HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10121993 - H.5 r
`rn
+ Contra
TG.: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa
c. %adiiiigib 41
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON ` i. County
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT `-I,
k
DATE: October 7, 1993 os�A �ouri cA~
SUBJECT: Rezoning Application #2920-RZ, Cerrito-E1 Sobrante Development,
Requests to Rezone a 16.88 acre Site from Single Family. Residential
District (R-7) to Single Family Residential District (R-6) - E1
Sobrante Area (S.D.I)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Certify the adequacy of the project's Environmental Impact
Report as recommended by the County Planning Commission.
2 . Approve rezoning File #2920-RZ to rezone the site from Single
Family Residential District (R-7) to Single Family Residential
District (R-6) as recommended by the County Planning
Commission in Resolution No. 29-1993 .
3 . Introduce the Ordinance giving effect to the rezoning; waive
reading and set date for adoption of same.
4 . Adopt the proposed project findings and CEQA findings and
mitigation monitoring program reviewing the project's
compliance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act and EIR mitigation measures.
5. Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County
Clerk.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITT E
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON Uctober iz , APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER x
See Addendum for Board action
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: II , IV, I NOES: III ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT:-V ABSTAIN: None MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Arthur Beresford - 646-2031
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED October 12 , 1993
cc: Public Works PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Cerrito-El Sobrante Development Al",
COUN ADMINISTRATOR
El Sobrante Planning & Zoning Committee
Quail Hill Homeowners Association BY , DEPUTY
a
I
4. 2 .
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
On June 8, 1993 the County Planning Commission approved the
companion application to 2920-RZ which was SUB 7582 and recommended
that the Board of Supervisors approve the request to rezone the
site from Single Family Residential District (R-7) to Single Family
Residential District (R-6) .
The recommended CEQA findings are attached (Attachment A) , as is
the mitigation monitoring program (Attachment B) . The conditions
of approval for SUB 7582 are also attached (Attachment C) . The
attachments were part of the September 14 , 1993 board order.
SUB 7582 is a request to subdivide the 16. 88 acre site into 66 lots
with two common open space areas. Significant concerns involved
the site's soil stability as there are two large slides on site,
traffic and circulation impacts, hydrology and drainage, biotics
and visual quality.
EIR Review
An Environmental Impact Report was prepared on the 66 lot
development. The report determined that all significant impacts
could be mitigated to an acceptable level.
After reviewing the EIR, the Response to Comments document and
related public input, the County Planning Commission certified the
adequacy of the document and recommended that the Board do
likewise.
Local Citizen Groups Comments
Both the E1 Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Committee and the
E1 Sobrante Valley Coalition Council voted opposition to this
proposal.
The Quail Hill Citizens were concerned over possible adverse
impacts to the Quail Hill development, which is located above the
site, as a result of site grading and development.
Several individuals were concerned over increased traffic on Hill
Crest Road.
Previous Board Hearing
At their initial hearing regarding 2920-RZ, the Board took
testimony from the applicant and concerned neighbors. The Board
continued the hearing on 2920-RZ and asked staff to research
several questions.
Supervisors requested that the developer and a fire district
representative meet with the Quail Hill Homeowners and other
concerned citizens. This was accomplished at the E1 Sobrante
Valley Planning and Zoning Committee meeting of September 23 , 1993 .
The fire district felt that as long as the proper fire code
requirements , are met the project would not have any significant
adverse impacts on fire prevention. With the clearing of the area
the creation of an emergency road between La Cima and Hillcrest
Road and proper replanting of the two plus acre landscape buffer
the fire prevention situation should be improved.
Concerns over traffic, access and parking issues were also voiced
by the Board. The attached memorandum from the Public Works
Department outlines staff's response to this concern.
` 40J
3 .
The Board also discussed slide soil stability issues and the
possibility of creating additional assurance to the Quail Hill
Homeowners located above the site of 2920-RZ. One means of
accomplishing this would be to form a Geologic Hazard Abatement
District on the site. This would have the effect of creating a
district, administered by the County, to maintain any sub-drainage
or other facilities to maintain the stability of the site. The
Board could add this requirement to the Conditions of Approval for
SUB 7582 as follows:
Prior to recording the final map or issuance of a grading
permit for SUB 7582 the developer shall form a Geologic
Hazard Abatement District acceptable to the Public Works
Department.
Another issue raised was the density of the Quail Hill development.
According to developer's engineer, the density of the Quail Hill
development is 7 .71 dwelling units per acre.
The supervisors also had questions on the standards for the R-6
and R-7 zoning districts.
The standards are as follows:
R-6 R-7
Lot size 6, 000 sq. ft. 7 , 000 sq. ft.
Setback 20 ft. 20 ft.
Sideyard minimum 5 ft. 5 ft.
Total sideyard 15 ft. 15 ft.
Rearyard 15 ft. 15 ft.
Average Lot Width 60 ft. 70 ft.
Minimum Lot Depth 90 ft. 90 ft.
Building Height Maximum 35 ft. or 35 ft. or
2k stories 23-, stories
Much of the unincorporated area of E1 Sobrante, used for single
family residential purposes, is either zoned R-6 or R-7 . There are
some areas zoned R-10, R-15 and R-40. The breakdown between areas
zoned R-6 and R-7 are about equal with the perhaps a slight
preponderance of the areas zoned R-7 . Areas near the subject site
are zoned R-6 and R-7 . It should be noted that large areas west
and east of the site are zoned R-6.
The issue of a contribution to the affordable housing trust fund
was raised by the Board. The developer is agreeable to making a
contribution to this fund.
AB/aa
BDVII/2920-RZ.AB
10/7/93
ADDENDUM TO H . 5
OCTOBER 12 , 1993
On September 14 , 1993, the Board of Supervisors continued to
this date the hearing on the recommendation of the Contra Costa
County Planning commission on the request by Cerrito-E1 Sobrante
Development (applicant and owner) for approval to rezone a 16. 8 +
or - acre site from Single Family Residential District (R-7 ) to
Single Family Residential District (R-6) (2920-RZ) in the E1
Sobrante area .
Mitch Avalon, Public Works Department, commented on issues
raised at the last hearing including parking on Hillcrest Road,
and on his memo dated October 7 , 1993 .
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented
the staff report and commented on a memorandum from Allen Crop,
the geotechnical consultant working on this project explaining
the differences in approach that were required by the County in
review and evaluation of the landslide potential and monitoring
steps that will be taken during construction of the project and
subsequent to the project that differentiate it from the approach
taken on other projects . Mr . Barry also commented on the issues
of a contribution to affordable housing and he advised that the
applicant has voluntarily come up with a solution by suggesting
that they would provide $600 a unit toward provision of low-cost
affordable housing in the County either to the Affordable Housing
Trust or the Homeless Trust or a portion between them at the
discretion of the Board of Supervisors or designee, and he
advised that the mechanism for contribution would be that as of
the close of escrow of the thirty-fourth unit they would pay at a
rate of $1200 per unit and continuing thereafter until all the
units have been sold. Mr . Barry also suggested the adoption of
additional findings regarding the contribution. Mr. Barry
presented substitute wording to address the Geologic Hazard
Abatement District to read: Prior to recording the final map or
issuance of a grading permit for Sub 7582 the developer shall
form a Geologic Hazard Abatement District or functional
equivalent acceptable to the Zoning Administrator . Mr. Barry
advised that the R-6 zoning would not create a precedent in this
area.
Ann Danforth, P . O. Box V, Walnut Creek, representing the
applicant Cerrito Development, commented on issues including not
setting a precedent with a grant of the R-6 zoning, the
contribution to the affordable housing, and a meeting with the El
Sobrante Planning and Advisory Committee and representatives of
the Quail Hill Homeowners Association.
Alan Kropp, 2140 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, Geotechnical
Engineer, working with the applicant, commented on the landslide
issue .
Cate Burkhart, 1108 Bissell, Richmond, representing the West
Contra Costa Unified School District, advised that the school
district has come to an agreement with the developer on
mitigation of impact of the development .
Stuart Flashman, Attorney, 5626 Ocean View Drive, Oakland,
representing Quail Hill Homeowners Association, expressed
concerns with the project which he had supplied in writing,
including an additional concerns on site drainage and drying with
lime . Mr . Flashman suggested a modification to Condition 25, to
read shall be required where necessary to meet the capacity
requirements .
Bob Sullivan, 6210 Bayview Avenue, San Pablo, El Sobrante
y
Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, expressed concerns
on issues including the internal roadway and private versus
public roadways, and he requested that the developer consider a
postponement of the rezoning and that the developer complete the
wetlands delineation study.
Geraldine L . Knowles, 4030 Hillcrest Road, El Sobrante,
commented on having a good place to live and commented on issues
including traffic and grading.
Mike Eakin, 4060 Hillcrest Road, El Sobrante, spoke on land
values and traffic .
Ann Danforth spoke in rebuttal .
The public hearing was closed.
Supervisor Powers requested clarification on issues
including the wetlands study, insurance during construction,
monitoring conditions, an annual report by the Homeowners
Association, the linage issue, Pitt Way emergency for the
developer to try to seek an emergency access, no trucks parked on
Hillcrest overnight during construction, affordable housing
condition, and a left turn pocket on Hillcrest and a contribution
by the developer, and he moved to approve the project .
Supervisor Smith seconded the motion .
Supervisor Bishop advised that she would not be supporting
the motion as her concerns on soil stability had not been met .
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the staff recommendations
are APPROVED with modifications to the conditions (see transcript
attached) ; and Ordinance No . 93-75 is INTRODUCED,. reading waived
and October 19, 1993 is set for adoption of same .
Cc: Community Development Department
County Counsel
Cerrito Development
A
,y
Transcript of Supervisor Powers motion on H.5 10-12-93
Supervisor Powers: Yes, I pondered over this one for a while and really, initially wasn't
of the opinion that we should rezone it to R-6 as opposed to R-7 until I saw that the
surrounding area is R-6 and this map also includes very few lots that are close to 6,000
square feet and so in fact I would say more than half are at 7 or closer to 7,000 than they
are to 6,000. There are several things that ought to be done and I need to ask staff a
couple of things. Can if the wetland study comes in and shows that the subdivision
design does not address the wetlands issue, the unmitigated portion, do we have authority
to redesign the subdivision map? To accommodate the on-site mitigation.
Dennis Barry: No, typically, the response on the part of the Corps of Engineers would be
to seek compensatory mitigation off-site.
Supervisor Powers: With respect to insurance during construction, can we require that
the Quail Hill Homeowners Association be an additional insured on the liability policy?
Vic Westman: First of all, we don't get insurance on a subdivision.
Supervisor Powers: Not us. I mean the developer be conditioned to provide the Quail
Hill...
Vic Westman: Well, I don't know what sort of insurance the developer has I mean if the
developer wants to speak to that. Can I make a point that I've always expressed in the
past. If you're uncertain about the stability of the soil, you should be satisfied that that
problem has been adequately or will be adequately handled based on the expert testimony
and the staff advice you've received. We shouldn't look to hold harmless as our
insurance as an adequate substitution. Because if there's a major slide I that usually is
very expensive but....perhaps the developer though is willing to volunteer.
Supervisor Powers: Okay, maybe that's the case but let me ask staff this question that
based upon the criteria that's been set out and the precautions that are contained in the
conditions,do you think that we have adequate assurances.that a slide can be avoided off-
site by any grading that occurs during the course of construction.
Dennis Barry: Yes, we're reasonably confident that all reasonable precautions will be
taken and that the potential for sliding has been mitigated.
Supervisor Powers: Okay, what about the insurance issue? Do you want to address that.
Ann Danforth: It is my understanding and I'd have to again call on Mr. Cropp for a more
expert view on this that when a contractor undertakes engineering work, the insurance is
there to cover whatever damage results. Alan, is that....
Alan: ....bonding
Supervisor Powers: Alright, thank you.
Vic Westman: Supervisor could I point out that at least from the County's point of view,
we will have a hold harmless from the subdivider as to claims such as from adjoining
properties and so on and that hold harmless will go to their insurance as far as coverage
for the County as to any exposure.
Supervisor Powers: I don't think during construction that the concern about sliding is as
concerns me as much as that whole hillside and I would suggest the condition on the
GHAD be added but it be modified so that in the event that adjacent homeowners and
property owners desire to enter into a GHAD that that be the preferred alternative but that
it needs to be feasible economically to do a GHAD by joining in these adjacent property
owners otherwise then a properly funded homeowners association condition and can we
require the homeowners association to provide reports to the County on monitoring that
they do. Is that something that...
