Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02141989 - T.6 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS T. 6 F ZOM. ', Harvey E. Hragdon Contra Director of Community Development • Costa DATE: January 31, 1989 Co urty SUBJECT: Rezoning Application #2803-RZ to rezone approximately 20 acres from General Agricultural (A-2) to Planned Unit District (P-1) and for approval of Final Development Plan #3026-88 and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 6836 (Tassajara Estates) , located at 3501 Blackhawk Road, - in the Danville area, filed by Anthony J. Ujdur and Mary - Tofanelli (Applicants & Owners) . i SPECIFIC REQUEST S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Find the environmental documentation for the Tassajara Estates project is adeqaute. 2. Adopt .the findings made by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission as set forth in Resolution #2-1989, as the Board' s own findings. 3. Deny the appeal filed by the applicant and sustain the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission' s denial of the Tassajara Estates project encompassing the following applications: Rezoning File #2803-RZ Final Development Plan #3026-88 Vesting Tentative Subdivision File #6836 ALTERNATIVE ACTION Should the Board of Supervisors determine that the project and the appeal have merit, then the following actions should be taken: 1. Find that the environmental documentation for the project, is adequate. `- 2. Grant the appeal by the applicant. 3. Approve applications #2803-RZ, 3026-88 and Subdivision 6836 subject to the attached conditions of approval contained in Exhibit A. 4. Direct staff to prepare findings for the Board to consider on its February 28, 1989 agenda. 5. Introduce the ordinance giving effect to the rezoning, waive reading and set date for adoption of same. BACKGROUND In August, 1988, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Camino Tassajara General Plan Amendment which encompassed the subject 20-acre Ujdur property as well as the adjacent Bettencourt Ranch project. An Environmental Impact Report was certified on the general plan prior to adoption of the plan amendment. The Tassajara Estates project was initially scheduled for hearing before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on November 2, 1988. At that time, the Commission rescheduled this project because of the lengthy hearing of the Bettencourt Ranch project (Braddock and Logan) . The project was initially heard by the Commission on December 7th and continued to December 21st. During the hearing, the Commission expressed dissatisfaction with the monotony of the zero-lot line design and asked if the applicant would be willing to modify the project design. The applicant indicated that he was not willing to make additional modifications to the project. The Commission then approved a motion ( 3-2) to deny the project. Attached is a letter dated December 22, 1988, filed by the applicant, Anthony J. Ujdur, appealing the Commission' s action. The appeal reviews the chronology of events associated with the review of the applicant's proposal. - `'^T• --- -n _ - '�,.'R-_-.':�:::�T.?e°�....vs°rs�q'r"':c:2T•!c'+�;zv �-.Ta.e¢;s-:..._'�.��G:T%'F."'Ga.e•r;:. �q The applicant was requesting a hearing date in advance of the Bettencourt Ranch project. That request was not feasible due to the different time frames in which the Commission acted on the two projects. Attached is a letter dated January 18, 1989, from the Administrator's office responding to the appellant's request. C'tR1TINUED ON ATTACERIE dT: Vo' YES SIGMA 7A &L AL'rION OF BOARD ON February 14, 1989 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER This being the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the appeal of Anthony J. Ujdur, et al, from the Decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission relative to rezoning request #2803-RZ, Final Development Plan #3026-88 and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 6836 (Anthony J. Ujdur and Mary Tofanelli, applicants and owners)in the Danville area. Mary Fleming, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the appeal and on the requested project. She presented the staff recommendation that the Board find the environmental documentation for this project adequate, that the Board adopt the findings made by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission and that the Board deny the appeal filed by the applicant, commenting that if the Board should find merit to the project that they would find the environmental documentation adequate, grant the appeal of the applicant and approve the applications subject to the conditions of approval that are attached as Exhibit A and direct staff to prepare findings for the Board' s consideration and introduce the Ordinance giving effect to the rezoning. The public hearing was opened and the following persons appeared to speak: Chip Pierson, 2671 Crow Canyon Road, San Ramon, representing Anthony Ujdur, presented a history of the project, a rebuttal to the reasons the project was turned down, and requested changes to the proposed conditions of approval. Kevin Gailey, 510 La Gonda Way, Danville, representing the Town of Danville, indicated a neutral attitude on the proposed project and commented on the involvement of the Town of Danville in the application review process. Jim Blickenstaff, 3211 Crow Canyon Place, San Ramon, representing Tassajara Now and Tomorrow, commented in opposition to the project on issues including the boundaries of the project, the density, and traffic impacts. Chip Pierson spoke in rebuttal. The public hearing was closed. Supervisor Schroder commented on the numerous times the project was redesigned to accommodate all the individuals affected by this particular development, the close working relationship with the Town of Danville on this project, and consistency with the General Plans, and he recommended that the Board grant the appeal by Anthony J. Ujdur, approve the applications, direct the staff to prepare findings and introduce the ordinance giving effect to the rezoning with the inclusion of the following conditions, that there would be allowed 107 units, that lot 13 be limited to one story, that the tennis courts be deleted, and that lot 53 would not be a part of the internal park. He also commented that he had information that Braddock and Logan, the development to the south, agreed to the 107 units. 2. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that alternative action recommendations 1, 2, 3 with amended conditions (Exhibit A attached) , 4, and 5 are APPROVED; and as in recommendation 5, Ordinance No. 89-13 is INTRODUCED reading waived and February 28, 1989 is set for adoption of same. 'VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I EEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT IV ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN., cc: Community Development Dept. ATTESTED February 14 , 1989 Anthony J. Ujdur PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Mary Tofanelli THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Town of Danville Ar COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel County Administrator BY DEPUTY Assessor Public Works- Tom Dudziak San Ramon Valley Fire Protection Dist. Building Inspection 3. YGNACIO HOMES December 22, 1988 Contra Costa County Community Development ) Attn: Mr. Harvey Bragdon 651 Pine Street 4th Floor North Wing Martinez , California 94553 �J Re: Anthony J. Ujdur, Etal _ •• Rezoning - Tassajara Estates County File #2803-RZ Development Plan - Tassajara Estates County File #3026-88 Subdivision #6836 Dear Harvey: Please accept this letter as our formal request to appeal the above project before the Board of Supervisors. This appeal is as a result of the Planning Commission decision on December 21, 1988. We hereby request that the Board of Supervisors place us on the agenda as soon as possible due to our financial difficulties to keep the project going through this current process. I have included various letters of appeal we have written to explain the details of our project and the process we have been submitted to. As required, (1) we have enclosed stamped-addressed eve- lopes to all the homeowners within a 700 feet radius of our property (2) two checks in the amount of $100 each for each file above (3) a list of the homeowners within a 700 feet radius. Your consideration of our appeal is appreciated and we will wait for your response. Sincerely, Anthony J. Ujdur AJU/ab 5114 Blackhawk Drive • Danville, California 94526 • (415) 838-7601 e Board of Supervisors Couinly"Administrator Contra Tom Powers Costa . .'I!—.1 I1:h F:!,)or Nancy C. Fanden •'r:.y`.�a!I I f ;,.:75 2nd I�r57frC. r,4.," .,-.:, County Robert 1. Schroder Phil f3 alchnlor Sonne WnQh, :iCPeak . � :n, Des:•:. _ --= Tom Torlahson January 18•. 1989 Anthony J. Ujdur Ygnacio Homes 5114 Blackhawk Drive Danville, CA 94526 Dear Mr. Ujdur: This is in response to your letter of December 15, 1988 with regard to the processing of your development proposal in the Danville area, Tassajara Estates. Phil Batchelor asked me to review your letter and concerns with the Director of Community Development and the following is my response. We concur with your recitation of the actions that led to the scheduling of your project and the Bettencourt Ranch project for the same hearing of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. We sincerely regret any misunderstandings in the processing of your project, however we believe there is a reasonable explanation for the review process that was followed. Two points merit discussion. First, as you are well aware there has been considerable controversy associated with these two adjoining projects. Much of the controversy has focussed on the relationship of the two projects to one another. In this regard, the Community Development Department felt it would be good planning practice for the Commission to review the larger of the two projects initially, insofar as it would have greatest impact on the community. Accordingly, the Department scheduled the Bettencourt Ranch applications in advance of your project on the Commission's November 2, 1988 agenda. Second, at the outset of the November 2nd hearing, the Commission Chairman asked the audience if there were any requests to alter the sequence of the agenda. We understand you were not in attendance at that time to represent your project. No one else came forward to request a change in the agenda order in your behalf or otherwise. Consequently, the Commission proceeded with the review of the projects in the order listed. With regards to a Board hearing on your project, we have the following response. As you know, the final action of the Commission to recommend denial of your project was not taken until December 21st, six days after the date of your letter requesting a Board hearing date. The Community Development Department staff is endeavoring to prepare the packet to go before the Board at an early date. The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission will be considering the adoption of findings for your project on January 12. 1989. Tne oacket on anis project together with your letter of appeal dated December 22, 1988, will be forwarded to the Clerk of the Board for scheduling on a Board agenda shortly thereafter. As you know, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the Bettencourt Ranch project on December 7, 1988. That project was approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 17 , 1989. Due to the difference in the timeframes of the Commission' s actions on the two projects, we regret that we were unable to schedule a Board hearing on your project in advance of the Bettencourt project. I appreciate having the opportunity to review these matters with you. Should you have additional questions, please contact Karl Wandry of the Community Development Department at 646-2031. Sincerely, Scott Tandy Chief Assistant County Administrator ST:vpl Itr20/ajujdr. 1 r cc: Supervisors: Districts I , II , III , IV, V Frank Cameron, SRVRPC Chairman H. Bragdon, Director - Community Development Dept. K. Wandry, Deputy Director - Community Development Dept. V. Westman, County Counsel ;09NDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3026-88 AND SUBDIVISION 6836: 1. This application for final development plan and tentative map as generally shown on the exhibits listed below is approved subject to the following conditions. Exhibit Description A Revised Tentative Map/Final Development Plan dated received November 29, 1988. B Schematic Landscape Plan C Architectural Package including Unit Floor Plans, Elevations, and Entry Feature Design. 2. At least 30 days prior to filing a final subdivision map, a revised site plan and grading plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The revised plan shall provide for a maximum of 107 lots and the following additional changes. a. A coordinated grading and emergency vehicle access plan with the ad- joining Bettencourt Ranch project shall be pursued identifying pro- posed grading pads, perimeter fencing, slopes, retaining wall and connecting (gated access) road on both properties. b. A 41 foot wide sidewalk on at least one side of each street, and a 5 foot public utility easement along the opposite side. C. The cul-de-sac bulb next to Lot 3 shall be adjusted several feet to the west to allow for a minimum 15 foot rearyard setback for lot 3. d. The common-area landscaped shoulder between LotJ39 and Waterfall Drive shall be widened to 10 feet. e. A detailed site plan shall be provided allowing for: - swimming pool - tot lot - poolhouse/homeowner association 350-450 square foot meeting room structure - an open flat lawn area - parking lot (which may be reduced from ten spaces to seven) f. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for the landscape buffer provided along Camino Tassajara. 1. The plan shall provide for a decorative six-foot soundwall to be placed along the top of bank. The wall shall be a tomex, MJJL 2 split-face blockwall to match the wall approved for the Tassajara Ranch project (Sycamore and Tassajara Assessment District Wall ). 2. Landscaping shall match the landscape design for the Sycamore and Tassajara Assessment District. g. Development plans and detail of the other common areas (e.g. , entry- way, open space belts) shall be submitted. Landscaping of common ar- eas shall be in accord with the County policy for drought tolerant plants. Interior open space areas shall be planted with ground cover and irrigated to assure a weed-free environment. A street tree pro- gram shall be submitted. 15-gallon evergreen trees @ 20' o.c. shall be planted along the western boundary line (Blackhawk Commercial Center) . A decorative masonry wall design along the Commercial Center boundary shall be submitted. Trails shall be designed in the open-space corridors .to provide pedestrian connections between roads and sidewalks. The applicant shall diligently pursue pedestrian connections to the adjacent commercial center. h. A minimum 30 foot wide common area landscape buffer shall be estab- lished inside the northern boundary of the project. This requirement may be waived in the event that an off-site landscape buffer is se- cured in accord with Condition #5 below. 3. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, Articles of Incorporation and By- Laws for a mandatory homeowner's association shall be submitted prior to filing the Final Subdivision map. The document shall provide for among other things, the ownership and maintenance of streets, recreation facili- ties, trails and other common facilities. 