Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11171992 - H.6 H. 6 SE Contra TO. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �;,• Costa FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON County�� tl"•• � DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' osT. - .•eA~ DATE: November 10, 1992 a•�ouK�`'t SUBJECT: A request by the Applicant (Alamo Summit) , County File #2776-RZ, Development Plan 3030-90 and Subdivision 7553 to Review and Approve a Development Agreement Relative to the Development Known as Alamo Summit (APN #191-740-011, -012, -017) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Accept the Environmental Documentation as prepared for this document as being adequate. 2 . Adopt the attached ordinance approving the Alamo Summit Development Agreement as recommended by . the Zoning Administrator. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS In May and June of 1990, the County certified an EIR for the Alamo Summit project, approved the rezoning of the project site to Planned Unit District (P-1) , and approved a preliminary development plan allowing a 37-unit residential development on the 78-acre project site. On March 17, 1992 , on appeal, the Board of Supervisors certified a supplemental EIR, final development plan and vesting tentative map for the 37-lot development. On November 2 , 1992 the Zoning Administrator took testimony on the development agreement, closed the public hearing and requested the applicant to consider providing contributions to the County's efforts regarding child care and homelessness, and continued the matter for decision to November 4 , 1992 . On November 4, 1992 the Zoning Administrator, with the consensus of the applicant, recommended approval of the Development Agreement, with the above listed contributions. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE ...,.,� A RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMIT EE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON No:yember 17 , 1992 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X _ OTHER x_ Now is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the recommendation of the Zoning Administrator on a request to review and approve a Development Agreement relative to the development known as Alamo Summit as being consistent with the County General Plan, Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan 2776-RZ, Final Development Plan 3030-90 and Subdivision 7553 in the Alamo area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the proposed Development Agreement and presented additional modifications listed below: On Page 16, add paragraph D to say that the developer shall pay all costs of mitigation monitoring and reporting; 1 . Y On Page 21, paragraph 5, to insert "and including such regional traffic mitigation fees as the County may impose pursuant to Measure C 1988" after see exhibit F Impact Fees; On Page 24, under processing, strike promptly and diligently so that it would read that "County shall commence and complete all steps" . Mr. Barry advised the Board that with those changes, the staff and Zoning Administrator recommend that the Board accept the environmental documentation as prepared for this document as being complete and adequate and adopt the attached ordinance approving the Alamo Summit Development Agreement as recommended by the Zoning Administrator with the modifications he had outlined. Michael Durkee, McCutcheon, Doyle, Brown and Enersen, P.O. Box V, Walnut Creek, representing Alamo Summit, spoke in support of the Development Agreement and he expressed agreement with staff 's proposed changes. Mr. Richard Clark, 156 Diablo Road #203, Danville, representing Alamo Summit, appeared in support. Zack Cowan, 655 Sutter Street, San Francisco, representing Alamo Improvement Association and Alamo Citizens for Responsible Growth, presented a letter dated November 17, 1992 reiterating the concerns expressed in pending litigation. Mr. Cowan also expressed concerns with the Development Agreements relative to provisions 6. Olb and 1. 04. Supervisor McPeak advised of a card to be submitted for the record from Martha Kirsch, 376 Castle Crest Road, Walnut Creek, in opposition. Mr. Clark advised that he had no rebuttal to the comments that were made, and expressed disagreement with Mr. Cowan' s comments. Supervisor McPeak requested clarification from County Counsel as to whether there is anything in this Development Agreement that is extraordinary or unusual when comparing it to other Development Agreements entered into. Victor Westman, County Counsel, advised that generally speaking there was not. The public hearing was closed. Supervisor Schroder moved to accept the environmental documentation as prepared for the document as being adequate and to adopt the attached ordinance approving the Alamo Summit Development Agreement as recommended by the Zoning Administrator and as amended by the recommendations of Mr. Barry. Supervisor McPeak clarified that the motion would include the addition of the subdivision indemnification approval condition. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendation 1 is APPROVED; and Ordinance No. 92-92 approving the Alamo Summit Development Agreement as recommended by the Zoning Administrator and as amended by Mr. Barry is ADOPTED. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF Contact:Debbie Drennan - 646-2031 SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED November 17 , 1992 cc: County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF McCutcheon, Doyle , Brown & Enersen THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Public Works COUN Y ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY 93 1196 JAN 14 1993 SoOK 8203P9 � JAN 141993 $ECORD,.® T_FJgAUEST lnw;t ORDINANCE NO. 92-92 /�- �� rr� b (Alamo Summit Development Agree@ Rm--" z .... .'.�� _.._ Page 1 of 2 JAN 14 1593 AT O'CLOCK M WHEN RECORDED RETURN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDS TO CLERK, JAN 14 1993 STEPHEN L, WEIR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY RECORDER FEE' - 73 � 41✓ The Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa ordains as follows : Section I . Findings . The Board hereby finds that the provisions of that certain development agreement by and between the County of Contra Costa and Alamo Summit relating to the development known as Alamo Summit (the "Development Agreement" ) , a copy of which is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit 1 , and hereby incorporated into this Ordinance for all purposes by this reference, has been found by the County.. Zoning Administrator to be adequate for approval , and is consistent with the County' s General Plan (as established by the terms of the Development Agreement , the determinations of the County Community Development Department, the County Zoning Administrator, and such other information in the record provided to the Board) . The Board hereby further finds that the underlying development project to which the Development Agreement relates was subject to full and proper environmental review under CEQA, resulting in the certification of an EIR (May 22 , 1990) and a supplemental EIR (March 17, 1992) , which review encompassed the Development Agreement; findings regarding same are attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit 2, and hereby incorporated into this Ordinance for all purposes by this reference. Section II . Approval . Pursuant to the authorization provided in sections 65864 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California, the Board hereby approves the Development At reement . The Board hereby authorizes the Director of Community Development to execute the Development Agreement on behalf of the County and to post a notice of determination pursuant to Section 21152 of the California Public Resources Code regarding this approval . EUS: SZ��P Z Page 2 of 2 Section III . Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such a decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance . The Board hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance irrespective of the unconstitutionality or invalidity of any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase . Section IV. Statute of Limitations . No action or proceeding ( "Action" ) may be brought by a person, public agency, or public or private corporation, partnership, association, organization or other business or non-business entity other than the parties to the Development Agreement or their successors (collectively referred to as "Third Party" ) to attack, review, interpret , set aside, void, or annul all or any part of the Development Agreement or the decision of the County of Contra Costa to approve and execute the Development Agreement, unless the Action is commenced and service made on the County of Contra Costa within 120 days from the County' s adoption of this Ordinance. Section V. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days after passage and, within 15 days of passage, shall be published once with the names of Supervisors voting for and against it in the Contra Costa Times , a newspaper of general circulation published in this County. PASSED and ADOPTED on November 17 , 1992 by the following vote: AYES : Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson, McPeak NOES : None ABSENT:None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator De uty Board Chair Date: November 17 , 1992 N. b EXA. i Q L1 ,O 7C N CJ W DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUN'T'Y OF CONTRA COSTA AND ALAMO SUMMIT RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS "ALAMO SUMMIT" TABLE OF CONTENTS a ,o Page RECITALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 p --c rJ AGREEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ARTICLE 1 . GENERAL PROVISIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Section 1 . 01 . Incorporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Section 1 . 02 . Covenants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Section 1 . 03 . Effective Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Section1 . 04 . Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ARTICLE 2 . DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ARTICLE 3 . OBLIGATIONS OF DEVELOPER AND COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Section 3 . 01 . Obligations of Developer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Section 3 . 02 . Obligations of County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 ARTICLE 4 . DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT AND PROJECT SITE . . . . . . . . . . 17 Section 4 . 01 . Vested Right to Develop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Section 4 . 02 . Applicable Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 (a) General Rule and Uniform Codes Exception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 (b) Specific Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 (1) Police Power and Taxing Power . . . . . 18 (2) Environmental Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . 18 (3) No Conflicting Enactments . . . . . . . . . 19 (4) Processing Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 (5) Impact Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 i Page ( 6) Overcapacity, Oversizing of ,o Improvements and Fee Credits . . . . 21 ( 7) Independent Approval of Project . . 22 U) Section 4 . 03 . Cooperation/Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 �J xJ1 (a) New Law - County Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 (b) Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 (c) Life of Approvals , Includes Subsequent Approvals and Other Entitlements . . . . 23 (d) Changes in the Applicable Law . . . . . . . . . 24 (e) Timing of Project Construction and Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 (f) Processing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 (g) Eminent Domain Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 (h) Other Governmental Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Section 4 . 04 . General Permitted Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 ARTICLE 5. AMENDMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Section 5 . 01 . Amendment of Project Approvals . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Section 5 . 02 . Amendment Of This Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 (a) Generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 ii Page 0 ARTICLE 6. COOPERATION IN THE EVENT OF LEGAL ACTION . . . . . . . . . 27 00 iv 0 Section 6 . 01 . Third Party Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 CEJ z c� (a) Cooperation; Tender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 (b) Cure; Reapproval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 ARTICLE 7. DEFAULT; ANNUAL REVIEW; REMEDIES; TERMINATION . . . . 29 Section 7 . 01 . General Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Section 7 . 02 . Annual Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Section 7 . 03 . Enforced Delay; Extension of Time ofPerformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Section 7 . 04 . Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Section 7 . 05 . California Law/Attorneys ' Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 ARTICLE 8. MISCELLANEOUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Section 8 . 01 . No Agency, Joint Venture or Partnership . . 33 Section 8 . 02 . Severability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Section 8 . 03 . Other Necessary Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Section 8 . 04 . Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Section 8 . 05 . Other Miscellaneous Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 iii Page ARTICLE 9. NOTICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 0 Section 9 . 01 . Method of Notice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 fV O ARTICLE 10 . ASSIGNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 CEJ Section 10 . 01 . Transfer of Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 7-4 ARTICLE 11 . NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Section 11 . 01 . Generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Section 11 . 02 . County Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 ARTICLE 12. ENTIRE AGREEMENT, COUNTERPARTS, EXHIBITS, RECORDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Section 12 . 01 . Generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Section 12 . 02 . Waivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Section 12 . 03 . Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Section 12 . 04 . Recordation of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 iv W O 'O :7C DEVELOPMENT AGREE?[ENT xj BETWEEN COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA CA AND ALAMO SUMMIT RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS THE "ALAMO SUMMIT" to THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ( "Agreement" ) is entered into this 17th day of December , 1992 , by and between ALAMO SUMMIT, INC. , a California corporation ( "Developer" ) , and COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a political subdivision of the State of California ( "County" ) , pursuant to the authority of Section 65864 , et seq. , of the California Government Code. Developer and County are from time to time hereinafter referred to individually as a "party" and collectively as the "parties . " RECITALS A. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted Government Code section 65864 et seq. , which authorizes the County to enter into an agreement with any person or business entity having a legal or equitable interest in real property, regarding the development of such property and establishing certain development rights therein. B. The County has adopted policies, procedures and requirements regarding its consideration of development agreements . This Development Agreement has been processed, considered and executed in accordance with those County policies, procedures and requirements . 1 C. Developer has a legal or equitable interest in those certain parcels of land, consisting of approximately one o hundred seventy-eight ( 178) acres , as diagramed in Exhibit A to this Agreement , and more particularly described in Exhibit A-1 to this Agreement (the "Project Site" ) . D. Pursuant to the Approvals, it is the intent of the Developer to develop the Project Site as a single-family residential subdivision containing 37 homes , including the construction of necessary on-site roadways and other infrastructure and related improvements (e. g. , the widening of Ridgewood Road, etc . ) (the "Project" ) . Hereinafter , any reference in this Agreement to the Project or the development of the Project shall mean and include the Project, Project Site and related improvements and their development pursuant to the Approvals and this Agreement . E. Developer has secured or will secure from the County, through its San Ramon Valley Planning Commission ( "Planning Commission" ) and its Board of Supervisors ( "Board" ) , and from other public agencies , various environmental and land use approvals , permits, agreements , actions and other entitlements relating to the development of the Project, including the following : 1 . First Approvals . The first group of such entitlements have already been granted by the County and are collectively referred to in this Agreement as the "First Approvals . " They include without limitation the following: a. EIR. On May 22, 1990 , the County certified as complete an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR" ) prepared in conjunction with applications for 2 the below-described "Rezoning" and "Preliminary Development Plan. " b. Rezoninq. On June 5 , 1990 , the County . approved the rezoning of the Project Site from General co Agricultural (A-2) to Planned Unit District (P-1) (the "Rezoning" ) , as set forth in Exhibit B to this Agreement . O C. Preliminary Development Plan. Also on June 5 , 1990 , the County approved a preliminary development plan pursuant to County Code Chapter 84-66 for a 37-lot residential development on the Project Site with a minimum 1-acre parcel size (the "Preliminary Development Plan" ) . d. Conditions of Approval . The First Approvals were granted by County subject to certain "Conditions of Approval , " which, for the purposes of this Agreement, shall also be considered included in any reference to the First Approvals . e. General Plan--Consistency. The County found the First Approvals to be consistent with that County General Plan in place when the First Approvals were granted (the "Old General Plan" ) . Said consistency findings are set forth in the writings .attached to the First Approvals as exhibits which are hereby incorporated into this Agreement by this reference as if set forth in full . In approving the Second Approvals referenced below, the County found the First Approvals consistent with the Second Approvals, and found the Project and the Second Approvals consistent with the Current General Plan. 3 2. Second Approvals . Pursuant to the First 'o .o Approvals , development of the Project required additional County entitlements, which are collectively referred to in this CD Agreement as the "Second Approvals . " The Second Approvals include without limitation the following: a. Supplemental EIR. On September 4 , 1990 , the applicant submitted applications for the below-described Final Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map. The Final Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map contained several changes from the Preliminary Development Plan plus new details , generally in response to the conditions of the First Approvals imposed by the County. The County determined that a supplemental EIR ( "SEIR" ) should be prepared to focus on the environmental consequences of such additional Project details and changes, and to provide appropriate environmental documentation for this Agreement . The SEIR was certified by the San Ramon Regional Planning Commission on August 22, 1991 , and recertified by the Board, on appeal , on March 17 , 1992 . . b. Final Development Plan. On September 4 , 1990 , an application was submitted to the County for the "Final Development Plan; " said application was accepted by the County as complete on September 11 , 1990 . The Final Development Plan was approved by the San Ramon Regional Planning Commission on August 22 , 1991 , and reapproved by the Board, on appeal , on March 17, 1992 . The Final Development Plan is attached as Exhibit C to this Agreement . 4 C. Vesting Tentative Map. On September 4 , 1990 , an application was submitted to the o County for the "Vesting Tentative Map; " said L7C3 application was accepted by the County as complete on September 11 , 1990 . The Vesting Tentative Map was approved by the San Ramon Regional Planning Commission on August 22 , 1991 , and approved by the Board, on appeal , on March 17, 1992; the Vesting Tentative Map is subject to certain conditions of approval which hereinafter shall be considered included in any reference in this Agreement to the Vesting Tentative Map. The Vesting Tentative Map is attached as Exhibit D to this Agreement . d. Conditions of Approval . The Second Approvals were granted by County subject to certain conditions of approval , which, for the purposes of this Agreement, shall also be considered included in any reference to the Second Approvals . e. Current General Plan--Consistency. In January of 1991 , the County adopted an updated and amended County General Plan (the "Current General Plan" ) . The Second Approvals are subject to the Old General Plan, because the County hearings leading to adoption of the Current General Plan in January 1991 were initiated after the applications for the Second Approvals, including the Vesting Tentative Map, were accepted as complete by the County. However, as exhibited in both the determinations reached by the County in the CEQA and related findings adopted by this Board with the approval of the Second Approvals on March 17, 1992 (the "CEQA Findings" ) , and in Exhibit E to this Agreement, the Second Approvals are 5 also consistent with the Current General Plan. Section 4 . 02(b) (8) of this Agreement incorporates and a, independently approves the development allowed by all of the Approvals . N f . Service Agencies. On November 13, 1991, the Local Agency Formation Commission of Contra Costa County ( "LAFCO" ) approved the expansion of the t"0 spheres of influence for the East Bay Municipal Utility District ( "EBMUD" ) , Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ( "CCCSD" ) , and County Service Area R7A C R7A" ) to include the Project Site, approved the annexation of the Project Site to the EBMUD and R7A service areas to serve the Project (the Project Site already is within the CCCSD service area) , and designated the Board the Conducting Authority to implement said LAFCO decisions . On January 14 , 1992, the Board, as Conducting Authority, ratified and implemented said LAFCO decisions . 3 . Subsequent Approvals . Applications for other land use actions , approvals, permits, agreements , and other entitlements necessary or desirable to the development of the Project (the "Subsequent Approvals" ) may also be made by Developer . The Subsequent Approvals may include, without limitation, amendment of the First Approvals , Second Approvals, Subsequent Approvals and/or this Agreement, design review, improvement agreements and other agreements relating to the subdivision maps relating to the Project, use permits , grading permits, building permits, lot line adjustments, sewer and water connection permits , certificates of occupancy, tentative, vesting tentative, parcel , vesting parcel , and final subdivision maps, conditions of approvals, and any amendments to, or repealing of, any of the above. 6 4 . Approvals . The Second Approvals implemented, refined and revised the First Approvals . The Subsequent Approvals may likewise implement and refine the OfVp First Approvals and the Second Approvals . This Agreement fl recognizes that situation and collectively refers to the entirety (whole) of the Project ' s entitlements (the First Approvals , Second Approvals and Subsequent Approvals) as the "Approvals . " F. Certain First Approvals and Second Approvals have been challenged by third parties . Through this Agreement, the County reaffirms its support of and commitment to the Project , considers anew and affirms the First Approvals and Second Approvals , and establishes a process by which curative measures and procedures will be invoked should any such challenge result in a judicial determination of procedural or substantive deficiencies in any such First Approvals or Second Approvals . G. Development of the Project in accordance with this Agreement (and the Applicable Law it describes) will provide for orderly growth consistent with the goals , policies, and other provisions of the Old and Current General Plans . H. On November 2 and 4 , 1992, following a duly noticed and conducted public hearing, the County Zoning Administrator , the County' s hearing body for purposes of development agreement review under Government Code section 65867, recommended that the Board approve this Agreement . I . On November 17, 1992 , after a duly noticed public hearing, the County Board of Supervisors took the following actions : ( 1) determined that the SEIR adequately addressed this Agreement and readopted the CEQA Findings; (2) determined 7 that the First Approvals, Second Approvals and the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with both the Old and the 0 Current General Plans; and (3) introduced Ordinance No . 92-92 , approving and authorizing the execution of this Agreement . On November 17 , . 1992 , the Board adopted said Ordinance, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit G. (�7 J. For the reasons set forth in this Agreement, Developer and the County have determined that the Project is the type of development for which this Agreement is appropriate, because this Agreement will : eliminate uncertainty in planning and provide for the orderly development of the Project Site; mitigate significant environmental impacts ; provide for a diversity and balance of housing; and otherwise achieve the goals and purposes for which the Development Agreement Statute was enacted. K. In exchange for these benefits and additional public benefits that will result from the development of the Project pursuant to this Agreement, Developer desires to receive the assurance that it may proceed with the Project in accordance with this Agreement and the Applicable Law it describes . NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants, and provisions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows : 8 AGREEMENT C� fV O ARTICLE 1 . GENERAL PROVISIONS (-A-) Section 1 . 01 . Incorporation. The preamble, the Recitals , and all defined terms set forth therein, are hereby incorporated into this Agreement as if set forth herein in full . Section 1 . 02. Covenants. The provisions of this Agreement shall constitute covenants or servitudes which shall -run with the land comprising the Project Site and the burdens and benefits thereof shall bind and inure to the benefit of all successor estates and interests in the Project and the Project Site, as well as all successors in interest , heirs , assignees , ` and transferees of the parties ( "Successor Interests" ) . Section 1 . 03 . Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon the thirtieth (30th) day following the adoption by the County of Ordinance No. 92-92 (Exhibit G) , approving this Agreement, or the date upon which this Agreement is executed by Developer and the County, whichever is later (the "Effective Date" ) . Section 1 . 04 . Term. The term of this Agreement shall be 20 years . The term shall commence upon the Effective Date and shall extend up to and including the twentieth (20th) anniversary of the Effective Date. ARTICLE 2 . DEFINITIONS Terms and Phrases used in this Agreement which have the first letter of the term or phrase capitalized are terms 9 and phrases of art with a particular meaning which, unless the context requires a different meaning, shall be as follows : 0 "Administrative Amendment" shall have that meaning ---= CO set forth in Section 5 . 01(a) of this Agreement . � Com.) "Agreement" shall mean this Development Agreement . "Agreement Challenge" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 6 . 01(a) of this Agreement . "Annual Review" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 7 . 02 of this Agreement . "Applicable Law" shall have that meaning set forth in Article 4 of this Agreement . "Application" shall mean an application for a Subsequent Approval . "Approvals" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital paragraph E . 4 . of this Agreement . "Approval Challenge" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 6 . 01(a) of this Agreement . "Board" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital paragraph E of this Agreement . "CEQA" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital paragraph E. I . of this Agreement . "CEQA Findings" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital paragraph E. 2 . e. of this Agreement . 