Vic Westman: Well, since we're imposing conditions, I think, and the developer here
seems to be agreeable to these conditions being imposed on this rezoning and the
subdivision, that the tract restrictions include the requirement you mean that the
homeowners association will report annually, yes we could provide that in there.
Supervisor Powers: Okay, let's do it. Okay, the sinage issue, to the extent that the signs
are adjacent to the property, I think they should provide the no parking signs along the
street there and to the extent that it isn't I think that we ought to have the Public Works
Department go out and take a look and see if we can't resign that no parking area that is
designated. The Pitt Way emergency, I think that we ought to add a condition there too
to ask the developer to try to seek easements for an emergency access if that's possible
and to secure it if possible for emergency purposes. Obviously you can't force somebody
to provide an easement if they don't want to but I think the telephone company would
probably participate in that and to the extent that it's necessary to mark it as an
emergency access accordingly. The condition of no trucks parked on Hillcrest overnight
during construction I think is an appropriate thing given the size of trucks and the size of
the road and that makes sense and I think the developer probably would not have a
problem with that because they should be on site anyway, so otherwise the condition on
the affordable housing seems reasonable and I think the traffic issues there's one more
that ought to be dealt with and I don't know that we can completely deal with it in this
subdivision. I think what would relieve the concerns of a lot of people coming down
Hillcrest during a commute is a left turn pocket, however, there's not enough room and I
was talking to Public works to put that pocket in but I think we ought to seek number one
some contribution by the developer to do the pocket and put that on the list of
improvements in the Valley. With respect to building Pitt Way, it is on our a list but
there are a lot of other priorities in the Valley and I wouldn't want to move this up on
priority without the community committee that looks at that wanting to do that
themselves. So, to the extent that this developer will be contributing part of the right of
way and hopefully will be satisfying the emergency situation. With respect to that other
emergency route, I think being a private road is appropriate. It doesn't we don't have
enough room to put a public size road in there and I'm not sure that we've gone through
the process of justifying having a public road in there either but it does help LaCima as
well as these folks have an emergency alternate activity and that's already in the
conditions right? Okay. I think that's about it.
Dennis Barry: Condition 25. Construction of additional pipes shall be required where
necessary to meet the capacity.
Supervisor Powers: Yeah, that sorry I did have that down too and I didn't check that off.
That's all I have and I would be willing to move the intent to approve it subject to any
other concerns that Board members had.
Supervisor McPeak: Is there a second to that motion.
Supervisor smith: Second.
Supervisor McPeak: It's been moved and seconded to approve the project with those
conditions and that includes for clarification the voluntary contribution to the homeless
trust fund right, not our affordable housing trust fund, but the homeless trust fund.
Supervisor Bishop: I will not be supporting the motion, I would like to state briefly why.
I think in the prior hearing and this hearing, my concern and the concerns of the
community, my concerns have not been allayed by the assurances of soil stability
especially as it relates to the surrounding neighborhoods. I think there are considerable
unresolved issues there. With respect to the GHAD I don't see a homeowners association
being a functional equivalent in that they will not have adequate resources to truly
address any occurrence. With respect to wetlands delineation study, to me in my mind
those are determined jurisdictional wetlands and that off-site mitigation's really are not as
appropriate as on-site mitigation and that is dedication of land on site. As far as
affordable housing, I see that this project does nothing to add to our affordable housing
stock in the County. Going back to what the gentleman said about 200 and some
thousand dollar houses, sometimes I think it gets away it almost becomes the project
takes on a life of its own and losing sight of the fact that before the affordable housing
element was added we were talking about 140,000 per lot as far as a cost basis including
development fees. You add on the affordable housing and I would say that to break even
it's going to have to be considerably in excess of 250,000 and I'm just you know the
developer has to make the economic rationale for going forward but frankly again it adds
nothing to our affordable housing stock and I frankly see an overall contribution of
39,600 to our affordable housing trust fund as not being a significant amount to alleviate
that affordable housing stock but for those reasons and probably another ten minuets
which I will not go into but those are my reasons for not supporting the motion.
Supervisor McPeak: Thank you. Are there any other comments?
Supervisor Powers: Be sure staff knows that the motion includes those changes but with
the rezoning application recommendations, there are five of them that you can so
eloquently point out and but I'll just refer you to them. The ones that you've suggested
plus the changes is the motion.
Supervisor McPeak: Any further clarification? All those in favor say aye. And that
passes 3-1 (Bishop no)
H•5
ATTACHMENT A
CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT PREPARED FOR THE HILLCREST HEIGHTS PROJECT
AND FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO THAT PROJECT
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Overview.
1 . These findings are made by this Planning
Commission ( "Commission" ) of Contra Costa County ( "County")
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. ) , the CEQA Guidelines
(14 California Administrative Code Section 15000 et sec . ) and
the County regulations promulgated thereunder (collectively
referred to as "CEQA") . These findings include this
Commission' s certification of the final environmental impact
report ( "EIR") prepared for the Hillcrest Heights development
project ("Project" ) , which consists of the development
described in the applications listed below ( "Project
Applications") . These findings further include this
Commission' s findings relating to the impacts, mitigation and
avoidance measures, alternatives, benefits and Statement of
Overriding Considerations regarding the Project Applications.
In addition, these findings include other findings necessary
and appropriate under state law and the County Code for
approval of the Project Applications.
2 . The Project is proposed by Cerrito Heights
Development, Inc. for the development of a 16 . 85-acre site
located in the unincorporated community of E1 Sobrante in the
northwest portion of the County ( "Project Site" ) . The Project
Applications are comprised of the following:
(i) Rezoning Application 2920 RZ to
rezone the Project Site from Single-Family Residential
District R-7 (seven units per acre) to Single-Family
Residential District R-6 (six units per acre) (the "Rezoning
Application") ; and
(ii) Subdivision Application No. 7582
for a vesting tentative map for the creation of 66 lots on the
Project Site (the "Vesting Tentative Map Application") . The
1
z
lots would range in size from 6,180 square feet to
14,768 square feet.
3 . The EIR is comprised of the Notice of
Preparation of the Draft EIR, the Notice of Completion of the
Draft EIR, the Draft EIR circulated for public review and
comment, the written and oral public comments and
recommendations received on the Draft EIR, a list of the
persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the
Draft EIR and the responses of the County to the significant
environmental points raised in that public review and
consultation process . The public comments, list of
commentators and County responses are contained in a separate
section of the EIR (the "Response to Comments") . The Response
to Comments also contains minor technical changes and additions
to the Draft EIR in response to the public comments .
4 . The EIR is a "project EIR" pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15161 and is intended to serve as the
environmental documentation for the planning, construction and
operation of the Project. The EIR is also intended to serve as
the environmental documentation for all subsequent County and
other public agency actions, approvals, permits or other
entitlements granted or issued in connection with the planning,
approval, construction, operation and maintenance of the
development contemplated by the Project Applications .
The EIR, or a portion thereof, may also serve as the
environmental documentation for the California Department of
Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or any other
federal, state or local agency actions or decisions relating to
any permit, approval or other entitlement which may be issued,
or other action taken, relating to the Project.
B. Certification of the EIR.
1 . This Commission certifies that the EIR (i)
has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (ii) represents its
independent judgment; and (iii) was presented to, and the
information contained therein reviewed and considered by, this
Commission prior to taking action on the Project Applications .
2 . In so certifying, this Commission recognizes
that there may be minor "differences" in and among the
different sources of information and opinions offered in the
documents and testimony that make up the EIR and the
administrative record as a whole. Experts can disagree and
this Commission must base its decisions and these findings on
that substantial evidence in the record that it finds most
compelling. Therefore, by these findings, this Commission
clarifies and/or makes insignificant modifications in the EIR
2
as set forth in these findings and determines that these
findings (and the Conditions of Approval (which these findings
incorporate by reference) ) shall control and that the EIR shall
be deemed to be certified subject to the determinations reached
by this Commission in these findings, which are based on the
substantial evidence in the administrative record as a whole.
C. The Proiect Site.
1 . The Project Site is owned by Cerrito
Development, Inc . ( "Applicant") . The site currently is
comprised of five parcels.
2. The Project Site consists of moderate to
moderately steep northward-sloping hillside which merges with
the valley floor north of the site. The hillside topography
has been modified by past grading activities on the site. Two
existing building pads remain as a result of homesites
previously occupying the site in the northwest corner .
Vegetation consists of coastal scrub, a few domestic trees in
the areas of the previous homesites, a group of willows and
annual grasses. The upper two-thirds of the site supports
dense coastal scrub.
3 . The Project Site is currently vacant except
for a single existing house on the property at the end of
La Cima Road. Land uses in the Project vicinity are
predominately residential . The Project Site is surrounded byF
developed properties except for an undeveloped parcel on the
southeast boundary. To the east and west of the site is
single-family residential development. South of the site is a
multi-family townhouse development located on Quail Hill Lane.
The E1 Sobrante bypass, an undeveloped strip of. land that is
the right-of-way for a future roadway, lies immediately
adjacent to the site on the north; directly north of this
right-of-way is a Pacific Bell facility.
D. Procedural History.
1 . The Rezoning Application and Vesting
Tentative Map Application were filed with the County on
September 28, 1990 . The Vesting Tentative Map Application was
deemed complete on or before November 26, 1990 . On the date
that the Vesting Tentative Map Application was deemed complete,
the use of the Project Site was governed by the 1980
E1 Sobrante Area General Plan ( "General Plan" ) . Accordingly,
the General Plan governs the approval and development of the
Project.
2 . On December 21, 1990, County staff prepared
an Initial Study of the Project ' s potential environmental
3
impacts. The Initial Study found that the Project might have
significant impacts on the environment and that an
environmental impact report was required. A Notice of
Preparation for the EIR was published and mailed pursuant to
CEQA on January 18, 1990 .
3 . The Draft EIR was completed in May of 1992 .
The County filed a "Notice of Completion" regarding the Draft
EIR with the State and published the Draft EIR for public
review and comment. The public review period for the Draft EIR
began on October 27, 1992, and was closed December 22, 1992,
for a total of 45 calendar days. During that period,
approximately 25 written comments regarding the Draft EIR were
received from state and local agencies, organizations and area
residents.
4 . This Commission held a public hearing to
consider the Draft EIR, the Project and the Project
Applications on November 24, 1992.
5. In March 1993, the Response to Comments was
prepared. Section II of the Response to Comments contains a
list of persons, organizations and entities commenting on the
Draft EIR. Section III of the Response to Comments provides a
copy of all written comments and recommendations received on
the Draft EIR and considers and responds to each of the
significant environmental points raised in those comments.
Section IV summarizes the oral comments on the EIR that were
made at this Commission' s hearing on November 24, 1992, and
responses to the significant environmental points raised in
those oral comments . Lastly, Section V of the Response to
Comments contains revisions to the text of the EIR based upon
public comments .
6 . On June 8, 1993, after a properly noticed
public hearing at which it received staff, public and Applicant
testimony and documentation, the Commission voted to certify
the EIR and approve the Vesting Tentative Map Application. In
addition, the Commission voted to recommend to the Board of
Supervisors : (1) certification of the EIR; and (2) approval of
the Rezoning Application.
E. Other Controlling Determinations.
1 . Each and all of the findings contained
herein are based upon the competent and substantial evidence
contained in the entire record. The findings constitute the
independent findings and determinations of this Commission in
all respects and are fully and completely supported by
competent and substantial evidence in the record.
4
1
2. This Commission finds that the Response to
Comments, including the comments on the Draft EIR, responses to
comments and revisions to the text of the EIR, does not provide
significant new information or require substantial changes to
the Draft EIR. Instead, the Response to Comments clarified,
amplified or caused insignificant modifications to the
information already contained in the Draft EIR. Based on its
review of the standards set forth in Public Resources Code
Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162-15164, this
Council finds that there is no basis in the record to support
requiring the preparation of a supplemental EIR, a subsequent
EIR or a recirculation of the EIR.
3 . Specific "Conditions of Approval" have been
drafted to implement the mitigation measures recommended in the
EIR, except insofar as those mitigation measures are expressly
rejected in these findings. The Conditions of Approval are all
adopted with these findings. Unless otherwise indicated in
these findings, this Commission finds that the mitigation
measures adopted as Conditions of Approval will mitigate the
Project ' s significant environmental impacts to a less than
significant level . The County shall monitor the implementation
of the mitigation measures established in the Conditions of
Approval as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program
adopted with the Project.
4 . The discussions presented under the captions
"Facts" for each category recite some of the background
information relating to the Project. The discussions under the
captions "Findings" contain findings made by this Commission,
based on the entire record before this Commission, including,
without limitation, the information that is recited in the
discussion of "Facts . " References to specific portions of the
Conditions of Approval is provided to indicate where the
particular mitigation measure being imposed can be located.
