283, 4-284, 4-289, and 4-291). Recent information by the applicant concludes that deep dynamic compaction will take less time, have less potential for settlement than dewatering, and create far less dust than conventional excavation (conventional overexcavation will require the moving of about one million cubic yards of earth twice). 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects ora substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken. The City of Oakley maintains that the circumstances that have changed include development in and around the City of Oakley, which was anticipated in the cumulative analysis. The appeal focuses primarily on traffic mitigation and fees. The EIR correctly analyzed traffic impacts of the project and includes cumulative traffic impacts based on the development of a number of projects which could be developed in the area (See traffic discussion on page 3-28 of the draft EIR and cumulative impacts section beginning on page 5-2 of the draft EIR). With respect to fees, the applicant has done a thorough analysis to show that the fees required as a result of conditions of approval are adequate to provide necessary traffic improvements to mitigate traffic related impacts associated with the development (see attached response letter from Shea Homes and support documentation). In some cases, more fees were required of this project than would be required today. The City of Oakley is currently working towards the adoption of a new General Plan, and has held community meetings to obtain input. This document will require an Environmental Impact Report to analyze the impacts of the land use decisions that are proposed in the document. The City of Oakley is requesting that the Cypress Lakes project be modified without an approved General Plan and accompanying EIR. The project was approved as a "Vesting" Tentative Map. Section 66498.9, and other July 24, 2001 Board of Supervisors File#SD7562, 2918-RZ, FDP3032-90 Page 9 sections of the Subdivision Map Act protect the developer from subsequent actions by the approving agency which would jeopardize or arbitrarily change the approval. The subdivision approval can not be.legally reopened for consideration by the reviewing agency or an adjoining agency (such as the City of Oakley)without a developer request. In this case, the minor changes requested to the conditions of approval were requested by the developer. The developer could have chosen not to make any positive changes to the project and proceed without a hearing to file the necessary documents and final map. Changes in the availability of electricity and natural gas in the State would not require preparation of a Supplemental EIR. There has not been a statewide building moratorium as a result of the current energy shortages, and developments have not been refused service. Conditions of approval require that the homes exceed building code standards for energy efficiency. Changes in jobs, housing and population conditions in Oakley and East Contra Costa County were addressed in the Cumulative Impacts section of the EIR and do not require that a Supplemental EIR be prepared. The City of Oakley has indicated in their appeal that their desire to annex the property is a change in circumstance that requires a Supplemental EI R. The City does not have an adopted General Plan and sphere of influence, and the developer is not obligated to annex to the City. Again, the project is protected by a Vesting Tentative Map. The City of Oakley has indicated that the project constitutes leapfrog development since other projects planned in the vicinity of the development have not occurred. Since these projects have not developed, localized impacts to traffic, air quality, schools, utilities and public services would be less than anticipated and a Supplemental EIR would not be warranted for this situation. Since this property and surrounding properties are within the adopted County Urban Limit Line, surrounding properties could develop in the near future. Several land owners surrounding this property have contacted the County about development requirements. If these properties were to develop, each would require their own environmental review under CEQA. 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration. B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR. July 24, 2001 Board of Supervisors File#SD7562, 2918-RZ, FDP3032-90 Page 10 C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The certified EIR is comprehensive in its analysis, and no new substantial information has been discovered or provided since its certification to require further analysis. For example, if the previous EIR neglected to discuss air quality impacts (which the document does), and the changed project increased air quality impacts, then a supplemental EIR analyzing this potential impact would be required. To address item B., staff finds that significant traffic effects may be substantially less severe since the units anticipated to be built surrounding Cypress Lakes have not been developed as projected and analyzed. None the less, the developer is still required to provide all necessary traffic mitigation measures. The City of Oakley is also concerned that development triggers within the conditions of approval may not be met and improvements may not be installed if surrounding properties do not develop. However, the developer may be paying a majority of fees for a given improvement which may be combined with other funds to ultimately construct the development. To address item C., the developer has agreed to all required mitigation measures so this item does not apply and would not require further environmental review. Appeal Point: Changes to the internal levee design require a supplemental EIR. Response: As discussed above, staff found a balanced discussion of deep dynamic compaction and overexcavation in the EIR for the project. Extensive geotechnical review has been conducted on this project since its inception, and information is provided in the EIR. These reports established that the existing Sandmound levee could not be used to provide flood protection for the project due to the difficulties in strengthening it with existing homes along it. These reports also established that the proposed perimeter levee foundation would require strengthening due to the liquifaction potential. The project was approved with the understanding (and with conditions of approval 42-52 and 56-63)that additional geotechnical review would be required prior to start of work, and monitoring during the entire process by engineers and geotechnical engineers would be ongoing. Many meetings with the developer, Reclamation District 799 (RD#799) and the Public Works Department have occurred both with Brookfield Homes and more recently with Shea Homes to work out details of the levee which ultimately must be accepted by RD#799. As stated in the RD#799 letter(attached to the April 2, 2001 report)the district