Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 12201988 - T.5
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA T. 5 Adopted this Order on December 20, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Torlakson and Schroder NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor McPeak ABSTAIN: None --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Hearing On Appeal Of Sun Capitol Properties, Inc. From The Decision Of The Contra Costa County Planning Commission Relative To The Tentative Map For Subdivision #6973 (Crown Point) In The Walnut Creek Area. This being the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the appeal of Sun Capitol Properties (appellant) from the Contra Costa County Planning Commission decision for denial of the application filed by Sun Capitol Properties, Inc. (applicant and owner) for tentative map approval for Subdivision #6973 to divide 9 (plus or minus) acres into nineteen ( 19) lots in a Single Family Residential District (R-6) at the northerly and westerly extension of Twin Peaks Drive in the Walnut Creek area. Clarence Becker, Sun Capitol Properties, appeared to request a continuance of this matter before the Board due to a number of people not being able to attend today' s hearing during the holidays. On .recommendation of Supervisor Schroder, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the above matter is continued to January 17, 1989 at 2 : 00 p.m. 1 hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an actions taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: �yQ �— 4 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator d By CO3 Deputy Orig. Dept. : Clerk of the Board cc: Community Development Department County Counsel Sun Capitol Properties i RECEIVED i 1 Z° Mr . and Mrs . Ted Tindall SUPERVISOR SLHRO©L'R-_•- 1 1553 Arbutus Drive �� Walnut Creek , California 94595 December 8 , 1988 Supervisor Robert Schroder Supervisor District 0 510 La Gonda Way Danville , Ca . 94526 Subject : Appeal of Sun Capitol Properties , Inc . Agenda of December 20, 1988 Dear Supervisor Schroder : We write to you as with the Holiday Season we will be unable to appear and speak on the above-referenced matter on December 20, ` 1988 . We wish for you to know that the Planning; Commission recognized the flaws in Sur. Capitol ' s proposed subdivision and acted appropriately in rejecting it . Foremost in the shortcomings is the ill-conceived and fully inadequate access into the sub- division . Other unacceptable design and concept issues relative to the severe slope anc terrain also exist . Planning staff and the Planning; Commission considered these factors in their rejection . We ask that you concur with the Planning Commission and in favor of sound development within the County by rejecting Sun Capitol ' s appeal . Thank you for hearing our comments . SincerelyRECEIVED p WrLOR LE IL cLinda L . Tindall SH Ted TindallCF 1Vr_ED TT/LT 7 s News A P P E A L - SUBDIVISION #6973 "CROWN POINT" . APPLICANT & OWNER: SUN CAPITOL PROPERTIES, INC. APPELLANT: SUN CAPITOL PROPERTIES, INC. THE APPLICANT/OWNER REQUESTS APPROVAL TO DIVIDE 9+ ACRES INTO 19 LOTS IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-6) . THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY AND WESTERLY EXTENSION OF TWIN PEAKS DRIVE, WALNUT CREEK AREA. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DECEMBER 20, 1988 - 2:00 P.M. Resolution No. 66-1988 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CONCERNING THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR SUBDI- VISION #6973 OF SUN CAPITOL PROPERTIES, INC. (APPLICANT & OWNER) , IN THE WALNUT CREEK AREA OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, on April 29, 1987, Sun Capitol Properties, Inc. , (Applicant & Owner) , filed an application for tentative map approval for Subdivision #6973 with the Community Development Department, to divide 9 (plus or minus) acres into twenty-one ( 21) lots in a Single Family Residential District (R-6) , located. at the northerly extension of Twin Peaks Drive in the Walnut Creek area; and WHEREAS, a revised tentative map was submitted as suggested by staff together with other exhibits on August 10, 1987, which reduced the number of lots from 21 to 19; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared and cir- culated according to State law and State and County Guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the County Planning Commission relative to the environmental impact report on May 24, 1988, and found the E.I .R. , to be complete and adequate; and WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the County Planning Commission to consider the tentative map for Subdivision #6973 on August 23 , 1988, which was continued to the meeting of September 27, 1988 and October 11, 1988; and WHEREAS, the County Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Comm- ission entertained a motion to DENY the request of Sun Capitol Properties, Inc. , for approval of the tentative map for Subdivision #6973 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners- Nimr, Lane, Feliz, Whitney. NOES: Commissioners - Louise Aiello. ABSENT: Commissioners - Emil Accornero. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - Leslie K. Davis. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this recommendat- ion are as follows: Resolution No. 66-1988 1. The site is not physically suitable for the type of devel- opment proposed. 2. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed den- sity of development. 3. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public hazards as related to soils and drainage. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant and owner have appealed the Planning Commission' s decision to your Board for pub- lic hearing and determination. JUANITA W. WHITNEY Chair of the Planning Commission of Contra Costa County, State of Aontra November 3, 1988 ATTEST: on, Secretary of o County Planning Commission, State of California. Harvey E. Bragdon Community Contra Development Director of Community Development Costa Department County Administration Building County 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 Phone: 646-2091 October 25, 1988 Clarence A. Becker, President Sun Capitol Properties, Inc. 165 Lennon Lane, Suite #101 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Dear Mr. Becker: This letter acknowledges receipt of your letter of appeal dated October 17, 1988 for Subdivision 6973, which was denied by the County Planning Commission on October 11, 1988. Your appeal will be heard by the County Board of Supervisors. You will be notified by the Clerk of Board of Supervisors office when it has been scheduled for hearing before the Board. You should be aware that you or your representative should be present at the hearing. Also, please note that in order for the Clerk of the Board to proceed promptly with the scheduling of this appeal , you should submit a list of names and addresses for all properties within 300 feet of your property along with stamped, self-addressed envelopes to each individual property owner, but do not include a return address, no later than Thursday, November 3, 1988. Please direct the envelopes and list to: Community Development Department, Attention: Byron Turner, 651 Pine Street, North Wing - Fourth Floor, Martinez, CA 94553-0095. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Byron Turner at 646-2091. Sincerely yours, Mary Fleming Chief, Land Development :gms pl4:CrownPte.apl cc: Clerk- of the Board Leonard Vecchi File - SUB 6973 October 17 , 1988 Robert. Schroder , Chairman Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez , CA 94553 Re : Tract 6973 Crown Pointe Subdivision Walnut Creek, California Dear Mr . Schroder : This letter will serve as my request to appeal the decision denying the application for a Tentative Map for the subject subdivision by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on October 11 , 1988. I hereby request the matter of granting a -Tentative Map for Tract 6973 be heard before the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date . Thank you for your consideration in this matter . Sincerely , SUN CA OL PROPERTIES , INC. 'C ENCE A . BECKE , PRESIDENT CB : is cc : Harvey Bragden Byron Turner o rno r—� --� 7-7 165 L.cnnnn Lant,, Suitt, .=101 Walnut Crt,ek, C.9 94593ecr�pf�L£�.