HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12171991 - 2.5 �. 5
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, -_ ra
Director of Community Development �C �wt,1
�
DATE: December 6, 1991 '" Pourtysa
'T
suBJEc-r: Request for Board to Reconsider Their Denial of division
#7451, in the El Sobrante Area
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
1. Deny the request for reconsideration. The Board's denial of
Subdivision #7451 then stands.
2 . Grant the reconsideration request and set a hearing date,
giving time for proper notification of neighbors, in the
near future.
BACKGROUND
This application was a request to subdivide a 4 . 58 acre site into
14 lots. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
was posted for the project.
The County Planning Commission held - three hearings on this
subdivision application and approved it for 12 lots rather than
the 14 requested. The Commission's decision was appealed to the
Board of Supervisors by a neighboring property owner.
The Board of Supervisors denied Subdivision #7451 on July 9, 1991
and directed staff to prepare findings. After review, by County
Counsel, the Board adopted findings on October , 22 , 1991, copy
attached.
The findings adopted by the Board of Supervisors outline the
Board's reasons for denial of Subdivision #7451. The main point
of concern involve inadequate environmental documentation to
allow for a positive decision on the project. Further study was
deemed necessary. There was concern over the fact that the
location of the proposed access onto the public road could create
an extreme traffic hazard dangerous to the public contrary to the
General Plan. Concerns were raised over soils stability and the
difficulty and expense to repair the soil slumps and slides. The
Board also determined that while the development will create
additional housing, the requirement of additional fiscal
resources are a significant possibility and the adverse fiscal
impacts and liability outweigh the benefits of additional housing
stock. The Board also found that there was not sufficient
delineative information to determine how these adverse impacts
could be adequately mitigated.
Subsequently, the applicant requested reconsideration in late
October. Additional maps showing the site, existing and proposed
road improvements and sight distances on La Paloma were submitted
by the applicant on November 21, 1991. The letter, attachments
and maps requesting reconsideration are attached.
FISCAL IMPACT
Minimal amount of staff time for processing request.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE'
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REC ME IONOF BfRD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
S I GNATURE I S 1:
ACTION OF BOARD ON December 17, 1991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X—
The .Board heard from Mr. Jandali of Jedco Engineering who
reviewed his request for reconsideration and explained the mitigations
he was prepared to make.
Mrs. Jan Eakle appeared and disputed the alleged pertinent
factual or legal matters not presented to the Board at the time of its
decision. She advised that she was ready to disprove what was
presented in the packet requesting reconsideration. She also advised
that not all the neighbors on LaPoloma received notification of
meetings set up to discuss the project. Mrs. Eakle implored the Board
to stand by its original decision and not reconsider the project.
Chairman Powers advised that this was not a hearing on whether to
reconsider the matter, but that the question is whether to set it for
a hearing to reconsider the previous decision to deny. He advised
that he had attended meetings and was enlightened as to information
about traffic, and that maps were made available to him that he did
not have access to at the time the Board declared its intent to deny.
He stated he had no objection to having a hearing, but that he would
have to be convinced that it is a good subdivision. .
As recommended by Supervisor Powers , the Board agreed to hold a
reconsideration hearing on the subject matter, and directed the
Community Development Department to arrange a time and date and to
provide proper notification to all the neighbors.
Mrs. Eakle requested that she be furnished in writing the basis
for the Board' s decision to set the matter for a reconsideration
hearing.
VOTE OF SUPERVI90RS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TARN
AYES: (NOES. AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHDWN.
ATTESTED _ December-1-7, 1991
cc: All Distribution with attachments
via Community Development Dept. PHIL BATCHELOR_CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
. BY DEPUTY
_TF1
}
LF
FRANCIS & JANICE EAKLE
597 LA PALOMA ROAD
EL SOBRANTE, CA 94803
JEDCO -'
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
930 DWIGHT WAY, SUITE 10A TEL (415) 649-0241
BERKELEY, CA 94710 TEL (415) 649-0468
FAX (415) 649-0239
October 31, 1991
Contra Costa County
Community development Department
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing-
Martinez , CA 94553-0095
Attn: Dennis Barry, Deputy Director
RE: SUBDIVISION 7451 ON LA PALOMA ROAD, EL SOBRANTE, CA.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Dear Mr. Barry:
Pursuant to our transmittal of October 24 , 1991 , we would
be very grateful if you would allow us a "chance for
reconsideration by the Board of Supervisors in lieu of the
following:
1 Since the time the Board of Supervisors indicated their
intent to deny the application we have developed plans
for the off site improvements considering. the conditions
that were recommended by Staff. These details were not
available at the time the hearing before the Board of
Supervisors took place.
2 . We have amended our traffic study -to show that the impact
of the fourteen additional units on the traffic
conditions on La Paloma road is minimal .