Such references are not intended as a limited adoption of said
Conditions of Approval, which are adopted by this Commission in
full .
5. This Commission intends that these findings
be considered as an integrated whole and that any finding
required or permitted to be made by this Commission shall be
deemed made if it appears in any portion of this document,
whether or not any subdivision of these findings fails to
cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other
subdivision of these findings . All of the text included in
this document constitutes findings by this Commission, whether
or not any particular caption, sentence or clause includes a
statement to that effect.
5
6. Although the discussions under the captions
"Facts, " below, may primarily or entirely be based on the EIR,
this Commission intends that each finding herein is based on
the entire record, including written and oral testimony to this
Commission. The omission of any relevant fact from the summary
discussions below is not an indication by this Commission that
a particular finding is not based in part on the omitted fact .
7. Any erroneous reference to or omission of a
reference to a specific Condition of Approval shall in no way
affect the validity of the measures imposed to reduce -
significant Project impacts to a less than significant level;
to this end, all such Conditions of Approval are adopted
whether or not each is specifically referenced in these
findings . This Commission recognizes that many of the
Conditions of Approval adopted by this Commission to mitigate
the environmental impacts identified in the administrative
record may have the effect of mitigating multiple impacts
(e.g. , conditions imposed primarily to mitigate drainage
impacts may also secondarily mitigate soils impacts; conditions
imposed primarily to mitigate traffic impacts may also
secondarily mitigate air quality impacts, etc. ) . This
Commission has not attempted to exhaustively cross-reference
all potential impacts mitigated by the imposition of a
particular Condition of Approval; however, such failure to
cross-reference shall not be construed as a limitation on the
potential scope or effect of any such condition.
8 . Any rejection or modification of mitigation
measures proposed in the EIR is based on this Commission' s
determination that the implementation of the mitigation
measure, as originally proposed, is undesirable, impractical or
otherwise infeasible. To the extent practical, the reasons for
each such particular determination have been explained in these
findings and the record as a whole.
9 . Unless otherwise indicated in the text of
the EIR or these findings , the mitigation measures adopted as
Conditions of Approval are determined to avoid or substantially
reduce any significant adverse environmental impact of the
Project to a level of insignificance. Further, unless
otherwise indicated in these findings, the Conditions of
Approval themselves are determined not to result in any
potentially significant adverse impacts.
10 . Those mitigation measures requiring the
preparation of a plan or program were in reaction to impacts
which were assumed to be present and significant in order to
fashion suitable measures . These plans and programs are
established to ensure adequate mitigation measure
implementation and monitoring after approval of the Project
Applications .
6
y
II. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR AS
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT THAT WILL BE REDUCED TO
INSIGNIFICANCE BY RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
A. Generally.
1. Facts and Findings.
(a) The following facts and findings do not
repeat the full discussions of impacts and mitigation measures
contained in the relevant documents in the administrative -
record. Instead, the facts and findings rely on the
information and analysis contained in the administrative
record, including, without limitation, the information that is
recited in the discussion of "Facts . "
(b) The mitigation measures referenced
under "Findings" are hereby adopted by this Commission and are
imposed as Conditions of Approval to the Rezoning and Vesting
Tentative Map.
B. Land Use.
1. Facts.
The Project ' s potential impacts on land use are
discussed on pages 3-1 through 3-8 of the Draft EIR, in the
Response to Comments and in the other portions of the
administrative record upon which this Commission relies . The
EIR identifies those impacts that are potentially significant .
2. Findings.
Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire
record, this Commission finds that the Project ' s significant
land use impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant
level by the imposition of Conditions 13 and 29 of the
Conditions of Approval .
C. Traffic/Circulation Impacts.
1. Facts.
(a) The Project ' s impacts on traffic and
circulation are discussed at pages 4 . 1-1 through 4 . 1-17 of the
Draft EIR, in the Response to Comments and in other portions of
the administrative record upon which this Commission relies .
The EIR identifies certain impacts as potentially significant .
(b) To offset potential safety impacts, the
EIR recommends the installation of side road warning signs in
7
both directions on Hillcrest Road in advance of the Cerrito
Road intersection. However, staff has determined that a more
effective mitigation would be to provide adequate sight
distance in accordance with Caltrans standards as required by
Condition 29 .F of the Conditions of Approval .
(c) The EIR identifies potentially
significant impacts relating to the proposed street sections '
noncompliance with County standards and recommends that a
variance be obtained for street rights-of-way. However, staff
has determined that a more effective mitigation would -be to
require that all interior roads comply with the County' s
private road standards as required by Condition 29 .D of the
Conditions of Approval .
2. Findings.
Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire
record, this Commission finds that the Project ' s significant
transportation impacts will be mitigated to a less than
significant level by the imposition of Condition 29 of the
Conditions of Approval .
D. Geology and Soils.
1. Facts.
The Project' s impacts on geology and soils are
discussed at pages 4 .2-1 through 4 . 2-20 of the Draft EIR, in
the Response to Comments and in other portions of the
administrative record upon which this Commission relies . The
EIR identifies certain impacts of the Project as potentially
significant.
2. Findings.
Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire
record, this Commission finds that the Project ' s significant
geology and soils impacts will be mitigated to a less than
significant level by the imposition of Conditions 21, 22, 23
and 24 of the Conditions of Approval . These conditions require
that the specific mitigation measures recommeded in the EIR be
incorporated in the Project ' s grading and building plans, soils
engineering, erosion control plan and expansive soils measures .
E. Hydrology/Drainage.
1. Facts.
(a) The Project ' s impacts on drainage and
water quality are discussed at pages 4.3-1 through 4 .3-13 of
8
the Draft EIR, in the Response to Comments and in other
portions of the administrative record upon which this
Commission relies. The EIR identifies certain impacts of the
Project as potentially significant.
(b) In commenting on the Draft EIR, the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board requested that
the EIR note that the Project will require coverage under the
General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. In response
to this comment, Mitigation Measure 4 .3-6 was expanded to note
that the developer must comply with all terms and-conditions of
a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit obtained for
the Project from the State Water Resources Control Board. This
measure does not address a significant environmental impact
because the discharge of pollutants from the Project is
expected to be insignificant.
2. Findings.
Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire
record, this Commission finds that the Project ' s significant
impacts on hydrology and drainage will be avoided or mitigated
to a less than significant level by the imposition of
Conditions 13, 25, 26, 28 and 29 .A of the Conditions of
Approval .
F. Biotics.
1. Facts.
(a) The Project ' s impacts on vegetation and
wildlife are discussed at pages 4 . 4-1 through 4 .4-8 of the
Draft EIR, in the Response to Comments and in other portions of
the administrative record upon which this Commission relies .
The EIR identifies certain impacts of the Project as
potentially significant .
(b) The EIR identified a potentially
significant impact relating to a possible wetlands area on the
Project Site. The EIR recommends that a wetlands delineation
be performed to determine whether the Project requires a permit
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . In commenting on the
Draft EIR, the California Regional Water Quality Board
requested that the EIR note that it must certify that any
permit issued by the Corps will comply with water quality
standards or waive such certification. Mitigation
Measure 4 .4-2 was modified in the Response to Comments to
satisfy the California Regional Water Quality Board' s request .
9
4
2. Findings.
Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire
record, this Commission finds that the Project ' s significant
impacts on vegetation and wildlife will be reduced to .a less
than significant level by the imposition of Conditions 14 and
27 of the Conditions of Approval .
G. Visual Impacts.
1. Facts.
(a) The Project 's visual impacts are
discussed on pages 4 .5-7 through 4 . 5-12 of the Draft EIR, in
the Response to Comments and in other portions of the
administrative record upon which this Commission relies . The
EIR identifies those impacts that are potentially significant .
(b) The EIR recommeds that variety be
employed in lot layouts, setbacks, building placement, home
styles, exterior building materials and colors . However, these
measures do not address a significant Project impact but merely
inferior -pedestrian and motorist views . Further, these
measures are rejected as infeasible because they would result
in more costly homes, which is inconsistent with the objective
of providing housing affordable to moderate income households .
2. Findings.
Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire
record, this Commission finds that the Project ' s significant
visual impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant
level by the imposition of Condition 14 of the Conditions of
Approval .
H. School Services.
1. Facts.
(a) The Project ' s potential impacts on
schools are discussed in Appendix A of the Draft EIR, in the
Response to Comments and in other portions of the
administrative record upon which this Commission relies . Based
on the Initial Study in Appendix A, the Draft EIR indicated
that the Project would not have a significant impact on schools .
(b) In commenting on the Draft EIR, the
Richmond Unified School District suggested that the Project
would have significant cumulative impacts on local schools
because of existing overcrowded conditions . The School
District requested that the Project be denied unless the
10
Applicant and the District agreed upon a mitigation plan that
would mitigate all of the Project' s school impacts to the
District 's satisfaction. This proposal constitutes an
infeasible mitigation measure because state law limits
permissible mitigation measures for school impacts to the
payment of legally established school fees .
(c) It is this Commission' s judgment that
the Project ' s impact will not be significant because its
contribution to overcrowded conditions at enrollment at local
schools will be minute relative to existing and projected
enrollment. The Project will be required to pay school
mitigation fees as required by law.
2. Findings.
Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire
record, this Commission finds that the Project will not have a
significant impact on schools .
III. OTHER FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT IMPACTS
A. Significant Unavoidable Impacts.
1. Facts.
(a) The Project ' s significant effects are
discussed in Sections 3 . 0 , 4 . 0 and 5. 0 of the Draft EIR, in the
Response to Comments and in other portions of the
administrative record upon which this Commission relies . The
EIR concludes that all significant impacts can be mitigated to
a less than significant level by the mitigation measures
recommended in the EIR.
(b) The Conditions of Approval adopted by
this Commission in these findings implement the mitigation
measures recommended in the EIR.
2. Findings.
Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire
record, this Commission finds that all of the Project ' s
significant environmental effects will be mitigated to a less
than significant level by the Conditions of Approval .
B. Cumulative Impacts.
1. Facts.
(a) The EIR discusses the Project' s
significant cumulative impacts in Sections 3 . 0, 4 . 0 and 5 .3 of
11
the Draft EIR, in the Response to Comments and in other
portions of the administrative record upon which this
Commission relies . The EIR identifies potentially significant
cumulative impacts on traffic and circulation, drainage and
water quality and biotics.
(b) To offset its share of cumulative
traffic and circulation impacts, the EIR recommends that the
Project contribute to any future improvements related to the
San Pablo Dam Road/Hillcrest intersection. However, staff has
determined that a more effective mitigation would be the
right-of-way dedications and other improvements relating to
Hillcrest Road and the E1 Sobrante Bypass as required by
Condition 29 of the Conditions of Approval .
2. Findings.
Based on the EIR, .the Response to Comments and other
portions of the administrative record on which this Commission
relies, this Commission finds that the Project ' s significant
cumulative impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant
level by Condition 29 of the Conditions of Approval .
C. Growth-Inducing Impacts.
1. Facts.
The EIR discusses the Project ' s potential
growth-inducing impacts on page 5-7 of the Draft EIR, in the
Response to Comments and in other portions of the
administrative record upon which this Commission relies . The
EIR indicates these impacts to be less than significant .
2. Findings.
Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire
record, this Commission finds that the Project ' s
growth-inducing impacts will be less than significant and that
no mitigation is required.
D. Irreversible Environmental Changes.
I. Facts.
The irreversible environmental changes that would
result from the Project are discussed on page 5-7 of the EIR,
in the Response to Comments and in other portions of the
administrative record upon which this Commission relies. The
sole irreversible environmental impact identified is the
conversion of a natural habitat to residential uses. The EIR
concludes that this impact would be less than significant.
12
2. Findings.
Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire
record, this Commission finds that the Project ' s irreversible
environmental changes would be insignificant and that no
mitigation is required.
E. Relationship between Short-Term Use and Long-Term
Productivity.
1. Facts.
The EIR discusses the Project ' s relationship between
short-term uses and long-term productivity on page 5-8 of the
Draft EIR, in the Response to Comments and in other portions of
the administrative record upon which this Commission relies .
The EIR notes that the Project would eliminate the options for
potential future use of the site for open space and/or
recreational uses . However, the EIR states that residential
development is the most likely use for the property and that
utilizing the site for recreational purposes would require
extensive grading and leveling.
2. Findings.
Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire
record, this Commission finds that the Project ' s relationship
between short-term uses and long-term productivity does not
give rise to a significant impact and that no mitigation is
necessary.
IV. FINDINGS REGARDING THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The EIR evaluates and compares four alternatives to
the Project, including the No Project Alternative, in
Section 6. 0 of the Draft EIR, in the Response to Comments and
in other portions of the administrative record upon which this
Commission relies .