�Js�oi) (415) 935-0376 November 1, 1988 Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, north 'soling - Fourth Floor Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Attn: Byron Turner Re: Tract 6973 Crown Pointe, lValnut Creek, California Enclosed please find the list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject property along with stamped, self addressed envelopes as required per the letter from Bary Fleming of October 25, 1988. Sinc e y, Clancy ecker Presiuent CB/4-W 165 Lennon Lane, Suitc x101. LVahnit Creck, CA 94598 (417) 935-0376 (415) 9_35-0980 Telcfai 184=204-021 184-251-004 184-251-017 Kathleen Norton Kent & Suzanne Miller Kenneth & Diane,-Terhune 1527 Arbutius'Drive 1573 Arbutus-Drive Stephen Grasso Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 1741 Lilac Drive Walnut'Creek, CA 94595 184-204-022 184-251-005 184-251-018 Don & Sylvia:Robinson m Ernest & Lindsay"Samudio Gerald & Mary Paulson 1731 Lilac Drive (1529 Arbutus) 1611 Arbutus Way Walnut Creek, CA 94595 1331 Parsons Drive I Walnut Creek, cA 94595 Santa Rasa, CA 95404 184-204-023 184-251-006 184-251-019 ,;. Mary Klare` Ms. Glover Pierre & France Achener 1505 Arbutus Drive 1533 Arbutus Drive 101 Twin F.eaks Drive Walnut ,creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut.,C-reek, CA 94595 184-204-026 184-251-007 184-251-020 Patricia DiBari Eric & Margaret Resendez Thomas & Pennv Br-ejia 1515 Arbutus Drive 1537 Arbutus Drive 111 Twin Peakstrive Walnut Creek, cA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Crgec, CA 94595 � f 184-204-017 184-251-008 �f 184-251-021 Eva Niesterowicz Diane Ryle Earnest & Robin Nelson 1771 Lilac Drive 1541 Arb us Drive 110 Twin Peaks Drive Walnut Creek, cA 94595 Walnut reek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 184-204-029 184-251-009 184-251-022 Terry Macken i Marian Steinbergh Earnest & Robin Nelson c/o PMBIC Edward Shier 110 Twin Peaks Drive 2067 Mt Dibalo Blvd. ; 1545 Arbutus Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut,'Creek, CA 94595 184-204-030 184-251-010 184-251-023 Ronald & Susan-Rothenberg Oscar & Dolores Friborg Bennie & Christine Maced (1781 Lilac Drive) 1549 Arbutus Drive (130 Twin Peaks Drive) 305 Mangrove Way Walnut Creek, CA 94595 2526.='Telegraph_.Avenue_- Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Oakland, CA 94612 184-251-001 184-251-011 184-251-002 Charles McPherson Theodore & Linda Tindall Robert M. Plata 1517 Arbutus Drive 1553 Arbutus Drive Judy T. Parton Walnut ,Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 1521 Arbutus Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94595 184-251_025 184-251-003 184-251-016 Irene Davis,-Stoller Lewis and Cathy Ures Jamshid Pardehpoosh. (150 Twin..-Peaks Drive) 1525 Arbutus Drive Parvin Pardehpoosh 119 Lafayette Avenue Walnut -Creek, CA 94595 1569 Arbutus Drive Hawthorne, NJ 07506 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 184-251-026 184-251-027 184-260-026 Terry Macken Ferenc & Magdalena Pallos Earl & Margaret Costa c/o PMBIC (136 Twin Peaks Drive) 1643 Arbutus Drive 2067 Mt. Diablo Blvd. P.O. Bo A026 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 WalnutZeek, CA 94595 184-251-028 184-270-001 184-260-013 Ferenc & Magdalena Pallos Walnut Creek School Dist. George & Eileen"-Lawrence (136 TwinrPeaks Drive) (1920 Magnolia Way) 1691 Arbutus Drive P.O. Box 2026 960 Ygnacio Vallev Road Walnut-Creek, CA 94595 T. , 'Box ---i. ren ai,�o� Walnut Creek. CA 94596 184-260-005 184-260-014 184-260-006 Bryon & Angela Stein David & Rhoda Benedetti Patricia Anne- Liddell (1632 Poplar Drive) 1685 Arbutus--Drive (1640 Poplar Drive) 1957 Westover Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94595 1325 Camino Verde Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 »' _ Walnut Creek, CA 94595 184-260-015 184-270-007 ! 184-260-016 Patricia Padgett Jack & Margo Pfyde David & E1sije"'Heaton 1681 Arbutus Drive (1648 Poplar"Drive) 1672 Popla Drive Walnut ..Creek, CA 94595 P.O. Box 574 Walnut C, eek, CA 94595 Alamo, A 94507 184-260-008 184-260-017 =" 184-260-009 Keesler Fami1�''Trust Lionel & Marily�in Williams Erna & David Duncan 1656 Poplar%17rive 1675 Arbutus,Drive 1664 Poplar.'Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 i 184-260-018 184-260-010 184-260-024 AAA Commercial' Leasing David & Elsie''Heaton ! Betty Degner (1661 Arbutus Drive) 1672 Poplar Drive 1655 Arbutus Drive P.O. . Box-4728 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut .Creek, CA 94595 Walnut=Creek, CA 94595 ' 184-260-011 i 184-260-025 184-260-012 Mary Louise Mahoney Otto Van.Maerssen Duncan Rowe (1680 Poplar' Drive) Hortensia;,Van Maerssen 1688 Poplar Drive 1983 Reliez Valley Road 1649 Arbutus Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Lafayette, CA 94549 Walnut-;Creek, CA 94595 I i ' 1 i I I I i Sun Capitol Properties, Inc. - Subdivision 7#6973 - Page 7#3 Mary Andre Mr. Clancy Becker Earl & Margaret Costa 21 Lee Street 165 Lennon Lane 7#101 1643 Arbutus Drive Walnut Creek, Calif.94595 Walnut Creek, Calif. 94598 Walnut Creek, Calif.94596 Wesley H. Reeser Stephen C. Sankey Byron & Angela Stein 1751 Lilac Drive 1661 Arbutus Drive 1957 Westover Drive Walnut Creek, Calif.94595 Walnut Creek, Calif. 94595 Pleasant Hill , Calif. 94523 M.H. Lee William B. Wiggington Paul Fitzgibbon 128 Arlene Drive 2280 Diamond Boulevard 7#200 1533 Arbutus Drive Walnut Creek, Calif. 94595 Concord, California 94520 Walnut Creek, Calif. 94595 Robert PlataCraig Dorman Dennis Hoagland 1521 Arbutus Drive 21 Lee Street 8 Arbutus Court Walnut Creek, Calif. 94595 Walnut Creek, Calif. 94595 Walnut Creek, Calif.94596 Lois H. Haye Bennie & Christine Mac edone Steven R. Nelson 20 Arlene Lane 130 Twin Peaks Drive 1710 Newell Avenue Walnut Creek, Calif. 94595 Walnut Creek, Calif. 94595 Walnut Creek, Calif.94595 City of Walnut Creek Omega Terri Almeida Planning Department 940 Tyloer 1843 Newell Avenue 1666 North Main Street Benecia, California 94510 Walnut Creek, Calif.94595 Walnut Creek, Calif. 94596 William V. Kondradt Mr. & Mrs . Connor O'Brien Lydia McIntosh 173 Arlene Drive 1 Raymond Court 182 Arlene Drive Walnut Creek, Calif . 94595 Walnut Creek, Calif.94595 Walnut Creek, Calif.94595 Janet L . Leman Wm. B . Stockbridge C . Condraft 1961 Magnolia Way 1857 Newell Avenue 173 Arlene Drive Walnut Creek, Calif. 94595 Walnut Creek, Calif.94595 Walnut Creek, Calif.94595 Sun Capitol Properties, Inc. Wm. W. Van Laak Judy Parton 1301 Ygnacio Valley Road 7#105 1556 Arbutus Drive 1521 Arbutus Drive Walnut Creek, Calif. 94598 Walnut Creek, Calif.94595 Walnut Creek, Calif.94595 Parkmead HOA - (3) John C . White Attn: Nick Bevilacqua 60 Santa Rita Drive 80 Arlene Drive Walnut Creek, Calif.94595 Walnut Creek, Calif. 94595 NOTICE OF A PUBLI,,C H You are hereby notified that on Tuesday, August 23 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in Room 107, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California, the County Planning Commission will consider a subdivision application described as follows: SUBDIVISION 60/73 (CROWN POINT) - (Applicant and Owner: Sun Capitol Properties, Inc.) The applicant requests approval of a Tentative Map to divide 9+ acres into 19 lots in a Single Family Residential District (R-6). Subject property is described as follows: Located at the northerly and westerly extension of Twin Peaks Drive, in the Walnut Creek area. (ZA: P 14) (CT 3420) (Parcel Nos. 184-251 -026 and 184-260-016 and 020) For purposes of compliance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEGA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project and certified by the County Planning Commission on August 9, 10/88 as complete and adequate. For further details contact the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California, or phone Exron Turner at 646-2021 Harvey E. Bragdon, Director Contra Costa County Community Development Department AP 3c 4186 Agenda Item #t COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1988 - 7:30 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION SUN CAPITAL (APPLICANT AND OWNER) , COUNTY FILE SUBDIVISION 6973: A request for approval for Tentative Map to divide 9+ acres into 19 lots in a Single Family Residential District (R-6) . Subject property is described as fol- lows: Located at the northerly and westerly extension of Twin Peaks Drive, in the Walnut Creek area. (ZA: P-14) ' (CT 3420) (Parcel 184-251-026 and 184-260-016 and 020) II . RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Tentative Map for Subdivision 6973 be approved with Conditions. III. BACKGROUND AND APPLICATION STATUS The application was filed April 29, 1987. Additional soils/geologic in- vestigations were made in June, 1987 and revised plans were received re- ducing the number of lots from 21 to 19 and the application was noticed for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance. This was -subse quently changed in August 1987 to require an EIR. The proposal although consistent with the General Plan had public concerns expressed of potential . adverse effects. The EIR prepared for the proposal was considered by the Planning Commission May 24, 1988 and August 9, 1988 and found adequate. The initial hearing of the project applications of August 23, 1988, was continued to September 27, 1988. IV. EIR SUMMARY The Environmental Impact Report for this proposal was certified August 9, 1988. The impacts associated with the development of the site and recom- mended mitigation measures identified in the EIR are summarized below. Staff comments are provided where appropriate. Refer to the EIR documents for additional information. A. Land Use Impact: The project