10 "Challenge" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 6 . 01 (a) of this Agreement . 0 •o :x "Changes in the Law" shall have that meaning set CO forth in Section 4 . 02(e) of this Agreement . Lai �J "Conditions of Approval" shall mean and include any conditions of approval attached to the Approvals and shall be �O collectively included in any reference to the Approvals . "County" shall mean the County of Contra Costa . Those acting on behalf of the County may include the County' s Board of Supervisors , Planning Commissions, Zoning Administrator and County' s agencies, departments, employees or consultants . "Curing Party" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 7 . 01(b) of this Agreement . "Cure Period" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 7 . 01 (a) of this Agreement . "Current General Plan" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital paragraph E. 2 . e. of this Agreement . "Default Notice" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 7 . 01 of this Agreement . "Default Period" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 7 . 01(a) of this Agreement . "Developer" shall have that meaning set forth in the preamble, and shall further include Developer ' s Successor Interests . it "Development Agreement Statute" shall mean Government Code sections 65864 through 65869 . 5 . x "Director" shall mean the Community Development Director of the County, or his or her designee. CD "Effective Date" shall have that meaning ,set forth in Section 1 . 03 of this Agreement . S.O "EIR" shall have that general meaning set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 , et seq. , and that specific meaning set forth in Recital paragraph E. 1 of this Agreement . "Excess Portion" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 4 . 02(b) ( 7) of this Agreement . "Fee Credit Agreement" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 4 . 02(b) ( 7) of this Agreement . "Final Development Plan" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital paragraph E. 2 .b. of this Agreement . "Final Map" shall have that meaning set forth in the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code section 66410 .et seq. "First Approvals" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital paragraph E. 1 . of this Agreement . For informational purposes , the parties note that in the findings and other documentation that accompanied or constituted the Second Approvals , the Second Approvals were called the "Current Approvals, " and the First Approvals were called the "Prior Approvals . " 12 "Impact Fees" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 4 . 02(b) ( 5) of this Agreement . a, x "Judgment" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 6 . 01(b) of this Agreement . cz) "Laws" or "Law" shall mean and include all applicable federal and California statutes and case law, and any County laws, ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations , policies, motions , directives , mitigation measures, conditions , standards , specifications , dedications , fees, taxes ( including without limitation general , special and excise taxes) , assessments , liens , other exactions and impositions , or any other action, whether enacted or adopted by the County or its electorate through the initiative or referendum process . "Legal Action" shall mean and include any action or proceeding brought administratively or brought in law or equity to cure, correct, or remedy any default, to enforce any covenant or agreement herein, to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation thereof , to recover damages for any default, to enforce by specific performance any Rights of the parties hereto, or to obtain any other remedies allowed administratively or in law or equity. "Legal Rights" shall mean and include all Rights , all administrative rights and remedies, all rights and remedies in law and equity, and the right to bring a Legal Action. "New Law" shall mean any law which becomes operative or effective after the Applicable Law. "Notice of Compliance" shall have that meaning set forth in Article 11 of this Agreement . 13 "Noticing Party" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 7 . 01(b) of this Agreement . .o x "Old General Plan" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital paragraph E. 1 . e. of this Agreement . O �a.J "Oversizing" shall have that meaning set forth in N, Section 4 . 02(b) ( 7) of this Agreement . "PD Zoning" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital paragraph E . 2 of this Agreement . "Planning Commission" shall mean the applicable Planning Commission of the County of Contra Costa . "Preliminary Development Plan" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital paragraph E. l . c . of this Agreement . "Processing Fees" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 4 . 02(b) (4) of this Agreement . "Project" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital paragraph D of this Agreement . "Project Site" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital paragraph C of this Agreement . "Remaining Property" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 10 . 01(b) of this Agreement . "Rezoning" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital paragraph E. l .b. of this Agreement . 14 "Rights" shall mean and include all rights , duties and obligations arising out of this Agreement . 00 O "Second Approvals" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital paragraph E . 2 of this Agreement . For informational purposes , the parties note that in the findings and other N documentation that accompanied or constituted the Second Approvals , the Second Approvals were called the "Current Approvals, " and the First Approvals were called the "Prior Approvals . " "SEIR" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital paragraph E. 2 . a. of this Agreement . "Subdivision Map Act" shall have the meaning set forth in Government Code section 66410 . 50 . "Subsequent Approvals" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital paragraph F of this Agreement . "Successor Interests" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 1 . 02 of this Agreement . "Tender" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 6 . 01 of this Agreement . "Third Party" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 6 . 01 of this Agreement . "Transferee" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 10 . 01(b) of this Agreement . "Transferred Property" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 10 . 01(b) of this Agreement . 15 "Vesting Date" shall mean September 11 , 1990, the date the County accepted as complete Developer ' s application :x for the Vesting Tentative Map. If all or any portion of the Approvals or this Agreement is rendered invalid or ineffective by a Judgment, based on all or any portion of those Laws that A) are operative and in force and effect as of September 11 , 1990 and that are consistent with this Agreement , and the invalidity or ineffectiveness cannot or for any reason will not be otherwise cured pursuant to Section 6 . 01(b) of this Agreement, then "Vesting Date'' shall mean the Effective Date of this Agreement . "Vesting Tentative Map" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital paragraph E . 2 . c . of this Agreement . ARTICLE 3. OBLIGATIONS OF DEVELOPER AND COUNTY Section 3 . 01 . Obligations of Developer . In consideration of County entering into this Agreement , Developer agrees that : (a) It shall comply with this Agreement and the Approvals consistent with, or granted pursuant to, this Agreement, and further agrees to waive any Legal Rights it might otherwise have to maintain a Legal Action challenging the terms and conditions of this Agreement; (b) It shall pay a one-time fee of $30 , 000 to the County for its use in addressing the problem of homelessness in the County (the "Homeless Fee" ) , said Homeless Fee being due and payable in full to the County at the time of the County' s issuance of the nineteenth ( 19th) Certificate of Occupancy (residential unit) for the Project; 16 (c) It shall pay a total of $10 , 000 for the Project to the County for child care and child care-related programs , activities and improvements (the "Child Care Fees" ) , said Child Care Fees being due and payable to the County in the manner described in the Vesting Tentative Map; and C] (d) It shall pay all costs of mitigation ty monitoring and reporting. Section 3 . 02 . Obligations of County. In consideration of Developer entering into this Agreement, County agrees that it shall comply with the Agreement and the Approvals , and that it shall act on all Subsequent Approvals as provided in this Agreement . ARTICLE 4. DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT AND PROJECT SITE Section 4 . 01 . Vested Right to Develop. Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Project subject to this Agreement and the Applicable Law it describes . Section 4 . 02 . Applicable Law. (a) General Rule and Uniform Codes Exception. ( 1) The "Applicable Law" shall mean: ( i). the terms and provisions of this Agreement ( including those Laws described in or established by this Agreement, such as Subdivision (b) of this Section 4 . 02) ; ( ii) the Approvals consistent with this Agreement; and ( iii) those Laws that are operative and in force and effect as of the Vesting Date and that are consistent with this Agreement . 17 (2) However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the County may apply current Uniform Building Code and otherCD uniform construction codes to the Project and Project Site throughout the term of this Agreement , provided that : ( i) such uniform codes shall apply to the Project and Project Site only Can to the extent that the applicable code (and the applicable version or revision of the code) has been adopted by County and is in effect on a Countywide basis; and ( ii) provisions of such uniform codes shall be interpreted and applied to the Project and Project Site in a manner consistent with the generally prevailing interpretation of such provisions under the State Building Standards Code. (b) Specific Rules. (1) Police Power and Taxing Power. The County, through the exercise of either its police power or its taxing power, shall not establish, enact, increase, or impose any laws applicable to the Project which are not part of the Applicable Law. (2) Environmental Mitigation. In connection with County' s approval of any Subsequent Approval or issuance of any entitlement which is subject to CEQA, or in connection with any procedures or decisions undertaken pursuant to a a Judgment as referred to in Section 6 . 01(b) of this Agreement, and to the extent permitted or required by CEQA, County shall : (A) Commence and process any and all initial studies and assessments required by CEQA; (B) Not impose any environmental alternatives or mitigation measures ( "Measures" ) in addition to 18 those referenced in the First Approvals or Second Approvals that would require a reduction in the density or intensity (37 lots) of the Project . The County shall reject such Measures as infeasible on the basis , among others , that Government Code section 65866 and this Agreement legally bar fl the implementation of such mitigation measures, and that C� Section 3 . 01 of this Agreement provides for specific economic, social and other community benefits which outweigh, override and make infeasible any such Measures . County may require CrI additional studies or reports in the situation that subdivision (B) of this Section 4 . 02(b) (2) does not apply. (3) No Conflicting Enactments . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this Agreement shall not preclude the County or the voters in the County, by subsequent action, from enacting or imposing any New Law that does not conflict with this Agreement . Any New Law, whether by specific reference to the development of the Project or as part of a general enactment which directly or indirectly applies to the development of the Project , shall be considered to conflict with this Agreement if it has any of the following effects : (A) Limits or reduces the density or intensity of the development of the Project granted by the Applicable Law, or otherwise requires any reduction in the number , size or square footage of lots , homes , structures, buildings and/or other improvements; (B) Limits public services or facilities (for example, water , drainage, sewer or sewage treatment capacity) to the Project; 19 (C) Limits or controls the timing or phasing of the construction/development of the Project allowed C by the Applicable Law in any manner; CZ) C� c.+ (D) Limits the location of buildings, structures, grading, or other improvements involved with they development of the Project in a manner which is inconsistent with or more restrictive than the Applicable Law; (E) Applies to the development of the Project any New Law otherwise allowed by this Agreement, which is not uniformly applied on a Countywide basis to all substantially similar development projects and project sites ; (F) Limits the processing or procuring of applications or approvals of Subsequent Approvals . The above list is not intended to be comprehensive or to limit the types of action that would conflict with Applicable Law, and therefore with this Agreement , but rather is only a list of some types of conflicting actions . As stated, all County actions applying any New Law to the development of the Project must be consistent with this Agreement . In addition to the foregoing, any condition or requirement imposed on the development of the Project pursuant to any New Law must be capable of being implemented at reasonable cost without unreasonably interfering with development of the Project pursuant to this Agreement . If County denies any Subsequent Approval on the basis that it does not comply with a New Law that is consistent with this Agreement , County shall follow the procedures set forth in Section 4 . 03(f) of this Agreement . 20 (4) Processing Fees . Fees charged by County which solely represent the reasonable costs to the .o zm County for County staff time and resources spent reviewing and processing applications for Subsequent Approvals are referred DSD to in this Agreement as "Processing Fees . " The County may O charge Developer the Processing Fees that are operative and in force and effect on a Countywide basis at the time the �V application is submitted for a Subsequent Approval . CO (5) Impact Fees . Developer shall pay at building permit issuance those County impact fees that were operative and in effect on the Vesting Date and such "regional traffic mitigation fees'' as County may adopt (pursuant to the Measure C ( 1988) 1/2 cent sales tax measure) for residential development like the Project (see Exhibit F) . (All such fees are collectively referred to as "Impact Fees" . ) The Impact Fees may be increased or decreased by the County on or after January 1 , 1994 , and each January 1st thereafter during the term of this Agreement, by the lesser of the following: (A) A percentage not to exceed the percentage increase or decrease for the prior calendar year in the Engineering News Record, the Building Cost Index for the San Francisco Region; or (B) The actual increase or decrease of the Impact Fee by the County. (6) Overcapacity, Oversizing of Improvements and Fee Credits. (A) Pursuant to State law (Government Code sections 66485 et seq. ) , County may require Developer to construct on-site and off-site improvements in a manner which 21 provides for reasonable oversizing or overcapacity ( "Oversizing" ) so that the constructed improvement will serve a property outside of the Project Site in addition to serving the Project and Project Site . County shall keep such Oversizing to O the reasonable minimum necessary to avoid unnecessary early replacement of infrastructure improvements installed pursuant to the Approvals . LO (B) Pursuant to said State law, if County requires Oversizing of improvements , then County shall specify a fee credit or other means of repayment acceptable to Developer in an amount equal to that portion of the cost of land (at fair market value) and costs of such improvements (actual construction and other costs , including interest and overhead) that reflects the difference between the cost of that improvement and/or land that was actually constructed and the cost of that improvement and/or land that would have otherwise been needed to serve only the Project (the "Excess Portion" ) . The Excess Portion shall be determined in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, and any reimbursements/credits owing shall be determined in an agreement between Developer (or its Successor Interests) and the County. (7) Independent Approval of Project. For the reasons set forth in the Recitals and text of Exhibit E and in the CEQA Findings , the First Approvals , Second Approvals and provisions of this Agreement are consistent with both the Old General Plan and the Current General Plan. In light of the Challenge, the County, by this Agreement, hereby considers anew and affirms that development set forth in the First Approvals and Second Approvals . 22 Section 4 . 03 . Cooperation/Implementation. 0 t� x (a) New Law - County Efforts . OD rNJ (1) To the maximum extent permitted by law, County shall use its best efforts to prevent any New Law from invalidating or prevailing over all or any part of this O. Agreement, and County agrees to cooperate with Developer in a reasonable manner in order to keep this Agreement in full force and effect . (2) County shall not support or enact any New Law (or take any other action) that would violate the express or implied terms , conditions , spirit or intent of this Agreement . (3) Developer reserves the right to challenge any New Law should it be necessary, in Developer ' s opinion, to protect the development rights vested pursuant to this Agreement . (b) Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. Each party shall use its best efforts and take and employ all necessary actions to ensure that the Rights secured by the other party through this Agreement, can be enjoyed, and neither party shall take any action that will deprive the other party of the enjoyment of the Rights secured through this Agreement . (c) Life of Approvals, Includes Subsequent Approvals and Other Entitlements . The term of the Approvals shall automatically be extended for the longer of: (1) the term of this Agreement; or (2) the term normally given the particular Approval under controlling State law, or in the 23 absence of such State law, the term given said Approval under local law. C� N (d) Changes in the Applicable Law. Pursuant to t_. Government Code section 65869 . 5, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement , this Agreement shall not preclude .) the application to the Project or Project Site of any New Law that is specifically mandated and required by changes in State or federal laws or regulations ( "Changes in the Law" ) . In the event the Changes in the Law prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of the Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with the Changes in the Law, and County and Developer shall take such action as may be required pursuant to this Agreement, including without limitation, Section 4 . 03 and Section 7 . 03 . (e) Timing of Project Construction and Completion. Developer shall develop the Project in accordance with Developer ' s time schedule as such schedule may exist from time to time, and Developer shall determine which part of the Project to develop first . (f) Processinq. (1) Upon submission by Developer of applications and Processing Fees for any Subsequent Approval (such applications and Processing Fees collectively referred to herein as the "Application" ) , County shall commence and complete all steps necessary to act on the Application, including without limitation: (a) the notice and holding of all required public hearings; and (b) the granting or approval of the Application to the extent that it complies with this Agreement and the Applicable Law. 24 (2) County may deny an Application only if .CD 0 the Application does not comply with this Agreement , is x inconsistent with the Approvals , already granted Subsequent DNO Approvals or other aspects of the Applicable Law. County may C:D (_, impose conditions of approval to the extent that such C=:, conditions of approval are consistent with the Applicable Law, or are necessary to make the Application consistent with or N. bring the Application into compliance with the Applicable Law. If County denies any such Application for a Subsequent Approval , County must specify in making such denial the modifications to the Application which are required to obtain approval of the Application. Any such specified modifications must be consistent with the Applicable Law; County shall approve any Application subsequently submitted for County review if it complies with the specified modifications . County and Developer shall , with due diligence and in good faith, cooperate to process and approve, grant or issue Subsequent Approvals , and County shall require modifications rather than denying any Applications for Subsequent Approvals whenever reasonably possible . (3) Developer shall provide County, in a timely manner, all documents, applications , plans, and other information necessary for the County to carry out its obligations hereunder and shall cause Developer ' s planners , engineers , and other consultants to submit to County, in a timely manner , all required materials and documents . It is the express intent of Developer and County to cooperate and diligently work to approve and implement all Applications for Subsequent Approvals . (g) Eminent Domain Power. County shall cooperate with Developer in implementing the Approvals and this 25 Agreement , including without limitation, the use by the County of its power of eminent domain, where applicable . C1) iv (h) Other Governmental Permits . Developer CZ) shall apply in a timely manner for such Subsequent Approvals cJ required by other agencies having jurisdiction over , or W providing services or facilities to, the Project . County shall tA) cooperate with Developer relative to such Subsequent Approvals . Section 4 . 04 . General Permitted Uses . The permitted uses , density and intensity of use, maximum height, size of proposed homes , buildings and other structures and provisions for reservation or dedication of land and other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Project shall be those set forth in the Applicable Law, including without limitation, the Zoning (Exhibit B) , Final Development Plan (Exhibit C) and Vesting Tentative Map (Exhibit D) . ART I CLE 5 . AMENDMENT Section 5 . 01 . Amendment of Project Approvals . The Approvals may, from time to time, be amended or modified, and shall be subject to review, consideration and action pursuant to the Applicable Law. Section 5 . 02. Amendment Of This Agreement. (a) Generally. This Agreement may be amended from time to time in whole or in part by mutual consent of the original parties or their successors in interest, in accordance with this Agreement and Sections 65867 , 65867 . 5, and 65868 , of the Government Code. The parties of this Agreement foresee that Project structures will undergo design review by the County pursuant to the Rezoning. The decisions reached by the 26 County pursuant to such review shall not require an amendment x to this Agreement . co iv C-0 ARTICLE 6 . COOPERATION IN THE EVENT OF LEGAL ACTION �J Com! Section 6 . 01 . Third Party Challenge. (a) Cooperation; Tender . In the event of a Legal Action instituted by a party other than the parties to this Agreement or their Successor Interests , including another governmental entity or official ( "Third Party" ) challenging the validity of any provision of this Agreement ( "Agreement Challenge" ) , the Approvals ( "Approval Challenge" ) , or any other aspect of the Project ( all such Challenges are collectively referred to in this Agreement as "Challenge" ) the parties shall cooperate in defending against the Challenge . County shall tender the complete defense of the Challenge to Developer (the "Tender" ) and upon Developer ' s acceptance of the Tender , Developer shall indemnify and hold harmless the County from all costs and liabilities arising from the Challenge and shall control the defense, and Developer shall be responsible only for the attorneys ' fees owing to the legal counsel that Developer chooses . Should Developer refuse to accept the Tender by County, County may defend the Challenge and if County so defends , Developer shall indemnify and hold County harmless from all Third Party attorneys ' fees and costs related to such defense. (b) Cure; Reapproval . The parties recognize that there are Challenges pending and possible which seek to invalidate or otherwise affect the Approvals or this Agreement . It is therefore possible that a court may enter a judgment or issue a writ (collectively referred to herein as a 27 "Judgment" ) that affects all or any portion of the Approvals or x this Agreement . County has consistently found and determined, DO in its legislative wisdom and administrative discretion, that the Project should be approved, provided all requirements of �J law are met . County has also repeatedly found and determined, in its legislative wisdom and administrative discretion, and C-10 based upon information available to it at the time, that the benefits of the Project outweigh any unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts of the Project . Accordingly, the parties agree to use their respective best efforts to sustain and reenact or readopt the Approvals and this Agreement as follows : (1) If any such Judgment requires reconsideration or consideration by County of any matter , then the County shall consider or reconsider that matter in a manner consistent with the intent of this Agreement . If any such Judgment invalidates or otherwise makes ineffective all or any portion of any Approval or this Agreement, then the parties shall cooperate and shall cure any inadequacies or deficiencies (the "Deficiencies" ) identified in the Judgment or upon which the Judgment is based in a manner consistent with the intent of this Agreement . County shall then readopt or reenact the Approval and/or Agreement, or any portion thereof, that the Deficiencies related to . (2) Acting in a manner consistent with the intent of this Agreement includes, but is not limited to, recognizing that the Project and this Agreement are consistent with the Current General Plan, recognizing that the parties intend that Developer have a vested right to the approval , development, construction, maintenance and operation of a 37-unit residential Project, and adopting such Laws ( including but not limited to zoning ordinances and general plan 28 amendments) as are necessary to readopt or reenact all or any n x portion of this Agreement or Approvals without contravening the 00 Judgment . O Cal (3) The provisions of subparagraphs ( 1) and (2) above are subject to the following limitations . Any additional , revised or modified environmental mitigation measures or alternatives that might be imposed as a result of a Judgment shall comply with Section 4 . 02(b) (2) of this Agreement . County' s discretion in reviewing any information regarding environmental impacts or alternatives shall be limited only by Section 4 . 02(b) (2) of this Agreement . ARTICLE 7. DEFAULT; ANNUAL REVIEW; RIIMEDIES; TERMINATION Section 7. 01 . General Provisions . (a) Failure or unreasonable delay by either party to perform any term, provision, or condition of this Agreement for a period of thirty (30) days ( "Default Period" ) after written notice ( "Default Notice" ) thereof from the other party ( "Noticing Party" ) to the party against whom the default is alleged ( "Curing Party" ) shall constitute a default under this Agreement, subject to extensions of time by mutual consent in writing. The Default Notice shall be given and the time of notice measured pursuant to Article 9 of this Agreement . The Default Notice shall specify the nature of the alleged default and, where appropriate, the manner and period of time in which said default may be satisfactorily cured; if the nature of the alleged default is such that it cannot reasonably be cured within the 30-day Default Period, the commencement of the cure within such Period and the diligent prosecution to completion 29 of the cure (the "Cure Period" ) shall be deemed a cure within the Default Period. x (b) During any Cure Period, the Curing Party � O shall not be in default of this Agreement for the purposes of c-0 termination, institution of a Legal Action, or other action or �J proceeding. If the alleged default is cured, then no default tom? by the Curing Party shall exist and the Noticing Party shall '11 take no further action. (c) Subject to the foregoing, after Default Notice and expiration of the 30-day Default Period without cure or without commencement of the Cure Period, or with commencement of the cure but without diligent prosecution to completion of the cure, the Noticing Party, may institute a Legal Action against the Curing Party pursuant to this Agreement and, if the Noticing Party is the County, may give notice of intent to terminate the Agreement pursuant to Government Code section 65868 . Following such notice of intent to terminate, the matter shall be scheduled for consideration and review by the County Zoning Administrator at a duly noticed and conducted public hearing. Developer shall have the right to offer written and oral evidence prior to or at the time of said public hearing. Following consideration of the evidence presented at said public hearing before the Zoning Administrator, if the Zoning Administrator determines to terminate this Agreement , the Zoning Administrator shall give written notice of termination of this Agreement to Developer pursuant to Article 9 of this Agreement . Developer shall have the right to appeal said Zoning Administrator termination decision to the Board, provided such appeal is brought within ten ( 10) business days of Developer ' s receipt of said Zoning Administrator termination decision. Any such appeal shall toll all applicable time periods until such time as the appeal is concluded. 