supports the use of deep dynamic compaction, but cautions that it may not be able to be used for the entire levee (overexcavation may be more appropriate). The peer reviewer for the district, Lowney Associates, identifies issues and concerns that the district should be aware of before accepting July 24, 2001 Board of Supervisors File#SD7562, 2918-RZ, FDP3032-90 Page 11 the geotechnical information submitted by the applicant. The appeal letter from the City of Oakley highlights points taken from the. Lowney.Report. The fact that responses to this information were not provided to the Planning Commission are irrelevant. The applicant is not required to conduct the very costly location specific geotechnical information at this stage in the process. The construction can not be approved by the County and proceed until this information is prepared and approved by a peer reviewer and RD#799. The City of Oakley letter claims that this additional geotechnical information is necessary to assess the propriety of using DDC and to get public input on the issue. As previously stated, input on the geotechnical aspects of the project was extensive in the earlier environmental review documents and discussed at all the public hearings. Additional information on DDC was provided as part of the East County Regional Planning Commission hearings. The EIR was certified as adequate, and the project and the existing geotechnical conditions have not changed to require a Supplemental EIR. Appeal Point: Changes to levee landscaping require the preparation of a supplemental EIR Response: The appeal letter suggests that there is a conflict between the technical necessities of the levee system (to limit planting to grasses and wildflowers)and mitigation measures recommended in the EIR to mitigate the visual impacts of the levee. The appeal also suggests that the mitigation measures recommended are impossible or inadequate, and a supplemental EIR must be prepared. Page 3-105 of the draft EIR indicates that the landscaped areas would consist primarily of low grasses and wildflowers and some introduced trees and shrubs. In contacting Reclamation District #799, staff verified that the policy which predates the original approval of this project has always been to limit levee landscape to low grasses and wildflowers. The EIR and mitigation monitoring program fully disclosed this fact, and a supplemental EIR is not required. It was expected at the time of the original approval and is likely today that the Reclamation District#799 would be the agency maintaining the levee, and their landscape guidelines would have to be followed. Landscaping, including trees, will be provided at project entrances, in landscaped strips and at the corner of Bethel Island Road. .Appeal Point: Revisions of Conditions of Approval Response: The appeal indicates that the Planning Commission should have taken the opportunity presented by the developer's application to consider changes in the conditions of approval other than those requested by the developer. As previously mentioned, the applicant has vested rights under the approval which allow the applicant to proceed in spite of changed conditions and increased fees. Vested tentative maps, as described in the Subdivision Map Act, were specifically created to protect developers from the type of intervention that the City of Oakley is suggesting. The applicant's attorney has also responded to this point in an attached letter dated July 16, 2001. The letter cites a recent court case that would legally prevent modifications to the conditions of approval of the vesting tentative map approval. July 24, 2001 Board of Supervisors File #SD7562, 2918-RZ, FDP3032-90 Page 12 On page 8 of the appeal letter by the City of Oakley, the City claims that the County chose to freeze the City out of the process of review of this project. The Oakley-Knightsen Fire District has known about this project for over a year due to the request for a service plan by the developer, and the City of Oakley was sent a request for comments two months prior to any hearings. The City did not respond to this request for comments or ask for a meeting to discuss their concerns. Fortunately, meetings and discussions have been ongoing since the appeal between the developer and the City. The County Community Development Department and Public Works Department will continue to work out issues of concern with the traffic impacts and improvements within and around the City of Oakley. (A'ry , "r,4 KLEY . A P1 AC F.!I:FA NJ I IA 1.�,lm!h,I 1F',Ri ofdre Dorn UP A. . CF]Y OF OAKLEY 3633 Main Strict Oakley,CA 947,61 925 6-)C;-0U0 tel 925 62�9 19-4 fax w-,v\v.ci.()ak1CV.C.IAI5 -LIVED July 19, 2001 I MAYOR Brad Nix 2001 VICE IMAYOR Tin: Vmiek Board Of SLIpem'sors CLERKUPERVISORS Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA CO. CouNcu,N I r..%IBr.RS 651 Pine Street, 1st Floor, Room 106 Pat Anderson 1\4artine7., CA 94553 Idt'rev H1.11-1-Aci Carol Rios Re: Cypress Lakes—SD 7562; 2918-RZ; FDP 3032-90 (,'ITY MANAGER M ikc(-)I kcr Dear Supervisors:: Based on a conversation with Shea Homes, the City of Oakley requests a continuance of the appeal hearing for the subject application that is scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on July 24, 2001. The purpose of this request is to allow time for Shea Homes and the City of Oakley to continue discussions related to the appeal of the Subject application. If you have any questions, please feet free to contact this office. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Mike Oliver City Manager CO I-cylakesappealltr/ss CC: Dennis M. Barry, Community Dev. Dir. Mike Laughlin, Project Planner Federal Glover, Supervisor 5th District Gina Martin, Interim Clerk of the Board thea omesR Caring since 1881 July 19.2001 RECEIVED JUL 2 3 2001 CLERK BOARD Or S1JPERVISORS Ms. Gina Martin CONTRA COSTA CO. Clerk of the hoard Contra Costa County Board o['Supervisors 651 Pine Street Matiitlez.Cts 94555 VIA FAX(925)335-1913 Re: Appeal of Modifications of Conditions of Approval for Cypress Lakes and Country Club (County File#SD7562,#2918-RZ and#FDP3032-90 Dear Ms. Martin: Please be advised that we are respectfully requesting a continuance of the above referenced hearing which is currently scheduled for the July 24t" Board of Supervisors Agenda. We are making this request jointly with the City of Oakley. The purpose'of the request is to allow both Shea Homes and the City of Oakley an opportunity to complete discussions regarding the above referenced appeal. In closing, we would appreciate any consideration given to our request. Please feel free to ?Sevy ce should you have any questions. sident n Copy: Federal D. Glover, Supervisor District V,Contra Costa County Mike Laughlin,Project Planner,Contra Costa County Mike Oliver,City Manager,City of Oakley PS/pk 2580 Shea Center Drive, Livermore, CA 94550 tel: 925.245.3600 fax: 925.245.8830 Nvivw.sheahomes.com Mailing Address: P.O. Box 5064, Livermore, CA 94551-5064