would significantly alter a visually prominent 9.37 acre ridgeline open space and would contribute to a loss of open space in the area. Page 1 Mitigation: The EIR states that the loss of the 9.37 acre open space is signifi- cant and unavoidable and that measures proposed by the applicant would greatly reduce this potential impact. The response indicate that the open space impact refers to the entire site and the visual impact narrows the significant acreage to the area defined by lots 1-7. Staff Comment: The applicant has proposed an open space easement and has stated that 65 to 75 percent of the area covered by lots 1-8 would be retained in a natural condition to mitigate open space impacts. (See Condition #10) Impact: The proposed project is consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations, but these designations are not compati- ble. Mitigation The site should be rezoned to P-1. Staff Comment The site should be rezoned to a mix of R-20 and -another district as it may relate to the lot sizes and the two phases of the project devel- opment or the entire site should be rezoned to R-15 allowing some lots to be nonconforming to that designation. In addition, a restriction should be made to prevent any further subdivision of the lots into smaller lots after the Final Map is recorded. (See Condition #2 and #12) Impact The project is not consistent with the City of Walnut Creek's Hillside Preservation District. Mitigation The EIR refers to mitigation measures recommended to address protec- tion of the visually prominent ridgeline, existing 'vegetation and steep and unstable slopes. Staff Comments The City' s Hillside Preservation District Ordinance requirements do not apply to this site. Page 2 B. Geology and Soils i Impact_ Grading, trenching, and/or cut and fill activities in preparation of roads, sewers, and building sites could create hazards of new or re- newed slope failure, mudflows and landslides. Mitigation A preliminary soil report should be submitted which meets the re- quirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.402 prior to the is- suance of a building permit. Following approval of the preliminary soil report by the County Plan- ning Geologist, all recommended landslide repair, soil improvement, and groundwater interception should be implemented as recommend in the engineering report. Prior to recording a final subdivision map, the applicant must submit a final report for grading, soil improvements, and drainage and ero- sion control covered by the grading bond and improvement plans for roads and underground utility lines, in accordance with Grading Ordi- nance Section 716-8.1014. Additional grading mitigation measures proposed by the applicant to minimize grading impacts should be followed. During the construction phase, construction operations should be .mon- itored and evaluated continuously by the County to ensure compliance with the final , approved grading plan. Sanitary sewers must be designed in strict compliance with the re- quirements of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's "Procedures to be followed for Designing Sewers to be located in Hillside and Creek areas". Impact Potential seismically induced geologic hazards at the project site include landslides and settlement of fill areas. With or without landslides, settlement, or slope failure, structures could be sub- jected to high intensity ground shaking during an earthquake resulting impossible structural damage. Mitigation Proposed structures must be designed to withstand the effects seismic ground shaking, lurching, and settlement. This includes strict com- pliance with the seismic requirements of the current Uniform Building Code and incorporation of engineering recommendations specified by the Geotechnical Engineer into the final designs of the proposed develop- ment and approved by the County Planning Geologist. Page 3 Impact The proposed development may be affected by expansive soil and soil creep. Mitigation Recommendations for soil improvement and erosion control should be submitted by the applicant's soil engineer to the County Planning Ge- ologist. Staff Comment The EIR indicated that additional investigations should be adequate to address more specific aspects of this geologic, soils and drainage impacts associated with the proposed project. This position was sum- marized as follows: "This is primarily because implementation of some mitigation measures related particularly to grading and drainage could in turn result in other unacceptable impacts. Specifically, on lots 8 and 9, the pro- posed building areas are on fills that probably were not constructed to appropriate standards. The remainder of lot 8 is a very large landslide. To repair the landslide and stabilize the fill at the top of the lots, significant grading would need to occur and this in turn would result in significant visual impacts, cut and fill operations and alterations of natural features. . ." The above response was written prior to a meeting between the appli- cant's geotechnical engineer and the County Geologist and the submit- tal of a revised tentative map. Two lots in the slide below the building site of lot 8 have been eliminated. Based on this change the applicant's geotechnical engineer believes the slide on lot 8 would not need repair. If the slides do not need repair, the EIR findings related to grading impacts from slide repair may no longer apply. There will be conditions for development related to these possible constraints. (See Conditions #3, 4, 5, 6, 7) C. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact Increased runoff would result from the proposed development due to increased impervious surface area associated with the construction of roads, houses, and driveways. Response to Comment 42 in the Final EIR indicates that this impact could be mitigated to insignificant levels. Mitigation A drainage system to collect runoff from the development area should be constructed to accommodate runoff from the on-site spring and in- creased runoff resulting from project development. The drainage sys- tem proposed by the applicant must be approved by the County Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Page 4 Staff Comment Providing for drainage facilities is an ordinance requirement which is also addressed in Condition #9-A-4, including determination of the adequancy of off-site downstream drainage from lots 1, 2 and 3, and providing for the necessary facilities. Impact An increase in downstream sedimentation could result from wind and water-borne sediments carried off site during cut and fill operations and building construction. Mitigation The timing of cut and fill operations should coincide. with the dry summer months. Area not being worked should be regularly watered. Temporary sedimentation control ponds should be constructed on site. Impact Minor surface and groundwater deterioration could result from oils and heavy metals washed from roads, parking areas, and building areas both during and after construction. Mitigation A regular cleaning program should be implemented to clean site drive- ways and parking areas of litter and gasoline and oil spills. The development should be landscaped, to the extent possible, with native vegetation requiring minimum application of fertilizers and pesti- cides. D. Visual Quality Impact The proposed project would significantly affect the visual quality of the area by disrupting the visually sensitive northern half of the site. The Responses to Comments indicate the sensitive area is de- fined by Lots 1-7. Mitigation The EIR states that full mitigation would require that Lots 1 through 7 not be developed. Partial mitigation could be achieved through landscape and building design measures proposed by the applicant, but such measures would not be enough to reduce the impact insignificant levels. The EIR states that no significant, cohesive area will be retained in its natural state and that full mitigation would require reducing the number of units on the site. Page 5 Staff Comments The applicant has proposed an open space easement and has stated that 65 to 75 percent of lots 1-8 would remain in a natural condition to mitigate visual impacts. In addition, a variety of measures have been proposed to improve the aesthetic quality of the landscape and archi- tectural features of the project. (See Conditions # 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16) Impact Construction of the proposed project will introduce a new source of nighttime lights. Mitigation Overhead street lighting should not be installed. Exterior light sources should not be visible from beyond the building envelope. Exterior lighting should be made part of the architectural review process for each residence. E. Traffic and Circulation Impact Development of the proposed project would result in approximately 190 new trips per day, 20 of which would occur during the P.M. peak hour. Mitigation The project applicant should be required