30 Section 7. 02. Annual Review. o c x (a) On or before the first anniversary of the Effective Date, and on or before each anniversary date during CD cA) the term of this Agreement thereafter, the County shall review ., the good faith compliance by Developer with the terms of this Agreement (the "Annual Review" ) . This review shall be conducted by the Zoning Administrator and shall be limited in scope to compliance with the terms of this Agreement . (b) During the Annual Review, Developer shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement . At the conclusion of the Annual Review, the Zoning Administrator shall make written findings and determinations, on the basis of substantial evidence in the record, whether or not Developer has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement . If the Zoning Administrator finds and determines that Developer has not complied with such terms and conditions , and such noncompliance may amount to a default if not cured, then the Zoning Administrator may deliver to Developer a Default Notice pursuant to Section 7. 01(a) of this Agreement , in which case the provisions of Section 7 . 01 shall apply. If the Zoning Administrator does not send such a Default Notice, then the Zoning Administrator and County shall take no further action; the County ( including the Zoning Administrator) may exercise its Rights and Legal Rights relating to any such event of default only after complying with Section 7 . 01 of this Agreement . (c) The County shall deliver to Developer a copy of all staff reports and documents to be used or relied upon in conducting the Annual Review and, to the extent practical, related exhibits concerning Developer ' s performance 31 hereunder, at least ten ( 10) days prior to any such Annual Review. Developer shall be permitted to respond, orally at the public hearing, by a written statement, or both, to the r County' s evaluation of Developer ' s performance . N O t.f) (d) In the event the County fails to either : rc ( 1) conduct the Annual Review or (2) notify Developer in writing (following the time during which the review is to be conducted) of the County' s determination as to compliance or noncompliance with the terms of this Agreement and such failure remains uncured as of 60 days following the anniversary of the Effective Date in any year during the term of this Agreement, such failure shall be deemed an approval by County of Developer ' s compliance with the terms of this Agreement for that Annual Review period. (e) With respect to any year for which an Annual Review is conducted and compliance is approved, or with respect to any year in which the County is deemed to approve of Developer ' s compliance with this Agreement pursuant to the preceding paragraph, the County, upon request of Developer, shall provide Developer with a written "Notice of Compliance, " pursuant to Article 11 of this Agreement . Section 7.03 . Enforced Delay; Extension of Time of Performance. In addition to specific provisions of this Agreement, no party shall be deemed to be in default where delays or defaults are due to war , insurrection, strikes, walk-outs, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, casualties, acts of God, governmental restrictions imposed or mandated by other governmental entities, enactment of conflicting state or federal laws or regulations, new or supplemental environmental regulations, judicial decisions , or similar basis for excused performance which is not within the reasonable control of the 32 party to be excused. An administrative action or proceeding or Legal Action addressing the validity of this Agreement, any g ' Approval , or any permit, approval , agreement or other entitlement or action of a governmental agency necessary or CD desirable to the development of the Project pursuant to this CA) Agreement shall be deemed to create an excusable delay as to Developer . Upon the request of either party hereto, an extension of time for such cause shall be granted in writing for the period of the enforced delay, or longer as may be mutually agreed upon. Section 7. 04 . Remedies. Subject to the requirements of this Agreement, in the event that one of the parties defaults under the terms and conditions of this Agreement , the other party shall have all Legal Rights . Section 7. 05. California Law/Attorneys' Fees. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California applicable to contracts between California residents made and to be performed in California. If Legal Action by either party is brought against the other party because of an alleged default under the terms and conditions of this Agreement or to enforce a provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys ' fees and court costs . If a Third Party Challenge is brought, Article 6 of this Agreement shall apply. ARTICLE 8. MISCELLANEOUS Section 8 . 01 . No Agency, Joint Venture or Partnership. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the Project is a private development, and that Developer shall have full power over and 33 0 exclusive control of the Project and Project Site, subject only to the terms and conditions this Agreement . County and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any form of agency relationship, joint venture or partnership between the County c� and Developer . Nothing contained herein or in any document „3; V executed in connection herewith shall be construed as creating any such relationship between County and Developer . Section 8 .02 . Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement or the application of any provision of this Agreement to a particular situation is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement, or the application of this Agreement to other situations, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by mutual consent of the parties . Section 8 . 03 . Other Necessary Acts . Each party shall execute and deliver to the other all further instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out this Agreement, the Approvals and other aspects of the Applicable Law in order to provide and secure to the other party the full and complete enjoyment of its rights and privileges hereunder . Section 8 . 04 . Construction. Each reference in this Agreement to this Agreement or the Approvals shall be deemed to refer to the named document or plan as such document or plan may be amended from time to time, whether or not the particular reference refers to such possible amendment . This Agreement has been reviewed and revised by legal counsel for both County and Developer, and no presumption or rule that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafting party shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement . 34 Section 8. 05. Other Miscellaneous Terms. The singular shall include the plural ; the masculine gender shall include the feminine; "shall" is mandatory; "may" is permissive. If there is more than one signer of this Agreement, the signers ' obligations are joint and several . O ARTICLE 9 . NOTICES Section 9 . 01 . Method of Notice. (a) Any notice or communication required hereunder by County or Developer must be in writing, and may be given either personally, or by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested) . If given by registered or certified mail , a Notice shall be deemed to have been given and received on the first to occur of : ( 1) actual receipt by any of the addressees designated below as a party to whom notices are to be sent , or (2) five (5) days after the registered or certified letter containing such notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited in the United States mail . If personally delivered, a notice shall be deemed to have been given when delivered to the party to whom it is addressed. A courtesy copy of the notice may be sent by facsimile transmission. Any party hereto may at any time, by giving ten ( 10) days written notice to the other party hereto (pursuant to this Article 9) , designate any other address in substitution of the address to which such notice or communication shall be given. (b) Such notice shall be given to the parties at their addresses set forth below: 35 If to County to : m x Director of Community Development 00 Contra Costa County Administration Building C:D CA 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 -� LA3 If to Developer, to : William M. Sembrat OR Richard Clark Alamo Summit, Inc . 156 Diablo Road, Suite 20.3 Danville, CA 94526 With Copies to : McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen P.O. Box V Walnut Creek, CA 94596-1270 Attention: Sanford M. Skaggs Michael P. Durkee Telephone: ( 510) 937-8000 Facsimile: ( 510) 975-5390 ARTICLE 10 . ASSIGNMENT Section 10. 01 . Transfer of Rights. (a) Developer shall have the right to assign or transfer all or any portion of its interests, rights or obligations ( "Rights" ) under this Agreement and under the 36 Approvals to third parties acquiring Successor Interests, including without limitation purchasers or long-term ground x lessees of individual lots, parcels, or facilities located on 05 or within the Project Site . No assignment or transfer shall O become effective until County has consented thereto and County has received an assumption of the obligations of this Agreement acceptable to County and signed by Transferee. Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld . (b) If all or any portion of the Project Site is transferred by Developer ( "Transferred Property" ) to any person or entity ( "Transferee" ) , the Transferee shall succeed to all of the Developer ' s Rights under this Agreement regarding the Transferred Property. Thereafter , a default under this Agreement by Developer regarding that portion of the Project Site other than the Transferred Property (the "Remaining Property" ) shall not be considered or acted upon by County as a default by the Transferee regarding the Transferred Property and shall not affect the Transferee ' s Rights regarding the Transferred Property. Likewise, a default by a Transferee relating to the Transferred Property shall not be considered or acted upon by County as a default by the Developer regarding the Remaining Property and shall not affect the Developer ' s Rights regarding the Remaining Property. ARTICLE 11 . NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE Section 11 . 01 . Generally. (a) Within thirty (30) days following any written request that Developer may make from time to time, the County shall execute and deliver to Developer a written "Notice of Compliance, " in recordable form, duly executed and acknowledged by the County, that certifies : 37 o (1) That this Agreement is unmodified and in full force and effect, or if there have been modifications CO hereto, that this Agreement is in full force and effect as O modified and stating the date and nature of such modification; (2) That there are no current uncured U1 defaults under this Agreement or specifying the dates and nature of any such default; and (3) Such other reasonable information requested by Developer . (b) The failure or County to deliver such a Notice of Compliance within such time shall constitute a conclusive presumption against the County which may be relied upon by third parties and Transferees that this Agreement is in full force and effect without modification except as may be represented by the Developer and that there are no uncured defaults in the performance of the Developer, except as may be represented by the Developer . Developer shall have the right, at Developer ' s sole discretion, to record the Notice of Compliance. Section 11 . 02. County Request . (a) County may request Developer to provide a Notice of Compliance to County pursuant to Section 11 . 01 of this Agreement . If so requested, Developer shall follow the procedures prescribed for County in Section 11 . 01(a) of this Agreement . (b) The failure of Developer to deliver such a Notice of Compliance within such time shall constitute a conclusive presumption against the County which may be relied 38 upon by third parties and Transferees that this Agreement is in full force and effect without modification except as may be x represented by the County and that there are no uncured OO defaults in the performance of the County, except as may be fv O represented by the County. County shall have the right, at ��'� c� County' s sole discretion, to record the Notice of Compliance, to the extent permitted by law. 01 ARTICLE 12. ENTIRE AGREEMENT, COUNTERPARTS, EXHIBITS, RECORDING Section 12 . 01 . Generally. This Agreement is executed in two (2) counterparts, each of which is deemed to be an original . This Agreement consists of forty (40) pages (excluding notarial acknowledgments) and eight (8) exhibits, constitutes the final and exclusive understanding and agreement of the parties, and supersedes all negotiations and any previous agreements between the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof . Section 12 . 02 . Waivers . All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by the parties . Section 12 . 03 . Exhibits . The following exhibits are attached to this Agreement and incorporated herein for all purposes : Exhibit A — Project Site Exhibit A-1 — Legal Description of the Project Site Exhibit B — Rezoning 39 Exhibit C - Final Development Plan Exhibit D - Vesting Tentative Map 00 !V Exhibit E - Findings of Consistency with O Current General Plan � Exhibit F - County Impact Fees Schedule 4�ft Exhibit G - Ordinance Authorizing Execution of this Agreement Section 12. 04 . Recordation of Agreement. No later than ten ( 10) days after the Effective Date, the County Clerk shall record at Developer ' s expense an executed original of this Agreement in the Official Records of the County of Contra Costa. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto on the day and year first above written. "County" "Developer" COUN'T'Y OF CONTRA COSTA ALAMO SUMMIT, INC. , a California corporation By By vey rglopment ragdon, Director William M. Sembrat C unity Department APPROVED AS TO FORM: VICTOR J. WESTMAN, County Counsel i ; By � '�o � o k Silvano B. Marchesi Assistant County Counsel 40 ' r ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 0 co O C,Al STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) �' SS COUNTY OFOQLJJQ_a�2� On this day of e e✓, in the year 1992, before me a notary public in and for said county and state, personally appeared Marvell personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) who executed this instrument of the County of Contra Costa and known to me to be the person(s) who executed the within instrument on behalf of said County and acknowledged to me that said County executed it . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year above written . OFFICIAL SEAL PAT LEWIS NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MY COMM. EXP, JUNE 30, 1995 Notary Public 41 Ca ACKNOWLEDGEI09T FOR ALAMO SUMI T, INC. coo r11-O �..) .r: CD STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS COUNTY OF ) On this day of �cc�w` ,� in the year 1992, before me a notary public in and for said county and state, personally appeared William M. Sembrat personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed the within instrument as n��Z` tir ���1 �'�ZY,i`�of Alamo Summit, Inc . , a California corporation, on behalf of said Corporation and acknowledged to me that the Corporation executed it . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year above written. ILA Notary liub1 is J/iJ i '!y C^mm.Exp;'es 42 0 INDEX TO EXHIBITS T TO ALAMO SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Exhibit A - Project Site Exhibit A-1 - Legal Description of the Project Site Exhibit B - Rezoning Exhibit C - Final Development Plan Exhibit D - Vesting Tentative Map Exhibit E - Consistency Findings with New General Plan Exhibit F - County Impact Fees Schedule Exhibit G - Ordinance Authorizing Execution of this Agreement 2568n 1✓SHiJ31'1' [1 6 � 7-Ace \ \ SUGARLOAF OPEN SPACE o � •o f,J0 o�� I-NJ CZ) A JEC �R I 5�d�e I Vallejo 760 u Pittsburg Martinez f' Pleasant Hill Concord ....... Bo Richmond L•- a. Walrwt Creek Berkeley PROJECT LOCATION ` Alamo ,a Danville 80 1' Oakland San Francisco .. 2.' t '' Dublin Figure 1 Regional and Local Setting Alamo Summit Final EIR Contra Costa County µ' Lk`' `r { y CZ- pRfljEC? �' `�•�„ '- pOH 1'•w '", • � ` '!i „' CIL , V IcinitY Project Site a Gosta COun" l VR Goritsa A,amo Sumit V:taa o � 0 EXHIBIT A-1 ALAMO SUMMIT BOUNDARY REORGANIZATION (ANNEXATION TO EBMUD AND COUNTY SERVICE AREA R-7A) o x m All deed and map reference hereinafter referred to are as recorded in �J the Office of the Recorder of Contra Costa County, State of California. Cil Portion of the southeast one-quarter of Section 11 , and a portion of -t�- the southwest one-quarter of Section 12, all in Township 1 South, Range 2 West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a 4-inch redwood post at the corner common to Sections 11 , 12, 13 and 14, in said Township and Range; thence from said point of beginning North 67°59'21 " East, along a fence 22 feet to the center line of a 60 feet in width private road; thence along said center line as follows: North 47026' 13" West, 212.2 feet to a stake; North 13058'00" West, 112.27 feet to a stake; North 24°53'30" West, 232.17 feet to a stake; North 38021'30" West, 164.04 feet to a stake; North 44024'00" West, 410.44 feet to a stake; North 31°04'00" West, 169.96 feet to a stake; North 60°13'00" West, 151.14 feet to a stake; North 57037130" West, 232.4 feet to a stake; North 53034'30" West, 187.15 feet to a stake; North 43001 '30" West, 101.52 feet to a stake; and North 57°39'30" West, 80 feet to a stake; thence leaving said center line North 35004'35" East, 292.48 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 46055'30" West, 349.86 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 46021128" East, 265 feet to a stake in the center line of a 60 feet in width private road; thence along said center line as follows: South 63047'15" East, 204.25 feet to a stake; North 36049'00" East, 329.88 feet to a stake; South 21047'45" East, 185.64 feet to a stake; North 78022' 15" East, 256.37 feet to a stake; North 00057'45" West, 224.33 feet to a stake; North 72°26' 15" East, 218.36 feet to a stake; South 42037'00" East, 108. 14 feet to a stake; South 84009' 15" East, 120.45 feet to a stake; South 41°43' 1$" East, 129.14 feet to a stake; South 13°00'00" East, 141.26 feet to a G stake and South 72050'45" East, 83.71 feet to a stake; thence leaving said TV center line, North 65057' 10" East, 75.95 feet to a fence on the west boundary n �. 7 line of the Rancho San Ramon, distant thereon North 25020'50" West, 370.47KIJI �J feet from an iron pipe set at the most southerly corner of Lot 5, as designated on the map of Litina Homestead in Rancho San Ramon, filed March 30, 1914, in Book 225 of Deeds, Page 20, Contra Costa County Records; thence North 25017'30" West, along said fence being along the west boundary of said Rancho San Ramon, 1967.94 feet to a tree at a fence corner; thence South 87005' 11" West, along a fence 2013.41 feet to a stake at a fence corner; thence along a fence South 02°26'00" East, 1849.40 feet and South 02002'48" East, 2089.75 feet to a stake; thence along a fence as follows: North 88048'00" East, 807.87 feet to a stake; North 87037149" East, at 779.67 feet, a stake at a fence corner; a total distance of 1052.35 feet to another stake; and North 86014'40" East, 723.35 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 186.75 acres, more or less. EXHIBIT B 0 ORDINANCE NO. 90-36 1� Re-Zoning Land in the � Walnut Creek Area) 71 v ' The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION I: Page/$ Q-14, IZ-14 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map (Ord. No. 78-93) is amended by re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein (see also Community Development Department File No. 2776-RZ ) FROM: Land Use District A-2 ( General Agriculture ) TO: Land Use District P-1 Planned Unit Development ( ) and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.003. SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in the Contra Costa Times , a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on June 5, 1990 by the following vote: Supervisor Aye No Absent Abstain 1. T. M. Powers (X ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 2. N. C. Fanden (X ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 3. R. I. Schroder (X ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 4. S. W. McPeak (X ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 5. T. Torlakson (X ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ATTEST: Phil Batchelor, County Administra_t and C rk of he Boaro Supervisors Chair ron of the Board By , Dep. (SEAL) ORDINANCE NO. 90-36 2776-RZ Alamo Page One of Two Page Q-14 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map 2776-RZ -�� — , 00 C ) r Page R-14 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map 2776-RZ t' �. 7. ............. . .:. ......... ... :•� L :.....:::::::::::. :.:::::::.:. . .: ... ::•:::::::::•• � .....:........:. :...:.:... ..::::: 2776-RZ Alamo Page Two of Two EXHIBIT C 0 ALAMO SUMMIT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 7553 00 fV Project Description .O The Alamo Summit Project consists of 37 single-family lots on a property containing approximately 177 acres . Parcels range in size from 1 . 1 to 14 .2 acres , with an average lot size ? of 4 . 5 acres. Project roadways account for approximately 10 acres out of the 177 acre site. Entry gates at Ridgewood Road and Castle Crest Road control access to the development. Approximately 108 acres are designated as scenic easements to be dedicated to the County. This represents 61 percent of the property and 65 percent of the 167 net acres . Within the scenic easements, two areas are identified for special protection: a 4-acre chapparal habitat for the Alameda Whipsnake, and a small willow thicket. The project includes extensive improvements to Ridgewood Road, the main access to the property. The road will be widened and repaved, and guardrails will be installed at needed locations . EBMUD plans to use project roads as access to the new Holly Reservoir, and as rights-of-way both to connect the two reservoirs and to provide improved water service to the Ridgewood and Castle Crest neighborhoods. Maintenance of Common Facilities The Alamo Summit Project may contain various common improvements : project roads , entry gates, entry area seating and landscaping, benches along roads . The Homeowners Association shall be responsible for maintaining these facilities , and shall collect assessments from homeowners as needed to assure sufficient financing. The homeowners will be responsible for a proportionate share of the cost to maintain the private portion of Ridgewood Road below the project entry. The Association shall cooperate with the other responsible property owners along Ridgewood Road in this regard. Any trail facilities installed on the property shall be the responsibility of the R-7A District . ALAMO SUMMIT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 7553 Modification of Preliminary Development Plan The County previously approved a Preliminary Development Plan for the Alamo Summit Project . Extensive conditions were attached to that approval regarding various design concerns for the project . In addition, the environmental impact report prepared for the Preliminary Development Plan recommended a range of mitigation measures addressing environmental concerns related to project design. The proposed project has been extensively reviewed by architects , landscape architects , planners, geologists, engineers, and arborists . Substantial modifications have been made to the original project design, which are reflected in the Final Development Plan and subdivision now being proposed. 1 . The original Court B contained five parcels on the knoll in the northeastern corner of the property. This area has been redesigned and reduced to only two parcels with a narrower roadway. This reduces the potential visual impact of development in this area, and provides greater protection to the Alameda Whipsnake habitat area. 2 . Court A near the Ridgewood Road entrance as originally proposed would have been highly visible as it climbed the steep hillside. This area has been redesigned. Court A is eliminated, and the homesites (now lots 11 and 12) are reached via an access road which will follow natural contours and not be visible from outside the development . 3 . One of the lots removed from Court B has been relocated to the vicinity of the Castle Crest Road entry. This area has relatively gentle terrain and fewer trees , so that the additional development can be accommodated without substantial impact . The entry area is designed with mounds intended to screen the adjacent neighborhood from new development . 4 . The area of former lots 9 and 10 also has been redesigned to accommodate a lot removed from Court B (now lots 7 , 8, and 9) . The driveway has been relocated off the knoll to follow contours along the hillside, resulting in reduced visual impact . The three building sites in this area will be screened by the surrounding tree cover . 5 . Former lot 37 has been redesigned as lots 17 and 18, with access over an easement through the EBMUD Castle Hill Reservoir property. Two building sites currently exist in this C© area, and grading to develop the property and the common O driveway will be minimal . �J 6 . Street C originally followed the creek channel down to the southeastern corner of the property. This long road and the five small parcels climbing the easterly facing IN) slope above the creek have been eliminated and the lots relocated elsewhere in the project. This redesign. allows all of the creek area to be placed in Scenic Easements , with only a sewer line and utility service road following the creek channel . 7 . Court C has been redesigned to accommodate additional lots in a more sensitive layout, relocating some of the lots removed from Street C. Three homesites are clustered in the area of former lot 32 , where development should be well screened by existing trees . As recommended by the EIR, alternate homesites in this area are being utilized. 8 . Additional lots have been clustered around the willow thicket and along the central portion of Street A, as a way of concealing development in the interior valley and so avoiding visual impact . This redesign is achieved while preserving the willow thicket . The more gentle terrain in this area allows this clustering without extensive grading. 9 . Access is available to the project via Ridgewood Road and Castle Crest Road. The Preliminary Development Plan envisioned an additional emergency access route through Jones Ranch to Street C. The Final Development Plan instead proposes the major emergency access through Alamo Ridge connecting to Street A. The fire district has accepted this access and has not requested any additional access points. This change coincides with elimination of Street C along the sensitive creek channel . The Final Development Plan has evolved from the Preliminary Development Plan, the EIR, and the County' s conditions of approval . Fewer homes will be visible from outside the property because of the interior clustering and removal of lots from Court B and Street C. Elimination of Street C and Court A, and redesign of other roadways , will reduce visual and physical impacts. Retaining walls will be used selectively to minimize grading and protect vegetation. The proposed Project Design Guidelines will regulate the placement and design of driveways and homes to minimize tree removal and avoid visual impact. The Final Development Plan succeeds in avoiding the potential significant environmental impacts previously of concern to the County. ALAMO SUMMIT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 7553 C2 Consistency with General Plan W The environmental impact report prepared for the Alamo Q Summit Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan stated that consistency of the proposed project with applicable County General Plan policies would depend on the specific planning and design criteria incorporated into the final product . The EIR identified general as well as specific topics requiring careful attention to assure General Plan consistency. Environmental Concerns The Final Development Plan and the subdivision application now being proposed have undergone extensive review and redesign by engineers , geologists , arborists , architects , landscape architects , and planners . The proposed Project Design Guidelines are written to minimize visibility of homes and improvements from outside the property and to avoid the potential visual impacts addressed in the EIR. Detailed geologic investigations have resulted in redesign of roadways and relocation of homesites to avoid identified landslides and other potential hazard areas . Provisions to minimize tree removal and care for significant trees will protect the property' s substantial tree coverage. The existing willow thicket and Alameda Whipsnake habitat areas are ensured permanent protection. These measures all satisfy and render the project consistent with applicable General Plan policies . Project Density The project consists of 37 parcels ranging in size from 1 . 1 to 14 . 2 net acres (excluding streets) . The large lot sizes result in the road rights-of-way accounting for only approximately 10 acres out of the 177-acre site. The average overall density of the project equals 4 . 5 net acres per unit . The project site is divided into the following General Plan categories : "General Open Space" (107 acres; "Country Estate" (62 acres) ; and "Low Density Single Family Residential" (8 acres) . The Low Density designation allows 1--3 units per net acre. The Country Estate designation allows 0 . 2-1 . 0 units per net acre. According to the EIR (page 42) the County has approved development on Open Space property at an average density of 5 acres per unit . The Preliminary Development Plan was designed so that all parcels physically within the Open Space portion of the property contained 5 acres or more, with smaller parcels x restricted to the Country Estate and Low Density areas . —op However , the County's directive to consider clustering in N interior locations, in order to address visual, geologic and wildlife impacts , has resulted in a redistribution of parcels within the overall project . While the number of parcels has not increased and overall density remains the same, the current proposal does include individual parcels smaller than 5 acres �. within the Open Space portion of the property. This does not render the project inconsistent with the General Plan. It generally is considered acceptable under California law to transfer density within a property to achieve proper planning goals . It is not desirable to artificially segregate densities within an overall project based on property designations , at the sacrifice of sensitive design and optimum treatment of property resources . In this case, the desire to promote some degree of clustering and to address environmental concerns justifies the proposed distribution of parcels . The EIR and the Board of Supervisors approved the concept of shifting density by suggesting clustering options . Development of approximately 99 net acres of Open Space property at a density of 5 acres per unit allows 19 . 8 dwelling units . The 60 net acres designated Country Estate will permit 12-60 units . The 8 net acres of Low Density property can allow 8-24 units . With 20 units for the Open Space area, the General Plan authorizes at least 40 potential dwelling units for the Project (20 Open Space plus 12 County Estate plus 8 Low Density) and up to 104 units (20 & 60 & 24) . The proposed project is consistent with General Plan density concerns and policies regulating development of this property. Views of scenic ridges are protected. Special fire protection measures are incorporated into project design. All utilities will be provided as needed. All community facilities are available in the Alamo area. ALAMO SUMMIT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 7553 Subdivision and Final Development Plan Application Requirements 1 . County Subdivision Code section 94-2 .204(3) (A) requires the vesting tentative map to show any areas subject to �p inundation or ponding. No areas on the property are currently subject to inundation or ponding. Section 94-2 .204(3) (N) CCA Z) requires a statement regarding plans to address flooding caused by the project either on the property or off-site. As stated on Sheet No. i of the Vesting Tentative Map, the project drainage will not cause any flooding. L�7 2 . Subdivision Code Section 94-2 .204(3) (C) requires identification of existing easements . The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) currently holds an easement along the western property line of the Alamo Summit property, running between the existing Castle Hill Reservoir and the planned Holly Reservoir . This easement is for the purpose of interconnecting the two reservoirs if EBMUD finds it necessary. EBMUD has agreed to abandon this easement in favor of easements running along Alamo Summit roadways (see paragraph 4 of the attached Purchase Agreement dated February 10, 1989) . It will be less expensive and cause less environmental impact for EBMUD to construct pipelines within project road rights-of-way rather than across the rugged terrain along the western property line. 3 . Subdivision Code Section 94-2 .204(3) (F) generally requires the identification oftree masses and all trees with a diameter of six inches or greater . County staff waived this requirement and authorized submission of the application showing tree masses , plus trees with circumferences of 72 inches or greater (equivalent to diameters of approximately 22 inches) located in or near proposed roads and building sites . This conforms with the requirements of Condition of Approval 3C. Most trees on the property are located within to-be-designated Scenic Easements . (See discussion of Condition of Approval 3C. ) 4 . County Zoning Code section 84-66 . 1202( a) (7) requires an engineer ' s statement regarding proposed grading, as part of the Final Development Plan application. A letter from Bryan & Murphy dated August 30, 1990 is attached to the application in this regard. Property Mzrber: OC-726 Grantor: Alamo Surmit Inc. R/W 3775 Project Name: Holly Reservoir Address: 156 Diablo Road, mite 203 c Danville, Ch 94526 V Project Number: 69916 Gp fV n EAST BAY N- IIC3AL VMXXY DISTRICT C FRDPEMY SSE AGRE9HERr . J=-' :C7') A document in the form of a Grant Deed dated February 10, 1989 ��ing the real property particularly described therein a portion o property c vcnly referred to as Contra Costa County Assessor's Parcel No. 191-140-005 and 191-140-013 has been executed by ALAM SUMMIT INC., a California Corporation ("GPWMR") and delivered to the FAST BAY K=CIPAL LTTILILTY DISTRICT ("DISTRICT"), in consideration of which, and the other consideration hereinafter set forth, it is mnitually agreed as follows: 1. The Grant Deed shall be deposited into escrow with Chicago Title Insurance Cerny, located in walnut Creek, California, Escrow No. 73565. In accordance with the Purchase and Option Agreement, dated August 16, 1978, Grantor shall pay the costs of all documentary and transfer tax stamps and recording fees, any and all costs related to the removal of title defects and one half of the escrow fees (The other half of the escrow fees and title insurance shall be paid by UDC Hanes) . District shall pay for all reconveyance fees, trustee's fees, and forwarding fees in connection with the partial reconveyance or partial release of mortgage(s) as a result of this transaction. Grantor shall pay all taxes due and payable at close of escrow. Said property is to be conveyed together with any easements, rights-of-way, or rights-of-use which may be appurtenant or attributable to the aforesaid property, and arty and all improvements which say be attached or affixed thereto. 2. The total purchase price shall be Two Thousand One Hundred Forty-ane Dollars and Thirty Cents ($2,141.30) payable in cash at such time as escrow many be closed and title conveyed to the District under the terns and conditions set forth therein. 3. Title and possession of the Reservoir property and the pipeline easement shall be conveyed to District on the date of the close of escrow by Grant Deed, free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, judgements, easements, taxes, assessments, covenants, restrictions, rights and conditions of record except: A. Taxes for the fiscal year in which this escrow closes shall be Prorated to the close of escrow, District's portion of the property taxes shall be cleared in the manner required by Section 4986 of the the Revenue and Taxation Code. B. Exception numbers 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, & llas listed in the Preliminary Title Reports No. 73565, dated July 20, 1988 by Chicago Title tin Insurance Ompany. Eke-pticn numbers 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 12 are outside the fee and/or easement areas and should be withdrawn as exceptions to -- title. CO N 4. Should pipeline intertie between the Holly Pressure Zane and the Hill c�,l Mtual Pressure System beasme necessary, and if Grantor's road aliww= t r� is finalized, District may accept Grantor's offer to install pipeline within Grantor's subdivision street system, if such alignment and CT elevation are acceptable to District. In this case, Parcel Two of the Grant Deed becomes surplus to the District's needs and can be quitclaimed to Grantor. Ccmideration paid to District shall be equal to the consideration paid by the District in this transaction or $100 per acre. S. Granter warrants th«t there are no oral or written leases on all or any portion of the property being conveyed exceeding a period of one month. Grantor agrees to hold District harmless and reimburse District for any and all of its losses and erases occasioned by reason of any lease of said property held by any tenant of Grantor for a period exceeding one mxnth. 6. The parties have herein set forth the whole of their agreement. The performance of this agreement constitutes the entire consideration for said documents and shall relieve District of all further obligation or construction of the proposed public iaprovememt. 7. The provisions hereof shall accrue to the benefit of and bind the respective heirs, devisees, assigns, or successors in interest of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHMMOF, The parties have executed this Agreement this 10th day C)f FPhrii;mV 1988. PP►.ST BAY MMC IPAL VrIIMY DL9NICT AIAM . 3MO By e"c Cf .4 Z By: 4j- r (0 ! 7C,4/t Chief fbg r By: Richard Clark, President Ob.132/o .• '7 '� •� • -�b.. •:_fit:'^,r,.,"\ii.' .:�1 , j � , f/to fMFF moy ccCD ��'ss Fla it CY k. • • sop PRaX lot +� • r••• •• . ;� ;.�.:� ` ,• it j;.. , •i r ��11 • �r 111 f • I JONES RANCH ir, < < Cep :' ;!,{hili • r r I i, .r ,f � f AM �� • S i f r ;��: •ire r � I +�•••• ' l '. ♦ y ALAMO RIDGE •' '• , rr r . • i • 1 LAS TRAMPAS REGIONAL ••� •4, WILDERNESS AREA •—» ..a.. ' !Bili ExklirtQ BICYtk. Ridnp, Hiking PrOP080d EBRPD Tran •m• •rrr*w ��ti"""�•irt PK34 w ` lr*►4t � be o • w 0-..r• . . . . . • t''�-�c...�'it t rpt.`t �, . •4 A"o � �Je COND;TIONS OF APPROVAL FOR REZONING/PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2776-RZ (AL AMO 5��411T) PER MAY 22, 1990 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVAL ACTION _I 1. This application is approved for a gated-access residential project as generally shown on the site plan accompanying the application. This approval is for a maximum of 37 residential lots. The final number of lots fCO v may be reduced (possibly substantially) in the review of the Final Develop- p ment Plan (FDP) application when additional project design and geotechnical CA.) information is submitted and evaluated. Alternatively, lots may be relocated within the development to avoid or reduce geotechnical , visual and vegetation/wildlife impacts. This approval requires submittal of a number of documents to accompany the Final Development Plan application. Each of these documents shall be based on and shall address the detailed mitigation measures contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report on this project. 2. A preliminary soil report shall be submitted with the FDP application. 3. A revised site plan shall be submitted with the Final Development Plan application providing for the following information: A. Any adjustments to the boundaries of landslides based on additional geotechnical review. B. Identification of cut-and-fill areas for proposed internal road improvements, and the location and height of related retaining walls. C. Identification of any trees in proximity to building sites or proposed road improvements with a trunk circumference of 72 inches or greater at a height of 4-1/2 feet above the ground. The species of the tree shall be labelled and identified whether it is to be preserved or eliminated. If no such trees are present, then the site plan shall be notated accordingly. D. Delineation of the habitat area (Diablan sage scrub) of the Alameda Whipsnake in the vicinity of Lots 1 - 7. A second boundary shall be delineated on the map at least 30 feet beyond the boundary of the first line to serve as a buffer for the habitat area. The outer boundary shall serve as the perimeter of an area to be labelled `protected species habitat zone." E. Delineation of public pedestrian/equestrian trails in accord with Condition #4 below. F. Delineation of the riparian habitat on Lots 11 and 15. G. Roads and building sites shall comply with the Creekbank Setback Code requirements. 4. The Final Development Plan Application shall comply with the following public trail requirements: 2. .x A. The Final Development Plan nap shall provide trail alignments as generally shown in the attached 1/29/90 staff study, and generally as cccc provided for in the applicant's preliminary agreement with County C Service Area R-7A. The County recognizes that the applicant may not _.:. ' be able to authorize public access to the private portion of Ridgewood �~ Road unless all other parties with an interest in the right-of-way have given their permission. Trail design shall be adequate to serve the intended types and volumes- of trail users as determined during the Final Development Plan review. Trail rights-of-way outside proposed or existing roadbeds should be considered whenever convenient and not causing extensive grading or removal of vegetation. B. No trailhead public parking facilities shall be required on the Alamo Summit site. C. No public trail access through the Alamo Summit site shall be required unless a trail access is secured to the south providing a connection with the EBRPD trail planned along las Trampas Road. D. Further review of trail location, access controls and equestrian use shall occur at time of the Final Development Plan review. 5. The snake habitat buffer zone described above in Condition #3. D. may be modified based on independent evaluation of the proposed change by a qualified herpetologist. This independent evaluation of any proposed change shall be made available with the Final Development Pian application. 6. The appropriateness of retaining Court C in the southwest corner of the site shall be subject to further review at time of the Final Development Plan application. The review shall consider information from East Bay Municipal Utility District on the District's infrastructure needs (water mains, service road requirements) in the vicinity of the project site. The review shall consider possible alternative infrastructure routes and visual impacts and mitigation measures. 7. Determination of the number of visitor parking spaces required for each lot in the project shall be wade at the time of Final Development Plan approval . The Final Development Plan map shall identify those segments of the roadway system in the project where roadside parking -should be prohibited. Visitor parking may be located along those sections of roadway where such parking is determined not to interfere with emergency vehicle access or tight curves. The pian shall indicate the location of each proposed roadside parking space. (See also Condition of Approval #S.K. below.) 'B. The following documents shall be submitted with the FDP application: A. Program for protection of the Alameda Whipsnake and its habitat during the construction stage and on an on-going long-term basis. 3. B. Either (1) a program for protection and enhancement of the riparian habitat (willow ticket) on Lots 11 and 15, long-term and during the 00 construction stage; or (2) a program for creation and long-term N protection of suitable replacement riparian habitat elsewhere on the property in a location suitable for such habitat. c C. Plans for the perpetual control and abatement of hazardous weeds and brush to minimize fire fuel buildup. D. Proof of access rights (e.g. , preliminary title report) onto Ridgewood Road. E. A demand survey and response program to serve the child care needs of the project in accord with the requirements of Ordinance 88-1 of the Zoning Code. F. A study on the feasibility/desirability of providing two-way (ingress/egress) emergency access through the site benefitting Castle Crest and Ridgewood Road residents. G. A study on the feasibility/desirability of utilizing EBMUD rights-of-way by project construction vehicles. H. A study on the feasibility/desirability of establishing a special assessment district (similar to the geologic hazard abatement district concept) involving the project and other properties with access onto Ridgewood Road. The purpose of the district would be to provide necessary improvements and assurances that would qualify Ridgewood Road for maintenance by the County. 1. A study on the feasibility of requiring tree plantings along Danville Boulevard in accord with the corridor improvement plan ("Boulevard of Trees Program") of the Association for the Preservation of Danville Boulevard. The study should consider tree plantings on a one-for-one basis to compensate for any large (heritage) trees removed from the project site. The replacement program would only apply to trees that are removed with a circumference of 72 inches or greater, four and one-half feet above the ground. The study will also address bonding of any heritage trees to be preserved and protected during construction. J. A program to provide private policing of the project site during the period of construction activity aimed at preventing or minimizing potential nuisances. The program shall address temporary fencing/gating of access roads to prevent trespassing and protection of construction equipment; • trash and dust control measures; a. limitations on noise-generating construction activity (days, =� hours of operation); Co I minimization of any inconvenience to neighborhood residents C� associated with road and subdivision construction activity; C=—'� measures to control routing of construction vehicles to the site. "N K. A study to determine the appropriate number of visitor parking spaces (in addition to garage parking) to be required per parcel. The applicant shall solicit the comments of the EIR consultant, Wagstaff b Associates, on the study- prior to submittal. Visitor parking may be provided on the driveway apron of each parcel or elsewhere on the parcel where parking areas may be created without excessive grading. No more than six (6) visitor parking spaces shall be required per parcel , determined as specified in this condition. In establishing parking requirements, consideration shall be given to the goals of minimizing paving and grading. Where the total number of visitor parking spaces available to a particular parcel , either on that parcel or along nearby roadways, is less than required, construction of additional common parking areas may be required. For purposes of counting the spaces available for a particular parcel , each roadside or common parking space may be shared by and counted as serving more than one parcel . L. Other documents requested by the Zoning Administrator. 9. The FDP application submittal shall include a set of Project Design Guide- lines. The principal function of the guidelines shall be to demonstrate compliance with scenic ridge and route general plan policies and visual compatibility with nearby development. A. General Content: The guidelines shall consist of a set of principles to control the design and development of individual lots. Each design principle should be illustrated for clarification. The guidelines shall apply to all lots within the project to provide for consistent treatment. At the same time, the guidelines shall provide articulated treatment of particularly sensitive lots identified in the Visual Factors Section of the Final EIR. The guidelines shall include specific design parameters and measurements as much as possible. B. Specific Content: The guidelines shall address the detailed mitiga- tion measures pertaining to Visual and Geotechnical Factors contained in the Final EIR. The guidelines shall include (but not be limited to): 1) Measures to reduce the effective bulk of buildings. 2) Measures to reduce the visual impact of development including protection of existing trees. c• ,o 3) Measures for topographic and vegetative restoration of landslide repair areas. DND 4) The guidelines shall integrate riparian habitat, Whipsnake habitat and fire hazard protection plans. 5) Flat building pads should. be avoided. 10. The FDP application shall include large-scale, true-to-scale, resolute renderings of the project site as viewed from three off-site vantage points. The renderings shall show the likely outcome of proposed project development including grading, building mass, roofline design, existing tree mass to be preserved and introduced landscaping. The exhibits shall be based on the proposed Project Design Guidelines. The renderings shall utilize the following vantage points: - Ramona Way Interstate 680 at Livorna Road Stone Valley Road east of Interstate 680 11. The FDP application submittal shall include a set of proposed development and use restrictions, and advisory comments to be included in the project 1 C. C. b R. 's. The restrictions shall address the recommended mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR. The restrictions shall include the proposed prohibition on the keeping of livestock. 12. The private segment of Ridgewood Road between the project entrance and Lunada Lane shall be improved. Improvements shall provide for resurfacing and widening of the pavement to a minimum of 20 feet and installation of guardrails on the downhill side. The road width should be increased to at least 24 feet at bends in the roads unless determined to be infeasible. These improvements shall be completed in the first construction phase. After the completion of construction activity, the applicant shall fully repair any construction-related damage to Ridgewood Road. Proposed road improvement designs shall be submitted with the Final Development Plan application. 13. The FDP application submittal shall include detailed site plans and render- ings of the two project entrances. The entrance at Ridgewood Road should be redesigned to allow room for the queuing of at least three vehicles between Ridgewood Road and the security gate. 14. All non-resident and construction traffic shall be required to use Ridgewood Road. This restriction shall be implemented in part by design and operation of the security gate system at the project entrances. 6. 15. All residences within the project shall be designed with automatic sprinkler systems and fire retardant roofing. CD 16. The project shall comply with the requirements of Title IX of the County Ordinance Code. 17. Each of the mitigation measures recomeended in the Final Environmental � Impact Report on this project are incorporated as a condition of approval as may be modified or rejected in accordance with the findings of the Board of Supervisors regarding approval of the project adopted on May 15, 1990. Where the EIR or the Board's findings suggest alternative mitigation measures to address a particular environmental impact, selection of one of the alternatives shall be made as a condition of approval for the final development plan. 18. Special attention shall be given to the southern portion of the site in the vicinity of the water tank directed at reducing visual impacts. 19. Reduce the number of parcels on the knoll where Court 8 is located in order to reduce the potential impact on the Whipsnake habitat and to reduce potential visual impacts. 20. As part of the Final Development Plan application submittal , the developer 1 shall consider as an option a clustering concept for the development of the subject property. RD/aa RZVI/2776-RZC.RD 12/7/89 1/29/90 Revised 1/31/90 Revised 5/1/90 Revised 5/9/90 Revised 5/29/90 ALAMO SUMMIT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 7553 0 Condition of Approval 3C: Tree Study and Mapping n Report c The Arborist Report dated August 29 , 1990 prepared by 17 Michael Baefsky, Horticultural Consultant , which is included Ln with this application evaluates the condition of every significant tree (trunk circumference of 72 inches or greater at 4 1/2 feet above ground, equivalent to approximately 22 inches in diameter) in proximity to building sites or proposed road improvements . The report identifies trees in the path of proposed roads, and trees which represent a high potential hazard for major failure and therefore should be removed for public safety. The report also recommends a program of protection and care during construction and on a long term basis . Each tree discussed in the report is identified on the Final Development Plan. Note that the first paragraph on page 16 of the Arborist Report is incomplete. It should read as follows : Leafy Mistletoe is a parasitic plant which reduces tree vigor, and can lead to the death of limbs. The following trees have varying degrees of infestation, and should be controlled by cutting the parasite out and treating the stubs with Tree Seal@ or Ethephon: 1746, 1767 , 1775, 1776, 1777, 1778, 1821 , 1826 , 1828 . Mapping County Subdivision Code section 94-2 . 