In considering the Project, this Commission has
considered whether the alternatives to the Project would reduce
the Project ' s impacts while still achieving the Project ' s
benefits . This Commission has determined to reject the
alternatives, notwithstanding their potential to reduce
impacts, because none would achieve the same level of benefits
as the Project and because all of the Project ' s impacts can be
mitigated to a less than significant level .
This Commission finds that the EIR sets forth a
reasonable range of alternatives to the Project to foster
informed decision making and informed public participation and
13 .
Y
to permit a reasoned choice and that the alternatives are
adequately discussed and evaluated in the EIR. This Commission
adopts the findings set forth below regarding these
alternatives .
A. No Proiect Alternative.
1. Facts.
(a) The No Project Alternative is discussed
at pages 6-1 through 6-3 of the Draft EIR, in the Response to
Comments and in other portions of the administrative record
upon which this Commission relies . This alternative assumes
that the Project Site would remain undeveloped in its present
condition.
(b) The No Project Alternative has the
advantage of generally less impacts on land use, traffic and
circulation, biotics and visual quality than those resulting
from the proposed Project or any other alternative involving
development of the Project Site. However, the alternative
would be inferior to the Project with respect to geology/soils
and hydrology/drainage conditions because existing problems
relating to landslide scarps, erosion and gullying,
sedimentation, trash and debris would not be corrected.
(c) This alternative is generally
considered impracticable. As indicated on pages 3-1 through
3-6 of the Draft EIR, the Project is surrounded by development
and is designated in the General Plan and the County Zoning
Ordinance for residential uses . Accordingly, some development
.on the Project Site is probable.
2. Findings.
Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire
record, this Commission finds that the No Project Alternative
is infeasible because it is contrary to the General Plan and
would achieve none of the benefits of the Project . In
addition, the No Project Alternative would preclude obtainment
of the environmental, social, economic and other benefits
derived from the Project, as set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations in Section V of these findings.
Accordingly, this Commission rejects the No Project Alternative.
B. Attached Townhouse Design Alternative.
1. Facts.
(a.) The Attached Townhouse Design
Alternative assumes a development of 65 townhouses similar to
14
1
the adjacent Quail Hill Lane development. This alternative
would permit the same number of units as the Project but would
create a higher density on a portion of the site, leaving the
remainder in open space.
(b) The alternative would be more
consistent with the proposed E1 Sobrante Bypass because
development around the perimeter of the site would be
eliminated. The Project ' s impacts relating to traffic and
circulation, geology and soils and biotics would generally be
reduced. Some visual impacts might be reduced depending on the
placement of the townhouses .
(c) This alternative would be inconsistent
with the current General Plan, thus would have greater land use
impacts than the Project. An amendment to the Plan would be
required. The alternative would result in a more concentrated
flow of runoff than the Project, a significant impact that
would require additional mitigation.
(d) The record suggests that the housing
market in the area is for moderately priced, detached
single-family homes .
2. Findings.,
Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire
record, this Commission finds that this alternative is
infeasible because it would produce less marketable units than
the Project and would reduce obtainment of the environmental,
social, economic and other benefits to be derived from the
Project as set forth in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations set forth in Section V of these findings .
Accordingly, this Commission rejects the Attached Townhouse
Alternative.
C. Single-Family, Zero Lot Line.
1 . Facts.
(a) The Single-Family, Zero Lot Line
Alternative would permit 65 dwelling units with no side-yard
setbacks on lots of between 3000 to 4000 square feet.
Development of the site under this alternative would encompass
approximately 7 . 5 acres, allowing the remaining 9 .3 acres to be
retained as open space.
(b) This alternative would have reduced
geology/soils impacts with respect to erosion, sedimentation
and slope instability; other geology/soils impacts would be
comparable to the Project . Biotic and visual impacts could be
15
reduced although the visual aspect of the Project would be of a
denser development.
(c) The alternative would have greater land
use impacts than the Project because of its inconsistency with
the General Plan. A General Plan amendment would be required.
Hydrology and drainage impacts would be somewhat worse than the
Project ' s because of an increase in drainage flow.
(d) The evidence in the record indicates
that the existing housing market in the area is for moderately
priced, detached single-family homes.
2. Findings.
Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire
record, this Commission finds that this alternative is
infeasible because it would produce less marketable units than
the Project and would reduce obtainment of the environmental ,
social , economic and other benefits to be derived from the
Project as set forth in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations set forth in Section V of these findings .
Accordingly, this Commission rejects the Single-Family, Zero
Lot Line Alternative.
D. Alternative Site Plan.
1. Facts.
(a) The Alternative Site Plan is described
in Figure 6-1 of the Draft EIR. The plan would cluster
development on the flatter portions of the site and would
eliminate the secondary project access on Cerrito Road except
for use by emergency vehicles.
(b) This alternative could have reduced
impacts on geology, soils and visual resources by the
elimination of lots 24 through 39 . The elimination of these
lots would allow for a greater separation from the Quail Hill
townhouses .
(c) Because of the reduction in lots, this
alternative would produce only 51 dwelling units as compared to
the 66 units that would be created by the Project. This
reduction would increase the cost of Project homes .
2. Findings.
Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the
administrative record, this Commission finds that the
Alternative Site Plan is infeasible because it would produce
16
f ,
L
fewer and more expensive housing units and would reduce the
environmental, social, economic and other benefits derived from
the Project as discussed in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations set forth in Section V of these findings . This
Commission, therefore, rejects the Alternative Site Plan.
V. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Generally.
This Commission finds and determines that, to the
extent that any of the above-discussed significant direct or
indirect Project impacts, including cumulative Project impacts,
remain significant despite the imposition of the Conditions of
Approval and other mitigation measures, such impacts are
acceptable in light of the social, economic, environmental and
other Project benefits discussed below and that these benefits
outweigh and make acceptable any such environmental impacts of
the Project . This Commission also finds and determines that
those mitigation measures and alternatives that were discussed
in the EIR, public comments, County responses or other portions
of the administrative record but which are not or will not be
incorporated into the Project are infeasible given those
Project benefits .
The specific Project benefits are discussed below and
are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative
record. Each of the matters set forth below is, independent of
the other matters, an overriding consideration warranting
approval of the Project despite each and every impact that will
remain significant.
B. Specific Proiect Benefits.
Specifically, this Commission finds that the following
social, economic, environmental and other Project
considerations warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding
any significant impacts of the Project that are not fully
mitigated to a level of insignificance or which might be -
reduced through the choice of one of the alternatives to the
Project:
1. Provision of Housing.
The benefits associated with the Project ' s provision
of new housing are discussed on page 5-1 of the Draft EIR, in
the Response to Comments and in other portions of the
administrative record upon which this Commission relies .
17
The Project will provide 66 new units of single-family
housing for the area and region. This will promote orderly
growth consistent with the mandate of the General Plan.
2. Provision of Jobs.
The Project ' s creation of jobs is discussed in the
administrative record upon which this Commission relies .
The Project will provide local and regional
development-related employment opportunities . Some of these
opportunities will be temporary, e.g. , construction,
landscaping, home design, interior decorating and so forth.
However, the wages earned from these jobs will increase income
levels, stimulating the local economy and generating sales tax
revenues. After Project homes are occupied, household-related
purchases for groceries, hardware, supplies and similar items
will have permanent beneficial effects on the local economy.
3. Jobs/Housing Balance.
The Project ' s beneficial impact on the local
jobs/housing balance is discussed on page 5-1 of the Draft EIR,
in the Response to Comments and in other portions of the
administrative record upon which this Commission relies.
The Project ' s creation of local jobs will improve the
area's balance between jobs and housing with corresponding
environmental benefits in terms of regional traffic congestion
and air pollution mitigation.
4. Public Revenues.
The Project will substantially increase the assessed
valuation of the Project Site and will beneficially impact
property values in the vicinity, thereby creating additional
property tax revenue for the County on a long-term basis .
During construction of the Project, additional public revenues
will result from sales taxes on building materials, payroll
taxes relating to construction employment, patronization of
local businesses by construction-related employees and Project
residents and similar transactions. The Project will also
contribute fees toward local and regional solutions to public
services and facilities needs .
5. Drainage Improvements.
The Hillcrest drain is presently inadequate to
accommodate a 100-year storm flow and may be inadequate to
accommodate a 10-year storm flow. The Project would construct
18
r
drainage basins or additional pipes as needed to accommodate
10-year and 100-year storm events .
6. Landslide Stabilization.
Mapping in the vicinity of the Project Site indicates
that landslides in the area are extensive. The EIR indicates
that approximately one-half the site is covered by landslides .
The Project would address the landslide problem by stabilizing
on-site slopes through proper engineering design.
VI. FINDINGS SUPPORTING APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT
APPLICATIONS
A. General Plan Consistency.
This Commission finds that the Rezoning and Vesting
Tentative Map are consistent with the General Plan.
B. Findings Regarding the Rezoning.
This Commission finds that :
1 . The Rezoning is consistent with the General
Plan.
2 . The uses authorized and proposed for the
rezoned Project site are compatible within the R-7 District and
to uses authorized in adjacent districts .
3 . Community need has been demonstrated for the
uses proposed.
C. Findings Supporting Approval of the Vesting
Tentative Maps.
This Commission finds that :
1 . The Vesting Tentative Map is consistent with
the zoning of the Project Site pursuant to the Rezoning.
2 . The Project achieves a balance between the
housing needs of the region, the public service needs of County
residents and the available fiscal and environmental resources .
3 . The design of this Project provides, to the
extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities in the subdivision.
19 .
ti
c t4' a 3
x c U
z w..k
a o
X '7—
w
t:.
a. rig
} A
� c
O
u Lu
U J V V 2
< zcis
vi cc
Q O y
v V o
G V cLu y C
<v aJ o O
U �-
y '
a4
•� j 03 G
.c C
3 �
p y ao
a 2
E -C
t 'fl cd = E 'a 0.
ca
O
'C �+ O O 'C 7 .0 = 0 '� c V C cc
W G. y .mo.O .O C C C O h to w O RS O >
'�, y C O OD.0 y A O
.� O i C c L .�.+ ��1 y •�' � C � � Q.•—ro Vi y C.
0 C) d ) to C :. ,= w � �.. G.� y G. U U <
O
cd C > ++ O cc A OA w QD O N06-
Z O .O .C•iC _C d U '= w .= � C y cc
•� 5Cc C;j Ci
++ O C
C e�tl .0 X 3 O i cc
co O O d � C O d C G Vcc
V Cl � 'iU
w .N cc 'p °: � �, o U U U
°� c, v ° ;ate a v -0 o UU
w 0 0 O y C V co 0 0 .0 y 0 0 c,,., h
.0 O 0 M cd C cE 4�`�. N U O = O O O •l7 O
9
cx o
z 0 U U
o
03
a
n�
r � A
z w 03
v a o
a
z z ¢ U
0
A: a U v Uv Uv U L U
U v Uv Uv U u c
U
w
O
a o �.
•v Cd AU
o
n. as t:
cn
o o � � Cd'n
cg N a
a v v
cz ea
� a¢i
a 5 ai w C93 ..
'� E
°C'
U = U
ice. C ° N
tj
'td t°V N A co
p y c O y e=OV h'A
U c� ... Uo �
E E
>,
aEa oo3� 3w �° � ;,1 'cc o
bp to bo 0
Cd d) N C. A «. cdod
cn o 'ed z" o •y c (1) �'^ ani �° .y °".a o v
k to as cc ° b V
w oto u
o
o v W .>1 a N .o b N ° o � o .� o a
C : ;r C Cc
O O tw E �O eti O C'Srn d
C6 cn
ca
as CD
CIS 2 .E
2a�
yo ^' a>i o •°o �i' °a� aoi acd >i CIS mac,
O t«. o E w o v o U ° Ca y •v oo C7 •v a �
8
y a
O
o �
' LL4
A a
y, o
U�C-7
V V U U" U a
J U V
cl
O
U
3
U a
3 0 U o
U
v,
o >; �• oo a E o
.° a o C13S.
U
ea on q U
cz
o: o clr.
o
O O 'b L7 y O N O
/G bD 0 h 00
ri a .5 U a on U
c
o •E
o o Q oCIS U
ca
tbC 'c'' eOV p O� •y- O .�� �inNM � O p id
bnE o a e° a � '� c � `'- � �cc UU
ba
0 0 ..� � cc W
to
cd t4
03
03
x w
to ' 4., ba V eC
O v' N O C •� ed +r k ' � y 'O
x O G + N U O
co rAc " c " > aUcc
o o c 'oo
A
-o -°: ani o c o 0 o U U
_ _ _.
b ao oon ti '� �-'.°q a 4- ° a u Q U U
L1 0O co Ni fl 00
CL I-
O , „b u pp v� W 0) w > V >
03 CIS
0C43 Q .,. O y E •v n,a s
r
7
y I
..
C13 o
v - A
c
culc
uq
Uv U v Uv � p
O C
U a
3
o U
> c c
h v
C
6
c.
cla
03 C
cc r-
a a A a
ct
z c _c a�
'° a a
O tw 0 id rn O c
«+ ° c ; E }
y Q
co cn �' a� c
a oo C;
c t
o c to
oco a�ioc aao� ai cLo •00co bo 0
ca
3 a �
U uc
becis � a� a� � :° .b0000 % U oL o � a
.oOcc . c � ;vq -C � C � 3cc He CV
o X 0 3 �o o a > o g c CA cd jD
�a a
i yy to O
co O w NC v' N y y Q cv0 000
03 cc r-
O
00 ca u u
o E
. o w.c> L a . c. ",.°c_ aci "•►� 'neo v o U U w
rn w 'fl y atC O y O O
c w C w y= (L) eef
cc
6
0
� N U 0
co
Hai
w �
al..
vz
A4 a
a h" c� U u
U a
U .,
U U v �j
cc
ed C o.
CO
> v U
ti03A
c cl
to v o c c
� �+ • UJ eta � v+
w
v co o An.
o o o
r= C
iv to .� >, V ° a
a c a o = ti.. o aci tuC43 ,.bo
;ro ... o
sn of ev w �+,a° '� ba
. , V >
y a,
Oa u
cts00ca
to ED o
� o 'y w tocdb4 o �» oocqs
Gn
A =
Cd0 w .44, •o occ M tko Cd c .� � ao UcA oo .
S. o v 0 O a. v w W U U t
o $ � ScooE -c
'� O cd 0cd
coi vii
R! N $ b y A, v boo O
5
Ca
CIO
o z :o
03
ami c
. A o
C7 00 y
•d �' c
o $ ra n a ca `O U
Ca Q A 4 A n Ara COD N
p. � : U v Uv U v •a, U v U o
U v Uv U v Q Uv o O
,° U
a
°° � 3
A
� � � c H h o c U •�
0 0
Cd
co co
"> 03
C ca U A U
CO 034c ai
�. N
bf
oas �o
c4 w eq w b y d
a� C
tw eC > U
ed
a a)
bo
.O
vabo ca.
s� as Cd ai U u >
bo mcs
WD
co cu
8 cd
ca
�` O •� ... a) p p •`n "� w o a) „tea', V V id
•ar t Z ►r CA ets
cd
4) C43
cd rn CC kn
En
rn
W cz w a v ti. .e Q w a w Q .�
ry
4
CL
.x
Fl
o � o
o V a
w
� w
°
CO
a
> a o c
m ►a U U
Q Ucqs
vs
2
AQ AQ U
w c� . a Uv Uv U o
a N
a UU Uv � a
U
o O
0 3
° acts
.�
° .� •N � o
L N
C ° en
c c U
CL
� A
cc a�
o' ELn
a
� o � occ
; g
o a3i a3i A
> > (D 2
U) rn
� [ V
•t7
b4_ M O n.
U ba14
cn
04ca0 ca
j
54 :; to W N U o O bk0 C Q. _ O p cd
'� �" b C 'C N N y ate/ W R V S.
cd O O O b 2 ,E 4. .�.. R.
Z !:4 W Rf aC N H .-. .�3 as p tom„ U ¢p
bq +� O S v O m � 4-.
o •^� 03U o ' oocaa°� •0 0o � h A � � .�
cl
i Ca c >o ed U U Li, a
o r4 � w Cis
c c° a = c o N ' E o acc
U .� C7 v .SU U aoi v m n•ov a cc
- r
3
CL
M
� w �
u. o
v .a
w ,o. O O O cu
hoz w w a a a g x
iro
0
,4-441)
yo
• o c
3 0 a
a A 0
m v
' Qz` U o �•� U o
CO 0 ° U
A M
( Coo
� U a
a U U b4J W
(V,r- o ,�
e 5v U 5.
C1a
v > U' o
U) O v U
w: E U
W
o
c� rz O o cqj U
aO¢ A U
al ti O a a m .14 .�
0 8 E o 0 o v E v a tw
•yUy U , E �cl+
p: rZ C LL Q. L1. �4 > 6L +� CIS
O O
t, 4+ C r-I u +i O
O a rI � L7 O
O O o y y m y N y LO
3 3n,
.°a .c a a c 4 � U) G
.. A o
cn O O O o a
3 a a bjD V
H O Z O 91 ,� O •r; 41 O m O Q.
r •� E �4 WpC O m vU O
wb•�, w v _o �' b c o 003 � +� v �+ •� i � �,� U
a�- m 3 's .� > 'o Q nD a U� v w a v .,j P6
a .E •H -4 v U a1 cu w sa a s
.Oy M m c °o3''A•Vbi �+ Ua� .a U cL O HO
WO+, aJ O i= cu -W W •� OU
4>
C),-4 od -H . C,3
c1o cv ti o
0 U N •r-4 1J —4 'Tj 0,C•41 *i O
�- cc
c0 O P v) Z E �4 m{ Z; 4.4 o � ,) vUov 4-J o
g° v � E � ° Q �z �+ ov vUmu opCL
,
CO
o ay.o v ° �, b �. ro � � ro .r-, E v a
cd
5
. .� ° Rs 4:. °° y G x .� M 4-3 .. 0 .z O m v r+ U o
>
cc +� . .n p p
p, ed O CO N G+Z i m •r i A U ia"dO O V O 4-J n w cdp ,
O ci- L. m �4 Lr) O w GJ '
.
aJ cc
C
•t7 $J RS o .o Cz. O4, L 4. p ... vs eq C 1 C U) � H v N () (� �
w: v c o 'b a ° •- o o v U oz v �+ v v U U Q o
c y m a) E v y
p w (u .� a �? a) $ C1, U Uami
:b U U K �, CO .o V �n �. (, v� •r t cu +� C� N •� cu
> 'O m N tir :O •L7 .� .C a3 'd O m 0
o G cu o o °� 0 3- N o w �' o a 'l7 O G C
F- U v A c,
N
2
t
vi C
t.. O
f
a < < d L.
c �
n
r p Q Q Q •�
d z U U U o
xcc
3 c U
77Ey
< < < o O
c
< 3
c; a
00 U
C
H
Sj Q}
z C' H L ., .. Q
O c; ? cz ai
�= c 3 E cz
__ V)2 p c c
•L ::D
L " iV 3 Qcz
C4
E- a3 i c Q o
} > v) oA U
E .E a�
0.
3co c
�} O .� O v�ry� v O '
O fli = .r U ¢
c� O
cc .0
•p O ecl .0+ O va Com.
C t0 cv cd C cCa cd at
U ca v�
p d j P dcq .c d a� � `� c
ctsc c w _ v ai css U U ee
C V cz cc ++
Cl y.. A `0 Qcz
v c 4= g o o L�.O U U ami
_ h
vy— Qi rry U U LL1
.�?
c cO '� '} c -- a A
r o ° s N M c � a�
=o d cc
1
I
h C
- O
cr
Z 0CE-
do c u
R �
V C
A o
C
cz
� 0 0
c O
o �
U
a
A
i U o
c
0
� � U
C U
c�
z
o p �
o ° Q o
cA o
o co U
E .0 6
rz
>,a U
'v c c 4-1CZ
c
cc fAcc
. .fA
ce O d 41 . y y o A �p etl
h> K O .- ? in y
•
'M
2 cc 0 o 4 .0 � .0 K Cw y O c
O C S. G. W E_ i t j eo
<
cc es! .r o
esi
LS.
` ... . 3 ... ^ v AA
.�, .�.� tCt O cz 'L7 H G <UU
r
IV
R
Q �
r R
x � �
� v
O C
Q �
C ...
V
0
U U N
c.
c U y ,
< U o O
U
� R
° a
t� y,
co
� a
CL
z c a
v N a> o
o r.-
c t
O = V U Q d
cli
E _
is Ncn E 2 0.
o Co N
w w 'R `" U p C Q '' cis
C
46
cc c
i', •E . = s o r = h °° a ai a> a� H U o
v •� y G
cc U O
z: a�
in
o o c `'sQ E o4. c 'y o c
�. cc
gn
O c 'V O «? C R z 0 v C bcz
O « C
a� = c vo ai 'c c .a c a :a .0 '� U U Q o
° .°c o c E ° ° o 4)
E a�
L, E N v c c a, U N N ci N a tiG a E V V t C
.c
n
II
« §
. t
. �
./ � m
ƒ}
. � .
. . �
U
. U
. . . c
�
. k c
:p
E 3
CC
\ 2 t 2 cn
V a t
k
. } q § t 2 2 K Ccz
O
« , § # e
\ 2 2 g 2 k 2to
2 \
u — o ® c U -
\ 2 § 8 & ƒ
§ § f 2 2 § -
j 2 § 2 3 m 2 2 ° 0 3 ;
> u �
«
\ 2 m § §
U U u
.
12
O Q �
�a
w w c
as a
A �
v
ZRn
a h
ca as as U a
ac3 a U U
U o 0
c� u a
r ai
ro "tir "too cd �' o A va
V2 cn
rn
3 .a > o
OC43 1
U
3 Cc U
c n °° ap
Cd
co U ay A .., yUU� � p 4
.�tQ 14- O
y O an
03 y •�A O
Vclf1,
ca O O + Occ "0 U — L
0 ++ c►. U ... �, O 45 S O, v a •F co C O co
4. U5 U
w U a�o .O ou"a- o ,(,L> = *8 `c a� a) ° U U O
05
cc co
o to
ti �a10
f.,s C ca :� O h y O — O N 'b coW co 0 C4
w� V V ed
<. ti CL V vi ar O
tyA U 0 i+
w � `� y w e S. ami a� o ¢3 ren c0> 4) O '� � A A iv
o a`s -- ami 'a .c �' 'ten,`C h a o a o o b U V ami
bo 70 9
,G ' 4) "I .0 Go edco
C G h
c 'g •� ;d c a� .� o ? 'mss '� >
� v ° 0 °c �, �a �oo >iE3U waw
13
h Q
x ev
a � 3
a LLT. a U x
H a u.
c
c
o Q � a y L
. A Q coU U Q O v
a. U v a a a Q
o
o
U
w? •° 3 c
O v C ''•' o
'
d •° A v.
�
in
U
In
04 �„ N `dam,
t� ccCd
a o • A C
z;
r/
O.: cc N b �. > Co p c
Cd
b � A a
...
re, A E > an C
bo ami --
.� ern -0 =
w o � ' b o bcv Oa C
3oCrA
ed
.co
cd
cc
f
cd
a'� •� � Na� 40 CCC ' o � b � w c � Uao
ec Q� -- C N V V �+. ISy d) U U
0cc
CD
a 'co. o w h x Q3 •o V �' V va ~ • U c o
14
co
0
Pm
c
a�
ai
C
A a
0
v � �
CA
Q z V o
z N U
3
a
a� A
c
U
o �
U Q �
� N
►� o u U
c
a b
z c ,; co
o;. o c
bo
cqs
cs.
> .w 'c A
a an U
U . _ O
bn U U •^moi Q °
as O i3
° 3CI.. ° � ° vim' UAV >
S.
U 4� ,�' 'L7 U d y m
zs c c S `�° 'd 3cqs
e
w 'C7 CccO O G
O. cd
to w
cc
ba
cl
O 4,.
co
cn CZ
as U U
C •U Q w O O t`i�
LLQ U cz
N
15
CL
0. 3
cc
w
A A °
a ..
d z U U o
C43V
<.
V � a
_ U
00
a � :e
A
CIS U a
oo U o
c o U 2
C93c v
, c
o aEi .� U
o °
0
p o co
C o a vn
z a s o a c
o< o o a� o
co U
a�
N A a
• a �. a� Go
c
E E
C
cgsa cd •o .� ami
a� oo a Q co .a .ccc
° a
.. a� � co a V >
o 04Q a� E yLl U o
E ^ aCd
Cdy a °AN � `� 3 -• o � a
.cw CO
0 .0 'cd •3 '° 'Cd .n o . a� . a�. w U cL
o cd Q o •D C o 7j E cc
cd •Cd o . pip o Z a U o
bcl
o° E S a.°' cc E U
Cd
cd
a •o .� G ... .abo
cca ' baa oOo u
co 0 waai 3 a: nGi a>i U U cl
co
w t
b
N
16
.se e°
0
ca
� o �
A
a � 2
•d.,,'z U � U
U pU O
'' a
U
ai
ao
h�1
_ U °
O �
u
a h3 qc
'..y '� � tiy,� Cy1 •ry L� O
05 ti.•, MAY E C 3
cis y O N
y �' C C
O 0
CIS
O O w yr O
,vx.� o a o o •$ a, � a s�
old. a
so
_ ar c :dr. 0 �.. ° 0 ca d
C' c we Y fl
itis ar ca o. �,c o � ar � .., a .,, ;E UU
w
w cc
Ha. x 3 � aE`o .� 3 v o •°ro 3 y •E as d a� d � OG
17
o z a
aU.