to pay a traffic impact mit- igation fee of $2,300 per dwelling unit. (See Condition #9D) Impact A new five way intersection will be created at Twin Peaks Drive, Arbutus Drive, and Royal Glen Drive. Mitigation A stop sign and pavement markings should be placed on Twin Peaks Drive approaching Arbutus Drive. Additional street name signing should be placed at the intersection. Trees and shrubs in the area should be kept trimmed to improve visibility at the intersection. Intersection design should be approved by the County Public Works Department prior to construction. Page 6 Staff Comment i A redesign of the intersection should be required to better define the roadway of Arbutus Drive and provide additional separation of Royal Glen Drive to allow stacking for at least two cars. Adjustment of the existing driveway to the adjacent property at the west side of the intersection may be necessary. (See Condition #18) Additional pe- destrian facilities are needed. (See Condition #11) F. Public Services and Utilities Impact The steep terrain of the property makes sewering the development dif- ficult. Mitigation The proposed development must comply with the development criteria outlined in the CCCSC's Hillside and Creek Area Sewer Policy. One of the following sewerage alternative should be chosen for the proposed development because of the steep slopes on the site and the proposed location of the sewer lines at the bottom of the slope: o Redesign the subdivision to accommodate adequate sewer service facilities; o Install an on-site gravity flow system (with pumps) down to Newall Avenue; o Property owners would acquire their own sewer system for connec- tion into CCCSD facilities, thereby relieving CCCSD of the lia- bilities involve din providing sewer lines at the toe of steep slopes. o The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the proposed project should include the mitigation measures required by CCCSD prior to CCCSD providing service to the project. Staff Comment The requirement for incorporating the mitigation measures into the CC&R's is no longer requested by CCCSD because the requirement was based on the assumption by the District that the sewer system would be private and would be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. The proposed sewer system will be built in accordance with that standards of the Sanitary District and will be owned and maintained by the San- itary District. (See attached CCCSD letter 11/20/87) Page 7 I Impact I The current sewer easement through Parkmead School is inadequate. Mitigation The applicant should obtain a revised sewer easement from the Walnut Creek School District prior to development of the project sites. (Existing sewer easement is adequate per CCCSD letter 11/20/87) Staff Comment A letter from the Contra Costa Central Sanitary District dated Novem- ber 20, 1987 states that the existing easement " can be used to pro- vide sewer service to Subdivision 6973 in accordance with the stan- dards of. the Sanitary District". A revised sewer easement. is not needed. (See attached letter) Impact The project would generate a slight increase in demand for fire and police protection. Mitigation The development should meet fire safety requirements. (See attached letter 5/22/87 of the Consolidated Fire District) Private security during construction could be provided by the appli- cant. The applicant proposes that no on street parking will be allowed and that house driveways will accommodate four vehicles or will have au- tomatic fire sprinklers installed. (See Condition #9B) Impact The project would be required to connect to overlapping water pressure zones. Mitigation The water main extensions would be the financial responsibility of the applicant. (See attached EBMUD letter 6/9/88) Impact The project would generate additional water service demand on EBMUD's available water supply and would be subject to EBMUD restriction re- lated to landscaping. (See attached EBMUD letter 6/9/88) Page 8 Mitigation The following water conservation measures should be incorporated into the project design, construction and landscaping: (See attached EBMUD letter 6%9/88) o Installation of equipment, devices and methodology for plumbing fixtures, such as low flow toilets, shower heads and faucets; o Use of drought-resistant native plant species for private and common area landscaping and use of drip irrigation where practi- cal ; and o Limitations on water landscaping features (i .e. , foundations, fountains, ponds, pools, etc) due to high water loss by evapora- tion in summer months. G. Biotic Resources Impact Construction of houses, roads, and installation of utilities would result in elimination of 9.37 acres of oak woodland habitat. Re- sponses to Comment states: "While the loss of the 9.37 acres of oak woodland habitat might not be considered significant in and of itself, the impact is considered significant in light of the fact that it is the last vestige of oak woodland remaining in the surrounding area. Contribution to the cu- mulative loss of oak woodland habitat to development is also a sig- nificant impact." Mitigation The most significant reduction in habitat impacts would be provided by a modification of the site plan to reduce the number or residential units and set aside some portion of the site as open space. Partial mitigation could be achieved through landscape design measures pro- posed by the applicant. (See Condition #7 and #15) Staff Comment The California Department of Fish and Game did not comment on the loss of this habitat i.n their letter dated July 13, 1988. Fish and Game recommended tree preservation during the field review conducted on August 8, 1988. (See Conditions #7, 10, 13 and 15 concerning trees) Impact Five mature oaks could be eliminated with the proposed general build- ing areas. Responses to Comment states that the applicant intends to preserve the trees; therefore, this impact would not be significant. Page 9 Mitigation When project plans are further refined, the exact building areas should be designed so as to avoid removal of any mature oak trees. (See Conditions #13 and #15) Impact The project may result in the elimination or disruption of wetlands. The Lot 8 building area overlaps the existing clump of willows and rushes which grows at the top of the seep. The building area for Lot 10 is about 30 feet from the area of cattails at the base of the hill . Drainage improvements may alter the water source for the wetland veg- etation. Responses to Comment states that a Stream Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be required. Mitigation The subsurface drainage should intercepted at the bottom of the slope downstream of the existing wetland. All building areas should be set back at least 100 feet from the edge of the seep area. Staff Comment The findings in the EIR are based on comments made by the California Department of Fish and Game prior to a site visit. A field meeting conducted by Ms. Terry Palmisano from Fish and Game with the applicant on August 8, 1988 indicated that the 100 foot setback requirement does not apply and the proposed building site locations for lots 8 and 10 are fine. The regional manager of the California Department of Fish and Game, Mr. Brian Hunter, confirmed by phone conversation on August 8, 1988 that the seep may be removed if it is determined that the water orig- inates from an unnatural source (uncapped reservoir pipe, broken pipe, etc. ) . There is currently disagreement over the source of the seep. If the source is natural , a letter prepared by Fish and Game will de- fine the required conditions for maintenance of the wetland area. See attached letter From State Department of Fish and Game of September 12, 1988. (See condition #19) Impact Existing fruit and pine trees growing in the easement which connects the property to Twin Peaks Drive would be removed as a result of con- struction of Royal Glen Drive. Mitigation Existing trees and vegetation should be retained to the extent possi- ble along the sides of the easement. (See Condition #18) Page 10 Impact j The elimination of oak woodland habitat and its replacement with urban habitat would drastically reduce the value of the project area for wildlife. Mitigation Use of native plants in landscaping would provide some food and cover for animals. Establishment of a buffer zone around the seep and wet- land areas would better allow animals to continue to use the water source. (See Condition #15) Staff Comment A field investigation conducted by the Department of Fish and Game and a follow-up letter will define conditions intended to mitigate impacts to the wetland area. H. Noise Impact Construction of the proposed development would cause a temporary noise increase for Parkmead Elementary School and nearby residences, espe- cially those located along Twin Peaks Drive, immediately adjacent to the proposed site. Mitigation Construction activities should be scheduled on weekdays during daytime hours. Equipment