204(1) (F) normally requires that subdivision applications show all trees with a trunk diameter greater than six inches . Attached is a letter from Bryan & Murphy Associates to County staff dated August 8, 1990, requesting an exception to this requirement in light of Condition 3C and other considerations that suggest such detailed tree mapping should not be required. Mr . Robert Drake' s handwritten response dated August 13 approves this exception so long as tree masses are delineated. The Vesting Tentative Map identifies the outline of tree masses . BRYAN A MURPHY ASSOC'Lk' �'ec d L ej f `� CIVIL ENGINEERS • LAND PLANNERS • SURVEYOR: RECEIVED August 8, 1990 rrt vr:.0 r6F i►rrrr,•sr Job No. 3121-05 AUG 16 199Q !s1' ed and o rrunr�mt'. Lr' urr' ,•nng )Y)ur in(�ulf,j r,n vicar t.'ttrf, tf _ p tura need more rnfomaturn, 1X Bryan &r.x-hy AISDC. don't h,•si;cre to c,:!,or u-ite. r1*1 Mr. Bob Drake, Senior Planner Thank you fi,r vt,r 11;h')Est. C_— Contra Contra Costa county C�+trrtte•of Cort!,t; (;'sr" 651 Pine Street Martinez, Ca 94553 Dear Bob: [� We are about to file the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for 7553 Alamo Summit. The purpose of this letter is to reecaeat an exception from the requirement of the subdivision ordinance which requires that all trees with a trunk diameter greater than 6 inches be noted on the tentative subdivision map (section 94-2.204 (1) (F) . Subdivision 7553 is zoned Planned Unit District P-1. Condition of Approval 3-C requires the identification of trees in the approximate building site or road improvement with a trunk circumference 72 inches or greater at 4.5 feet above the ground to be noted. This information will be shown on the tentative subdivision map. As you know the property is a mass of trees over most of the 170 + acres and over 50% of the site will be placed in a scenic easement so that development rights will control the removal of vegetation and location of the building sites. To locate all the trees with a diameter over 6 inches in size would not make any sense and the very effort to do so would trample out all the saplings. The colored aerial photo is being submitted for your review and further illustrates the extensive tree cover, an amenity that we will preserve. Although some trees will be removed within the building sites, they are noted on the tentative map. The Final Development Plan and tentative subdivision will be a complete submittal and I would not want the application deemed incomplete because all the trees over 6 inches diameter have not been noted on the tentative subdivision map. Please provide me with a letter to this affect that an exception has been granted. Thank you. Yours truly, , (�-Ic BRYAN i MURPHY ASSOCIATES, INC. 90Yv«� orm Halverson t`� NH/tb Cc. Alamo Summit, Inc. Ed Schaeffer wG VA„ PKS 'LJ_ Enc O P.O. BOX 287 • 1233 ALPINE ROAD •WALNUT CREEK,CA 94597-0287 • (415) 939.6500 • FAX (415) 935.5354 O 3840 BLACKHAWK ROAD,SUITE 100 9 DANVILLE,CA 94506 0 (415) 736.9093 • FAX (415) 736-9821 ALAMO SUMMIT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 7553 Condition of Approval 3E and 4 : Trails The Final Development Plan indicates the proposed p alignment of potential pedestrian trails through the project . Trail routes generally follow those provided for in the agreement with County Service Area R-7A (attached) . --y Where trails follow project roadways, off-road development of separate trails is not considered desirable because of the excessive grading and vegetation removal that would be required. Such trails would be costly for R-7A to maintain. Because of the steep slopes on the property, such trails also could pose a safety risk to users . With only 37 homes in the development, traffic along project roads will be very light and not pose a risk to pedestrians making use of trail rights-of-way. Off-road trail routes are designated in certain locations where the terrain safely will permit such use (along the creek channel down to Jones Ranch, and connecting to the EBMUD Holly Reservoir site) . Trail rights will be granted to the R-7A District . No particular trail route will be available for public use until a link is obtained by R-7A or another agency between the project and regional trails, or access is acquired from adjacent property owners . As agreed to with R-7A, trails through the Alamo Summit project shall be for pedestrian use only. Equestrian use would impose too great a burden on the environment as well as represent a safety risk. Attached is a letter to the East Bay Regional Park District dated August 28 , 1990 confirming the District ' s agreement that off-road trails through the property generally are not appropriate because of the steep terrain, risk of personal harm, extensive grading and vegetation removal , and cost to construct and maintain. ALAMO SUMMIT, INC. 156 Diablo Road, Suite 203 Danville, CA 94526 (415) 838-0805 0 0 August 28, 1990 n �y Steve Fiala, Trails Coordinator CD East Bay Regional Park District 11500 Skyline Boulevard Oakland, CA 94819-2443 Alamo Summit Project Trails Dear Mr. Fiala: On May 22, 1990 we met for a field trip on the Alamo Summit property to discuss the proposed location of recreation trails through the Alamo Summit Project. These trails are intended to provide the community with through routes and access trails to connect with the trail planned by the East Bay Regional Park District along Las Trampas Road. The routes for these trails are covered in the agreement between Alamo Summit, Inc. and County Service Area R-7A. Bill Reiley of the R-7A District joined us on the field trip. Contra Costa County has suggested that we consider locating trails outside of roadways wherever convenient and not causing extensive grading or removal of vegetation. However, the terrain on much of the property makes the development of off-road trails undesirable for several reasons: the trails will be difficult and expensive to con- struct and maintain; required grading and vegetation removal will be excessive; and the steep slopes will pose a safety risk to trail users. This is to confirm that after touring the property on May 22, you acknowledged that off-road trails'through the Alamo Summit Project are not appropriate. You also agreed that trails following Project roads will be satisfactory. Thank you very much for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, William M. Sembrat WMS:cp LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING Whereas the R7A Parks and Recreation Committee (R7A) is seeking to establish a system of trails for recreational use, and co Whereas Alamo Summit, Inc. (A.S. , Inc. ) wishes to cooperate with r1_1) R7A in its efforts, and C.0 --a 4=_0 Whereas A.S. , Inc. owns 187 acres of property in the unincor- porated area of Contra Costa County known as Alamo, and ;I,L3 R7A and A.S. , Inc. agree hereby to the following: At such time as A.S. , Inc. receives all necessary approvals to carry out its plan of development for the subject Alamo property and carries out that plan for the contruction of a 37 home sub- division, A.S. , Inc. shall take those steps that are appropriate to grant to R7A the appropriate permissions to allow public access to the subject A.S. , Inc. property solely for pedestrian hiking/walking uses subject to the following conditions and re- strictions: 1. The above described permission shall not in any way include permission for any activity except hiking or walking during daylight hours on the improved, paved roadway only. This shall specifically exclude eques- trian activities, all motorized vehicles of any kind, camping, picnicing, fires, and any activities off of the paved improved roads. 2. The above described permission shall not include any responsibility or liability to the R7A Committee, A.S. , Inc. or the homeowners within the A.S. , Inc. subdivision or any other party to this agreement or their successors for maintenance, improvement, of any facilities, liabil- ity in tort or otherwise to public users of the road. 3. If at any time for any reason (included but not limited to public agency action or court decission) this agree- ment or the effects of it are deemed to impose liability. of any kind on any of the parties this agreement shall be null and void. 4. Public access to the A.S. , Inc. roadways shall be only by the public road known as Castle Crest Road and as may be negotiated by R7A with boundary land owners where boundary property abuts the A.S. , Inc. roadways. This provision shall specifically include access over parcel A at the south and of street A to Alamo Ridgef access to Jones Ranch at the south end of street C1 and access to the East Day Water roadway by paths between lots 8 and 37 and between lots 32 and 30 as per the plan as it existed on November 1, 1988. 1 3. No public access of any kind on the A.B. , Inc. property shall come into effect until and unless R7A is able to U negotiate at least one other PUBLIC access such as x across the property generally known as Alamo Ridge (Thayer and Holt) , across the property generally known r\ as Jones Ranch (at the E. terminous of Via Romero) , or across Rossmoor. This requirement for at least one public access other than and in addition to Castle Crest Road shall specifically not include a negotiated public CO access by way of the private portion of Ridgewood Road CD or the pathways described in paragraph 4. 6. If R7A is able to negotiate permission from all neces- sary parties to use the private portion of Ridgewood Road for public pedestrian use (as described above) , A.S. , Inc. and its successors shall allow such access to its roadway via Ridgewood Road. No such public access shall come into existance as a result of this agreement unless all effected parties agree in writing to that public access. 7. Although this agreement includes permission for R7A to erect suitable trail markers, this agreement specifi- cally and affermatively includes an agreement that NO trail heads shall be constructed or otherwise encour- aged, allowed, provided for, or permitted. October 18, 1989 2 • . „ , ALAMO PARKS AND EC wviceEAR OWN COMMITTEE Ootober 26, 1989 00 William M. Sembrat r Exec. Vice President Danville Assoc. , Inc. -� Danville, CA. Dear Bill; . County Service Area R7-A tans reviewed your 'Letter of Understanding' concerning the trail system in your Alamo Summit project. Your letter was received on October 20, 1989, and was the result of several previous meetings with you, including the latest or October 17, 1989. The Citizen's Advisory Committee for R7-A is in agreement with your letter which allows public aooess to Alamo Summit as follows: 1. Castle Crest Road 2. Parcel A at street A to Alamo Ridge 3. Street C to Jones Ranch 4. Path between lots 6 and 37 to East Bay Water roadway b. Path between lots 32 and 30 to East Bay Water roadway These locations are based on your map of November 1, 1986. Thank you very much for your 000peration and effort in this matter. Si ,eer�ely' Bill Re lay Staff CSA R7-A ec:Bob Drake, CCC ,Com Dev ✓~ Members, SRV Planning Comm Supv. Schroeder POST OFFICE BOX 1062 PH:.936.94s0 ALAMO, CALIFORNIA 94307 ALAMO SUMMIT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 7553 Conditions of Approval 6 and 18: Need for Court_C O C...) Condition 6 questioned the need for Court C as c proposed in the Preliminary Development Plan, taking into consideration the requirements of EBMUD for access to the Holly N3 Reservoir, plus the impacts and mitigation measures related to development in this area. Condition 18 called for special design attention in the area to reduce visual impacts . East Bay Municipal Utility District . EBMUD originally planned to construct a road to the Holly Reservoir site through the adjacent Rossmoor project. Pipelines within that road would be used to supply water to the reservoir . However , at a meeting on August 10 , 1990 between John Houlihan, EBMUD Senior Civil Engineer, Robert Drake of County staff, and the applicant, it was learned that EBMUD no longer intends to use the Rossmoor route. Instead, EBMUD expects to use Court C and other Alamo Summit roadways to provide service access to Holly Reservoir . In addition, as described in the attached letter from EBMUD dated June 28, 1990 , EBMUD plans to run pipelines under project roads for two purposes : to connect Holly Reservoir with Castle Hill Reservoir in order to fill Holly Reservoir , and to upgrade water service in the Castle Crest and Ridgewood Road neighborhoods . Thus, Court C is needed by EBMUD. Alamo Summit Redesign of Court C. The Final Development Plan has redesigned the Court C area. The upper portion of Court C has been relocated to the west side of the ridge, reducing visibility from scenic corridors . Other portions of the roadway have been shifted after detailed engineering review to reduce grading. In order to transfer lots removed from the Court B area and the Street C creekside area, additional homesites have been designated in the southwestern corner of the property, which are well-screened by existing tree cover . Other homesites have been moved to avoid steeper slopes and take advantage of existing trees for visual screening. No homesite is proposed entirely in the open grassland areas; all will have at least partial tree cover to minimize grassland disturbance and visual impact . The Design Guidelines contain special provisions to address the unique conditions on the grassland area ( lots 31 and 32) . i EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT June 28, 1990 CV c+ C� •-r N Bill Simbrat n Alamo Summit CA.) fJ 156 Diablo Road, Suite 203 Danville, CA 94526 LSD �W Subject: Alamo Summit Development Plans Dear Mr. Simbrat: We discussed the other day the development plans of Alamo Summit in regard to previous comments made by EBMUD on the project and possible pipeline connections to existing EBMUD facilities. Two general areas of concern are connection of the existing EBMUD Castle Hill Reservoir to the proposed Holly Reservoir and connection of new pipelines in the Alamo Summit development to existing water mains in Castle Crest and Ridgewood Roads. There will be water mains installed in the Alamo Summit roads to provide service connections. As a part of the water main installation, additional minor sections of parallel pipeline and connecting pipelines will be incorporated. In general, these pipeline connections are normal water distribution main connections and require no unusual construction. Currently, the proposed Holly Reservoir is planned to be supplied through the adjacent Rossmoor development. If this planned route is not possible as the supply route, the pipelines from Holly Reservoir installed to service the upper portion of Alamo Summit may be enlarged and brought to the Castle Hill Reservoir so water can be pumped from Castle Hill Reservoir to Holly Reservoir. Currently, residences on Castle Hill and Ridgewood Roads adjacent to the Alamo Summit development are served through EBMUD pressure tank systems. By connection to the water mains developed in the Alamo Summit project the pressure tank systems can be eliminated, and the services on Castle Hill and Ridgewood will receive gravity-fed water from the Castle Hill and Holly pressure zones. This would provide the usual EBMUD method of service which is more reliable and offers a higher level of fire protection than the pressure tank systems. Water mains will be planned and designed in response to Alamo Summit's application for water service. Any pipeline facilities in excess of that required to serve Alamo Summit which are incorporated into the development will be at EBMUD expense. I f 30 ADELINE STREET.OAKLAND.CA 961607./t 15/835-3000 BOARD O/DiRIVORS SANFORD M SKAGGS.MARY C WARREN.HELEN BURKE JOHN M 610/A. WAL TER R MCLEAN.NANCY J NADEL.KENNETH N SIMMONS L025. 100 Bill Simbrat June 28 , 1990 Page 2 0 If you have any questions or require any further information, please contact me at 287-1143. G� fl Very truly yours, Leo J. O'Brien -� Senior Civil Engineer LO25. 100 ALAMO SUMMIT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 7553 Conditions of Approval 7 and 8K: Visitor Parking Attached is a table enumerating the availability of visitor parking on each lot in the project. Studies of proposed homesites and likely driveway locations have determined that every lot will be able to accommodate at least six visitor cars, using aprons , turnaround areas and driveways . Lots 9, 15, 27 , 32, 34 and 35 will provide six LJ7 off-street spaces . The remaining lots each will have space for more than six cars -- in some cases considerably more. As a result, no additional parking areas need be constructed. ALAMO SUMMIT-Guest Parking Deployment Number of Parking Spaces Lot#E Apron Bads Up Drive Total Additional I-N3 At Garage On Site On Street CD t 3 1 2* 6+ - �J 2 3 1 2+ 6+ - 3 3 1 2+ 6* - DO 4 3 1 2+ 6+ 5 3 1 2+ 6+ - 6 3 1 2+ 6* - 7 3 1 2+ 6+ - 8 3 1 2+ 6+ - 9 2 1 3 6 10 3 1 2* 6+ - 11 3 - 3+ 6+ - 12 3 1 2+ 6+ - 13 3 - 3+ 6+ - 14 3 - 3+ 6. 15 3 - 3 6 - 16 3 1 2+ 6+ - 17 3 - 3* 6+ 18 3 - 3* 6* - 19 3 - 3+ 6+ - 20 3 - 3• 6+ - 21 3 1 2+ 6+ - 22 3 - 3* 6• - 23 3 1 2+ 6+ - 24 3 - 3+ 6+ - 25 3 1 2* 6+ - 26 j 3 - 3+ 6• - 27 3 1 2 6 - 28 3 - 3+ 6+ - 29 3 - 3* 6+ - 30 3 1 2. 6+ - 31 3 - 3+ 6+ - 32 3 - 3 6 - 33 3 - 3+ 6+ - 34 3 - 3 6 - 35 3 - 3 6 - 36 3 - 3+ 6+ - 37 3 - 3• 6+ - ALAMO SUMMIT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN _ U SUBDIVISION 7553 00 Condition of Approval SA: Alameda Whipsnake Protection FIN.) D A study was done by Dr . Samuel M. McGinnis between March and July 1989 as part of the Environmental Impact Report . The trapping survey indicated that the Alameda Whipsnake inhabits the chaparral plant community in the northeast corner of the site. This 4-acre area in Lots 1 and 2 will be designated as a special Habitat Area within the Scenic Easement . In addition to the protection program outlined below, the Alameda Whipsnake designated area is surrounded by a 30-foot wide buffer zone, and is bounded on three sides by Scenic Easements . The Scenic Easement restricts the amount of human activity and will not allow any intrusion of building or grading. Construction Stage Protection. A. A fence will be constructed along the upper contours of the designated area before any grading takes place. The fence will be monitored daily to ensure there is no grading or construction disturbance when there is activity in the vicinity. B. Land grading activities in the vicinity will not begin until after July 1 and will be completed before the rainy season in mid-October . C. A drainage system will be incorporated into the grading plan to prevent any runoff from the initial grading operation and subsequent development from entering the adjacent chaparral community. Long Term Protection. A. A permanent fence will be constructed along the upper contours of the designated area and posted as "Alameda Whipsnake Habitat Area. " The fence will be at least three feet in height and made of open metal , to protect the reserve while still maintaining the visual quality of the site. B. No clearance or alteration of vegetation will occur within the reserve, except that the soil under the oak trees in the buffer zone may be rototilled each spring for fire control, if so directed by fire district requirements. C. No human intrusion into the reserve shall occur . ALAMO SUMMIT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 7553 Condition of Approval 8B: Willow Thicket Protection Condition 8B suggested that the design of the Alamo Summit project either retain and protect the existing 1/4 acre C_'� willow thicket area, or create a comparable replacement elsewhere on the property. The applicant has elected to retain the willow thicket in its current location along the natural creek alignment, in order to minimize disturbance of the C existing vegetation. co The willow thicket area on Lots 15 , 16 and 20 will be designated as part of the Scenic Easements . This will restrict human activity and prevent building and grading. In addition, an open metal fence at least three feet in height will be constructed around the willow thicket with signs posted prohibiting entry. The drainage system for the project will be designed so that it does not substantially alter the flow of above-ground water through the willow thicket area from the pre-existing natural pattern and volume, to support the existing vegetation. Extra caution will be taken during construction of the project to protect the area from harm. ALAMO SUMMIT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 7553 Condition of Approval 8C: Fire Fuel Abatement Plan fV CD Attached is a proposed program to control buildup of vegetation and to implement preventative measures, to reduce to risk of wildfire, prepared by Michael Baefsky, Horticultural X00 Consultant . MICHAEL BAEFSKY (415) 254-1950 P.O. Box 311 Horticultural Consultant Orinda, CA 94563 August 29, 1990 CLIENT: Alamo Associates Inc. o 156 Diablo Rd. x Danville, CA 94526 05 fV O BITE: ALAMO SUMMIT: Subdivision No. 7553 SUBJECT: CONTROL AND ABATEMENT OF HAZARDOUS WEEDS AND BRUSH to This report is an outline of possible means to implement "Plans C:3 for the perpetual control and abatement of hazardous weeds and brush to minimize fuel buildup. " It is provided in response to the "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR REZONING/PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2776-RZ (ALAMO SUMMIT) PER MAY 22, 1990 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVAL ACTION". Item 8C. The final management program should be coordinated with County Fire District requirements, and other site planning elements. Site topography and existing vegetation makes vegetation management a key component in reducing fire hazard. The management of areas which are designated as scenic easements, may differ somewhat from the management in areas designated as homesites. Areas designated as homesites may combine the following strategies: 1. Planting with plant materials which are fire retardant, low volume, and slow burning. 2. Selective thinning of native vegetation. 3. Trimming & mowing low growing plants. 5. Irrigating zones. Areas designated as scenic easement may additionally: 1. Maintain fuel breaks covered with low-growing fire-resistant species. 2. Enhance replacement of highly flammable introduced annual grasses with more fire-resistant native perennial grasses. 3. Graze with goats to reduce grasses and hazardous woody plants. Michael aefsky ALAMO SUMMIT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 7553 Condition of Approval 81): Ridgewood Road Access Attached is a preliminary title report for the Alamo Summit property. Parcel Two of the property as described in x the report consists of a right-of-way for vehicles , pedestrians z70 and utilities along the portion of Ridgewood Road not lying tv within the property. This provides access along Ridgewood Road to serve the project . c-� tL) CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 500 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD, SUITE 200, WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 (415) 938-7100 PAGE 1 P R E L I N I N A R Y R E P O R T 0 Order No. : 73909-B 05 Escrow Officer: HELEN ECKLIN IV Title Officer : DAVID BAGWILL Property Address : RIDGEWOOD ROAD DANVILLE , CALIFORNIA To In response to the above referenced application for a policy of f� title insurance, Chicago Title Insurance Company hereby reports that it is prepared to issue , or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof , a policy or policies of title insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect , lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an exception below, or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed schedules , conditions and stipulations of said policy forms. The printed exceptions and exclusions from the coverage of said policy or policies are set forth in Exhibit A attached. Copies of the policy forms should be read . They are available from the office which issued this report. This report (and any supplements or amendments thereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby . If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance, a binder or commitment should be requested. Dated as of MAY 24 , 1990 at 5 :00 P.H. The form of policy of title insurance contemplated by this report is : CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION - 1973 OR AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION RESIDENTIAL TITLE INSURANCE POLICY - (6/1/87) OR AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LEASEHOLD LOAN POLICY - (6/1/87) OR AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER' S POLICY - (6/1/87) OR AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LEASEHOLD OWNER' S POLICY - (6/1/87) A.ND/OR AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LENDERS POLICY - (6/1/87) , (STANDARD OR EXTENDED COVERAGE) The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this report is: A FEE AS TO PARCEL ONE; A RIGHT OF WAY AS TO PARCEL TWO s Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: ALAMO SUMMIT, INC. , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ORDER NO. 73909 `G7 O 7[ The land referred to in this report is situated in the State of California, County of CONTRA COSTA, and is described as follows : fV UNINCORPORATED AREA �J PARCEL ONE : LO PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 11 , AND A PORTION OF THE C.A) SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 12 , ALL IN TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST , MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN , DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : BEGINNING AT A 4 INCH REDWOOD POST AT THE CORNER COMMON TO SECTIONS 11 , 12 , 13 AND 14 , IN SAID TOWNSHIP AND RANGE; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTH 67' 59 ' 21" EAST, ALONG A FENCE 22 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF A 60 FEET IN WIDTH PRIVATE ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTER LINE AS FOLLOWS : NORTH 47' 26' 13" WEST , 212 . 2 FEET TO A STAKE ; NORTH 13' 58' WEST, 112 .27 FEET TO A STAKE; NORTH 24' 53' 30" WEST, 232 . 17 FEET TO A STAKE; NORTH 38' 21 ' 30" WEST , 164 .04 FEET TO A STAKE; NORTH 44' 24 ' WEST, 410.44 FEET TO A STAKE; NORTH 31' 04' WEST , 169 .96 FEET TO A STAKE; NORTH 60' 13' WEST , 151 . 14 FEET TO A STAKE; NORTH 57 ' 37 ' 30" WEST, 232 .4 FEET TO A STAKE; NORTH 53' 34 ' 30" WEST , 187 . 15 FEET TO A STAKE; NORTH 43' O1 ' 30" WEST , 101 .52 FEET TO A STAKE; AND NORTH 57' 39 ' 30" WEST, 80 FEET TO A STAKE; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTER LINE NORTH 35' 04' 35" EAST , 292 .48 FEET TO AN IRON PIPE; THENCE NORTH 46' 55' 30" WEST, 349 .86 FEET TO AN IRON PIPE; THENCE NORTH 46' 21 ' 28" EAST , 265 FEET TO A STAKE IN THE CENTER LINE OF A 60 FEET IN WIDTH PRIVATE ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTER LINE AS FOLLOWS : SOUTH 63' 47 ' 15" EAST , 204 .25 FEET TO A STAKE; NORTH 36' 49 ' EAST , 329 .88 FEET TO A STAKE; SOUTH 21' 47 ' 45" EAST , 185 .64 FEET TO A STAKE; NORTH 78' 22' 15" EAST , 256 .37 FEET TO A STAKE; NORTH 0' 57 ' 45" WEST, 224 .33 FEET TO A STAKE; NORTH 72' 26' 15" EAST , 218 .36 FEET TO A STAKE; SOUTH 42' 37 ' EAST , 108 . 14 FEET TO A STAKE; SOUTH 84' 09' 15" EAST, 120.45 FEET TO A STAKE; SOUTH 41 ' 43' 15" EAST , 129 . 14 FEET TO A STAKE; SOUTH 13' EAST , 141 .26 FEET TO A STAKE AND SOUTH 72' 50' 45" EAST, 83.71 FEET TO A STAKE; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTER LINE , NORTH 65' 57 ' 10" EAST , 75.95 FEET TO A FENCE ON THE WEST BOUNDARY LINE OF THE RANCHO SAN RAMON , DISTANT THEREON NORTH 25' 20' 50" WEST , 370.47 FEET FRO14 AN IRON PIPE SET AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 5 , AS DESIGNATED ON THE HAP OF LITINA HOMESTEAD IN RANCHO SAN RAMON, FILED MARCH 30 , 1914 , IN BOOK 225 OF DEEDS , PAGE 20 , CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDS , THENCE NORTH 25' 17 ' 30" WEST, ALONG SAID FENCE BEING ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID RANCHO SAN RAMON, 1967.94 FEET TO A TREE AT A FENCE CORNER; THENCE SOUTH 87' 05' 11" WEST, ALONG A FENCE 2013.41 FEET TO A STAKE AT A FENCE CORNER; THENCE ALONG A FENCE SOUTH 2' 26' EAST, 1849.40 FEET AND SOUTH 2' 02' 48" EAST, 2089. 75 FEET TO A STAKE; THENCE ALONG A FENCE AS FOLLOWS: NORTH 88' 48' EAST, 807 .87 FEET TO A STAKE; NORTH 87' 37' 49" EAST, AT 779 .67 FET , A STAKE AT A FENCE CORNER; A TOTAL DISTANCE OF 1052.35 FEET TO ANOTHER STAKE; AND NORTH 86' 14' 40" EAST, 723 .35 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ORDER NO. 73909 (CONTINUED) ` x T� EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONTAINED IN THE DEED TO EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 11 , 1978 , BOOK 9004 , PAGE 474 , OFFICIAL RECORDS , INSTRUMENT NO. 78-125502 , DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS -� PARCEL 1 IN THE DEED FROM ROMANA LOUBELLA BANGS , ET AL, TO DIABLO VIEW PROPERTIES , INC. , RECORDED IN BOOK 1689 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 253 , SAID CORNER BEING FURTHER DESCRIBED AS A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF WALNUT CREEK, AND THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS OF TERRA CALIFORNIA, RECORDED IN BOOK 5626 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 862 ; THENCE LEAVING SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF WALNUT CREEK AND LANDS OF. TERRA CALIFORNIA, SOUTH 2. 26' 00" EAST, 700 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF WALNUT CREEK AND LANDS OF TERRA CALIFORNIA, NORTH 29' 26' 30" EAST, 270 . 53 FEET, TO THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF A 60 FEET WIDE NON-EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF WAY , DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 2 OF THE DEED TO DIABLO PROPERTIES, INC. , BOOK 1689 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS , AT PAGE 256; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID NON-EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF WAY , NORTH 49' 44' 00" EAST , 34 . 36 FEET TO POINT A; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY NORTH 2' 26 ' 00" WEST, 450. 62 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF GESH CONSTRUCTION CO. , RECORDED IN BOOK 5173 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 207 ; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE SOUTH 87 . 05 ' 11" WEST, 170.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM: PORTION OF THE EAST 1 /2 OF SECTION 11 , TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO MOREJOY DEVELOPMENT, INC. , A PANAMANIAN CORPORATION RECORDED MARCH 31 , 1983 IN BOOK 11189 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, AT PAGE. 498; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL ( 11189 OR 498) , NORTH 1- 06' 02" WEST , (THE BEARING NORTH 1' 06' 02" WEST TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREPARING THIS DESCRIPTION) , 300.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE, NORTH 88' 53' 58" EAST , 300.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 52- 20' 05" EAST, 323.62 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 56. 49' 35" EAST, 363.02 FEET; THENCE SOUTH V 06' 02" EAST, 300.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL ( 11189 OR 498) ; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 88' 34 ' 35" WEST, 52 . 