3 . We have arranged a meeting with the neighbors on La
Paloma road. Not only did .we mail the-' enclosed
transmittal to all the neighbors within 300 yards
radius , but we even attempted to contact them
personally to listen to their concerns first hand and to
encourage them to attend this meeting. Thanks to the
staff of the office of Supervisor Tom Powers who-
helped-us arrange for the meeting which was held on September
4 , 1991 at the E1 Sobrante Branch Library. Except for
one neighbor, those in attendance accepted the project
as it wa's presented in the transmittal , some, in fact,
praised it and some .had comments which were summarized
as follows :
a) the driveways .affected by the off site improvements
shall be regarded back' in a way that is acceptable to
the County, and all the affected utilities shall be
set back at the developer ' s expense;
b) retaining walls within the public easement, wherever.
necessary for the . off site. improvements to protect
the neighbors front yards , shall be built by the
developer;
-/_-.::Recce-rsider-ation ---_._ _ _ :___ __-.`:_Page 2
c) and the three large eucalyptus trees at the south
east corner of the intersection of McCormick lane and
La Paloma shall be removed. This will have a very
positive impact on the traffic conditions on La
Paloma road.
Enclosed, please also find a fee of $500.00 for
reconsideration. If you have any question please contact us.
We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely
_
L
Firas. Jandali, P.E.
Principle
FJ/mm
Enc 1 .
�.
$ 06'1W, 183.00 If
\
Z N
C7 sl
OD
Ln m
LP
` a z
>
>
1 �. lP ➢'
0659" E Lt
75.r7 D
o
1/I 4
x
Ln
1/ \ / Odd
o
�?Jp
/ 4
\ SS
.... ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. o
.. � •s >�rs � � � N � � r;a a � � �
>r4�5�e`�►=sou: � s�� q�q����$ � � � � ' � � ��;�'" 4 a ~Qs v��p �� � - g R �
p p 8
W
Z
O` azv-f
c'� /::' ': coo
U
4� _.1 dbpa �O ry O c
2 09 W
o e -
.;Wo .
0 1 I' ► \
! :
Q� -
��
ow
z
-
`! :a!i0
s:... ow a
:.''::::;• �L 240 a U a 3.
"'�'��'�' ,;���:. .. '•; 1:� �: '0!ii., iii GGi
ocz
CL
\ Id
as
\ m .
IIl...777 V
OO
c'
ma FE 6 S
iaHJ�BRE::::COURT
o :'
I
z a Z z I ifI
pz r6Zo O a 3 I i:: :III
xjxW
W x x� W I [�: :•:' 'Il ��
Q xU Vl mx
z ;
w o
e� I
c_J N I ; k
W I ( ' I
i �� I a m X
I
I
/ J E_ D_C_O .;ONSULTING ENGINEERS
930 DWIGHT WAY, SUITE 10A TEL (415) 649-0241
BERKELEY, CA 94710 TEL (415) 649-0468
FAX (415) 649-0239
September 7, 1991 .
Lou Soh l an
481 La Paloma Road
1:1 Sobrante , CA 94803
RE: DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON LA PALOMA ROAD, SUBDIVISION 7451
Dear Lou:
As you expressed concern about the elevations of our proposed
horses with respect to your lot ' at the September 4 community
meet:i.ng , I have prepared the enclosed map of the subdivision with
the approximate building pad elevations for each lot .
The contour lines in the area south of the proposed
subdivision were interpolated from an aerial photograph -of
the'. area and are accurate to. plus or minus 5 feet .
Hopefully this map will provide you with the information that
you want .
If you have any questions, please call us at:
JEDCO CONSULTING_ ENGINEERS
930 DWIGHT WAY, SUITE 10A
BERKELEY, CA 94710
SV.c
re,
cy..-Anrew Radovan.
J E D C 0 CONSULTING ENGINEERS
930 DWIGHT WAY, SUITE 10A = TEL (415) 649-0241
BERKELEY, CA 94710 TEL (415) 649-0468
FAX (415) 649-0239
.August 23 , 1991
La Paloma Road Neighborhood Resident
E1 Sobrante, CA 94803- -
RE: DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON LA PALOMA ROAD SUBDIVISION 7451
Dear Neighbor:
Enclosed .please find the following two maps :
1. . Plan view- - showing the proposed subdivision and lot layout
2. Plan view of La Paloma road in the area between Chabre Ct.
and McCormick road.
Due to the expressed concern by some residents in the area
adjacent to the project about traffic safety of La Paloma road ,
we have provided you with these plans , particularly plan 2 , to
make clear the extent to which La Paloma road will be improved.
This , of course, will require repaving the existing road along the
widened area.
If, after viewing these plans , you are still concerned or have any
questions about the proposed project, we .would- welcome any
questions to be relayed to me at the above address and phone
number.
To help resolve your concerns regarding this project, we would
appreciate your presence at a meeting we have arranged for this
purpose on September 4, 1991 at 4191 Apian way in E1 Sobrante
Public Library at 6 :00 PM.
Thank You.
Sincerely
0
Firas Jandali, P.E.
Project Engineer
J E D C O :DNSULTING ENGINEERS
930-aWIGH.T-WAYr SUITE 10A _:T`EL�___ 4fi53 549-8 41
BERKELEY, CA--94710 - -- ----- - TEL : '(A15) 649-0468
- - FAX (415) 649-0239
August 22, 1991
Frank Reneau
590 La Paloma road
El Sobrante, CA 94803
RE: , DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON LA PALOMA ROAD SUBDIVISION 1451
Dear Mr. Reneau:
In response to your concerns you mentioned over the phone today,
we would- like to 'state that:
1 Our final improvement plans will call for the. construction of
a- retaining` iaa1l designed according to the County standards
wherever: needbd to protect the landscape along the frontage
of your property.