mufflers and housing should be used, and operations should comply with City and County noise ordinances. (County has not adopted a noise ordinance) I . Air Quality Impact Construction of the project would contribute to air pollution caused by increased levels of particulate matter and certain pollutants. Mitigation Exposed soil surfaces should be regularly watered during grading ac- tivities. Construction equipment should be properly maintained. (Ordinance requirement with grading permit) Page 11 J. Energy Impact The proposed project would have short-term energy requirements for construction and long-term energy demands for residential heating, cooling and electrical demand and transportation to and from the project. Mitigation The requirements of Title 24 and other conservation measures should be followed. (Ordinance requirements with building permits) K. Cultural Resources Impact Construction, grading, trenching and site preparation could result in the uncovering of prehistoric or historic cultural materials of ar- chaeological significance, . Mitigation If any archaeological materials are encountered during any ground disturbing activities at the site, construction teams should halt work within 100 feet of the site until a qualified archaeologist has eval- uated the situation and made recommendations. (See Condition #8) IV. PROPOSAL The proposed Crown Pointe residential subdivision is located between the City of Walnut Creek and the City of Lafayette, southeast of the Highway 24/I680 interchange, and approximately 1,000 feet south easterly of the Newell Avenue/I-680 Interchange. The site is bounded in part on the east by the City of Walnut Creek and is within the City's Sphere of Influence. Surrounding land uses are mostly single-family residential to the north, east, and south and a school to the west. Access to the site is via Newell Avenue and Arbutus Drive to Twin Peaks Drive. The irregularly-shaped parcel is located along the northern and western portions of the hill served by Twin Peaks Drive with portions having steepness ranging from 1.5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical ) . The site has remained undeveloped with the same R-6 zoning as the adjacent area and is vacant except for scattered oak and willow trees. The proposed project consists of the development of 19 single-family homes on the 9.37-acre site, an area of infilling. There would be improvement of Twin Peaks Drive as well as new cul-de-sac streets extending from near the intersection of Arbutus and Twin Peaks Drives. Lot sizes would range from about 10,000 to 14,600 sq. ft. on lots 10 through 19 and from 20,000 to 57,100 square feet on the steeper lots 1 through 9, with an average lot size 20, 314 sq. ft. and an overall density of 2 dwelling units per acre. Page 12 Development of the site would be divided into two phases. Phase I would consist of developing Lots 1 through 8 on the northern portion of the site. The building areas on these lots are proposed to be close to the top of the ridgeline because of the steepness of the slopes and associated slope in- stabilities in this area. Phase II consist of developing lots 9 through 19 on the southern portion of the site. For the most part, development of these lots would be below the ridgeline. Preliminary estimates indicate that approximately 5,000 cubic yards of cut and fill would be needed for street and road improvements and approximately 15,000 cubic yards of mate- rial would need to be excavated and recommended for development of the 19 lots. It has been stated by the applicant that the proposed residences would be designed to conform to the contours of the hillside without massive site grading and would extend no higher than the crowns of the existing trees at the ridge of the site. The proposed residences would be approximately 3,000 sq. ft. , typically with a 2,000 sq. ft. footprint and a 1,000 sq. ft. at the second floor level . All buildings along Twin Peaks Drive at the ridge including lots 8 and 9 are proposed to be restricted to earthtone colors and "natural" materials such as redwood siding, shingle sidewalls, brick, or stone. The landscaping as proposed to be designed for soil re- tention, to soften of the buildings into the hillside, visual screening between building sites well as allowing for views. The existing oak trees on site are proposed to be preserved. A. Geologic and Soil Conditions The Tentative Map originally submitted with the application for 21 lots was reduced to 19 lots because of Soil Conditions on the site. The revised map for 19 lots has been reviewed by the County Geologist and is satisfactory subject to additional requirements per the at- tached Conditions for Development of the property. B. City of Walnut Creek The City has suggested that the number of lots at the steeper portion of the site at lot 1 through 7, be reduced, particularity at lots 1 through 3 as it may relate to surface runoff drainage further impact- ing existing downhill residences within the City at the area of Arbutus and Arlene Drives. The drainage facilities within the City at this area extending toward the Tice Creek Channel may be inadequate. See attached letters from the City. C. Road and Drainage Considerations The attached conditions also include road and drainage requirements. The applicant should be fully aware of the County Ordinance Code re- quirements as they pertain to this development. This includes deter- mination adequacy of the off-site downstream drainage facilities. Page 13 IV. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING The area surrounding this proposal was zoned Single Family ! Residential District (R-1) in 1948 including the subject property. This zoning cate- gory was synonymous with the present zoning of the property of single fam- ily residential district (R-6) established in 1959, which allows a high density single family residential of up to 7 dwelling units per acre with lot sizes of 6,000 sq. ft. The Saranape Area General Plan adopted in 1979, designates the subject property for Single Family Low Density of up to 3 dwelling units per acre while retaining the surrounding area at the higher density permitted by the R-6 zoning. The R-6 zoning of the property has not been changed to be consistent with the General Plan although the proposed subdivision is in conformance. The existing R-6 zoning on the site should be changed to be consistent with the General Plan of either Single Family Residential District (R-15) or Planned Unit District (P-1) which would require an additional development plan application. Applying an R-10/R-20 zoning combination to reflect the proposed lot sizes would not meet the consistency requirement. It appears that the most appropriate classification is the Single Family Residential District (R-15) with a Condition that the proposed development would be considered conforming to the R-15 standards. V. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND OTHER MITIGATIONS The applicant has suggested and agreed to the following design considera- tions and other mitigation measures related to the proposed development, which could be incorporated into the requirements for development as may be appropriate: A. Site Planning and Architectural Guidelines (1. ) General Guidelines A Homeowners Association with a Design Review Committee will be created to monitor site development and manage the commonly owned landscape, irrigation and lighting systems. Private maintenance of site improvements and landscape conditions will be addressed in the proposed CC&R's and Homeowner' s Associ- ation Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws. The County could have lien power over the homeowners and Homeowner' s Association if required maintenance does not meet county requirements. Lots and building envelopes have been delineated to provide sta- ble sites for development. Areas where slope instability would threaten structures have been avoided (Refer to the Geotechnical study prepared by Engeo Incorporated) . A setback will be maintained between the seep and a new structure on lot 8 as recommended by the soils engineer and reviewed by the County. Page 14 ^ The applicant will dedicate all utility/emergency access ease- ments as required to meet County requirements and the require- ' / ments of Utility Companies and service districts' Complete plans (architectural , landscape architectural , grading, etc. ) will be submitted for each lot prior to acquisition of in- dividual building permits. These plans will be subject to ap- proval by the county staff and the Homeowners Association. (2. ) Building Conformance to the requirements of the County Zoning Ordinance and all other ordinances is required' Architectural designs are not limited to a particular type or style; however, to a large extent the design of structures should reflect sensitivity to the existing site environment so that the combination of structures, grading and landscaping leave the im- pression of