13 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89- ..44' 46" WEST, 807 .87 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ORDER NO. 73909 (CONTINUED) 0 •o .x PARCEL TWO: TV A RIGHT OF WAY (NOT TO BE EXCLUSIVE) AS AN APPURTENANCE TO PARCEL 1 CD ABOVE, FOR USE AS A ROADWAY FOR VEHICLES OF ALL KINDS , PEDESRIANS CA) AND ANIMALS, FOR WATER, GAS , OIL AND SEWER PIPE LINES AND FOR �J TELEPHONE , ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER LINES, TOGETHER WITH THE r0 NECESSARY POLES OR CONDUITS TO CARRY SAID LINES OVER THAT PORTION OF Ln THE 60 FEET IN WIDTH STRIP OF LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 1 IN THE DEED FROM FREDERIC R. BROWN , JR. TO FLOOD MORSS , ET AL, DATED AUGUST 27 , 1947 , RECORDED AUGUST 28 , 1947 , IN BOOK 1123 , PAGE 495 , OFFICIAL RECORDS, LYING WITHOUT PARCEL 1 ABOVE. ASSESSOR' S PARCEL NOS. 191-140-005 191-140-012 191-140-013 ANY USE OF THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION MAY CREATE A VIOLATION OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT BY REASON OF CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP OF VESTEE HEREIN. ANY USAGE FOR PURPOSES OF CONVEYANCE OR ENCUMBRANCE OF THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THIS COMPANY. ORDER NO. 73909 PAGE 2 o 0 At the date hereof exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed exceptions and exclusions in said policy form Would be as follows : FNJ CD 1. COUNTY AND CITY TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1990 - 1991 , A LIEN NOT YET DUE OR PAYABLE. THE LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES , IF ANY , ASSESSED PURSUANT TO THE Cn PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 3 . 5 , REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE , SECTIONS 75 ET SEQ. THE LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES , IF ANY, ASSESSED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 3 . 5 , REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE, SECTIONS 75 ET SEQ FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1989 - 1990. (AMOUNT NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME. ) 2. RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC AND THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA OVER THAT PORTION OF PREMISES LYING WITHIN THE LINES OF RIDGEWOOD ROAD AS THE SAME NOW EXISTS. 3 . EASEMENT, UPON THE TERMS , COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF, FOR THE PURPOSES STATED HEREIN AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES AS CREATED IN THAT CERTAIN INSTRUMENT RECORDED MAY 10 , 1948 , BOOR 1199 , PAGE 194 , OFFICIAL RECORDS AND JANUARY 11 , 1950 , BOOK 1489 , PAGE 72 , OFFICIAL RECORDS GRANTED TO ALVIN F. CHASE , ET UX PURPOSE A NON-EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF WAY FOR ROADWAY AND UTILITY PURPOSES AFFECTS THAT PORTION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY LYING WITHIN RIDGEWOOD ROAD 4 . EASEMENT, UPON THE TERMS, COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF , FOR THE PURPOSES STATED HEREIN AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES CREATED IN THAT CERTAIN INSTRUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 20, 1950, BOOK 1689 , PAGE 253 , OFFICIAL RECORDS RESERVED BY FLOOD HORSS , ET AL, ETC. PURPOSE NON-EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF WAY FOR ROADWAY AND UTILITY PURPOSES, ETC. AFFECTS THAT PORTION OF PARCEL ONE LYING WITHIN PARCEL TWO 5. EASEMENT, UPON THE TERMS , COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF , FOR THE PURPOSES STATED HEREIN AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES CREATED IN THAT CERTAIN INSTRUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 20, 1950, BOOK 1689 , PAGE 253 , OFFICIAL RECORDS RESERVED BY FLOOD MORSS , ET AL, ETC. PURPOSE NON-EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF WAY FOR INSTALLATION , MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF A WATER TANK, ETC. AFFECTS PORTION OF PREMISES ORDER NO. 73909 PAGE 3 6. EASEMENT, UPON THE TERMS , COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF , FOR THE PURPOSES STATED HEREIN AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES CREATED IN THAT CERTAIN INSTRUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 20 , 1950, BOOK 1689 , PAGE 253 , OFFICIAL RECORDS �A RESERVED BY FLOOD MORSS , ET AL, ETC. Iv PURPOSE RIGHT OF WAY FOR ROADWAY AND UTILITY PURPOSES , fl ETC. AFFECTS PORTION OF PREMISES c� 7 . EASEMENT, UPON THE TERMS , COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF , FOR THE PURPOSES STATED HEREIN AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES AS CREATED IN THAT CERTAIN INSTRUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 11 , 1976 , BOOK 9004 , PAGE 472 , OFFICIAL RECORDS GRANTED TO TERRA CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION PURPOSE A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AND FOR USE AS A ROADWAY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION , INSTALLATION , REPLACEMENT , REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF UTILITIES AND SERVICES OF ALL KINDS AFFECTS A STRIP OF LAND 60 FEET IN WIDTH THRU THE CENTRAL PORTION OF THE PREMISES 8 . EASEMENT, UPON THE TERMS , COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF , FOR THE PURPOSES STATED HEREIN AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES AS CREATED IN THAT CERTAIN INSTRUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 11 , 1978 , BOOK 9004 , PAGE 474 , OFFICIAL RECORDS GRANTED TO EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, A PUBLIC CORPORATION PURPOSE A PERPETUAL EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF LAYING DOWN, CONSTRUCTING , REMOVING, REPLACING, REPAIRING, MAINTAINING, OPERATING AND USING FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF DRAINAGE OR OVERFLOW WATER FROM A RESERVOIR CONSTRUCTED ON 191-140-011 , A PIPE OR PIPE LINES AND A CONCRETE OUTLET BOX, AND ALL NECESSARY BRACES , CONNECTIONS , FASTENINGS AND OTHER APPLIANCES AND FIXTURES FOR USE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT TO DEPOSIT SAID DRAINAGE OR OVERFLOW WATER INTO THE WATER COURSE AT THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF SAID RIGHT OF WAY AFFECTS BEGINNING AT POINT A IN PARCEL 1 ABOVE, ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF A 60 FEET WIDE NON-EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF WAY IN PARCEL 2 OF THE DEED TO DIABLO PROPERTIES , INC. , BOOK 1689 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS , AT PAGE 256; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY SOUTH 49' 44' 00" WEST 17 .62 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY SOUTH 53' 30' 00" EAST, 56.22 FEET THENCE SOUTH 18' 45' 00" EAST, 44 . 32 FEET; THENCE NORTH 71' 15' 00" EAST, 40 FEET THENCE NORTH 18' 45' 00" WEST, 60.62 FEET; THENCE NORTH 53' 30' 00" WEST, 81 .79 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 2' 26' 00" EAST, 32. 14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ORDER NO. 73909 PAGE 4 9. EASEMENT , UPON THE TERMS , COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF, FOR THE PURPOSES STATED HEREIN AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES AS CREATED IN THAT CERTAIN INSTRUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 11 , 1978 , BOOK 9004 , PAGE 474 , OFFICIAL RECORDS n GRANTED TO EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, A PUBLIC CZI CORPORATION PURPOSE NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AFFECTS A STRIP OF LAND SIXTY (60' ) FEET IN WIDTH THRU THE CENTRAL PORTION OF THE PREMISES ap 10. EASEMENT , UPON THE TERMS , COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF, FOR THE PURPOSES STATED HEREIN AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES AS CREATED IN THAT CERTAIN INSTRUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 12 , 1978 , BOOK 9005 , PAGE 918 , OFFICIAL RECORDS GRANTED TO TERRA CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION PURPOSE A RIGHT OF WAY , NOT TO BE EXCLUSIVE , FOR USE AS A ROADWAY FOR VEHICLES OF ALL KINDS , PEDESTRIANS AND ANIMALS, FOR WATER, GAS , OIL, AND SEWER PIPE LINES , AND FOR TELEPHONE , ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER LINES , TOGETHER WITH THE NECESSARY POLES OR CONDUITS TO CARRY SAID LINES AFFECTS A STRIP OF LAND SIXTY (60' ) FEET IN WIDTH, THRU THE CENTRAL PORTION OF THE PREMISES 11 . EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE STATED HEREIN AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES AS CREATED IN THAT CERTAIN INSTRUMENT RECORDED MARCH 22 , 1989 , BOOK 14951 , PAGE 535 , OFFICIAL RECORDS GRANTED TO E.B .M .U .D. PURPOSE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF WATER PIPE LINES AND APPURTENANCES , INGRESS AND EGRESS AFFECTS WESTERLY PORTION OF PREMISES 12. COVENANTS , CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS BUT DELETING RESTRICTIONS , IF ANY , BASED ON RACE , COLOR, RELIGION, SEX OR NATIONAL ORIGIN , CONTAINED IN THE DEED RECORDED MARCH 22 1989 , BOOK 14951 , PAGE 535 , OFFICIAL RECORDS 13. IF EXTENDED COVERAGE TITLE INSURANCE WILL BE REQUESTED, OR IF THIS REPORT HAS BEEN ISSUED TO FACILITATE A REQUEST FOR EXTENDED COVERAGE TITLE INSURANCE , THEN THE FOLLOWING WOULD ALSO BE EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE: ANY FACTS, RIGHTS, INTERESTS OR CLAIMS WHICH ARE NOT DISCLOSED BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS BUT WHICH COULD BE ASCERTAINED BY MAKING INQUIRY OF THE PARTIES OR PERSONS IN POSSESSION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED LAND. ORDER NO. 73909 PAGE 5 ANY EASEMENTS , LIENS (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY STATUTORY LIENS FOR LABOR OR MATERIALS ARISING FROM ANY ON-GOING OR o RECENTLY COMPLETED WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT) , ENCUMBRANCES, FACTS , RIGHTS, INTEREST OR CLAIMS WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC O RECORDS BUT WHICH COULD BE ASCERTAINED BY AN INSPECTION OF THE ND REREIN DESCRIBED LAND. C�) DISCREPANCIES, CONFLICTS IN BOUNDARY LINES , SHORTAGE IN AREA, ENCROACHMENTS OR ANY OTHER FACTS WHICH A CORRECT SURVEY OF THE .O REREIN DESCRIBED LAND WOULD DISCLOSE WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS AND THE REQUIREMENTS THAT SAID SURVEY MEETS WITH THE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEYS . 14. NOTE: INFORMATION IN POSSESSION OF THIS COMPANY INDICATES THAT A DIVISION OF LAND HAS OCCURED IN THE CURRENT TRANSACTION INVOLVING THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT. SUCH DIVISION OF LAND WOULD APPEAR TO FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT (G.C. 66410 ET SEQ. ) AS A PREREQUISITE TO THE ISSUANCE OF FINAL TITLE EVIDENCE, AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED TO THIS COMPANY' S SATISFACTION: 1) A SUBDIVISION MAP MUST BE RECORDED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT OR RELATED LOCAL ORDINANCES; 2) A PARCEL MAP MUST BE RECORDED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT OR RELATED LOCAL ORDINANCES; 3) A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT (C.G. 66499 . 35) MUST BE RECORDED; 4) A WAIVER AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT (C.G. 66428) MUST BE OBTAINED; OR 5) OTHER SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE INDICATING COMPLIANCE OR NONVIOLATION MUST BE FURNISHED. NOTE 1 : (A) COUNTY AND CITY TARES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1989 - 1990 IST INSTALLMENT: $298.58 PAID 2ND INSTALLMENT: $298.58 PAID LAND $58 ,631 .00, IMPROVEMENTS NONE PERSONAL PPTY. NONE , EXEMPTION NONE A.P. NO. 191-140-005 CODE AREA 66077 ORDER NO. 73909 PAGE 6 (B) COUNTY AND CITY TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1989 - 1990 1ST INSTALLMENT : $146 .43 PAID 2ND INSTALLMENT: $146.43 PAID LAND $28 ,263.00 IMPROVEMENTS NONE PERSONAL PPTY. NONE EXEMPTION NONE co A.Y. NO. 191-140-012 N CODE AREA 66077 D CA (C) COUNTY AND CITY TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1989 - 1990 1ST INSTALLMENT: $1 ,404 . 55 PAID 0 2ND INSTALLMENT: $1 ,404 .55 PAID LAND $271 ,097 .00 IMPROVEMENTS NONE PERSONAL PPTY. NONE EXEMPTION NONE A.P. NO. 191-140-013 CODE AREA 66064 NOTE 2 : ACCORDING TO THE PUBLIC RECORDS , NO DEED CONVEYING THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT HAS BEEN RECORDED WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THIS REPORT, EXCEPT AS SHOWN HEREIN: NONE DAB/kh 1009-G 06/05/90 . u&,&lg a aM �mM+alont, dis Ito othw fin& 8f N afar to i �/�•tMt�l�/».�I7'Jw�i.�Is s"'/rii�trt �,�y�}beM'{n�s,ar rcrafr" -Sar•,r •��`�►✓ � t p�`�.• ���E'SS �'��d5 t,� a vG�i got CIO In �t � ��� � _ . ;.. �• .. z� pit .��+lit.tf��_1•i "j.i3-A4 .erc�.�► S►•hr b n:i� t.•r� hfsl'f jot � ye :l,•i Z s7!•i� rnI pat.Irto�rslx ' NES • .If,l �rrlOt �c•I•�•s itte+••tOLO !wI����J� �"�L+srwi . r is ww.I.rs. .�.- `Important.This plat Is not a surrey.It Is marely turaished as a aMiniena to IDUle the land in relation to adjoining streets • and Vhw lands and N07 to guaraMes any dimensions, dis- r�p^s.hearings.or acreage" c:. 0 ODO 0 • \ o 4? ` � lila. •r •v �3i a• ` p \ • Are. \,�y >: y�' Reser✓e ,,�0 2o-�P, y \ � \ e{p/, •!► O _ . w o• �1t The above plat is made from recorded therewith. R ccnditions on the ground differ, a survey should beoMade'Itcting ALAMO SUMMIT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 7553 Condition of Approval 8E: Child Care a 0 Attached is a copy of the child care demand study and op response program, submitted on August 23, 1990 to Ms . Linda � Moulton, County Demographer . The study calculates a CZ) theoretical need for seven child care slots generated by the project, and an actually likely need for four openings (in light of the anticipated demographics of project residents) . CD The applicant has entered into an agreement with the YMCA (also W attached) to contribute funding for expansion of the YMCA child care program at Rancho Romero School in Alamo . In return, the YMCA has agreed to make child care openings available to Alamo Summit residents . v BRYAN *T6 MURPHY ASSOCIATES, INC. 05 N CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS FRANCIS E. BRYAN 1917 1967 _ �3 August 23 , 1990 �"4 4 Job No. 3121-05 Mrs. Linda Moulton Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Linda: The purpose of this letter is to submit our Final Child-Care report for the Alamo Summit Project, following earlier discussions with you and Lanny Couvillon of the of the Mt. Diablo Region YMCA. Alamo Summit will make a contribution toward the Rancho Romero School Day Care facility, managed by the YMCA as outlined in the report. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. The Rancho Romero School program is timely and convenient to future residence of Alamo Summit. Yours truly, rM.j. Norm Halverson ice President cc: Alamo Summit Inc. Ed Schaffer 2527 CAMINO RAMON SUITE 160 SAN RAMON.CA 94583 (4151867 3380 FAX 4415)867-3388 ALAMO SUMMIT CHILD-CARE IMPACT AND MITIGATION PROGRAM PURPOSE The purpose of the study is to determine the child-care needs ICZD which will be generated by the Alamo Summit development and to -- suggest a response program to address mitigation of the child- cb care impact. This report is submitted to satisfy County Code O Chapter 82-22, and Condition of Approval No. 8.E to approval of C.0 the Alamo Summit preliminary development plan. This discussion will be divided into three sections : (1) pro- CD jected demand for child-care for child ages 0-12 generated by the •CJ1 project; (2) child-care facilities in the immediate area; and (3) proposed mitigation. PROJECTED CHILD-CARE DEMAND The Alamo Summit project is located in the Alamo area at the extension of Ridgewood Road and Castle Crest Road easterly of the UDC (Rossmoor) project. It consists of 37 lots on 175 acres . Each lot will consist of large building sites to accommodate custom homes of 4000 square feet and larger. The project is planned to have a two year build out period, beginning in 1991 . The project is located within the boundaries of the San Ramon Valley Unified School District (SRVUSD) . The number of children ages 0-4 who would be living in new homes was not available from SRVUSD. The County Demographer estimates the rate of 0-4 year olds to be 0. 20 children per household, and ages 5-12 to be 0. 37 children per household. Table I shows the generation rates used in this analysis and the number of children expected to live in the 37 unit Alamo Summit development. TABLE I Child Generation Rate Projected Ages of Children Rate/Household Number of Children 0-4 0. 20 7. 40 5-12 0 . 37 13.69 Total 21.09 Not all children will be in need of child-care as some mothers will not be in the labor force. Current rates of labor force participation for mothers in Contra Costa County, indicate that the rate is 58% for women with children under the age of 5 and 72% for women with children 5-12 years of age. While studies have shown that approximately 50 percent of working mothers usually use outside child-care facilities, we expect much fewer working mothers in Alamo Summit, and we expect that much fewer of these working mothers will use outside child-care facil- ities . It is expected that these high net-worth households will be significantly older than the average age in Contra Costa (more ONO likely to have grown children) , have fewer working mothers, and Q the working mothers will have much higher than average financial resources to allow in-home child-care. The Alamo Summit project is an upscale development: (1) fewer OL77 mothers will be working and so will reduce the required child- care needs, and (2) a higher percentage of the working mothers will arrange for in-dome child-care and thus not need outside facilities. We propose that the expected need for outside child- care should be reduced to reflect this reduced need. Table II calculates the percentage of homes with working mothers and the expected number of children needing outside child-care based on an assumption that need will be 20% lower than typical (46% rather than 58% and 58% rather than 72% of mothers will work, and 40% rather than 50% of working mothers will require outside care) . In addition, working mothers will be more likely to utilize spouses, friends or relatives to provide care. Thus the number of children who could be expected to need more formal child-care facilities are 1 child ages 0-4 and 3 children ages 5-12. A total of 4 children are projected to need care. TABLE II Projected Number of Children with Working Mothers Number of Number of Children Percent with Children with expected to need Number of Children Working Mothers Working Mothers Outside Child Care 0-4= 7. 40 46% 3.40 1* 5-12=13. 69 58% 7.94 3* 21 . 00 52% - 11. 34 4 *Rounded CHILD CARE FACILITIES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA Data from the Contra Costa Child Care Council in Table III shows the number of licensed family homes and centers in the area, the total capacity and current openings. TABLE III Child Care Facilities within the Immediate Area* Number Spaces Openings N Alamo Homes 6 42 23 C:D Alamo Centers 5 241 0 Danville Homes 43 304 61 Danville Centers 16 733 46 O 7-4 *June 1990 Source: Contra Costa Child Care Council PROPOSED MITIGATION The Alamo Summit project will create the reed for four additional children. Because the majority of the four children projected to need child-care are of elementary school age, the mitigation measures suggested in this section are aimed at providing support for children ages 5-11 . Furthermore, since the YMCA is currently enlarging and enhancing their child-care program at Rancho Romero School, which is located two miles from the project, the sug- gested mitigation measures are directed toward this site. The projected need created for the Alamo Summit project is four children under the reduced need for child-care as discussed in the projected demand section above. The general county wide figures suggest that the impact, in theory, would be seven children. In the interest of enhancing child-care and providing our "fair share, " we are proposing that the .Alamo Summit project pay the YMCA, for use at the Rancho Romero School facility, an amount equal to off-set their average cost for seven children. TABLE IV YMCA Average Costs* Average YMCA Facility Cost $38,800 Average Cost Per Child 1 ,293 Impact of 7 Children 9,051 *Source: Mt. Diablo Region YMCA, Alamo Summit will make a contribution of $9 ,051 to help off-set the enlarging and enhancement program at Rancho Romero School. The YMCA Rancho Romero facility will make available at least four slots for homeowners of Alamo Summit. BRYAN PHY ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS FRANCIS E BRrAN 191%;yF' n G 'O co W Tv August 27, 1990 C:D CA-) Job No. 3121-05 C.7 00 Mrs. Linda Moulton Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Linda: In accordance with my recent letter, enclosed is the executed agreement between the Mt. Diablo Region YMCA and Alamo Summit Inc. , providing child-care for the Alamo Summit project. Please advise me when this agreement has been accepted by the Zoning Administrator. Sincerely, BRYAN 4 MURPHY ASSOCIATES, INC. //iii Orman L. Halverson r - NH/jt cc: Bill Sembrat Ed Shaffer 25271 CAMINO RAMON.SUITE 16: SAN RAMON.CA 945 3 (415,867 33K FAX(415)867-33a8 CHILD CARE AGREEMENT THIS CHILD CARE AGREEMENT ( "Agreement" ) is o made and entered into by and between ALAMO SUMMIT INC. , and the MOUNT DIABLO REGION YMCA, a co registered California public not-for-profit D corporation ( "Y.M.C.A" ) , and consented to and approved by the COUNTY COSTA COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR (the "Administrator" ) , all of whom agree as follows: r0 A. Alamo Summit Inc. is in the process of developing homes in Alamo. In connection with this development a County Ordinance requires adequate provisions be made for Child Care facilities or programs acceptable to the Administrator, prior to the issuance of building permits . B. The Y.M.C.A. in an acceptable licensed Child Care provider. The Y.M.C.A. is developing new facilities for Child Care services at Rancho Romero Elementary School in Alamo. Alamo Summit Inc. is willing to donate funds to this project. Fully satisfv_ ina these obligations under the Contra Costa County Ordinances to provide Child Care facilities or programs . AGREEMENT co N 1 . Upon approval of the project by Contra Costa c� County and within ten (10) business days following receipt of a fully executed original of this Agreement, Alamo Summit Inc. shall donate to the Y.M.C.A. the sum of NINE THOUSAND FIFTY ONE DOLLARS ($9051 .00) . 2 . The Y.M.C.A. will utilize this donation for the purpose of developing Child Care facilities at Rancho Romero Elementary School in Alamo. Funds will specifically be utilized in connection with building and furnishings only at this site. 3 . Upon disbursement of the last of these funds donated by Alamo Summit Inc. the Y.M.C.A. will provide a written summary identifying how such funds were spent. YMCA will reserve 4 spaces for Alamo Summit residences. ALAMO SUMMIT INC. By v V?Its Y.M.C.A. . MOUNT DI �O REGION CA, B y s 2 Its S� AGREEMENT —= CO 1 . upon approval of the project by Contra Costa CA) County and within ten (10) business days following receipt of a fully executed original of this Agreements Alamo summit Inc. shall donate to the Y.M.C.A. the sum of NINE THOUSAND FIFTY ONE DOLLARS {�9031 .d4) . 2 . The Y.H.C.A. will utility this donation for the purpose of developing Child Cars facilities At Rancho Aozero Elementary School in Alamo. bunds will specifically be utilized in connection with building and furnishings only at this site . 3 . Upon dia'bursement of the last of these fundr, Donated y Alamo Summit Inc. the Y.M.C.A. will provide a written summary identifying how such 1� funds were Spent. YMCA will reserve 4 spaces for Alamo -26. Sun it residences. ALAMO SUMMIT INC. Sy . Its MOUNT DIA Q REGION CA, By s' ••.,,�'r �.. Its , �' P C W ACCEPTANCE, APPROVAL AND CONSENT BY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JJ I1� Upon Alamo Summit Inc. making a donation required by the above Agreement, Alamo Summit Inc . shall have satisfied all of Alamo Summit Inc. ' s obligations under the Contra Costa County Ordinances to provide a Child Care facility or program in connection with Alamo Summit Inc. 's development. The terms, conditions and provisions of the above Agreement are hereby approved and consented to. DATED: 1990 . ADMINISTRATOR: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR By Its ALAMO SUMMIT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 7553 Condition of Approval 8F: Emergency Access x co The Alamo Summit project has been designed to fV accommodate the potential need for emergency access by residents of the Ridgewood Road or Castle Crest neighborhoods C to escape fires or other emergencies, in the event their primary route out of the area is blocked. The gates at the Ridgewood Road and Castle Crest Road entries to the project t.�J will be designed so they can be knocked down by passenger vehicles . Residents from one neighborhood could enter the project , travel over project roads and then exit the project through the other gate. At the time of project construction, residents of these two neighborhoods will be provided information regarding emergency access . ` ALAMO SUMMIT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 7553 �r W Condition of Approval 8G: Construction Equipment Access 00 !V The applicant wrote to the East Bay Municipal Utility LA District (EBMUD) on June 29, 1990, requesting permission to use the access road to the Castle Hill Reservoir and/or the road to the proposed Holly Reservoir for construction equipment access . By letter dated July 16 , 1990 , EBMUD responded that the access route to the Castle Hill Reservoir follows an easement through the Rossmoor property, and permission must be obtained directly from Rossmoor . EBMUD stated that the second route to the Holly Reservoir is not yet constructed and may not be available for this purpose. (See attached letters . ) EBMUD staff subsequently indicated during a meeting on August 10 that this road to the Holly site will not be constructed. The applicant has contacted representatives of Rossmoor on this matter . To date, they have denied permission for access through the Rossmoor development for Alamo Summit construction equipment . The applicant welcomes any assistance the County may provide to persuade Rossmoor to allow access . The applicant intends to coordinate its construction program and delivery of construction equipment and materials to the property in a manner which will minimize disruption to the surrounding neighborhood. ACVx , �l 00 G� ALAMO SUMMIT, INC. c-.n 156 Diablo Road, Suite 203 Danville, CA 94526 (415) 838-0805 June 29, 1990 Stephen J. Boers EBMUD 2130 Adeline Street Oakland, CA 94623 Subject: Alamo Summit, Inc. Dear Mr. Boeri : As per our phone convereation, I an sending this letter with a copy of our Conditions of" Approval for our land in Alamo. One of the conditions of approval, item 8G on page 3, requires us to seek permission from EBMUD to use your existing access road from the west of out, property to your existing Castle Hill Water Tank; and also along your new proposed Holly Tank access road. It may be easier for some of our construction equipment to use these access points. I would be happy to discuss this with you at any time and would like a written response so I can provide a copy to Contra Costa County. Vary truly yours, William M. Sembrat was/kb Sdt a D EAST SAY AfUN/C/PAL urwrY DISTRICT fAG/offs„s.:,^frq-'i•e•,- W CAw/fnpmee, b,Dea;• CAI As .r. July 16, 1990 Cn. Mr. William Sembrat Alamo Summit Inc. 156 Diablo Road, Suite 203 Danville, CA 94526 Dear Mr. Sembrat: This letter is in response to your written request of June 29 to use District's access roads during construction of the Alamo Summit subdivision. The first route is between Rossmoor and the District's Castle Hill Reservoir (shown highlighted on the enclosed Distribution Drawings) . The District does not own this access road, but only has a pipeline and access easement. Any permission to use this existing road must be directed to representatives at Rossmoor. The second route is not yet constructed, and the .possibility exists that an access road may not be necessary between Holly Pumping Plant (within Rossmoor) and the proposed Holly Reservoir. Should you or Contra Costa County require further information, I am available at 287-1016. Sincerely, Stephen J. Boeri Supervising Real Estate Representative SJB:mbt Enclosures cl05.sb (M BOARD Of DIRECTORS SANFORD M SKAGGS PreS,denl KFAWETH H SIMMONS 11,:e Pies,dem HfLFNBURKf JOHNM GIOIA WALTfRR MCLfAN NANCYJ NADEL !1'!.zRYC 11'ARRiA ALAMO SUMMIT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 7553 0 x Condition of Approval 8H: Ridgewood Road_ Maintenance N 01 The County asked the applicant to consider the -� possibility of establishing a special assessment district to provide a mechanism whereby Ridgewood Road could qualify for 1 ongoing maintenance by the County. Ridgewood Road currently is privately owned and maintained by the property owners in the neighborhood. The Final Development Plan for the Alamo Summit Project proposes to reconstruct the private portion of Ridgewood Road up to the project entry and widen it to twenty feet, with installation of guardrails and drainage improvements . The applicant has consulted with County officials in the Community Development Department , Public Works Department and County Counsel ' s Office, and has researched state law on this matter . It is generally agreed that there is no :Weans by which the County could assume responsibility for maintaining the private portion of Ridgewood Road. There also does not appear to be any procedure available whereby the County could collect funds from the property owners responsible for maintaining Ridgewood Road, in order to assure adequate financing for future maintenance needs . The applicant will continue to work with County staff on pursuing means to assure adequate funding of future roadway maintenance. The homeowners of Alamo Summit will be responsible for their proportionate share of Ridgewood Road maintenance costs, along with the other Ridgewood Road property owners . Both the applicant and the future owners will be committed to maintaining Ridgewood Road in good condition to serve the neighborhood. ALAMO SUMMIT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 7553 Op Imo.) Condition of Approval 8I : Tree Planting and Bonding O c� Danville Boulevard Tree Planting. .00 Attached is a letter from the applicant to Mr. Andrew Young, Chairman of the Boulevard of Trees Project . The applicant has committed to contribute a minimum of $10,000 to assist planting trees along Danville Boulevard. Depending on the conditions imposed on the project by the County regarding on-site versus off-site location of replacement trees, the applicant hopes to target at least half the required tree replacement plantings for Danville Boulevard. Bonding for Tree Protection. Attached is a proposed approach for providing bonding for significant trees designated for protection, prepared by Michael Baefsky, Horticultural Consultant . The procedure follows an applicable ordinance of the City of Walnut Creek. 