A � r
a ::A U U a
o t
z j A U �
CO U d U
aU U 3 � C
Q U U w
o
U
3 r
cd
o s p v`
v, oA �'
U c
U
0 3 .'= c
env Rf ami > •p U =
,�•� 0 c.u 3 C.
a c co
cu
1p
. o 'o o a W c� 0 cc
oo
a c
N �
G c� ar
'p � 00 � O •� CD � �'+ CO)
v°� u cit U > 3 u a on U
E .0 a�
w
.� o oc c u U GQ '
''' ' r.+ ... '' C O w �n .V^r b '� ^ + U
d �O
O 4, p cl � O U C. to —It �4 A �' p"
N oE, a� •o 41)
c
a� w
-- �' •v
W GJ U W.;:.:.rR:.: •�. .G •� p "fl 'O 4 y 4. ►4"� ;? w �. y Q w c O C3,
acs e� 6�ry o o ... t2 o o F U o Q
'>> '
coLa Nani a.¢ �, °' 0 o0 to °' .� ow (D ami e w s ar U cz.
cd C,3
o
4.
o •0 ol
Z4- a� v n••� U U c
y ° c h •o :n n. x .r ami 'c ° H c 3 A w
7Ou
corA
ed
'? •p a� c `' o .r U U
0 E °°•� 3 .c a� U U U
v ca
... h U to
cUl
c a a� 0 v >1cz
Cti o f O. F v b a ti ° °' EEL- 3 coi C4 �.v
a
y ++w�as
O
u
w
m
c
A q o
A
U v U v a U ►,
U a
a�
tko
cz
CIS
C c'j C43 $ CTS tv
,bin � � •"° a � a � � a�
•� 'O N •� O ti � � � O C
.� U ►� U w i/T 3 O b0 V
bA � .+ u' G � ti p •� a"
ab ^O 'L7 ti CZ cqs
ON i«. `� c o o W y � 0 3 i pQ wo G a
M C ti. � .O a+ 'b > 70
hcc Cd L> N C O
c0 CIS 10 u
ca
. :° ami �► u
;o 0 cc ca oc �
., ed
0
4.
4 -0
Oa , , O rz. 0C43
cc
� a `'3a 0wobo -d ".0 UU Qo
cd H UU
_ b10� �' o � 14 ° �' ' > •° may = 'a� p, u c=. a'
a 0 0 o wcl °
19
ArTXCIIMA Nr c
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
APPROVED PERMIT
APPLICANT: Cerrito-EI Sobrante Dev APPLICATION NO. TR 7582
3083 Lawrence Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95051 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 420-150-001
420-160-002, 003
420-172-045
420-184-001
ZONING DISTRICT: R-7
OWNER: Same as applicant
VESTING DATE: 28 OCTOBER 1990
APPROVAL DATE: 08 JUNE 1993
EFFECTIVE DATE: 18 JUNE 1993
This matter not having been appealed within the time prescribed by law, the subdivision is hereby
granted, subject to the attached conditions.
HARVEY E. BRAGDON, Director
Community Development Department
By. %M �"/M
Mary Flemi g, Assistant 91rector - Current Planning
PLEASE NOTE THE APPROVAL DATE, as no further notification will be sent by this office. Unless
otherwise provided, you have 36 months from the approval date to file the FINAL MAP.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 7582 AS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION.
1 . The development should be based upon the revised vesting tentative map dated
received April 9, 1992. The following changes to the tentative map are made:
A. The total number of units shall not exceed 66 contingent on the approval by the
Board of Supervisors of 2920-RZ. The Board of Supervisors may consider
modification of these conditions when consideration is given to rezoning the
site.
B. All structures to have class A roofs.
C. If model homes are constructed, at least one of every three model homes shall
be equipped with fire sprinklers. Buyers of units shall be offered the option of
having the residence equipped with fire sprinklers. This option shall include the
option to place fire sprinklers in garages.
D. All exterior decks shall have their horizontal and vertical surfaces sufficiently
vented to mitigate heat buildup in the event of hillside grass fires.
2. The development can be done in phases subject to the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator.
3. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site
excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a
professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology
(SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity
to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed
necessary.
4. Prior to filing the Parcel Map, plans shall be submitted for review by the Community
Development Department, Graphics Section, to obtain addresses and for street name
approval (public and private). Alternate street names should be submitted in the event
of duplication and to avoid similarity with existing street names. The approved street
names shall be shown with filing of the Parcel Map.
5. The owner of the property shall participate in the provision of funding to maintain and
augment police services by voting to approve a special tax for the parcels created by
this subdivision action. The tax shall be $200 per parcel annually (with appropriate
future Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment). The election to provide for the tax
must be completed prior to the filing of the Parcel Map. The property owner shall be
responsible for paying the cost of holding the election. The fee for election costs will
be due at the time that the election is requested by the owner.
6. Prior to the recording the Final Map for this development, the Board of Supervisors
shall have approved the rezoning of the site from R-7 to R-6.
2
7. Where a lot/parcel is located within 300 feet of a high voltage electric transmission
line,-the applicant shall record.-the-following. notice:
"The subject property is located near a high voltage electric
transmission line. Purchasers should be aware that there is
ongoing research on possible potential adverse health effects
caused by the exposure to a magnetic field generated by high,
voltage lines. Although much more research is needed before
the question of whether magnetic fields actually cause adverse
health effects can be resolved, the basis for such an hypothesis
is established. At this time no risk assessment has been made."
When a Final Subdivision Public Report issued by the California Department of Real
Estate is required, the applicant shall also request that the Department of Real Estate
insert the above note in the report.
8. The applicant shall show proof that water and sewage service is available prior to
recording the Parcel Map.
9. Comply with the following construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements:
A. Noise generating construction activities, including such things as power
generators, shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday
through Friday, and shall be prohibited on State and Federal holidays. The
restrictions on allowed working days may be modified on prior written approval
by the Zoning Administrator.
B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all
internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall
locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and
concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible.
C. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post
the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior
boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The
notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number
and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall
be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of
persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area
of responsibility. The names of the individual responsible for noise and litter
control shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be reissued
with each phase of major grading activity.
A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the community
Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the
names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the
area noticed.
3
D. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator. Any .violation .of the approved _program _or
applicable ordinances shall require an immediate work stoppage. Construction
work shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate
construction bond has been posted.
E. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing
neighborhood traffic flows. Prior to issuance of building permits, the proposed
roads serving this development shall be constructed to provide access to each
lot. This shall include provision for an on-site area in which to park earth
moving equipment. During construction a traffic control plan approved by
Public Works shall be implemented.
10. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a detailed TDM Plan
for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator (unless otherwise required by a
TDM Ordinance). The approved TDM Plan shall be operative prior to final inspection
by the Building Inspection Department.
11. Provision of a Child Care Facility or program is required for this development. The
program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator
prior to the filing of the Final Map.
12. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant(including the subdivider
or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Cosa
County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this
subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such
claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense.
13. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be submitted for review with the Final
Subdivision Map, and shall be subject to review and approval by the Zoning
Administrator. This document shall provide for establishment, ownership and
maintenance of the common open space and parking, fire protection, fencing, private
streets and drainage maintenance, keeping of pets and establishment of signs.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC & Rs) developed for this project shall
include the following deed restrictions:
A. Require the formation of a homeowner association to maintain open space
areas of Parcels A and B and to provide architectural review and approval of all
construction in the project requiring a building permit and all landscaping and
grading.
4
14. Comply with the landscaping requirements as follows:
A. Landscaping shall conform to the County's Water Conservation Policies in
regards to the use of drought-tolerant trees, bushes and ground cover. Street
trees and trees replanted in the open space area shall be 5-gallon size. Trees
plants with the open space area of Parcels A and B shall be California native
species indigenous to the area and shall be a suitable mixture of Coast Live, oak
coast, redwood, willows, coastal scrub, and natural grasses.
B. At least 30 days prior to requesting the recording of the Final Map for this
project or any phase of this project, a street tree planting plan shall be
submitted for the entire development. The plan shall indicate that each lot shall
have a minimum of two suitable street trees planted on it other than double
frontage lots and corner lots shall have a minimum of four street trees. The
requirement to plant any street trees along the property's frontage on the
proposal EI Sobrante bypass shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department
to determine if it is appropriate to plant trees in that area.
C. At least 30 days prior to recording the Final Map for this development, a design
of the proposed masonry wall along the backyard areas of proposed Lots #52
through #58, those that back up to the proposed EI Sobrante Bypass, shall be
submitted for the Zoning Administrator review and approval. The masonry wall
shall be installed prior to occupancy of residences in the affected lots.
D. At least 30 days prior to recording the Final Map for this development, the
developer shall submit a fence plan for the site. The perimeter of the. site shall
generally be fenced with solid wood fences 6-feet high, with the above
mentioned requirement for a masonry wall on the areas fronting the proposed
EI Sobrante bypass. Fences along the upper perimeter of the site between the
Quail Hill development and open space areas and residences along La Cima shall
be a suitable cyclone fence with openings so that small wildlife can pass
through that area. The fence can have one suitable opening opposite the
Bidgood property to allow deer to pass over. Fences between the lots shall be
standard 5 or 6 foot tall good neighbor fences to within approximately 20 feet
of the edge of easement of the various roads within the area. A suitable
trail/emergency vehicle way shall be developed between La Cima and Cerrito
Roads.
E. At least 30 days prior to recording the Final Map for this site, a suitable tree
and brush and grass restoration plan prepared by a qualified landscape architect
and/or plant ecologist shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator for proposed open space area Parcels A and B. The plan
shall include the plans for the emergency access trail system as well as means
of maintaining the re-establish trees and bushes for this area. During re-
landscaping of the open space areas the landscape architect and/or plant
ecologist shall be on site to supervise the native plant life restoration and report
to the Zoning Administrator on the proper planting of the native plants. The
plan shall be developed as part of the erosion control plan (Condition #23.B.).
i
5
15. The guide for this development shall be as follows:
A. Setback for residences in regards to frontyard, sideyard and rearyard shall
conform to the R-6 zoning district. The exception to this is that garages on lots
that back up to the proposed EI Sobrante bypass may have a setback reduction
to 171/2 feet provided that roll of garage doors are provided.
B. Prior to issuance of building permits on any lot, the applicant shall submit
detailed plans showing the location of the residences of the site on the lot for
the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
C. A suitable recordable instrument shall be developed to indicate that residences
on lots that back up to properties off of La Cresenta Road shall be developed
as single story residences only with a maximum height above grade of 25 feet.
This shall be accomplished prior to recording the Final Map for this develop-
ment. This effects lots #39, 40, 41 , 42, 64 and 65 of this development.
16. Applicant will voluntarily contribute $3.45 per square foot of residential development
to the Richmond Unified School District. This contribution shall be made in lieu of any
otherwise applicable school impact fees.
A. The contribution shall be calculated and paid as each new dwelling unit is sold
to an initial purchaser and shall be paid at the close of escrow of each unit.
Each home purchase contract for the initial sale of a Project unit shall require
that the escrow instructions for the sale provide for the contribution to be made
to the District at the close of escrow.
B. The District shall be responsible for establishing a Mello-Roos district for the
use of the funds contributed under this condition for the improvement and
enhancement of the schools to be attended by the children of the residents of
this development. The Mello-Roos district so established shall comply with
Education Code § 17705.6 and Government Code § 53313.4 and the
contributions made pursuant to this condition shall be considered a special tax
for the purposes of those Code sections. The Applicant's responsibility for the
Mello-Roos district shall be limited to voting for its establishment. No fees or
assessments shall be imposed on the project as a result of the Mello-Roos
district other than the contributions specified in this condition.
C. The amount of the contribution made to the District shall be reduced if at any
time prior to the sale of the last home, the County approves a project within the
District involving a legislative act with conditions of approval that require a
lesser payment for school-related purposes than is imposed by this condition.
In that event, the contribution made at each close of escrow after the County
has approved such other project shall be an amount equivalent to the amount
to be paid by the other project.
6
D. In the event that the Board of the School District does not ratify the acceptance
of this condition, Applicant shall.paythe otherwise applicable fee of.$2.65 per
square foot, payable prior to issuance of each building permit.
17. Subject to review and approval of the local transit agency, a bus stop shall be
developed in the vicinity of the intersection of Hillcrest Road and proposed "A" Street.
If the transit agency determines that no bus stop is needed, then this requirement shall
be deleted. The bus stop shall consist of a suitable means to pull the bus off of the
travel way of Hillcrest Road and a suitable bench shall be installed in that area.
18. At least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits for the lots of this development
or any phases of this development, the applicant shall submit to the Zoning
Administrator for review and approval:
A. Methods to provide for future passive and natural heating or cooling opportuni-
ties within the subdivision and the design of the residences to the extent
feasible.
19. Prior to construction of any phase of this site an on-site parking area shall be
developed for the parking needs of construction crew members. This plan shall be
submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval prior to issuance of
building permits within the various portions of this development.
20. The garage areas of each residence shall be wired for electric car recharging subject
to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator subject to adoption of final
Board policy.
21 . Comply with the grading requirements as follows:
A. Prior to issuance of any building permits on the site, recording final map or
installing improvements, submit a grading plan and stability analysis including
seismic lodes for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Grading
plans shall include recommendations of the Geotechnical Review Section of the
Environmental Impact Report for this application.
B. Developer shall enter into consulting service agreement with the Community
Development Department to provide independent geotechnical review of the
design and inspection of site grading. Developer shall deposit sufficient funds
for the estimated cost of review and administration of the site grading.
Recommendations for changes to the grading plan, procedures, or specifica-
tions shall be carried out prior to issuance of grading permit.
C. Modern seismic design shall be used in construction for resistance to lateral
forces in accordance with the Uniform Building Code.
D. Cut and fill slopes shall be design to enhance stability of the site under seismic
conditions and shall include slope inclinations of 3:1 or less or as specified by
soils engineer or county geologist, removal and repair of landslides which could
7
effect project improvements or off-site properties; and installation of subsurface
drainage. -
E. Engineered retention structures, and surface and subsurface drainage
improvements shall be used to improve the stability of potentially unstable
materials.
F. Fills shall be properly designed with keyways and subsurface drainage, and shall
be adequately compacted.
G. Roads, structural foundations, and underground utilities shall be designed to
accommodate estimated settlement without failure, especially across areas
between fills and cuts.
H. Final design of these improvements shall be made in conjunction with a design
level geotechnical investigation as submitted to the County prior to the issuance
of any permits.
I. A stability analysis of both existing and reconstructed project areas, slopes shall
be performed prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
22. Prior to issuance of building permits on parcels of this subdivision, an as-graded report
of the engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department, Public Works Department, and Building
Inspection Department with an as-graded map showing final plan and grades. The
maps shall identify all encountered faults, aquifers and stratigraphic (bedrock units)
zones how they jointed and/or deeply weathered rock; orientation of bedding or other
discontinued and location of any seepage, fill keyways, and subdrain materials with
cleanouts and pickup points; buttress fills with keyway locations, any retaining walls
installed, subdrains and their connections, and other soils improvements installed
during the grading, all as surveyed and mapped by a licensed land surveyor and/or civil
engineer.
23. Grading and erosion control. The construction stage of erosion control plan shall
provide for the following measures:
A. All grading, excavation and fill-ins shall be conducted during the dry season
(May 1st through October 1 st) only, and all areas of exposed soils shall be
replanted to minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October
1st, only erosion control work shall be allowed by the grading permit. Any
modification to the above schedule will be subject to the review by the Grading
Section of the Building Inspection Department and the review and approval of
the Zoning Administrator.
B. A revegetation plan prepared by an experienced plant ecologist shall be
submitted as part of the erosion control plan. The plan shall emphasize the use
of drought-tolerant native species and plants that are adaptive to conditions in
the open space portions of the development. Ideally, the plan should include
8
a mix of grasses, shrubs and trees indigenous to the area. The plan shall
provide for revegetation of all rearyard cut slopes unless specifically eliminated
by the Zoning Administrator. Hydroseeding and hydromulching alone would not
be adequate for this purpose. Documentation of professional background of the
planning ecologist shall be submitted. The plans shall be subject to the review
and approval of the Zoning Administrator. If necessary for survival of young
plants, the plan may call for the use of temporary drip irrigation system (to be
abandoned after two or three summer seasons). The developer shall bond with
The Community Development Department, or Building Inspection Department,
to guarantee that the landscaping improvement will be replaced if needed on
Parcels A and B for a period of not less than two years.
C. The erosion control plan shall show the location of proposed temporary
detention basins, silt fences and straw bales along with revegetation of all
graded areas. It shall also contain provisions for performing maintenance during
the winter rainy season, as necessary. Regular inspections by the project
engineer during winter rainy seasons. Spot inspections during/immediate
following severe storms.
24. Prior to issuance of building permits, a detailed site specific geotechnical investigation
shall be performed to evaluate soil conditions and develop design mitigation for
foundation design in expansive soil areas in accordance with the Uniform Building Code
(UBC) and County code requirements.
Foundation design shall include drill pier and grade and beam foundations, re-enforce
slabs and thicker pavement sections.
25. The applicant shall conduct a detailed drainage study of the Hillcrest drain prior to the
recording of the final map. The study would recommend the best way to provide a
drainage system with which to convey the design peak flow to San Pablo Creek per
ordinance code. Construction of additional pipes would likely be required to meet the
capacity of requirements.
26. A County approved interceptor ditch shall be extended across proposed Lot #23 just
to the east of the Bailey property to pick up any drainage coming off of that site and
convey it to the storm drain crossing Lot #5 and thence into the "A" Street storm
drain.
27. The applicant shall conduct a wetland delineation study during the rainy reason to
determine whether or not the willow run area is a jurisdictional wetlands. If wetlands
are confirmed to exist on the site, then the applicant will be required to replace the
wetlands in a manner acceptable to Contra Costa County and to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. The Regional Water Quality Control Board must certify that the Corps
permit will comply with Water Quality standards, or waive certification.
28. Applicant shall comply with all terms and conditions of a general construction activity
storm water permit obtained for the project from the State Water Resources Control
9
Board. Prior to issuance of grading permits for this site, proof of this permit shall be
submitted to the Zoning Administrator.
29. The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road, and utility improvements will
require the review and approval of the Public Works Department:
A. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code, this
subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance
(Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this
conditional approval statement. Conformance with the Ordinance includes the
following requirements:
1) Constructing road improvements along the frontage of Hillcrest Road.
Constructing curb, 4-foot 6-inch sidewalk (width measured from curb
face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and necessary
pavement widening along the frontage will satisfy this requirement. The
curb face shall be located 10-feet from the widened right of way line.
2) Constructing road improvements along the frontage of La Cima Road.
Constructing curb, 4-foot 6-inch sidewalk (width measured from curb
face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and necessary
pavement widening along the frontage will satisfy this requirement. The
curb face shall be located 9-feet from the right of way line.
3) Install street lights and annex the property to County Service Area L-100
for maintenance of the street lights. The final number and location of
the lights shall be determined by the Public Works Department, Road
Engineering Division.
4) Undergrounding of all utility distribution facilities. This shall include the
undergrounding of distribution facilities along all public roadways.
5) Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the subject
property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage
facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks or to
an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the
storm waters to a natural watercourse.
6) Designing and constructing storm drainage facilities required by the
Ordinance in compliance with specifications outlined in Division 914 of
the Ordinance and in compliance with design standards of the Public
Works Department.
7) Installing, within a dedicated drainage easement, any portion of the
drainage system which conveys run-off from public streets.
10
8) Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer,
payment of review and inspection fees, and security for all improve-
ments required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions of approval for
this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage
and striping plans for review by the Public Works Department, Engineer-
ing Services Division.
9) Submitting a Final Map prepared by a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor.
B. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on
Hillcrest Road as required for the planned future width of 60-feet.
C. Construct the interior streets in this subdivision to County private road
standards.
D. The applicant shall be required to continue the Hillcrest Road improvements
across the parcels located along the northerly side and the southerly side of this
property (Hemmert and Bailey). The applicant shall be required to continue the
Hillcrest Road sidewalk northerly along the easterly side of Hillcrest Road to the
existing sidewalk at 3808 Hillcrest Road to provide a continuous sidewalk to
San Pablo Dam Road. Hillcrest Road off-site right of way shall be acquired as
necessary to construct the required curb and sidewalk.
E. On all public road with longitudinal slopes of eight percent or less, all pedestrian
access ways shall be designed in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap access).
This shall include all driveway depressions as well as handicap ramps.
F. Provide for adequate sight distance at the following locations in accordance
with CALTRANS standards.
* Cerrito Road intersection with Street "A" (Use a 25 mile per hour design
speed)
* Cerrito Road intersection with Hillcrest Road (Use a 35 mile per hour
design speed). This may require off-site mitigation such as trimming or
removing vegetation and providing a sight distance easement on off-site
property.
* Around the curve in the vicinity of Lots 13 and 14 (Use a 25 mile per
hour design speed).-
G. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on the
EI Sobrante Bypass as required for the planned future width of 60-feet. The
right of way shall widen to a 76-foot width in the vicinity of Hillcrest Road to
provide for left turn channelization. The alignment shall provide for the ultimate
curve, in the vicinity of Hillcrest Road, for at least a 45 mile per hour design
speed in the vicinity of Hillcrest Road.
11
The applicant shall also be required to grade his property in the vicinity of the
proposed EI Sobrante Bypass to provide for that bypass.
H. Relinquish abutter's rights of access along Hillcrest Road except for the two
access points shown on the Vesting Tentative Map.
I. Align Cerrito Road to intersect Street "A" at a right angle.
J. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a
concentrated manner, from draining across the sidewalks.
K. Submit a sketch plan to the Public Works Department, Road Engineering
Division, for review showing all public and private road improvements prior to
starting work on the improvement plans. The sketch alignment plan shall be
to scale and show proposed and future curb lines, lane striping details and
lighting. The sketch alignment plan shall also include adequate information to
show that adequate sight distance has been provided.
L. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division,
of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for
the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and drainage
improvements.
M. Install safety related improvements on Street "A" and Street "B" (including
traffic signs and channelization) as approved by the Public Works Department.
N. Develop at least a 10-foot paved pedestrian and emergency access within a 30-
foot access easement along the alignment of the proposed path between La
Cima and Cerrito Road. The access shall be designed to private road standards
with a reduced width. The design shall be subject to the review of the Public
Works Department, Engineering Services Division, and the review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator. To the extent possible, the entrances to the
access easement shall be designed to discourage the use of bicycles, motor
vehicles, and horses.
O. Relinquish abutter's rights of access along the EI Sobrante Bypass.
P. Provide a soils and geotechnical study prepared by a licensed geotechnical
engineer. The study shall soils and geotechnical impacts and recommend
adequate mitigation measures to provide stable roadway areas. The improve-
ment plans shall be signed by a geotechnical engineer.
Q. Remove and replace damaged curb and sidewalk, or, construct them where
they do not presently exist, along the frontage of La Cima. The pipe, located
in the gutter along a portion of this property's frontage, shall be analyzed to
determine if undergrounding is appropriate, subject to the review of the Public
Works Department, Engineering Services Division, and the review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator. If undergrounding is appropriate, the applicant
12
shall underground appropriate portions of the pipe. Existing curb cuts and
driveway depressions which are not presently being used shall be removed and
replaced with full height curb, gutter and sidewalk.
ADVISORY NOTES
A. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish & Game.
It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish & Game, P.O. Box
47,Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within this development
that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish & Game Code.
B. This project may also be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers.
The applicant should notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to
determine if a permit is required and if it can be obtained.
C. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the
Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Countywide Area of Benefit as adopted by
the Board of Supervisors, or the EI Sobrante Area of Benefit, whichever is in affect.
D. The applicant will be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for
Drainage Area 73 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
E. Applicant shall comply with the Park Dedication Fee Ordinance.
F. Comply with the requirements of the West Contra Costa Sanitary District.
G. Comply with the requirements of the West County Fire Protection District.
H. Comply with the requirements of the East Bay Municipal Utility District.
I. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Building permits
are required prior to the construction of residence on the site.
J. The applicant will be required to pay an environmental review fee of $850 and $25 for
the Department of Fish & Game at the end of the appeal period. Failure to do so will
result in fines. In addition, the approval is not final or vested until the fee is paid. A
check for this fee shall be submitted to Contra Costa County for submittal with the
final environmental documents.
K. The applicant is advised that the tax for the police services district is currently set by
the Board of Supervisors at $200 per parcel annually (with appropriate future
Consumer Price Index [CPI] adjustments). The annual fee is subject to modification by
the Board of Supervisors in the future. The current fee for holding the election is $800
and is also subject to modification in the future. The applicable tax and fee amounts
will be those established by the Board at the time of voting.
13
L. This project is subject to the development fees in effect under County Ordinance as
of October 18, 1990, the date the vesting tentative map application was accepted as
complete by the Community Development Department. These fees are in addition to
any other development fees which may be specified in the conditions of approval.
The fees include but are not limited to the following:
Park• Dedication: $2,000 per residence.
AB/aa
SUBXII/7582C.AB
6/3/93
8/2/93 W
- - r ",j ii
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY g3 ��z
1
DATE: October 7, 1993
TO: Dennis Barry, Community Development i
FROM: 44tkh Avalon, Senior Civil Engineer, Engineering Services
SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION 7582/HILLCREST ROAD, EL SOBRANTE AREA
The above project was heard by the Board of Supervisors on September 14, 1993. Several
questions were raised at that Board hearing. The following are responses to the Public
Works issues that were raised:
1. ISSUE: Can parking be prohibited on one side of Hillcrest Road?
Parking is currently prohibited on the east side of Hillcrest Road from San Pablo
Dam Road to Ramsey Court. Parking is also prohibited along most of the
subdivision frontage, and around the inside of the curve on the west side of Hillcrest
Road. The attached map shows the areas with no parking as a series of black dots.
RECOMMENDATION: The current parking restriction appears to be adequate.
Parking could be prohibited on the west side of Hillcrest Road at the San Pablo Dam
Road intersection. This would provide more maneuvering room at the intersection.
2. ISSUE: What is the status of Pitt Way?
There is an offer of dedication to the County for road purposes along Pitt Way, from
San Pablo Dam Road to the northerly boundary of Subdivision 7582. There is also
an offer of dedication for the proposed San Pablo Dam Road couplet along the
northerly boundary of Subdivision 7582 from Hillcrest Road to Pitt Way. Attached
is a map showing the offers of dedication in black. Portions of the Pitt Way
dedication are only twenty seven feet wide. All of this dedicated area is unimproved
at this time. Subdivision 7582 will be designing their grading and improvements along
their northerly boundary to facilitate the future construction of the San Pablo Dam
Road couplet.
There have been three issues raised with regards to Pitt Way; 1) its use as an
emergency access from the subdivision to San Pablo Dam Road, 2) its use, along with
the proposed San Pablo Dam Road couplet, as a "reliever" road for traffic on
Hillcrest Road to get to and from San Pablo Dam Road; and 3) its use, along with
the couplet, as an areawide emergency access.
SUBDIVISION 7582
Page -2-
October 7, 1993
A. Subdivision Emergency Access
The Pitt Way right of way is narrow, but is wide enough to construct an
emergency access to the subdivision. However, the right of way is too narrow
(less than 40 feet) for the County to legally acbept for public purposes. The
developer would have to obtain private rights for the emergency access. In
addition, there is about a sixty foot difference in elevation between the end of
Pitt Way and the subdivision loop street. Constructing an access would
require extensive grading or retaining walls and the probable loss of some lots.
Any emergency access should be designed to accomodate the construction of
the proposed couplet, which is a further complication.
RECOMMENDATION: It is not feasible to construct an emergency access
from the subdivision to San Pablo Dam Road. In the event of an emergency
and Hillcrest Road is blocked, the subdivision residents can utilize the
emergency access from the development to La Cima Road.
B. "Reliever" Road.
As a "reliever" road, Pitt Way and the couplet would have to be constructed
to County public road standards. The Pitt Way right of way is currently too
narrow to construct a public road. The legal minimum is 40 feet of right of
way, the preferred minimum is 56 feet. Additional right of way would have
to be acquired. To construct part of the couplet you would have to look at
the whole project, at least that portion between Hillcrest Road and Cresenta
Road. This would entail extensive engineering review and probably an
environmental review. The physical construction of the "reliever" road would
also require extensive grading and/or retaining walls.
RECOMMENDATION:The construction of this"reliever"road is not feasible
with this project and is not warranted at this time.
C. Areawide Emergency Access.
To construct an emergency access along Pitt Way and the couplet,would also
require substantial grading and/or retaining walls. In the event of an
emergency, traffic could drive through the telephone company parking lot
from Hillcrest Road to the existing paved portion of Pitt Way. Alternatively,
traffic could be directed along the emergency access the subdivision will be
constructing from Hillcrest Road/Cerrito Road to La Cima Road.
RECOMMENDATION:Constructing this emergency access would not appear
to measurably help the emergency access in the area.
SUBDIVISION 7582
Page -3-
October 7, 1993
3. ISSUE: Hillcrest road and San Pablo Dam Road Intersection
According to the project EIR, the existing AM and PM traffic level of service at the
intersection of Hillcrest Road and San Pablo Dam Road is LOS A (no congestion).
The traffic level of service at the intersection, including the project traffic (project +
existing), is LOS A in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour. The PM
peak hour level of service is reduced from LOS A to LOS B, but the intersection still
operates at an uncongested service level. The acceptable level of service in this area
is LOS D, because it is designated as an urban area in the General Plan. The traffic
volumes on Hillcrest Road, with or without the project, are relatively low (less than
3000 vehicles a day).
The traffic signal at Hillcrest Road and San Pablo Dam Road is timed to give the
maximum time to the traffic movement on San Pablo Dam Road, because the traffic
volumes on San Pablo Dam Road are so much higher than on Hillcrest Road. There
is more traffic on San Pablo Dam Road in one hour than on Hillcrest Road all day
long. Typically, the maximum wait at the signal for Hillcrest Road traffic is
approximately one and one half minutes. The traffic signals on San Pablo Dam Road
are coordinated and interconnected, which helps reduce regional congestion and
improves air quality. Unfortunately, it also means the signals are not immediately
actuated by cars on the side streets, such as Hillcrest Road. The result is that traffic
on the side streets must wait, even though there may be gaps in the traffic on San
Pablo Dam Road. This can be frustrating for traffic on the side streets.
It has been observed that some vehicles traveling westbound on San Pablo Dam
Road bypass the signal at Hillcrest Road. This is done by turning left from San
Pablo Dam Road into the small shopping center on the northeast corner of San
Pablo Dam Road and Hillcrest Road,then driving through the parking lot to turn left
on Hillcrest Road. This diversion through the shopping center-parking lot could be
controlled by a median island on San Pablo Dam Road, however, there is currently
not enough room on San Pablo Dam Road to install a median. Median islands may
be provided with the future Area of Benefit improvements to San Pablo Dam Road.
RECOMMENDATION:
The intersection is operating at an uncongested level of service and no
improvements are recommended. The developer will be paying Area of
Benefit fees which will fund areawide improvements including improvements
to San Pablo Dam Road from El Portal to Appian Way. This would include
improvements to the intersection with Hillcrest Road.
' a
SUBDIVISION 7582
Page -4-
October 7, 1993
4. ISSUE: Why doesn't La Cima Road go through?
La Cima Road is currently substandard in width and in structural section. Several
years ago a slide occurred near the end of La Cima Road resulting in a very narrow
and uneven pavement surface. Because of these reasons, staff felt La Cima Road
should not be connected to the subdivision road. However, staff was concerned that
some kind of emergency access be provided to La Cima in the event a future slide
isolates the homes at the end of La Cima Road. An emergency access from La Cima
Road to Cerrito Road/Hillcrest Road is being provided with Subdivision 7582.
RECOMAIENDATION: Construct the emergency access as proposed. Do not
provide a street connection to La Coma Road.
5. ISSUE: Review of accident data on Hillcrest Road.
I reviewed the accident data from 1991 to present. There were a total of five
accidents in the vicinity of this subdivision. All of the accidents were caused by
excessive speed for the road conditions except one, which was due to glare in the
driver's eyes. This is a brief summary of the accident reports filed by the Highway
Patrol.
A. On July 28, 1991, at 3:40 pm, a nineteen year old driver lost control of
his vehicle and damaged a fence on Hillcrest Road. The driver was
driving at an excessive speed for the road conditions.
B. On August 23, 1991, at 6:34 p.m., a twenty-four year old driver crossed
the double yellow line and hit an oncoming car. He crossed the double
yellow line because of glare in his eyes. The driver's license had
expired in 1987.
C. On September 13, 1991, at 6:40 p.m., a thirty five year old driver lost
control on the curve and wiped out a fence and hedge on Hillcrest
Road. The driver was driving at an excessive speed for the road
conditions and driving with a suspended license.
D. On September 13, 1992, a fourteen year old driver hit a telephone pole
at midnight. The driver was underage, had been drinking, was driving
too fast, and did not have the vehicle lights on.
E. On May 27, 1993, at 4:45 p.m., a seventeen year old driver lost control
at the curve and hit a power pole. He was driving at an excessive
speed for the road conditions.
SUBDIVISION 7582
Page -5-
October 7, 1993
I have also attached a letter from John Wollman, of Wollman Associates, dated September
27, 1993 with additional comments on the above issues.
i
RMA:mg:cl
c:sub7582.t10
attachments
cc: Members - Board of Supervisors
J.M. Walford,Public Works Director
M. Shiu, Deputy P.W. Director
B. Murphy,Engineering Services
A. Beresford, Community Development
J. Wollman, Wollman Associates
R. Sullivan,El Sobrante Valley Planning &
Zoning Advisory Committee
w y' RO
;9 y
saf
: 1
•ate 5005
e sw,
Ott t
' vo
O
''•
µ *o&"°
Ro
c��►t�N y >as/
cz z,�dd IR�PGRt1�
39717 -W .w
J95Z "m
b
J �
�1
• 395
39+K 35J7 W 3937
PROP05611 LOOPLIE r 0 ' 39934
390 39Zr 3936 39ff
39M5522
/� 3939 J=
• .
SUB 39 3954 3sv 3% "7
• 939&2 lw
1391k, 390
3A4
LA CRESEWTA RO
1 =300
U
.4 pp
C.4
N + C4(A RQ
38-V 3987
3&9 JBcl
`< I 3w 3&2
6v CN 1111
3807
47
4444. /its,. `rc c Ain De o I!)Al a. DA/ �/L/_/'_?.GCf X0,4 fl
W611man Associates Inc.-
ENGDVEERING - SURVEYING -L AAD DEVELOPMENT
September 27, 1993.
Mr. Mitch Avalon,
Senior Civil Engineer,
Contra Costa Public Works Dept. ,
255 Glacier Drive,
Martinez. CA. 94553.
RE: SUBDIVISION 7582 - HLLumEgP HEIGKPS. JOB 12863.
Dear Mitch,
After our review of the comments and concerns expressed at the Board of
Supervisors meeting of September 14, 1993, I would like to make the
following statement regarding the Public Works Items:
(1) A connecting road between Cerrito Road and La Cima was considered
during the Tentative Map process, and because of physical limitations in
grades as well as the inadequate condition of La Cima, a standard roadway
was rejected. Instead an E.V.A. - "Emergency Vehicle Access" road was
conditioned and approved. The E.V.A. would serve as a pedestrian path,
drainage intercepter and maintence access to Parcel "B". The location and
X section of the pathway is shown on the enclosed drawing. 'Ihe E.V.A.
would also act as a fire break and fire equipment access. The Fire
Department is satisfied with the proposal.
(2) The interior subdivision streets will remain as approved at 32 feet
curb to curb width, sidewalk on one side, 40 feet right of way. The Fire
District reviewed and approved the streets subject to the C.C.& R'S
prohibition of Trailer and Recreation Vehicles parking.
(3) Hillcrest Road will be developed in accordance with the P.W.D.
conditions, face of curb to be 20 feet from the center line with a
standard sidewalk to continue along the frontage of the Bailey and Hemnert
parcels. Stop signs and other signage will be as requested by the P.W.D.
The request for limited parking will be addressed by you.
(4) This subdivision is providing space and grading for a section of the
E1 Sobrante Bypass. Preliminary Plans and cross sections were submitted
and reviewed during the Tentative Map process.
1233 Alpine Road Walnut Creek, California 94596 Phone (510) 939-1090 Fax (510) 939-1091
` ` f
7
j
Job # 2863 - Page 2.
All of the above has been debated and acted on during the Tentative Map
processing. The conditions of approval reflect the Planning Commission's
ruling. We would appreciate, if you could include answers to these
concerns in your report to the Board of Supervisors.
S' ely,
John A. Wollman, P.E.
President.
B:\2863a\jaw5.