conformance to the land in a way that preserves the natural setting. The specific design of structures must result in a footprint that preserves existing mature oak trees. A combination of staggered exterior wall lines and two-story elements may be appropriate depending on the proposed building size and location' Architectural review applied by the County and requirements of Title 24 will be followed to address energy issues such as building orientation, insulation, reliance on renewable energy resources and the use of energy efficient utility systems' Final house and carport/garage locations should be kept within the building envelope. Roof shapes that complement the character of surrounding terrain and nearby homes should be preferred' Height limitations, setbacks and building coverage limits should encourage low profile, stepped-on-grade structures that conform to the visual character of the site. The highest point of a structure on lots 1-7 should not extend higher than the top of the ridge, where practical ' If this lim- itation is too constrictive, the height limit should be the ele- vation of the crown of the nearest mature oak tree at the ridge (building heights should be set at a level that minimizes dis- ruptions of views from the ridgeline road) ' In order to avoid exact definition of individual lots, fences along property linea should be avoided. Fences, where they do occur, should be established to fulfill normal safety, conve- nience, and privacy requirements, and in all cases should serve to enhance the aesthetics of the development' Chain link or other metal fencing should not be allowed' Wood and wire fencing should be encouraged' Page 15 Any rear yard deck, whether raised or on grade should blend into the design of the structure. The height of the deck should not ` exceed ten feet from the walking surface to the ground where the deck extends beyond the downhillside of the structure. (3. ) Building Materials Building materials and colors should be compatible with design objectives of the development and should be subject to the ap- proval of the County and Homeowners Association. Non-reflective earth tone colors should be utilized on walls and roofs. Fences, border walls and retaining walls should be surfaced with stone, wood or other materials that are colored to blend into the adjacent landscape. Wood siding finished with transparent or semi-transparent stains that allow the texture and natural grain of wood to show should be encouraged. Metal flashing,m roof jacks, vents and metal accessories should be finished in a manner consistent with the design guidelines stated above. No reflective mirror glass or reflective mirror films applied to glass should be allowed. Building materials for exterior walls and roofs will meet the requirements of the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Dis- trict. (4. ) Lighting Exterior lighting should be made part of the architectural review process for each residence. Overhead street lighting will not be installed. Street lighting will be accomplished with bollard type fixtures which focus light downward (A specific fixture has not been selected) . Exterior light sources should not be visible from locations be- yond the building envelopes. (This can be accomplished by con- cealing fixtures or by utilizing "cutoff" type fixtures that conceal the light source) . B. Landscaping and Grading Guidelines (1. ) Construction and Maintenance Restrictions A final grading plan for construction of the subdivision will be submitted to the County prior to commencement of any grading. Additional grading for lot development should be reviewed prior to issuance of building permits for individual lots. Page 16 Pier and grade beam foundations should be used to minimize grad- ing. All mature oak trees on the site should be preserved through careful design and construction technique. All recommendations related to slope stability and construction on the site made in the Geotechnical Report by Engeo Inc. will be followed. Finished grading will provide rounded cuts, shaping of fills and planting so as to provide for a natural appearance of the land- scape. Critical earthwork operations will be performed during the dry weather season (April through November) to minimize site disrup- tion. Natural vegetation will be preserved to the maximum extent fea- sible during all grading and cut and fill operations. Disrupted soils will be stabilized with natural vegetation and approved erosion control techniques prior to winter rains. All unimproved and exposed areas where vegetation removal was necessary for construction will be revegetated with planing plans approved by the County. The installation and maintenance responsibilities of the devel- opers, individual homeowners and the Association will be identi- fied in the Covenants, Conditions and Restriction for the project. Trees removed as a result of poor health conditions shall be compensated for with replacement plantings designed to succeed in appropriate locations. Vegetation removal shall be limited to the removal necessary to meet minimum fire control and safety standards. A 30 foot tran- sition area will be required between new homes and existing fire prone vegetation. Cut and fill slopes steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical shall be retained with stepped retaining walls, each step not exceeding 3 vertical feet. Pockets created by such stepping shall be planted in a manner that preserves the natural character of the slope. No trees with diameters exceeding 12" should be removed without prior approval by the Homeowners Association in any location within the boundaries of the subdivision at any time. Page 17 (2. ) General Planting Guidelines Landscape plant materials should be drought tolerant species which are compatible with site specific soil conditions, microclimate, fire conditions, water supply and character of ex- isting vegetation. New planting in the common areas should be native. New Black Oaks, Live Oaks and Valley Oaks should be planted to protect long term habitat conditions. New planting should not substantially block views of off-site property from adjacent lots or from the road. Plant materials should be selected to promote habitat conditions for wildlife. Soil building forbes should be planted to build thin soils after construction of streets and other site improvements. Plant materials with compatible vegetative forms and colors should be encouraged (rounded native shrubs rather than upright high profile plantings should be sued to maintain the natural setting) . Vegetation should be planted near exposed drainage outlets to lower water velocity, reduce sedimentation and control erosion. (3. ) Specific Landscape Guidelines The individual lots should be divided into three landscape areas and the following guidelines should apply: Natural Landscape Areas The natural areas are to preserve the character of the site as seen from offsite. The natural area is comprised of at least a 20 foot wide strip in the rear of lots 1 through 8, and is the area lot farest from the building. The responsibility for main- taining the vegetation in this area will be that of the homeown- er, and the restrictions and maintenance of the area shall be enforced by the Homeowner's Association. - Appropriate native planting will be required which must be native plantings conforming to the particular habitat of the area in which they are to be planted. - All plantings must be self-sustaining after establishment or on a temporary drip system. - Maintenance is only allowed for fire and environmental pur- poses only. - Plant materials to provide for wildlife diversity. Page 18 f Transition Landscape Area The transition areas are proposed as a 15 foot wide minimum preservation buffer between natural areas and ornamental land- scape areas adjacent to buildings. In addition, any area under the canopy of an existing native tree, or any area with slopes of 30% or greater shall be considered transition area. - Plantings of drought tolerant Mediterranean species and na- tives only. All new trees visible off-site must match character and colors of native vegetation, and match water requirements of the adjoining natural area. - Medium to low maintenance. - Species with medium to low water use species shall be se- lected. Grading under trees to be preserved shall be minimized or prohibited to assure preservation. Annual grass will be trimmed to stubble for fire management by July or shall be irrigated grasses. Ornamental Landscape Area The ornamental landscape area is the remaining area within the building envelope that does not meet the criteria of a natural landscape area or a transition landscape area. - Ornamental and non-native landscape should be allowed. All new trees visible off-site must match character and colors of native vegetation. - Regular maintenance is expected in this area. - Irrigation will be allowed. - No fire prone species should be planted in this area. Engineering