0 0 x 1� ALAMO SUMMIT, INC. Co 156 Diablo Road, Suite 203 Q Danville, CA 94526 (415) B3B-OB05 May 14 , 1990 Mr. Andrew H. Young Chairman Boulevard of Trees Project P.O. Box 1062 Alamo, CA 94507 Dear Mr. Young: We would like to thank you for finding time to visit with us to explain the Boulevard of Trees Project. You have done a great deal of admirable work. You must be proud of what you have accomplished. Your project deserves all possible support and we would like to be part of that support. We are, by this letter, confirming our agreement to support the Boulevard of Trees Project. As we discussed, it is important for us now to retain as much flexibil- ity as possible and so we are confirming that we will commit at least half of our required tree replacement program (under the conditions of approval for our project) to Danville Boulevard under the "Boulevard of Trees Program. " During our meeting you mentioned that you wanted a large initial amount commited to your program in order to kick off your fund raising activities. To help you with your planning and fund raising process and enable you to accomplish your goals we would like you to know that you can expect at least $10,000. 00 through our required tree replacem9nt program. We believe this commit- ment will help to insure the success of the "Boulevard of Trees. " As we finalize our plans we hope we will be able to be even more supportive. W est regards, -A C'e4a Richard Clark rc/kb MICHAEL BAEFSKY (415) 254-7950 P.O. Box 311 Horticultural Consultant Orinda, CA 94563 August 29, 1990 CLIMiT: Alamo Associates Inc. 156 Diablo Rd. Danville, CA 94526co c SITE: ALAMO SUMMIT: Subdivision No. 7553 CD SUBJECT: BONDING OF HERITAGE TREES TO BE PRESERVED AND PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION This report is provided in response to the "CONDITIONS OF O APPROVAL FOR REZONING/PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2776-RZ (ALAMO SUMMIT) PER MAY 22, 1990 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVAL ACTION". Item 8I. In the absence of County standards, I recommend that bonding of the heritage trees to be preserved, generally follow the procedures established by the City of Walnut Creek, Ordinance No. 1688. The bond's value would be based on a tree appraisal, done in accordance with the current edition of the "Guide for Establishing Values of Trees and Other Plants, " by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. The appraisal would be prepared by a Certified Arborist, as that term is defined by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. The following chart outlines the procedure used by the City of Walnut Creek to calculate the total amount of bonding required for all trees to be preserved: APPRAISED VALUE DEPOSIT $25,000 OR LESS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . EQUAL VALUE $25-$50,000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25,000 + ONE-HALF OF REMAINDER $50-$100,000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$25,000 + ONE-QUARTER OF REMAINDER GREATER THAN 100,000. . . . . . . . . . .$25,000 + ONE-TENTH OF REMAINDER In Walnut Creek, tree health is bonded from the date the bond is filed "until two years after the date construction is certified as complete. " Michael Baefsky ALAMO SUMMIT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 7553 Condition of Approval 8J: Construction Policing Program x co N The developers, contractors and insurance carriers are 0 extremely interested in implementing this type of program. Before construction begins for the first phase of the project , the developer will meet with the primary contractor and IV sub-contractors to outline procedures for safety, security and , convenience to the public and the immediate neighborhood. this is the usual procedure in the construction industry, to anticipate and address problems before they occur . One person will be assigned to resolve issues with the public and neighborhood and be a liaison for the developer . Public agencies will have the names of contractors who can be contacted for information regarding construction activities, so that response to public inquiries will be timely. 1 . Security Measures to Prevent Trespassing and Protection of Construction Equipment . The property is presently fenced and secured by locked gates to minimize trespassing and lessen liability. The site will continue to be fenced and secured until the entry gates have been installed. Security will be employed to prevent trespassing and destruction of property and protect equipment . 2 . Trash and Dust Control . A grading permit will be required for construction of the project. The County Grading Ordinance requires dust control measures such as the us.e of water trucks, and requires a certain amount of moisture in the soil for compaction. All cuts and fills will be revegetated as soon as possible after grading, when seasonal conditions are favorable to germination and peak growth. This will prevent dust, silt and mud from becoming a nuisance to neighbors . Clean-up of the project will take place on an on-going basis during construction so trash will not accumulate. Any streets in the neighborhood that are affected by equipment traffic will be cleaned by the contractors . Trash bins will be provided on-site to collect debris . Clean-up is important for an efficient construction program. 3 . Noise Limitations and Times of Operation. Working hours will be from 7 : 00 a.m. to 5: 00 p.m. No heavy truck movements shall occur between 7: 00 and 8: 00 a.m. , or on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays. The developer will comply with the noise insulation standards of Title 25 of the California Administrative Code. _ OO 4 . Reducing Inconvenience to Neighborhood Residents from Road and Subdivision Construction. C A ri-J Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood from road construction and subdivision development will be minimized by the following measures : (a) Grading and road widening for Ridgewood Road will be accomplished first, to give added width for later movement of equipment and increase safety for residents . (b) Work on constructing Ridgewood Road will be accomplished by doing half the road at a time, with flagmen and radio communication at each end of the construction project, to avoid substantial periods of total closure. (c) Finished paving of widened areas of Ridgewood Road will be performed after the Alamo Summit property is graded, to avoid destruction of newly paved areas by heavy equipment movement . (d) Neighbors will be provided advance information of when grading equipment and other large loads will be delivered. (e) Ridgewood Road will be closed temporarily during the brief period required for movement of wide loads and heavy delivery vehicles . Road closings shall occur only during non-peak weekday traffic hours . 5. Routing of Construction Vehicles . As described above, Ridgewood Road will be widened first to give added width for construction equipment. The road will be closed for wide loads and heavy vehicles . All construction-related traffic will use Ridgewood Road rather than Castle Crest Road to gain access to and from the site, as directed by the County Board of Supervisors . ALAMO SUMMIT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 7553 Condition of Approval 9 : Design Guidelines and Scenic Policies u x Design Guidelines . N !o Attached are Project Design Guidelines to satisfy Condition 9 . These Guidelines will be incorporated into the CC&Rs for the project , and will be binding on future Alamo -- Summit homeowners . The Guidelines suggest ways of designing individual homes that are sensitive to the existing terrain and vegetation and minimize visual impacts on off-site locations . Special provisions are proposed to address unique conditions in grassland, willow thicket and heavily forested areas , as suggested in Condition 9A and in the EIR. In general , the Guidelines have been prepared to avoid visual impacts on the most sensitive lots; therefore, additional special restrictions are not required. Scenic Policies . The Design Guidelines have been developed to promote consistency with County policies regarding visual qualities of the Alamo Summit project when viewed from community locations and from scenic routes , and to assure compatibility with surrounding development . Guideline issues include color of buildings , height of buildings in relation to tree cover and tree canopies , views of ridge tops , reduction of apparent bulk of buildings , and other details of development and construction intended to reduce alterations in the appearance of hillsides . Landscaping planting and maintenance guidelines focus on minimizing change to the appearance of the hillsides , and to preserve existing trees and wildlife. Wildlife Movement . Attached is a report prepared by Edward Janelli , Landscape Architect , responding to the mitigation measure in the EIR that project design and fencing not interfere with wildlife movement in and around the property. The report concludes that the configuration of lots and homesites , together with the conditions on development and on fencing proposed in the Design Guidelines , will ensure adequate opportunity for wildlife movement in and through the property. 0 v �c Resl2onse to statement in EIR, section IV-1-3-b-3: "Fencing around individual lots should be restricted to provide for adequate migration into and out of the project site by wildlife. 00 Wildlife movement corridors should be identified and incorporated into the development C=) plan." C-A f.�J The primary wildlife movement corridor on the Alamo Summit Property is the creek area � at the center of the site. Included in the creek area is a willow thicket defining a wildlife area known as a riparian habitat. Project Design Guidelines have identified specific lots, numbers 15, 16, and 20,where the willow thicket occurs. The entire willow thicket will be fenced to restrict intrusion while allowing free movement of wildlife, and is included in the scenic easement area. Other wildlife movement corridors crisscross the site. As described in the Design Guidelines, fencing in the Native zone and Transition zone is limited. The Native zone and Transition zone combined comprise the entire scenic easement area plus a large percentage of the non-scenic-easement area. The two zones total at least 78%of the site under the most intensely-developed potential described in the Guidelines; it will more probably be near 90% of the site when all homesites are actually developed. In this approximately 90% of the site, the Design Guidelines limit fencing to wire fencing with at least 6-inch by 6-inch openings, and to a height no greater than 4 feet. Fencing to these standards will allow for passage of most wildlife such as opossums, raccoons, rabbits,squirrels, and foxes, as well as snakes, salamanders,turtles, lizards, and so forth. The 4 foot height is selected to allow for passage of deer over the fence. Openings in the fences, located at existing deer trails, are specifically avoided for the following two reasons. 1) Deer trails will undoubtedly relocate to other paths as construction activity proceeds. 2)The primary motivation for a homeowner to fence the open Transition and Native zone areas of his property is likely to be the exclusion of potentially destructive human intruders. Intruders,on bicycle,motorcycle,or horseback,could easily pass through any gaps allowed for deer and would be particularly likely to attempt to pass if openings occurred at existing trail locations. _ Edward Janelli, Landscape Architect California Registration Number 1312 Tel:415 848 7500 Fax:415 848 7515 2921 Adeline Street • Berkeley,California 94703Cristo rson & GraffAiA ALAMO SUMMIT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 7553 Condition of Approval 9B: Restoration Plan for Landslide Repairs The County Grading Ordinance requires a plan for 0p revegetation of slopes as suitable for the soil and climate conditions of the site . A landscape architect will be retained to help design specific slope repairs and revegetation. The plan must be satisfactory to the County Building Inspection Department . The Geotechnical Report dated August 8, 1990 prepared by Engeo Incorporated proposes a program of construction techniques to repair slides and stabilize soil during development of the project (see pages 37-62) . To the extent feasible, repaired areas will be restored to match the topography of adjacent areas . ALAMO SUMMIT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 7553 Condition of Approval 10 : Off-Site Perspective Renderings N C__) Condition 10 required submission of large-scale renderings of likely project construction from three vantage �--� points : Ramona Way, I-680 at Livorna Road, and Stone Valley Road east of I-680 . Photographs were taken from these �N locations in July 1990 . The application contains seven boards, approximately 30"x40" , showing project renderings . One contains a location map, relating the project site to the exact position from which the three photographs were taken. Boards labelled A, B, and C are the altered photographs showing the likely appearance of the project after development is complete. Three boards show the original photographs before adding the renderings . Two pairs of poles were erected on the site. Using the poles to accurately gauge scale and relative sizes at the applicable distances of each photograph, a computer-generated overlay was used to locate proposed homesites and development boundaries . Homes shown on the renderings accurately represent the size, colors and locations proposed for development , applying the standards contained in the Design Guidelines . Siting, coloring and design all emphasize blending into the background and minimizing visibility. Dashed black lines on the renderings show limits of the Alamo Summit property, representing either property lines or areas actually visible from the respective vantage points . Much of the site is blocked from view by closer hills, trees and development along Ridgewood Road and Ramona Way. Precise locations for each photograph were selected to maximize the amount of Alamo Summit property visible from the three general areas . The Ramona Way photograph was taken from the nearby Iron Horse Trail -- the only location which allowed an open view of the site without extensive screening by nearby trees and homes, as was the case for views along Ramona Way. The Livorna Road and Stone Valley Road photographs were taken from properties substantially above the actual roads and higher than the pictures in the EIR. The higher vantage x points again were chosen to avoid blocking from view major portions of Alamo Summit because of trees or nearby structures . As a result, these renderings exaggerate the breadth of view of the site and the number of homes in Alamo Summit that will be visible to residents of these three areas or to the public travelling on these roads . Actual views will be substantially blocked by intervening trees, buildings and hills . ALAMO SUMMIT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 7553 CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 11 0n- fV ( 0 Use Restrictions and Conservation Protections To Be Included In Covenants, Conditions And Restrictions For Alamo Summit Project co The following provisions (the "Conservation Conditions" ) are intended to protect the natural resources on the Alamo Summit Property and to address environmental considerations . The Conservation Conditions shall be incorporated substantially in the following form into the covenants , conditions and restrictions ( "CC&Rs" ) for the Alamo Summit Project which will be required by the State Department of Real Estate. A. Conditions Binding. 1 . The Conservation Conditions are part of a common plan for the development and use of the Property, and constitute equitable servitudes imposed upon the Property. 2 . The Scenic Easements and each of the Lots shall be reciprocally benefited and burdened by these Conservation Conditions, which shall run with the Scenic Easements and Lots so burdened and benefited. 3 . The Conservation Conditions shall be enforceable by and binding upon the individual owners of each Lot (together , the "Owners" ) , upon the Homeowner ' s Association to be established for the Project (the "Association" ) , upon the County and upon their respective successors and assigns . 4 . Each Lot shall be held, used, sold, conveyed, pledged, mortgaged and leased subject to and in accordance with the Conservation Conditions . 5 . The Association shall have easements over the Lots reciprocally benefiting and burdening such Lots to the extent necessary to gain access to enforce the Conservation Conditions . B. Rights of the County. The County shall be made an express and intended beneficiary of the covenants set forth in the Conservation Conditions . In consideration for granting approval of the Project, the County shall have the following rights and benefits : 1 . To preserve the natural resources and scenic nature of the Scenic Easements in accordance with the Cb provisions hereunder in perpetuity, to the extent feasible and consistent with the approvals for the Project, and to promote CD sensitive development of the Lots . 2 . To enjoin any activity on or use of the Lots or the Scenic Easements which is inconsistent with the Ca Conservation Conditions . 3 . To enter upon the Property upon prior notice and in a manner that does not unreasonably disturb use of the Property, to enforce the rights and obligations herein created and to determine that the activities of the Owners and the Association comply with the Conservation Conditions . 4 . To exercise all other rights and remedies against the Association or the Owners , available at law or in equity. C. Use and Development Restrictions . An easement has been dedicated to the County over a portion of each Lot within the Project (together, the "Scenic Easements" ) . The following provisions shall apply to development on each Lot and activities within the Scenic Easements . 1 . All development within the Project shall be subject to the Project Design Guidelines as shown in Exhibit attached hereto (the "Guidelines" ) . These Guidelines address the location and design of structures and driveways , as well as grading, vegetation removal , and landscaping. 2 . Livestock. No horses or other livestock shall be kept on the Property, due to their harmful effects on ground cover and their contribution to erosion. If horses ever are authorized to use the Property, such authorization shall be limited at all times to riding on designated trails or Project roadways . 3 . Grading. No grading shall occur within Scenic Easements except as needed to construct roadways and other infrastructure improvements for the Project or for individual homesites , or as necessary for landslide repair or other public safety purposes . All graded areas shall be restored to the extent feasible with natural-appearing finished contours and native trees and other vegetation. 4 . Prohibited Activities . Use of the Scenic Easements shall be limited to hiking and other passive o recreation by Owners, Project residents, and their guests , which does not disturb vegetation or wildlife. No hunting, .06 woodcutting, use of motorized or nonmotorized vehicles, or N unauthorized vegetation clearing shall be permitted. Except as D authorized by the Conservation Conditions or as expressly permitted by the County, no improvements or structures of any kind shall be constructed in the Scenic Easements . As — addressed in Paragraph D.3 herein, no rights are vested hereby in favor of the general public . 5 . Vegetation Clearance. Clearance of fallen trees or other vegetation from the Scenic Easements shall only be permitted upon approval by the Association and subject to applicable County restrictions and regulations, including but not limited to fire and other public safety requirements . 6 . Landscaping. All landscaping within the Project shall conform with County Ordinance No. 90-59 regarding the type of landscaping and irrigation. Landscaping also shall conform with the water conservation guidelines of the East Bay Municipal Utility District . Irrigation shall be minimized to reduce water consumption, avoid erosion, and prevent alteration of native vegetation through introduction of new water sources . Native and drought-tolerant species will be emphasized. No landscaping or irrigation shall be installed in the Scenic Easements , except as may be required by County, fire district and other public safety regulations . 7 . Water Pollution. (a) The Association shall provide regular maintenance and cleaning of Project roadways to reduce water pollution through storm runoff . Maintenance practices shall include when necessary street sweeping, cleaning of catch basins, and proper pavement repair . Cleaning of streets and catch basins shall , when necessary, be scheduled if practicable in late summer or early fall to minimize the effect of possible pollutants . (b) Owners of each Lot shall be encouraged to minimize water pollution by sweeping rather than washing down paved areas . Development of each Lot shall be designed to minimize erosion and water pollution. (c) Runoff from road gutters and graded surfaces shall be intercepted by closed conduits and conveyed to Project storm drainage facilities . 0 S . Visibility. As specified in the Guidelines, buildings shall be constructed to minimize their visibility pp from off-site viewpoints . Building heights shall be generally ACV compatible with the surrounding tree cover , and building CAD placement and design shall conform to land contours to the c� extent feasible. Exterior materials shall be of a subdued nature and color as described in the Guidelines, especially in locations presenting a potential for visual impact. Landscape and tree removal plans approved by the County for development of each Lot shall be implemented and maintained, with special attention to landscaping installed and trees retained for visual screening. 9 . Safety. All chimneys shall have approved spark arrestors . Roofing shall be Class A, and other building materials shall be of a fire retardant material in accordance with appropriate state or local standards . Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed and maintained in all homes and garages, and under all decks attached or in immediate proximity to homes . The Association shall encourage implementation by the Owners of the vegetation control plan approved by the fire district to prevent fire fuel buildup on the Property. Notwithstanding the Conservation Conditions or any other restrictions , all activities required by the County or other agencies related to public safety or property protection shall be permitted. 10 . Tree Removal . Design of construction on individual Lots shall minimize removal of mature Oak trees . Owners shall comply with the tree removal plans for each Lot approved by the County as a condition to construction on that Lot . Each Owner shall implement the construction-period tree protection and long-term preservation measures described in the Tree Report attached as Exhibit _ hereto. 11 . Willow Thicket . The Association shall maintain and protect the designated willow thicket preservation area in Lots Nos . 15 , 16 and 20 , in accordance with the protection program described in Exhibit _ attached hereto, to the extent feasible and reasonable. The Owners of Lots Nos . 15, 16 and 20 shall be subject to the conditions of the protection program. 12 . Alameda Whipsnake. The Association shall maintain and protect the designated Alameda Whipsnake habitat area and the protected buffer zone on Lots Nos . 1 and 2, in accordance with the protection program described in Exhibit _ attached hereto, to the extent feasible and reasonable. The Owners of Lots Nos . 1 and 2 shall be subject to the conditions of the protection program. 13 . Fencing. Fencing within the Project shall g be subject to the approval of the Association. Any fencing x within Scenic Easements shall be of a design suitable to 00. discourage human entry but not to prohibit wildlife movement . fV Fencing may be constructed outside of Scenic Easements to D prevent wildlife access to developed areas and landscaping. All fencing shall be designed pursuant to the Guidelines to �J minimize visual impacts . — 14 . Utility Construction. Underground utility facilities may be installed within Scenic Easements . Access roads related to utilities and public safety may be constructed within Scenic Easements , as required by the relevant agency or utility. 15 . Trails . The Association shall comply with the agreement with County Service Area R-7A ( "R-7A" ) attached hereto as Exhibit in establishing trails through the Project where proper linkage to outside access has been secured by R-7A. The Association and the Owners of affected Lots shall allow access to the Property by R-7A to develop trails where so authorized, and to install unobtrusive directional trail signage. The Association shall install and maintain a minimum of three (3) benches along Project roadways for trail users , at locations mutually agreeable to R-7A and the Association. Any trails that may be created through Scenic Easements pursuant to the R-7A Agreement may be improved in accordance with appropriate R-7A standards for pedestrian trails . Where such trails follow utility or public safety access roads , the trail right-of-way shall remain within the roadway, and trail improvements shall not interfere with utility or agency requirements . 16 . Antennas and Satellite Dishes . . (a) Any antenna or satellite dish installed on a Lot shall not be visible from any other homesite within the Property, or from any road or home outside of the Property. Any such proposed installation shall be subject to approval by the Association. (b) An easement has been designated within Lot No. 37 for communications facilities . The Association may install and operate, or authorize another organization or business to install and operate, equipment for television reception and communications transmission to serve the Owners . Any facilities located within this easement shall not be subject to the provisions of Paragraph 17(a) herein, but shall be adequately screened from view or designed to avoid significant visual impact . D. Other Provisions . 7C 1 . No Lot nor any part of the Scenic Easements CO shall be further subdivided or split for any purpose without fV the consent of the County. D c.• 2 . No Lot shall be used or developed in a manner inconsistent with preservation of the Scenic Easements pursuant to the Conservation Conditions . W LJ 3 . No term or condition in the Conservation Conditions or in the instrument dedicating the Scenic Easements shall be interpreted as authorizing or giving any right to the general public to enter onto the Property or to use the Scenic Easements , except to use trails that may be created pursuant to the R-7A Agreement . Exhibit [Project Design Guidelines] CO O Exhibit [Tree Report] Exhibit [Willow Thicket Protection Program] Exhibit [Snake Habitat Protection Program] Exhibit [R-7A Agreement] ALAMO SUMMIT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 7553 a Condition of Approval 12 : Ridgewood Road Widening 05 Report on the Feasibility of Widening Ridgewood O to 24 Feet at Curves . C_0 The widening of Ridgewood Road has been investigated — as required by Condition 12 . After studying maps and field conditions and investigating the area, the project geologist and engineer have concluded that widening Ridgewood Road to 20 feet is the maximum width feasible. Widening Ridgewood Road to 20 feet is feasible using piers and lagging walls along the cut slope, and caissons to stabilize the outside- or fill slope. The road bed will be sloped toward the hill where drainage will be collected and conveyed to catch basins, and then conveyed off the hill in enclosed drains . Guard rails will be installed on the outside of the road where necessary. Ridgewood Road was created from the north-facing slope in the present location some 30 years ago . The cut and fill material exists at 2 : 1 slopes and steeper along the entire length. The cut slopes above the road are stable, consisting of weathered rock. The fill material appears to have slumped over the years . The most feasible method for widening Ridgewood Road is to drill pier holes through the fill material at the outside edge of the road down to stable material and pour reinforced concrete caissons at 4-5 foot intervals to support the fill slopes . Debris from the cut slopes will be removed, and pier and lagging walls installed to retain material from the north facing walls , adding some 2-5 feet to the roadway width in certain locations . Condition 12 specifically recommends widening to at least 24 feet at the bends in the road unless determined to be infeasible. The difficulty is that the angle of the bend becomes sharper if the road is widened to the outside, creating a less desirable curve. Widening the road on the inside toward the hill (by cutting into the bank) will be difficult and not desirable, because it will encroach on properties not owned by the developer and will result in steeper and higher cut slopes . 