2 The= existing utilities which: would need to be setback •due to
the proposed improvements will be setback as required for the
safety of- the- services. This naturally will include providing
the • proper' cast--i-rbn replacement, to about ten feet of your
sewer line from the manhole on La Paloma road toward your
residence.
3 The part of your driveway next to La Paloma road which would
be affected by the" road improvements will .be regraded to
guarantee the appropriate slope accepted by the County.
4 The three large eucalyptus trees on La Paloma road in front of
your property were addressed,- .on Page 3 ofthe report of
HortSience Inc. , professional'arborists who were hired by the
owner to provide such consultations. Enclosed please find a
copy of . that sheet. They stated that the southern tree will
not survive the improvements if they are extended to their
locations. The effect on the other two trees would not be
known at this stage. Removing them would mean the loss of
two eucalyptus trees but would result in better and clearer
sight distances of traffic. No decision has been made
regarding this possibility, and your as well as the other
neighbors input would help in such decision.
Again, if you have any question please contact me.
Sincerely
Firas 7andali , P.E. .
Project Engineer
' ''}:�•}�Yl:`t�s': Q.�i�!QVC lent.
,
f .t '• f.' {F" Ti:�• _ •t ii1 ;lt: Fi_ ..-_: � t L: /�'�:',/f 't{/� •..
-47
c+ { q FF s
-.\ - t� 1 + 4i�}•M �, r� if�tErl is Si:t�.: tt:.• 't H..
., t.Mlr II = � L'� ►�r�,-�� �1'��I� '2 ;,"n �/j,�1t t t_.�juj'-J t�� �ij ��a
_ , �.,'V'� : ..t' f +ti.•..rir'U. .�.,..7a*.,r... K I_ wh/,, G �(I,��'�^�'O(�r•t�`� t
- lien:mac. -��� '�'"=`��-•- ---
ot
-- mL -
AL
Ji
L
':rte• �� �Y � �:.:o� ' + r` r •`, ' ----._. ... .._..
r- z
:�L
- Av � A'�'.(i � y,�F i .st,•t r '
---•'- _.
' �� ;•pI. •1 X1'.`11 j �y � Y•:
; Costa-County...Library Syster ;
:ra.._.. AUG 2 1591
s;-s-- _ R USE OF MEETING ROOM at , -
,
r� �,•,__ _
�, .. Branch.
From: f, n to v C) .
Number
of Peopl.e�
- - `--- _.-p'Ko _d aTT-ruTes and policies of the Contra Costa
the use of-1 ibtary premises or equipment, and I _
do-so will result in loss of future privileges
it i ng rooms. ,
_- -ave and hold. the County of_ Contra, Costa,. the--Board
""ty i rariari and County officers , agents and em-
from any loss, liability, cos - o
-tr .expens.e Ghat. may
result of such use or occupancy of
ate- re est-subm tied--` `- - ig io
ature Posi n in OYr7anization J
- Home address Phone
B siness address Phone
-For Library Use .Only.;._
r
Approved-.j-_7-.__.-. ..
Librarian in Charge
Date
1f, ndt approved, attach statement and .forward thru,
Regional Librarian to County- Librarian.
Comments by County Librarian
3. 12 rev 8/81 _ _
Mt
g LO
bf
F „x Y lg9 �g'y
,.^ OV 8 f FNa 5 5 N
29 19
4Wos
W
a
�W
pp qy yyy6 < s
® 4 �■ m �
O A � 1 <UOm �Pmw- V• > C � R 63��i � �- W 6 C W� J WV�V 1�i11� �
Q ® 6x =�nce�x
�y _29
49
__ s
o
C=M I gg
e
bn \
r? N ix \
N z
a
/ ° = U
r— \ a` cmi . �s
d
cla
d� \ z
o \
Y.
ui
Ir
yam\
LO
F— Z
ow
CL
W
,,4(/
Wz LO 00
_
Q
19
0 W
tK
1
z
Qqpz 0-
CL
'
/ r- a
W \ 00'£8l a /75- \�, S -
C \ `M\�� t.90 S
m
RM m
RUMP 5—
z
F'
olkv
c 'W '3N+O / !: \
N ------
0%
------
\�
0
N
:
3 \ %1 Iii .\• z
\ O Z
.+ i^ �• •• 111'' �� � ZZ
W W
± ':• z > p C
�. ' '.'•:•E'tiEi'.iE�iji;:.• '!{ ' ..1j0::: \ 2� N C-)
d 3
,•.j:ij°"`"''''''•1:1.11:,si1:,•1iii1i:i1°,•' iii*• �'
i:r:iifiA
Ii ii. lili�iljlijliii..;`.�,•'�i,,, ,.;;;;•. ''. i.;;1 j �Ii
....;;;:,•1,ifitfli !i�if''. ;tififjli flfr:il?;!;i:: !�, .\.;.
1i11:i}i:l:•::::117•.'•'•"'.:•:jjjl;fi:;i,.;';f;f f. ; '
j?i�ii�!'•;�Ii '•1 i i iis•1'•1• /•� . 1;y:; ::; \ i *4
oo may
iiiii? iiliil;l:i''••'' ','1E;;ii.
ocz
iiji
0
• i�� ;;�:;7t�iili � 1
O
' J
\ / �' •1••• Z U s• ZQ
\:•. n of QQ.
kn
::::11 210 Niv
\\ �: �G• m
rc
CL
e
. . . . . . . .
....... . . . . . . . .
HIXBRE :COURT
j oa zU. 1 ifl
zCK
Z W
D W pp W 3 :III
z2 ��� 8
UZ �OW 3f1 �U
.94 :Io
�- _ y�
pNW W
xxW Omx W W a I 1 III
Q WU N W
z
w I
0 $
w 11 00
0 �
I �
I
i
10��O-a* �
wo
ac
Ho. u3
U
CL Y � �ui W � � � 5� M ''' „k -�\ ♦ 2
IMM l-�r(J'�th,
O
540
It
1
t
-----------
-----------------
1
W6L-
1 oa
WW 22��W�✓d OZ� ('�� O ltd
10
Y
6w 41 I.E
o oC A �;\p / / pp ♦`7 `� r NF p V J 51�
woin
1
Qtw
Wr
Xi
ro
iF
-------'--'- --------i -�� pU3G Y �
U U/
Y
YI UI i
zoo
Ap
ol
it
/
--------------
---------- ---
-----------------------------C
To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
N
Fes^' HarveContra
y E. Bragdon, ;; i I ;
Director of Community Development (ala
7
DATE: October 1 1991 � „r_: ��` Courty
SuBJECT: Adoption of Findings for the Denial of Subdivision 7451, A
Request to Subdivide 4 .58 Acres of Land into 14 lots
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S ) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt. the findings as set forth in the Attachment as the deter-
minations in these actions and to disapprove the tentative map
for Subdivisicn 7451.
BACKGROUND
This was an appeal of the County Planning Commission's approval
of Subdivision #7451 for 12 lots. Both the applicant and a
neighbor appealed the County Planning Commission's decision
approving the subdivision for 12 lots. The applicant appealed
the decision of the County Planning Commission limiting the
development to 12 lots. A neighbor appealed the County Planning
Commission's approval of the project, in part, because of a lack
of definitive and adequate mitigation of potential adverse
impacts (traffic, soils, etc. ) of the proposed subdivision and
concern about completion of adequate environmental studies.
The Board first heard this application on July 9, 1991 where both
the applicant and the appealing neighbor spoke and presented
evidence for their positions. The Board closed the hearing and
set July 23 , 1991 as the date to render a decision after field
visits by Board members.
On July 23 , 1991 the Board declared its intent to deny the
application and requested staff to prepare findings for a
disapproval decision. Such findings are attached as Exhibit A.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEND t F `BOA ' COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OP BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES; NOES: AND ENTERED ON TFC MI1IUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: County Council ATTESTED _
Public Works Department PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY . DEPUTY
,M382.'7-83
3:
EXHIBIT 'A
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA INCORPORATING
DENIAL AND FINDINGS PERTAINING TO
SUBDIVISION 17451 FOR PROPERTY IN THE
EL SOBRANTE AREA
WHEREAS, on December 22, 1989 JEDCO Engineers (applicant) and M. Awad A1-Kundari
(Owner) filed application requesting approval of a tentative map (Subdivision
17451) to subdivide 4.58 acres into 14 lots; and
WHEREAS, the subject property fronts 370 feet on the westerly side of La Paloma
Road, approximately 70 feet south of the La Paloma-McCormick Road intersection
in the E1 Sobrante area; and
WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act, and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance was posted by staff on September 28, 1990 and
comments thereafter received in October, 1990 that the negative declaration
documents does not provide an adequate environmental analysis of the potential
impacts that could result from the development of the subdivision; and
WHEREAS, this tentative map application was scheduled for public hearing before
the County Planning Commission for Tuesday, March 26, 1991, whereat all persons
interested therein might appear and be heard; and
'WHEREAS, on March 26, 1991 the application was rescheduled for public hearing
for March 23, 1991; and
WHEREAS, on April 23, 1991 there was no quorum; therefore, the application was
:rescheduled for the May 14, 1991 Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 1991 the public hearing was held by the County Planning
Commission whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 1991 the County Planning Commission approved this applica-
tion for 12 lots rather than the 14 proposed, subject to conditions of approval,
some of which conditions require further studies and reports (geology, soil,
etc. ) before a final map for Tract 7451 could be recorded; and
WHEREAS, following the County Planning Commission's decision the applicant and a
neighbor both appealed the County Planning Commission's decision; and
WHEREAS, on July 9, 1991' having reviewed and considered the record made avail-
able to the Planning Commission and the Board, including but not limited to the
County General Plan, the Initial Study and the Negative Declaration of Environ-
mental ,Significance for the proposal and the staff report prepared by the
Community Development Department, dated May 14, 1991 including conditions for
approval, together with the letters of appeal and other evidence and testimony
in the public record and as otherwise know to it, the Board of Supervisors
announced its intent to deny the appeal of the applicant and grant the appeal of
the neighbor denying Subdivision 17451 and instructed staff to prepare findings
for a proposed denial of the Subdivision (17451) at a subsequent meeting; and
.c
2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after having considered all of the evidence
and testimony made available to the Board with respect to the Subdivision appli-
cation (SUB #7451) , including those documents and evidence previously referenced
and incorporated herein, the Board hereby denies approval of the tentative map
for Subdivision #7451. In connection therewith, this Board hereby makes and
adopts the following findings:
A. 1. Environmental Documentation. This Board cannot and does not accept
the environmental documentation (negative declaration, etc. ) as
adequate.
This Board has not been provided with a sufficient and adequately
completed study of the potential environmental significance of
proposed Subdivision 7451 and, therefore, has not been adequately
advised as to the possible extent of some possible significant adverse
environmental impacts (geology, soil conditions, traffic safety, etc. )
that may result from the proposed subdivision and possible adequate
mitigation or other measures to address those impacts. For this
reason, this Board presently has no adequate basis upon which to
approve the requested entitlement for Tract 7451 and be in full
compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) .
2. If further studies are required to identify the scope of some initial
impacts (soils, geology, etc. ) , their completion after the Board no
longer has any discretion to require adequate mitigation measures'
would not be in full compliance with CEQA.
B. Findings required under the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section
66410 et seq. )
This Board hereby finds that based upon the partial and incomplete environ-
mental and related data before it, the particular location of the proposed
subdivision and its access onto the public road way could create an extreme
traffic hazard dangerous to the public contrary to the County General Plan.
C. Findings required under the Subdivision Map Act. This Board, hereby finds
that:
1. The site appears not to be physically suited to the type of develop-
went proposed. The poor access situation and danger to traffic and
pedestrians that a road intersecting La Paloma Road in this particular
area could constitute an unwarranted hazard. Further, there appear to
be soils slumps and slides on the site that will be difficult and
expensive to repair but not adequate information has been developed on
this.
r � f
3
.-_-.;Tt.-appears_ tjiQ:_design_of'. the- subdivision and its proposed improvements
_ __._... may ;:g4use',seriQus public .health .problems. The traffic conflicts that
may .developed". from this project could create a serious public safety
La. P-alQma._Road._ _..
3..
The . Board :has considered the fact that while this development will
provide for additional housing its requirements for additional fiscal
resources required- as - a result of the proposed development and
.possibly_: s gpificant.. - ., The_ .,Board has determined that the possible
adverse public fiscal needs and liability of the project out weigh the
benefits to housing stock development that it would bring based upon
t-he present,:lack. of - sufficlent_..del:ineative, information to determine
chq.cs,,'t�hese possible- adverse impacts, could-be adequately mitigated.
BDIVjR7453,,4B
TO BOARD OF S -AVISORS
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, - Cw+ra
Director of Community ,Development
DATE: June 10, 1991
COUNY
SUBJECT: Appeals of County Planning Commission Decision to Ap "ove
Subdivision #7451 for 12 Lots (JEDCO Engineers, M. Awad
A1-Khudari) in the E1 Sobrante Area (APN 425-061-005, 006,007)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION S( & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION•
Deny the appeal of the neighbor, Mrs. Eakle, over the approval of
Subdivision 7451 and deny the appeal of the applicant over the fact
that the County Planning Commission approved this subdivision for
12 rather than 14 lots. Sustain the action of the County Planning
Commission approval of Subdivision 7451 for 12 lots in accordance
with Option A actions listed below.
BOARD OPTIONS•
Option A: Sustain County Planning Commission Decision
1. Deny the appeal of the neighbor, Mrs. Jan Eakle.
2. Deny the appeal of the applicant, JEDCO Engineering.
3. Accept the environmental documentation for this project as
being adequate.
4. Approve the findings contained in the resolution of the County
Planning Commission as the basis for the -Board actions.
5. Approve Subdivision 7451 for 12 lots subject to the conditions
of approval which were attached to the project in the approval
by the County Planning Commission.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT; X YES SIGNATURE•
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _- RECOMMEN A710N OF OD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATUREIS I:
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
_ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES. NOES. AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT:_ ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: Community Development Dept. (Orig. Dept.) ATTESTED - -_-_
Public Works Department j PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Growth hgm.t & Economic Development Dept. SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY .DEPUTY
M382 7-93 --
2.
Option B: Reverse the County Planning Commission Decision - Allow . -
14 Lots
l Deny=-•the appeal of the neighbor; Mrs. 'Jan Eakle.
Grant..the:appaa�-of.the_applicant•and•approua-Subdiv-i-&ion.-74-51
-.. _ -
- ' foY T4 i-pt's'"as�originally requested.
3. Accept the environmental documentation for this project as
being adequate.
4. Approve Subdivision 7451 for 14 lots subject to revised
condition .11 asp.follows-..
1... This application-ins approved, generally, as shown on the
revised Tentative Map dated received May 17, 1990, by the
r., , __ .Community. Development ,Department. Unless otherwise
noted;"the following conditions shall be complied with
before filing the final map. At least 30 days prior to
_ _ .filing a final map or issuance of a grading permit, a
revised site plan will be submitted for the review and
_approval of,- the _Zoning.-Administrator .providing for the
following changes:
A. The boundary line between Lots 19 and 110 to be
moved to coincide with the creek setback line.
B. :Creek setback line-to coincide with the north-south
portion of the Lot 5-6 line.
Option C:. -Reverse the County Planning Commission Decision -- Deny
Subdivision: 7451
1. Deny appeal: of the applicant, JEDCO Engineering.
2. Grant the appeal of the neighbor, Mrs. Jan Eakle, and deny
Subdivision 7451.
BACKGROUND
The background for this project is reviewed in the May 14, 1991,
staff report to the County Planning Commission. The Commission
reviewed the proposal, various reports and the request of the
neighbor that an environmental impact report be prepared.
On May 14, 1991, after taking testimony, the County Planning
Commission voted 6 to 1 to approve the request for 12 rather than
the 14 lots proposed, and to accept the environmental documentation
prepared by staff for this project as being complete and adequate.
On May 17, -1991, - Fi-ras Jandali of---JEDCO ..Engineers appe.aled. the
County Planning Commission's decision on Subdivision 7451 approving
the project for 12 lots. Mr. Jandali's appeal stated that the
proposed lots of his subdivision were larger than the minimum
allowed by the R-7 zoning district found on the site.
Mrs. Eakle appealed the County Planning Commission approval of
Subdivision 7451 on May 23, 1991. She requested that the
subdivision be denied. Mrs. Eakle contains no new information that
was not available to the Commission.
AB/jn
brdl:7451.brd '
BEFORE THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPEAL - Subdivision #7451,
Jedco Engineers (Applicant) ,
M. Awad A1-Khundari (Owner) , Resolution No.27-1991
El Sobrante Area. (S.D. II) /
WHEREAS, on December 22 , 1989, JEDCO ENGINEERS (Applicant) , M.
AWAD AL-KUNDARI (Owner) , filed application requesting approval of
a tentative map (SUBDIVISION #7451) , to subdivide 4. 58 acres into
14 lots; and
WHEREAS, the subject property fronts 370-ft. , on the westerly
side of La Paloma Road, approximately 70-ft. , south of the La
Paloma-McCormick Road intersection in the E1 Sobrante area; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned Single Family
Residential District (R-7) ; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
was posted on this project; and
WHEREAS, this application was scheduled for public hearing be-
fore the County Planning Commission for Tuesday, March 26, 1991,
whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard;
and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 1991, the application was rescheduled
for public hearing for March 23 , 1991; and
WHEREAS, on April 23 , 1991, there was no quorum; therefore,
the application was rescheduled for the May 14 , 1991 Commission
meeting; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 1991, the public hearing was held by the
County Planning Commission whereat all persons interested therein
might appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, the County Planning Commission having fully reviewed,
considered and evaluated all testimony and evidence submitted in
this matter; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT .RESOLVED, that the County Planning
Commission APPROVES the tentative map for Subdivision #7451 with
revised conditions (see conditions attached) ; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this recommenda-
tion are:
1. The project, with revisions approved by this Commission is
well designed and will make appropriate use of the site.
2 Resolution No. 27-1991
2. The addition of 12 single family residential units to the
- - EI'Sobrante area will not create significant environmental
=. cc �:. impacts.
At
Tlie:proposed..subdivision together with, the provisions for
its design and improvements, is consistent with the County
_r General =Rlan in force when- this :subdivision was :.deemed
4. ' The reduction of lots from 14 to 12 will provide more
buildable lot area for lots at the end of the cul-de-sac;
=i -will provide-!more->off-street,. parking spaces' and will pro-
- - vide a =more "even!!'=allocation of frontages among parcels
the'cul-de-sac. r
5..:-. The proposed•=development is compatible with surrounding
development and land uses.
6.�.- The project density- is consistent with the densities con-
sidered. appropriate by the County General Plan in force
when this application was complete and the physical char-
-the- ,..site.
of -the ..site.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that- the Chairman and Secretary of this
Commission will sign and attest the certified copy of this resolu-
tion and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors all in accor-
dance with the Government Code of the State of California.
The instruction by the Planning Commission to prepare this
resolution was given. by motion of the Commission on Tuesday, May
14 , 1991, :'by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Terrell, Clark, Accornero, Frakes,
Gaddis, Woo.
NOES: Commissioners - Eric E. Lane.
ABSENT: Commissioners - None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None.
I, Eric E. Lane, Chairman of the Planning Commission of the
County' of Contra Costa, State of California, hereby certify that
the- foregoing was duly called and held in accordance with the law
on Tuesday, May 28,. 1991, and that this resolution was duly and
regularly passed and adopted by the following vote of the Commiss-
ion:
3 Resolution No. 27-1991
AYES: Commissioners - Clark, Accornero, Frakes, Terrell, Woo,
Gaddis, Lane.
- NOES:. . Commissioners - None. ==
.ABSENT: Commissioners - None.
ABSTAIN.: Commissioners None.
C1airmA"n 01 the P anning Commission,
Contra,e'osta County State of Calif
ornia.
ATTE4aof
Secr Planning Commission,
Contnty, State of California.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 7451 , PER 5/14/91 COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVAL.
1. This applicant is approved, generally, as shown on the Revised Tentative Map dated
received May 17, 1990 by the Community Development Department except that the
project is approved for a maximum of twelve (12) lots. Unless otherwise noted, the
following..conditions shall be complied with before filing the final map. At least 30
days prior-to filing a final map or issuance of a grading permit, a revised site plan will
be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator providing for the
following changes:
A. Merger of Lots 9 and 10 into one consolidated lot.
B. Merger of Lots 5 and 6 into one consolidated lot.
C. Expansion of Lot 11 by shifting the southwestern property line approximately
5-10 feet to the southwest.
D. The boundary line between Lots #9 and #10 to be moved to coincide with the
creek setback line.
E. Creek setback line to coincide with the north-south portion of the Lot 5-6 line.
2: At least 30 days prior to filing a final map or issuance of a grading permit for this
development the developer shall submit a site/grading plan detailing how the existing
large trees on the site shall be retained in accordance with the April 22, 1991 report
from Hortscience. Trees shall be accurately identified on the plan. Drip lines of trees
shall be staked during grading on the site to prevent inadvertent damage to tree root
systems. Other trees not recommended for preservation in the report may be removed.
Landscape debris shall be disposed of in an appropriate manner except that the debris
shall not be placed in a sanitary landfill. Prior to finalization of the grading permit, the
applicant shall provide proof that landscaping debris has been disposed of in
accordance with this condition.
3. With the filing of the Final Map, Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's)
shall be submitted for review by the Community Development Department.
4. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading,trenching or other on-site
excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a
professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology
(SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA) has had an
opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate
mitigation(s), if deemed necessary.
5. Sewage disposal serving the properties concerned in this application shall be provided
by the West Contra Costa Sanitary District. Each individual living unit shall be served
by a separate sewer connection. The sewers located within the boundaries of the
properties concerned shall become an integral part of the West Contra Costa Sanitary
District's sewage collection system.
- 2.
6. Watecsupply serving.,the properties concerned -shall be by the East Bay-Municipal
Utility District.- Each individual living unit shall be served by a separate water
connection: : Such water distribution system located within the boundaries of the
properties concerned.in:this application shall become an integral part of the East Bay
Municipal Utiiity District's overall water distribution system.
7. At.least 60 days prior to recording a Final Map, issuance of a grading permit, or
installation of improvements or utilities, submit a preliminary engineering geology, soil,
and foundation-re port meeting the requirements of subdivision ordinance section 94-
4.420 for review and approval of the Planning Geologist. Measures shall be provided
in the report to.mitigate any soil-instability concerns of the County relative to accept-
ing the road for maintenance purposed.
8. Concurrently with recordation of the Final Map, record a statement to run with deeds
to the property acknowledging the approved report by title, author (firm), and date,
calling attention to approved recommendations, and noting that the report is on file for
public review.in the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County.
9. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall carry out the recommendations of the
approved report.
10. Make. the approved preliminary engineering geology and soil report available to
prospective-buyers of lots of this.subdivision.
11 . Prior -.to the issuance of building permit, the applicants shall submit a detailed
Transportation-Systems Management(TSM) Plan for review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator:(unless otherwise required by a TSM Ordinance).. The approved TSM
Plan shall.be.operative prior to final inspection by the Building Inspection Department.
12. Street names shall be acceptable to the Community Development Department and the
West Contra Costa County Fire Protection District.
13. Prior to recording the Final Map for this site, the applicant shall submit a Landscape
Plan conforming to the County's Water Conversation policies.
A. Native, drought-resistent plants shall be used whenever feasible.
B. . A minimum of-two 15-gallon street trees for each lot except for Lots 1 afi-d 14
where. 4 trees shall be planted, to be maintained by the applicant until
occupancy of the residence. The Zoning Administrator shall review and
approve the street tree planting plan. The extra street trees not needed for Lots
5; 6, 7.and 9 shall be planted within the creek setback area. California native
pecies may be 5 gallon sized.
.14. The creek setback area shall be placed in a scenic easement that will not allow the
erection of structures, patios, lawns or other intensive landscape uses within the creek
setback area. The edge of the creek setback area shall be mounded with a low mound
3.
(1r 2.feet.,tahJ and,fenced with.a low fence (3-4 feet tall). :Gates maybe installed in the
fence: The scenic. easement shall not allow the erection of fences within the creek
setback,area other than three.strand non-barbed wire fences.
15. Prior to: issuance.of building. ,perrpits on the lots of the subdivision, the Zoning
Administrator shall review and approve house plans. Houses shall be kept rather small
Mj800.to 2,500 square feet maximum), decks shall be kept close to the ground (less
than=6:feet above ground) and site grading shall be kept to a minimum.
The four (4).reconfigured,lots at the end of the cul-de-sac shall provide for at least four
off-street. parking spaces, two of which must be placed beyond the setback area.
16. Noise generating construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 A.M. to
5:00 P.M., Monday.through Friday, :and shall be prohibited on State and Federal
holidays.. The restrictions on allowed working days may be modified on prior written
approval-by-the Zoning Administrator. Failure to comply with this condition could lead
to_stop work orders for this project.
17. The project sponsors shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal
combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition, and to locate stationary
noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and concrete pumpers as far away
from exiting residences as possible. Failure to comply with this condition could lead.
to stop work orders for this project.
18. A dust.and litter.control program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator-following review by the Building Inspection Department. Dust
shall be:kept down by watering which shall be accomplished by a watering truck on
site or from hydrants on site. Failure to comply with this condition could lead to stop
work orders for this project.
19. Residences shall,be equipped with illuminated house numbers clearly visible to the
street.
20. The perimeter of the site, other than the creek setback area, shall be fenced with a
suitable 6' tall solid wood fence or an alternative fence agreeable to neighbors of
property owners and the Zoning Administrator.
21. At least 3.0-days prior -to filing a. final map, the applicant will submit a proposed
covenant declaration. for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The
covenant shall be used to notify prospective buyers of the presence of a nearby horse
stable operation. .
22. The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road, and utility improvements will
require the review and approval of the Public Works Department:
A. In.accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code, this
subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance
4.
(Tale J) °Piny exceptions therefrom must-be specifically listed in this conditional
approval' statement. Conformance with the Ordinance includes the following
requirernents ,. ._.. -
11P- Chapter 96-10, "Underground Utilities".
Uhtlergrouridirig of all'utility distribution faculties, including the existing
unities along the Lh Paloma Road frontage.
2)`' Secfion 96=1`4:002, "Improvement'of County Streets".
Constructing road improvements along the frontage of La Paloma Road.
Constructing curb,* fouifoot six-inch sidewalk (width measured from
curb- face); "necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and
` necessary pavement widening along the frontage will satisfy this
requirement.
The face of curb shall be 10 feet from the ultimate right of way line.
`3)` Installing street lights and annexing the property to County Service Area
L-100 for maintenance of the street lights. The final number and
location of the lights shall be determined by the County Traffic Engineer.
4) Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the subject
property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage
facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks or to
an existing adequate storm drainage facility which conveys the storm
waters to a natural watercourse.
Designing and constructing storm drainage facilities required by the
Ordinance in compliance with specifications outlined in Division 914 of
the Ordinance and in compliance with design standards of the Public
Works Department.
Although the storm drainage system is shown in the proposed tentative
map, comment on the system will be made when the improvement plans
are submitted for review.
5) Installing within a dedicated drainage easement, any portion of the
drainage system which conveys run-off from public streets.
6) Relinquishing "development rights" over that portion of the site is within
the structure setback area of the creek. The structure setback area shall
be determined by using the criteria outlined in Chapter 914-14, "Rights
of Way and Setbacks", of the Subdivision Ordinance.
5.
7) :�-: -Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer,
-payment of review and inspection fees, and security for all improvement
required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions of approval for this
subdivision. These plans.shall include any necessary traffic signage and
striping plans for review by the County Traffic Engineer.
8) Submitting- ar Final. Map prepared by a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor.
B. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on La
Paloma Road as required for: the planned future width of 60 feet.
C. Provide for adequate sight distance at La Paloma Road in accordance with
CALTRANS standards.:_The applicant should be aware that this may require
performing work out side of the public road right of way and on other parcels
of land. Stop signs on La Paloma will. not be considered an acceptable
mitigation measure.
D. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division,
of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for
the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and drainage
improvements.
E. Relinquish abutter's rights of access along La Paloma Road with the exception
of the proposed public road intersection.
F. Construct the on-site road system to County public road standards and convey
to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the corresponding 52-foot width right
of way.
G. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a
concentrated manner, from draining across the sidewalks and driveways.
H. Submit a sketch plan to the Public Works Department, Road Engineering
Division, for review showing all public road improvements prior to starting work
on the improvement plans. The sketch alignment plan shall be to scale and
show proposed and future curb lines, lane striping details and lighting. The
sketch alignment plan shall also include adequate information to show that
adequate sight distance has been provided.
I. The applicant shall construct creek improvements as called out in the "San
Pablo Creek Watershed Study" and as directed by the Public Works
Department, Flood Control Public.
OR AT THE APPLICANT'S OPTION
6.
Contribute-$0.25/square foot of Impervious surface area to the San Pablo Creek
Study mitigation fund, to be used for improvements within the San Pablo Creek
Waters-hed Study. .
J. Install:"No Parking" :signs along La Paloma Road as directed by the Public
Works Department.
K. Construct curb and gutter, a three foot asphalt concrete sidewalk, necessary
longitudinal and transverse drainage, and necessary pavement widening along
tfie east side of�La Paloma Road.
These off-site improvements will extend from the existing frontage
improvements just- north of Chabre Court, northerly to McCormick Road
:Japproximately 375 In. ft.).
The face of the curb shall be 20 feet from the centerline of the road (5 feet
from the existing road right of way line).
ADVISORY NOTES
The following statement are not conditions of approval; however, the developer should be
aware of them prior to requesting building permits.
A. Building Inspection Department:
1. Preliminary soils report required.
2: Grading plans and permits required.
3. House numbers shall be illuminated.
B. West Contra Costa County Fire Protection District:
Comply with the District's requirements as outlined in their letter dated January 10,
1990, concerning this subdivision.
C. Comply with the requirements of the Park Dedication Fee Ordinance.
D. Public Works Department:
1. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish &
Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish &
Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed
construction within this development that may affect and fish and wildlife
resources, per the Fish & Game Code.
7.
2. This project may also be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of
Engineers <The applicant should notify the appropriate district of the Corps of
engineerrs to determine if a permit is required and if it can be obtained.
3. The applicant will be required. to comply with the requirements of the
Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the EI Sobrante Area of Benefit as
adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
4. Theapplicant wilfbe-required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for
Drainage Area 73rascadopted by-the Board-of Supervisors.'
AB/aa
SUBVI/7451 C1 .AB
3/19/91
4/17/91
5/14/91 - Rev.P/C (v)