and Environmental Mitigation Proposals (1) Structural Requirements Structural designs will comply with design review requirements and the Uniform building code to meet seismic requirements. (2) Drainage All drainage from streets and impervious areas on lots 1, 2 and 3 will be collected and conveyed off site in culverts. The applicant will pay the required drainage fees. Page 19 r Water from foundation drains and downspouts on structures will be directed to underground culverts. ' Concentrated storm waters will not be deposited on the public street surface. Where concentrated waters must be conveyed past public streets they shall be collected in catch basins. When storm waters are concentrated to an appreciable level by * collection on the surface of a public street, the waters shall be directed to catch basins and transmitted through culverts. Erosion control measures will be implemented during construction as required by the County. Storm drainage easements will wherever storm waters are to be conveyed through public pipes. Where driveways merge with the street surface, sufficient lip or . berm shall be provided to prevent water from flowing down the driveways. Any proposed retaining walls will have subdrain systems connected to longitudinal drainage systems. (3. ) Noise and Dust Control All construction contracts will require: - construction vehicles and equipment to be properly muffled; - construction activities at the project site and travel along local haul routes to occur only between normal working hours as defined by the County; and - public notification by the developers of construction timelines to sensitive receptors within 300 feet of proposed construction areas. Water will be applied, as necessary, during site clearing, grad- ing and earth moving to prevent wind blown dust from creating a nuisance at off-site receptors. The contract of the builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor dust generation and be responsible for dust control measures. (4. ) Road Improvements Road improvements to Twin Peaks Drive, Royal Glen Drive and the intersection of Twin Peaks Drive and Arbutus Drive required to serve the site will be constructed by the applicant. Page 20 r Paving, curbs and storm drainage facilities disrupted as a result of construction activities on the project site during road con- struction will be restored to the pre-existing condition by the applicant. Bonding requirements will guarantee that off-site improvements will be constructed. (5. ) Miscellaneous Proposals School impact fees administered by the school district will be paid, as required by the County to mitigate incremental and cu- mulative classroom capacity impacts. If cultural resources are discovered on the project site, work in the vicinity of the find will be halted immediately and the County Planner will be notified immediately. An archaeologist will be consulted if such a consultation is necessary to avoid adverse impacts related to the find. VI . CONCLUSION The Tentative Map for Subdivision 6973 is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning on the property. The site constraints have been reviewed and the project design is appropriate with the attached Conditions utilizing the above design considerations and other mitigations. BT:vpl SUBIII/a:6973.stf revised 9/20/88 df Page 21 a CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 6973: 1. This approval is based upon the tentative map submitted will' the applica- tion dated received August 10, 1987, marked Exhibit 1 together with other Exhibits as follows: A. Exhibit #2: Conceptual Development Plan dated received April 7, 1988 indicating lot development including building orientation, driveway access, roof styles, and building relationship to terrain. Scale 1"=40' B. Exhibit #3: Conceptual plan showing typical cross sections with landscaping, dated received April 7; 1988. C. Exhibit 34: Conceptual Landscape Plan cross station for Lot 2 dated received April 7, 1988, indicating how this and similar lots will be developed. D. Exhibit #5: Conceptual Landscape Development Plan for Lot 2 dated received April 7, 1988, indicating how this and similar lots will be developed. 2. This approval is for a maximum of 19 lots. All lots within the subdivision area approved as shown on the Tentative Map with building setbacks and sideyards of not less than 15 and 10 feet respectively. Prior to filing the Final Subdivision Map, a rezoning application shall be filed to rezone the property to Single Family Residential District (R-15) . The lot sizes, as shown on the Tentative Map, shall be considered conforming and in com- pliance with any rezoning of the property. 3. Prior to recording a Final Map or issuance of Building Department permits submit a preliminary soil report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.402, and recommendations of Engeo, Inc. dated 7/27/87, for review and approval of the Planning Geologist. Report shall provide recommendations for landslide repair, soil improvements, and in- terception and disposal of groundwater where necessary for long-term sta- bility for structures, roads, storm and sanitary lines, and long-term ero- sion .control . Allow 60 days for review. 4. Concurrently with recordation of the Final Map, record a statement to run with deeds to parcels of this subdivision acknowledging the approved pre- liminary soils report and citing the conclusions and recommendations of the report. 5. Prior to issuance of Building permits on this subdivision, repair land- slides, improve soils, and intercept groundwater as recommended by the ap- proved preliminary soil report, and submit final grading report and as- graded geologic/soils map showing location and cross-sections of landslides repaired and areas of soil improvement, and plan and cross-sections of surface and subsurface drainage facilities installed, as surveyed by a civil engineer or land surveyor. 6. A grading bond is required to carry out recommendations of the approved preliminary soil report detailed above. Bond amount shall be based on a cost estimate of a civil engineer and the approved preliminary soil report. 1 7. Prior to filing for grading permit for the subdivision, grading plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the County Geologist and the Zoning Administrator. The grading plan shall include a tree preservation plan showing all trees of 6 inch diameter or more and those to be remained. 8. If 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 So- ciety for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) , if deemed necessary. 9. Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as follows: 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 Code include the following requirements: 1. Constructing road improvements along the frontage road. A por- tion of the site fronts on twin Peaks Drive, a private road. widening Twin Peaks Drive to 20 feet and upgrading it to County private road standards, as shown on the Tentative Map, will sat- isfy this requirement. 2. Constructing paved turnarounds at the ends of the proposed onsite roads, as shown on the Tentative Map. 3. Undergrounding of all utility distribution facilities. 4. Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the subject property to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks or to an existing adequate storm drainage facility. The nearest drainage facility is located in the vicinity of Newell Drive and Idlewood Drive. Its adequacy must be verified prior to being allowed to discharge run-off to it. The applicant is proposing to divert runoff from Lots 1, 2 and 3 to this drainage facility. The adequacy of this facility to convey this diverted stormwater must also be verified. 5. Submitting a Final Map prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. 6. Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil en- gineer, payment of review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements 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. B. Construct the onsite road system and the offsite portion ,of Royal Glen Drive to County private road standards as 20 foot paved roads within 25 foot easements, as shown on the Tentative Map. These roads shall be signed for NO PARKING. Parking bays shall be provided where fea- sible, subject to final determination by the Zoning Administrator. C. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, that legal access to the property is available from Arbutus Drive. D. Comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Countywide Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Super- visors. Currently the fee for this region of the County is $2,300 per single family dwelling unit. E. 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 per- manent,, road and drainage improvements. 