0 ALAMO SUMMIT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN co SUBDIVISION 7553 tl\.) C-D Condition of Approval 20 : Cluster Redesign 40 CA The Final EIR on the Alamo Summit Preliminary Development Plan had proposed that redesign of the project as a cluster development be considered to reduce visual impacts . An Alternative of cluster development also was suggested. The County Board of Supervisors specifically rejected both Alternative C and the recommended mitigation measure to redesign for visual purposes . However , Condition 20 to the Preliminary Development Plan approval suggested that the applicant consider the clustering concept. The proposed Final Development Plan represents a substantial effort to redesign the project to eliminate identified significant visual and other impacts. The five lots originally proposed around Court B on the northeastern knoll of the property have been reduced to only two lots with a smaller road, providing greater protection to the Alameda Whipsnake habitat and less off—site visual impact . The five small parcels along Street C and the long street following the creek channel have been removed, eliminating the visual impact and the concern of interference with the creek area. Homesites generally have been relocated from visible outward facing portions of the property to interior areas . This redesign has resulted in a clustering of parcels in the central valley following Street A through the project. This redesign has been accomplished while still preserving the willow thicket area and avoiding locations potentially subject to landslide. Homesites also have been clustered at several other locations on the property, where terrain and tree cover will avoid outside visual impacts . The project site has been extensively studied by engineers, geologists, architects, landscape architects, planners, and arborists . They have concluded that further concentration of homesites in the inner valley area is not desirable because it would cause potential greater impacts to vegetation and raise concerns of geologic safety, while having minimal added visual benefits . Owe IV Ilk Ito I.IN iL -XI j -N 17 so iv- Ito 7 te- 7 OZ I; Emsev jr 00 4 t, ✓\tm - .i �... �� `'I�it\ ! 1f•'r"��r�-',��(�.�.1� 41 , 7_ \i r\ \ vv, 174 lit v i`„#•,moi. ,ti N Is V 19 ......... %OF a tip 1p?5— x"s- Ile V.- VIP"' Q�4��a: AV �77 i0o 00 -tit 4 0%, Z .�c To it Vv V.tAk Vjx %I.- t , C,4 ILI it�,, ,' ,t, ,il��r��/=y�,` r,S1r:.4 t.: Un EL T AV\ It".1 Lu x x It N ni al at _H1 N- "j, ­Zz. `lith x. a a�ox 1SCU, � 14U 00 41 N Z C a 1, �1 j` - - . .�- _•_, ��::\ `•� ti'; •f�'!,. �..��./;�f / - �.;fir., ' .. �p .1� a J ... ,��\ ���` .•,':Y. ':�. './ Vit•, i'� �p`y %(/`�( !*C',';%A.7� ._ --- - �__._.- ��(' � _ � ..; . .:. 111 r t" ,• .'_��> _(j p � '„� �,��. �-"-�-^'^^.�.�� �{t. �r:.'rI/ ' ��(t, \� � ` \�o qqi\•��e_' '"j�.Jl !r f,'o 7 Yr•` \�` {t"��' .'�-=5�"-.�.,1.+jt .C' �4_.. `t `,��tt _ V�j Wte_ `"�"` � ff LLA �'� g ? �j!j:% `s/^•`�.�"��,�''y ,I'sa:!.�,:1 ��i ��.t's�'��:.="�'�% !',%/�+; !•�J(,x//11'-, ��.�'t�^'��� C rte=^ .!•' N W '��•,•` ��,..r..j, � :�. `/1.; �Y�1%I!J /-,% .',{..''.�.j�%.:,i'�i� �; � r 1 1•----...�./ � r H! 'i / /!s/J7't/,J � �''.� ,!�.1�' �tf3}I',t •r',tuf'l l�_';.+1:.f;F � /`,/ /,�.. ��/i•! .--;,...:r' /„ ' t.` � ,��,J-�'f,••.' Jt.�l�Ir��. �C ,...r...,_..-..N-^, _."'t 1�J ;, ,,,,.._f� 3 �y • �!t!,Jl f o'/°rr,(^ ,.� j 7`�I �i!i`\.£.,--^..9 1 \ , �'f/t1� i•" !i• 'i � .•�''"" " .!�� .\'�.�� !f V I Ae �� �� �, t, �. ,.,Y.1y� � •--''',�, � 1 j:'i �~ 'f,d.''. t1 �L r+� L. y�lr^ ��'^•. 11 �1iJ t�t�' t �`� ,.ts�l�l�`.; I?1 �', .arw aws.J• _ • � '�}• �\....'�.��`��If � •;Sr 63JJRC'1 3riGM�-? Oji .._. LO Li/th u 11�' }fir+'- - •r. i�::: <. ��L'; N �' � ; I /�� � -=-•, 1\fit! ` !'`r'1t� �t'\� \�:1, `.� ii j: :j %: �s9 ;'%�f �' ;i u: ^�f� , -`� �"r t;ri1, 1,'t� t � �ij'� 1.k1�\•}�}�'.\�\'' t, �,= •// ,�••''. r'/'/�� '! � �! '...a iTT F!'MN� ' -� �. N. � �`� •,��:�� j�J;• j �+� � �� .j' �j = t_. Y..•r `t ,r11: i\:��,,•4` y r 5 Lu MC W -�. `'� ��`�\�, ��.. tom-=r�.,i'��/'"''%, /,� '1,�` ..• ,�,. '`�, , '--__ m r7 LU 7A axzv 1, �/' :_i•�______`_` � ``;' ,�i�; ' •�'`. .. � % i I `i 1 ��\`✓;:.,'+�s""-`;'_""' fig ' _ , �.' �- � '� '` .fit, ,.�_.,- •.;` �3>r.- :,•, , I In o . � ,;:. �j,,�%�i:/J ,!iii• ',f"� �-----.11 ; � r.;�`J`f, '. owl vf � '� 4 .,: � � �//'l•{\% l 3: r!, f` ! .� '7f r � % .....•-+--•�'..�^ri ems. �� ;.! /`'t 1`'�: i' i•:�.Yi! t �..".."_.r' ' f/r-::7,1.7�... ,./.���. •�; ,." _.....•,.� 3` '. � �p '%--.'1) 1����J�,I�� , 1l J'; /. ��1�J i'!� if+,�r t�l� ��f, �,._... ��� _ _ •;�:Y.. '��,•�.� Its � ;.:--�,�. �_ •_� ; ��.. p. \\f�� 7•t� � , r � \!! `t i � t 4` y�vutW7r�(f/f •,/' �. I` /Jr', r��/ � NOR`�'�.%� r r�+ i- ! � ,j l t ` i'1�y'i Yr,�J','r ..- �...-- ".•`-r.�../'`r� i ,:�f�.� i/ ''...-..r,. `�f > / / 1 �111,r � r l �_.-�,, +` /,r'r ;'�••'s'� `. ''. '.�..- � NZ "/r'�`�,� =-•-a-.�---.u'+rt ' �, J �' i J / / ice;�J:� .�%� 1,1Z+•�,,,,.,, ,�,•,`'' 1 f,�j / / ,� ,-- J ` ,��'�;n �. �•----t• �fie•,a-.�,,_,_.. ,.�'�;�:- - ` .,.+'. \ ', iii if i 1 r % i ` 1� tN ' j� l t t E` ,f J 1 ', y 1\�'1 �t'• t' ���� Ir+ ' •�1 ! 'y`',,1 , j /,t, �! j �sl \ �; \ i �\��s i ry -41 j \ �� •', y 1, y ( %'+. ` � i � � t" i•V Irv,' .'1. 1. \•. -< -lilt I I) rk 1t) ! + 0 '•: `.\•.: ''' .'�/V:�rt,♦1�\Y!•• � (� Gt�;lryt�l 1i+ , _=�: : '\ ;rte :�%..j�.l t+t�•J\' 13 -i;:.:�.`!,,' I 1\1 \\, '��'i.t�l' \ nP��\ �.=-z.-,--::_=-�' �r��.!• ,,\,rt'\\\Qg`�;/!�j-�� \\1'`�/i-; ____„c_-'�� -. \\ 1� f.' / G'�rm O ,•�''` `,r\�•- `;1 'f-�1`. { `f+ IY cis\, �� i`�rt�i.. .Iw 1 ,�"-'• s-:.. t`' \�It1 -'r ` r`.. '\�-f'� k �\ � •l.+.y:..,..r,.=C`��. \, ,../j�!l �,. < r/.���\'�-. .itt:,1�1{I`i},�t)t( `!�!' � \ \ .. \: \ U h Z' t'Y'•;, tt J���y ow t ����1�•\�., \ '': il..!' :`4}..� i w t`I: 1'.O \\W .. a -.. .I .� � _�� 1;,..'�I;v,t ;i"1•.' ••, cam; ++(��� ��j! 1_'',, \ t•' �, -r�: `,: �' ;\,-�' �t 11/•;r. p�:C''.,`\` \ //. °ik:'"�` '' \ f�l i`? ,` ''•"•.� O ���^��\�'�'.'��:.• .:'.-• .•-fir;•,;��./ :,:'��r'r i\,,�f,.. R\.. ���e�'` �: �J/�,�' •�'�„��".aMY;� ��i•',tr\�'�_ -�>-m��'.�. �_ j, �\.,t�:- ,, ,�( •�==,r=te. Q�,, ,.. \ (: 1�,� ^...,/ ;ice-�:t�' ` 4.•�,�?`.`�.... :t; ,�.�'��'°,• _ � , \�'�\ `f-r _ �;/ \� �l+ )'\ / `wit ,-, Z ,� �_,: .\v---:� -�:. •,.\ • '*•,,-': may t+ \ , �, r ,'�`\ � �--c�'����•.-.',`�^^ti.� '`•^r„':f•— '_Tri '� � \�:� ., � •✓/." `'�` ;•.' .t ..rte \:• o �:��'�'�•.,, „•, ".� ;�1(�,'\��l`5.`.: •\~�.- � �\y`--�=��� „�\,\ tib..., _. ..• ..`SSS ° r �s: ..a � -•. --:�� -\ �C'�<_..-„— ���`•--..•-5-�\ � \\�•,�\i.�'•, ice'%'".\\�-\ 9 m � �'y%i����t,t�� !//'�~—� ,`�\ -.�i `+µ it\�_==_T�,a`'����:�\`�\\\�. •. ,-�`.` \� q g u ;,� `�"vfn`i��\\\�-fe':' t\• �% =: \l\�\��RVE\\�\\�\'',I \ �RA\\ =?�'=�?�^'. �- � t���.:. x�•• \l• ��.= —•tip-:\�\��� , �\t,\����\\�\\ . ,��' / a<L . +..! '. .: 't1'•�" i 'fir'+.\ �^�.�,. •�E,��\�\\ \��S`�..,�.��\ ,\„� w—.,-.5����r, .p y 4.,. .;\' a \1\\\'�—\`"\�a�u .�,; ;,��•�\ /:�-.•,.' �,Q 1/' ����� :�t,�'�`-''!i�sa�'/GG���j,� �;F�:�;g.:•f..�- \ ;_ ,,ter / J,1.,.t�.`�;�\ ti, I �'. v� ��'��' � ,,.: 't\Z '� ` ' , (..* 'i I\l�� %�• ._i 1���..-�"^. 7 /��t!'11/�.';, �y 0.a.- ,�. ~--�:.•-.•'t .,y/1 1' 't�:�'., `� +.••`y\ „'t✓, /inti<r l��/ /i��/--' J,y!!PN;.-• � %r'%�%';, �.V�Y.,, .a. \ .•-:3%• �� t'r'f9 ) 1. �I `;r” : ';..'�i //moi%'/':, a. ..r:♦ O `J' �t t •. � rQm •o wt \\N\�\ , �• Yo gip+' Qom:,\`• +j t\\" .ro/°•A °F 26 a 14 j j 6, arpo 2 >ao�pv 06� r �r a 0 pG(�mr c r t� TM � r " .� • \ II���I � � 3 w \ Q �l1 L \ , � o � o G w � J •.. w a x EXHIBIT E FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN 00 fV C Based on the entire record, including but not limited to the EIR, SEIR, the findings attached as Exhibit 2 to the �J Ordinance adopting the Development Agreement , and pursuant to --- Government Code section 65867 . 5, this Board makes the following findings and determinations and intends them to be generally applicable to the Development Agreement . 1 . These findings pertain to a Development Agreement Between County of Contra Costa And Alamo Summit Relating To The Development Known As The Alamo Summit (the "Development Agreement" ) . Capitalized words in these findings are defined in the Development Agreement , which is incorporated by reference in these findings . 2 . This Board finds that the provisions of the Development Agreement are consistent with the Old General Plan and the Current General Plan . These findings are based on the entire record of proceedings for the Project , and on the following findings and evidence in the record . 3 . This Board previously approved the First Approvals and Second Approvals , and found that they were consistent with the Old General Plan . This Board also found that the First Approvals and the Project were consistent with proposals for the Current General Plan that was being drafted at the time the First Approvals were granted. When this Board adopted the Current General Plan, it was aware that the First Approvals for the Project had previously been granted . This Board previously approved the Second Approvals, and found that they were consistent with the Old General Plan and, although the Second Approvals are subject to the Old General Plan, also found that they were consistent with the Current General Plan, and that the Second Approvals were consistent with the First Approvals . In these findings , this Board considers anew, affirms and explains its previous findings and determinations of consistency. 4 . The Project and the provisions of the Development Agreement are consistent with, and implement rather than contravene, all policies in the Old General Plan relevant to the Project Site. 5 . The provisions of the Development Agreement and the Project are consistent with, and implement rather than contravene, Old General Plan policies regarding visibility, design, open space, geotechnical factors , natural resources, public safety and other categories relevant to the Project . Mitigation measures and conditions of approval regulate 1 specific Project design, construction, and occupancy, all as discussed in the EIR and SEIR and the CEQA findings for the Approvals, which this Board considers anew and affirms . 6 . Various policies in the Old General Plan ON6 encourage sensitive design for development in the Alamo hills , CZ) in light of visual , geotechnical , natural resource and other concerns . The Old General Plan was not intended to and does not mandate that all hillside development must be completely hidden from view, and the Old General Plan does not prohibit .�. development merely because it will be visible to Alamo residents . 7 . The Project together with the mitigation measures and conditions of approval being imposed will result in development that is sensitive to the visual , geotechnical , natural resource and other concerns of the relevant Old General Plan policies . This Board further finds that concluding that the Project may result in an unavoidable significant visual impact does not preclude a finding of consistency with the Old General Plan. 8 . The provisions of the Development Agreement and the Project are consistent with the land use designations of the Old General Plan. The Old General Plan designated the Project Site as General Open Space, Country Estate, and Low Density Single-Family Residential . Designation of a majority of the Project Site as General Open space does not prevent development of the Project; the Open Space - Conservation Plan of the Old General Plan expressly allows development of that area in this situation: Where a given land holding is bisected by the line indicating open Space, the entire parcel may be considered for development to the same extent that it would have been had the land holding lain entirely outside the line defining open space . 9 . This Board pursuant to policies of the Old General Plan generally has allowed residential development at a density of one home per five acres for properties designated General Open Space. Design considerations for the Project have resulted in a pattern of development that creates a density within the General Open Space portion of the Project Site greater than one per five acres . However , the Old General Plan policy quoted above authorizes density for the entire Project Site, including the General Open Space area, to be governed by the standards for the Country Estate and Low Density designations. Overall density (1 per 4 . 8 acres) is well below the maximum allowed for the Project Site. Shifting development slightly within the Project Site is consistent with the 2 objectives and policies that encourage protecting natural resources (e.g. , whipsnake habitats) , avoiding visual impacts , recognizing physical constraints and being sensitive to steeper cj slopes . The proposed density and distribution of development recognize the unique characteristics of the Project Site . CZ) c� 10 . The provisions of the Development Agreement and the Project are consistent with the Current General Plan. Policies of the Current General Plan that are relevant to the no Project Site are not substantially different in their intent or effect than previous similar policies of the Old General Plan. This Board found the Project consistent with the Old General Plan. 11 . The Project and the provisions of the Development Agreement are consistent with, and implement rather than contravene, all policies in the Current General Plan relevant to the Project Site. 12 . The provisions of the Development Agreement and the the Project are consistent with, and implement rather than contravene, Current General Plan policies . Policies that urge sensitive treatment of characteristics such as hillsides , grading, ridgelines, canyon areas, habitat , watercourses , views, aesthetics , flora, fauna, neighborhood preservation, soil stability, safety, steep slopes , vegetation, wildlife, and scenic qualities are implemented and not contravened by the Project and the Development Agreement . Those policies are not intended to and do not prohibit all development . The Project design is sensitive to the unique features of the Project Site, is consistent with the concerns underlying the relevant policies of the Current General Plan, and is consistent with the policies of the Current General Plan. Development of the Project Site represents infill , which is encouraged by the Current General Plan, rather than leapfrog sprawl into undeveloped regions of the county. Shifting development slightly within the Project Site is consistent with objectives and policies that encourage protecting natural resources (e.g. , whipsnake habitats) , avoiding visual impacts , recognizing physical constraints and being sensitive to steeper slopes . The Project , including the mitigation measures and conditions of approval will result in development that is sensitive to the visual , geotechnical , natural resource and other concerns of the relevant Current General Plan policies . That the Project may result in an unavoidable significant visual impact does not preclude a finding of consistency with the Current General Plan . 13 . The Project and the provisions of the Development Agreement are consistent with land use designations of the Current General Plan. Most of the Project Site is designated "Agricultural Lands , " which allows residential development at . 2 units/acre. The Current General Plan provides that for 3 0 lands carrying the Agricultural Lands CAL" ) designation, subdivision shall include conditions of approval which conform op with the requirements of the "Ranchette Policy" of the plan ' s � conservation element . The Ranchette Policy allows ranchette �. subdivisions on AL designated lands . It states that the c� subdivision of property designated AL is a long-term rural/residential use of land. The Current General Plan contains a zoning conformity table which provides that all co large lot zones are consistent with the AL designation. This includes the P-1 planned development zone relevant to the Project Site. The rest of the property remains in higher density categories . The Current General Plan authorizes smaller parcels and density shifting within a property under P-1 Zoning, so long as overall site density is not exceeded. The Project density is well below the maximum potentially allowable under the Current General Plan. 14 . The Project Site is suited for low-density residential use rather than use as agricultural core, is not an agricultural resource, and is not located in an undeveloped rural part of the County. Designation in the Current General Plan of part of the Project Site as "Agricultural Lands" was not intended to prevent residential development of that part or restrict use of that part to agricultural core or related uses . 15 . The goals , objectives and policies , including the diagrams , of both the Old General Plan and the Current General Plan were and are not intended to be, and were and are not rigid, mandatory or inflexible, but instead to assure that the matters stated in the policies are addressed. This Board has addressed all concerns underlying the policies , objectives and goals of the Old General Plan and the Current General Plan insofar as they are relevant to the Project Site, as well as those policies , objectives and goals themselves . The factors addressing the objectives , policies , goals and underlying concerns include the following. 16 . The Project will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and nearby community. The majority of the property will be dedicated to the County as scenic easement in which further development is precluded. The Project protects most of the mature oak trees that cover this site . Existing trees and supplemental landscaping will screen development . Exterior colors will be limited to certain nonreflective hues , so residences will blend into the natural appearance of the property. Design Guidelines and detailed staff review of building plans will assure sensitive development . Grading will be minimized, and ridgetops will be protected. The Project is compatible with the surrounding community. 4 17 . The Project Site is physically suitable for the MU proposed type and density of development . Project density will be substantially lower than the maximum allowable under the Old CM General Plan or the Current General Plan, in recognition of physical constraints of the property, and the Project will be O less dense than existing development in the vicinity. The Project design together with required mitigation measures and conditions of approval (e.g. , Design Guidelines and detailed -- staff review of building plans) is sensitive to topographic fl features of the property, with roads and driveways following contours and grading minimized. The property is suitable for low-density residential development , distributed on specific locations selected for compatibility and minimization of impacts , which make use of existing vegetation for visual screening and avoid disturbing hilltops or steeper slopes . 18 . Most of the Project Site will be preserved in its natural state through permanent scenic easements or through "native zones" protected under the Design Guidelines . Access to the Project will be adequate, after improvement of upper Ridgewood Road. Emergency access will be available . Natural resources are protected . Each homesite has been carefully selected to comply with conditions of the First Approvals , Second Approvals, and mitigation measures from the EIR and SEIR. Development of the Project will comply with mitigation measures from the EIR, SEIR and conditions of approval for the Approvals . The design of the Vesting Tentative Map provides, to the extent feasible given the configuration, orientation and topography of the Project Site, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities within the Subdivision. This Board recognizes that topographic constraints , the concern with visual impacts and the desire to employ trees and other landscaping for visual screening may offset such heating or cooling opportunities . This Board also recognizes that design constraints regarding use of reflective materials and building coloration may also restrict such opportunities . 19 . The design of the Project and the proposed improvements, subject to the mitigation measures and conditions of approval imposed by the Approvals, are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat . The Project will protect two habitats for the Alameda whipsnake as well as a small willow thicket . Most trees on the property will be preserved and protected. The Project will not result in significant reduction in the numbers or diversity of any species of plants or animals , including rare and endangered species , or introduction of new species of plants or animals into the area considered undesirable, or deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat . Most of the Project Site will remain -in its natural state . Native drought-resistant landscaping will be 5 used in developed areas . The Project will not result in substantial alteration of drainage patterns or increased runoff volumes on or off the property. a 20 . The design of the Project and the type of op improvements are not likely to cause serious public health � problems . The Project will not result in adverse changes to Ca) the quality or quantity of water available for public water supplies, cause substantial air emissions or deterioration of _ ambient air quality, involve risk of explosion or the release C� of hazardous substances in the event of accident , or create any -- potential health hazard or expose people to potential health hazards . The Project will not cause flood hazards . Project design either avoids landslide areas or requires landslide repairs, and the Project will not expose people to geologic hazards . The Project will include construction-period and long-term erosion control plans , detailed grading plans , tree preservation plans , fire protection plans involving landscaping regulation and public health and safety. 21 . The Project will be located on an infill parcel adjacent to existing residential developments of similar type. All surrounding property is already developed or approved for similar residential development . Development of the Project will improve services for surrounding neighborhoods regarding Ridgewood Road safety, water supply, emergency access and escape, and trails . Public services can reasonably be provided to the Project Site without undue burden on public facilities . The 37 new homes will cause minimal added demands on service capacity. Any potential impacts or burdens on public services will be avoided by the fees and taxes paid in connection with development and occupancy of the Project , improvements planned by the applicant or public agencies , or other mitigation measures or conditions of approval . 22 . P-1 zoning allows the Project to be designed creatively, with roads, homesites and lots located to provide a desirable residential environment while satisfying Current General Plan goals . The Design Guidelines , as strengthened pursuant to the SEIR, will direct homebuilders to respect the terrain and natural resources of the Project Site . Detailed review of individual building plans by the Zoning Administrator will assure consistent interpretation and enforcement of all development conditions applicable to the Project . CC&Rs binding on each homeowner will be enforced by the homeowners association to ensure ongoing observance of the Design Guidelines and the environmental protection measures this Board is imposing . Dedicated scenic easements , together with additional areas protected under the Design Guidelines, will preserve most of the property' s vegetation and wildlife . Grading for roads and homes will be minimized. Off-site 6 visibility and visual impacts will be mitigated by multiple techniques , including vegetation screening, building placement , height and layout , coloring and materials , and low-density distribution of homes . Development of ridgetops will be avoided, and knolls near homes will be preserved. Careful drainage and erosion control measures are required. Public OO safety is emphasized, with alternative emergency access , N dependable water supply, and substantial fire prevention 0 measures . V 7 EXHIBIT F o 0 co N O c� ALL THOSE COUNTY FEES COLLECTED AT THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE THAT WERE � IN FORCE AND EFFECT AT THE VESTING DATE, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT. Page 2 of 2 Section III . Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or fl0 invalid, such a decision shall not affect the validity of the TV remaining portions of this Ordinance . The Board hereby CD declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, c subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance irrespective of the unconstitutionality or invalidity CJ'1 of any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, -� clause or phrase. Section IV. Statute of Limitations . No action or proceeding ( "Action" ) may be brought by a person, public agency, or public or private corporation, partnership, association, organization or other business or non-business entity other than the parties .to the Development Agreement or their successors (collectively referred to as "Third Party" ) to attack, review, interpret, set aside, void, or annul all or any part of the Development Agreement or the decision of the County of Contra Costa to approve and execute the Development Agreement , unless the Action is commenced and service made on the County of Contra Costa within 120 days from the County' s adoption of this Ordinance. Section V. Effective Date . This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days after passage and, within 15 days of passage, shall be published once with the names of Supervisors voting for and against it in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper of general circulation published in this County. PASSED and ADOPTED on 1992 by the following vote: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: Deputy Board Chair Date: END Of DOCUMENT ORDINANCE NO. 92-92 (Alamo Summit Development Agreement) Page 1 of 2 WHEN RECORDED RETURN 00 TO CLERK, 0 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CA) C�J The Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa ordains Csl as follows : Cn Section I . Findings . The Board hereby finds that the provisions of that certain development agreement by and between the County of Contra Costa and Alamo Summit relating to the development known as Alamo Summit (the "Development Agreement" ) , a copy of which is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit 1 , and hereby incorporated into this Ordinance for all purposes by this reference, has been found by the County Zoning Administrator to be adequate for approval , and is consistent with the County' s General Plan (as established by the terms of the Development Agreement , the determinations of the County Community Development Department, the County Zoning Administrator , and such other information in the record provided to the Board) . The Board hereby further finds that the underlying development project to which the Development Agreement relates was subject to full and proper environmental review under CEQA, resulting in the certification of an EIR (May 22, 1990) and a supplemental EIR (March 17 , 1992) , which review encompassed the Development Agreement; findings regarding same are attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit 2, and hereby incorporated into this Ordinance for all purposes by this reference. Section II . Approval . Pursuant to the authorization provided in sections 65864 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California, the Board hereby approves the Development Agreement . The Board hereby authorizes the Director of Community Development to execute the Development Agreement on behalf of the County and to post a notice of determination pursuant to Section 21152 of the California Public Resources Code regarding this approval .