4. The guide for the development of the residential units shall be the R-6 district except as follows: Minimum lot area - 4000 square feet Minimum Average lot width - 40 feet Minimum frontyard setback (measured from back of curb or edge of sidewalk whichever is nearer) - 17 feet Minimum sideyard setback (distance between residences) - 10 feet Minimum rearyard one-story setback - 12 feet Minimum rearyard two-story setback - 15 feet Minimum setback from project boundary - 15 feet Minimum driveway apron width - 16 feet Lots 13, 31 and 32 on the 11/29/88 site plan shall be limited to single-story residences. All garages shall be constructed with automatic sectional doors. All dimensional requirements are subject to further Zoning Administrator review and approval at time of issuance of building permits. 5. Lots 63, 69, 80 and 98 may be recovered if the applicant succeeds in ac- quiring an off-site landscape/grading buffer easement on the adjoining property to the north with a minimum width of 20 feet. 3 . . 6. Al construction and transportation equipment shall be muffled in accor- dance with State and Federal requirements. 7. Urban service boundary reorganization shall be established prior to recordation of the Final Map. The property shall be annexed to the East Bay Municipal Utility District and Central Sanitary District. S. The applicant shall develop, in conjunction with the Building Inspection Department, a program to minimize erosion and generation of dust resulting from. grading operations. 9. Prior to issuance of building permits, plan elevations and materials of construction shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator. a. Special attention shall be given to proposed two-story blank walls. The walls should be mitigated by roof treatment and second floor in- sets. b. Frontyard landscaping shall be installed by the developer. Alterna- tive landscape designs shall be submitted for review. C. Alternative yard drainage systems to replace the "V" ditch system shall be submitted. d. Interior fence designs shall be submitted. 10. Phasing of the project shall be subject to prior review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 11. On-street parking shall be limited to one side of the street and posted accordingly. 12. Comply with the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) policy. 13. Prior to filing a final map, the applicant shall submit a demand survey and response programs to serve the child care needs of the project for the re- view and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The program shall satisfy the requirements of Ordinance 88-1 of the Zoning Code. Prior to occupancy of residential units, the approved response program shall be implemented. 14. Comply with the requirements of the County Geologist as follows: a. Prior to recordation of a Final Map, issuance of Building Department permits or installation of improvements, carry out or bond the grading recommendations of the geotechnical report of Purcell , Rhoades, & As- sociates dated 9/16/86. Record a statement to run with deeds to the property acknowledging the approved report by title, author (firm) , and date, calling attention to the Discussion on pages 11-14, Recom- mendations of pages 14-36, and Recommended Grading Specifications of Appendix A, and noting that the report is on file for public review in the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County. b. Prior to issuance of Building permits in this subdivision, submit an as-graded report of the geotechnical engineer with a, map showing final - 4 f � plan and grades for subsurface drainage, subdrain cleanouts and dis- posal or pickup points, fill shear keys and/or retaining walls in- stalled, and other soil improvements installed during grading, all as surveyed by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer. C. A Grading bond is required to carry out the recommendations of the preliminary soil report. Provide the bond and an engineer's estimate of the cost of required soil improvements with the application for grading for this subdivision. 15. Prior to submitting revised site plans for Condition #2 above, the appli- cant shall diligently pursue obtaining the consent of Blackhawk Commercial Center for the establishment of direct pedestrian access to the center from the adjoining open space corridors. The applicant shall offer to make ap- propriate off-site pedestrian improvements onto that property (e.g. , fence opening, walkways) . 16. Prior to filing a final map, the applicant shall contribute $1670 per unit in park land dedication fees. The fees shall be used for improvements to the planned community park facility in the Tassajara Ranch project. The applicant may received credit against this fee obligation for the cost of on-site recreational ' facilities in accord with Chapter 920-8 of the Subdi- vision Code. 17. Comply with the following road, drainage and utility requirements: 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 includes the following requirements: 1. Constructing road improvements along the frontage of Camino Tassajara as follows: a. Construct curb (face of curb located . 15 feet from the right of way line), a 36 foot wide half-width pavement, and nec- essary transverse and longitudinal drainage. A transition will be required from this cross-section of frontage im- provement to that of the existing frontage improvements along the property immediately to the west of this develop- ment (The Blackhawk Commercial Center) . The transition shall occur between the access road (Waterfall Drive) and the easterly property line. The design of this transition shall be subject to review by the Town of Danville and ap- proval by the County Public Works Department. Slight ad- justments to the cross-section described above shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Adminis- trator following referral to the Town of Danville and the Public Works Department. b. Construct an 8 foot meandering pedestrian and bike pathway along the northerly edge of the right of way. The pathway shall be free of obstructions and shall have 2 feet of �� � D� A 5 clearance, at least, from obstructions on both sides. That portion of the pathway not located within the right of way shall be located within a public access and utility ease- ment. C. Construct a landscaped half-width median strip with neces- sary left turn lanes 'at the access road intersection. A median break shall be provided to allow left turns into the development -but not out of the development. d. Landscape the border strips (pathway area) and medians, subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator; and: 1. Design the irrigation system so that irrigation water will not spray or flood onto the pavement surface of the roadway; and 2. Establish a landscape maintenance entity subject to approval of the Public Works Department. e. Coordinate the installation of utility installation and frontage improvements so as to cause minimum inconvenience to the public to include the following: 1. Prior to construction, submit a detailed plan, to the Public Works Department, showing improvements to be constructed, conforms with existing and/or adjacent improvements, pavement striping details, and staging plans. 2. Paving of all detours. Any exception shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Depart- ment. 3. Limiting unavoidable delays to the public due to con- struction operation to no more than five (5) minutes. f. Submit a detailed sketch plan of the required road improve- ments at the major intersections of the Subdivision, for Public Works Department review and approval , prior to sub- mitting improvement plans. 2. Constructing paved turnarounds at the end of the proposed private roads. 3. Undergrounding of all utility distribution facilities. 4. Conveying all stormwaters to an existing adequate storm drainage facility. 5. Installing street lights on Camino Tassajara and applying for annexation to County Service Area L-100 for maintenance of the street lights. The final number and location of the lights will be determined by the County Traffic Engineer. 6 6. Submitting a Final Map prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. 7. 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. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, right of way on Camino Tassajara as required for the planned future width. The planned half-width of right-of-way to the west of the access road (Waterfall Drive) is 58 feet and the planned half-width of right-of-way to the east of the access road is 64 feet. C. The entry road right of way and the on-site private road right of way shall be 57 feet and 37 feet, respectively, to provide right of way for a 4 foot wide sidewalk along the interior road system. D. The interior road system shall be constructed to County private road standards. E. Provide a 5 foot public utility easement along the interior road sys-. tem on the sides opposite the sidewalk. F. Relinquish abutter's right of access along Camino Tassajara except for one access road into and out of the development. G. 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. H. Comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage Area 101A as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. I. Mitigate the off-site traffic impact of this development by: 1) • Complying with the requirements of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement related to the Tassajara Area Transportation Improve- ment Fees. As part of the requirements of that Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, a portion of the fees collected from this de- velopment will be applied to the Crow Canyon Road Extension Re- imbursement as required by the Crow Canyon Road Extension Area of Benefit. J. Prior to issuance of building permits, file the Final Map for Subdi- vision 6836. 'THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS INTENDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER AGENCIES IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THE SITE BUT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THIS PERMIT. - A. Comply with the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection Dis- trict. RD:vpl RZ10/a:3026-88.coa 12/2/88 3/8/89 EKIHDIU A