10. A scenic easement shall be provided across Lots 1 through 8, extending from the building location areas as identified on the Tentative Map to the east and west boundaries of the Subdivision. Subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to filing the final map. This is to re- strict buildings and structures from those area and to indicate that no further lot division shall occur. 11. Prior to filing the final map plans shall be submitted for review and ap- proval for pedestrian facilities to be provided as follows: A. Two all-weather walkways or paths having a minimum width of 4 feet within a landscaped 10 foot wide easement connecting to the school property contiguous to the west boundary, from the cul-de-sac thrunaround of Twin Peaks Drive in the vicinity of lots 4 and 5, and from Royal Glen Drive in the vicinity of lots 10 through 13. The school districts agreement to these connections shall be submitted with the final map. B. All weather 4 foot wide walkways or paths extending from Arbutus Drive on one side of the roads serving this development, on and off site. The private road easements shall be widened as necessary or separate easement provided. 12. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, Articles of Incorporation and By- Laws for a mandatory Homeowners Association shall be submitted prior to recording the final map. These documents shall provide for establishment, ownership and maintenance of roads, landscaping, fencing, open space, drainage, paths and walkways, lighting, etc. and shall also prohibit fur- ther division of lots within the Subdivision. All plans submitted for building permits shall indicate having been approved by the Homewowner's Association or their representatives. The Declaration or Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall comply with the applicable reg- ulations of the California State Real Estate Commission and provide for an Architectural Review and Maintenance Committee to administer and enforce them, including the following: A. A statement that the project will be subject to all of the conditions and restrictions related to the approval of the Tentative Map for Subdivision 6973. B. A statement that the Association shall have the power and duty to maintain, repair, replace, and manage all (if any) common areas and facilities including that related to scenic easement areas, in sub- stantial compliance with the aforesaid approvals for the project. C. A statement that any new construction, reconstruction or exterior modification shall conform to the requirements of Contra Costa County. D. A statement in the CC&R's providing authority for Association to col- lect the costs from the owners of property within said project of any required maintenance and/or enforcement of the CC&R's. E. To the extent possible the applicant shall provide to and deposit with the Architectural and maintenance Committee, within 6 months of the time the majority of its governing directors are elected by resident homeowners, a base line sum to be determined upon review and approval of the Zoning Administrator which will be restricted to being used to fund enforcement of these CC&R's by said association. 13. Building location envelopes for each lot shall be as shown on the Tentative Map. Guidelines for development of all lots shall utilized the conceptual plans listed in the Exhibits of Condition #1 above. 14. Prior to the issuance of any building permit and/or grading permit for work on any lot, the proposed grading, location and design of the proposed res- idential building to be located on that lot shall be first submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. Buildings shall be de- signed and built to fit hillside areas. Building design as viewed from the surrounding area particularly at downslope areas shall appear as one story, stepped or split level . Condition shall be given to the following: A. The specific design of buildings or structures shall result in a footprint that preserves existing mature oak trees. A combination of staggered exterior wall lines and two-story elements may be appropri- ate depending on the proposed building size and location. B. Roof shapes that complement the character of surrounding terrain and nearby homes shall be utilized. C. Height limitations, setbacks and building coverage limits shall en- courage low profile, stepped-on-grade structures that conform to the visual character of the site. D. The highest point of structure on lots 1-7 shall not extend higher than the top of the ridge. If this limitation is too constrictive, the height limit should be the elevation of the crown of the nearest mature oak tree at the ridge (building heights should , be set at a level that minimizes disruptions of views from the ridg' eline road) . Additional tree planting may be required. E. Any rear yard deck, whether raised or on grade should blend into the design of the structure. The height of the deck should not exceed ten feet from the walking surface to the ground where the deck extends beyond the downhillside of the structure. All support structures shall be screened and landscaped. 15. A landscape and irrigation plan for each lot shall be submitted fro review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building permit utilizing as a guide the conceptual landscape plans in the Exhibits listed in Condition #1 above. Any existing trees which may have its root system endangered during grading or building construction, shall be barri- caded, staked at the dropline or by other means to protect those trees. New landscaping shall utilize California Native Species and conform to the Contra Costa County policy on water conservation requirements for new de- velopment, and shall be installed prior to occupancy. 16. Wood and open wire fencing shall be permitted, while chain link or other metal fencing shall be discouraged. Extended fencing along property lines shall be avoided at areas visible from surrounding areas. 17. Prior to filing a Final Subdivision Map, street names shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Department. All res- idences shall provide for an address visible from the street, which may require illumination. 18. Off-site roadways to the intersection of Arbutus Drive shall have a minimum width of 20 feet which shall be defined by curbing, berming or edging, clear of existing trees. The intersection area of Arbutus Drive shall be improved to allow separation with proposed Royal Glen Drive and possible relocation of the driveway to 1611 Arbutus Drive. Sound barrier fencing shall be provided for the off-site portion of Royal Glen Drive acceptable to the two adjacent property owners. Plans, for the requirements of this Condition shall be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Admin- istrator and the Public Works Department, with the filing of the Final Subdivision Map. 19. If the water seep at the lower portions of lots 8 and 10 is determined to be a natural source, the CC &R's shall provide that this area be retained for wildlife use and that no fence shall be installed at the lower portion of lot 10 to prevent wildlife access. A. Site grading shall not encroach into the water seep area. B. Runoff and storm drain facilities shall be located downslope of the water seep area as close to the adjacent shcool property as feasible. The following statements are NOT Conditions of Approval ; however, the applicant should be aware of these requirements prior to attempting to secure building permits. A. The Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District. See attached. B. The Central Costa Sanitary District. See attached. C. The East Bay Municipal Utility District. See attached. D. Health Services Department. See attached. BT:vpl SUBIII/a:6973.coa The following statements are NOT Conditions of Approval ; however, the applicant should be aware of these requirements prior to attempting to secure building permits. A. The Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District. See attached. B. The Central Costa Sanitary District. See attached. C. The East Bay Municipal Utility District. See attached. D. Health Services Department. See attached. BT:vpl SUBIII/a:6973.coa Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS C sta FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, CQU(lty Director of Community Development DATE: November 3, 1988 SUBJECT: Hearing on Appeal of the Appeal of Sun Capitol Properties, Inc. , relative to the Planning Commission's denial of the tentative map for Subdivision #6973 (Crown Point) , in the Walnut Creek area. (S.D. III ) . SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Accept the Environmental Review documentation prepared for this project as being complete and adequate. 2. Deny the appeal filed by Sun Capitol Properties, Inc. , on the denial of the tentative map for Subdivision #6973 . 3. Grant the appeal filed by Sun Capitol Properties, Inc. , relative to the denial of Subdivision #6973 . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGMA RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDA OF COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF