Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 12131994 - 1.1 (3)
r) ;1 1.99 through 1.102 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on December 13, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, and Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: CORRESPONDENCE Item No. 1.99 CLAIM dated November 29, 1994, submitted by R. Brandt, from the Law Firm of McDonough, Holland & Allen, 555 Capitol Mall, 9th Floor, Sacramento 95814, for refund of Mello-Roos special taxes imposed by the Mount Diablo Unified School District Community Facilities District No. 1 on the Oakhurst Country Club property of the Presley Companies for fiscal years 1990-1991, 1991-1992, 1992-1993, and 1993-1994. ***REFERRED TO TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR, ASSESSOR,AND COUNTY COUNSEL 1.100 CLAIM dated November 30, 1994, filed on behalf of SFPP, L.P., by R. Dunn, from the Law Firm of Cooper, White & Cooper, 201 California Street Seventeenth Floor, San Francisco 94111, formerly known as Southern Pacific Pipe Lines Partnership, L.P., for refund of ad valorem property taxes on State assessed unitary property for assessment year 1990. ***REFERRED TO TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR,ASSESSOR,AND COUNTY COUNSEL 1.101 LETTER dated December 1, 1994, from M. A. Jurich, 1318 California Avenue, Apartment 3, San Pablo 94806,proposing that the Sheriffs Department and Office of Emergency Services conduct seminars on safety procedures for people who hike, backpack, and travel across the nation by motor vehicle. ***REFERRED TO SHERIFF-CORONER AND DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES 1.102 LETTER dated December 2, 1994, from F. Beck, Secretary, Bradford Farms, Inc., 40 Garden Grove Drive, Daly City 94015, relative to complaints received from Bethel Island residents about dust emanating from Jersey Island Road(Reclamation District No. 2059) and of the abandonment of the maintenance of this road by the County. ***REFERRED TO PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR I hereby certify that this is a truoand correctcopyof an action to%eh and cntered on the minutes of the Board of Su visors on to dato shown. ATTESTED: 13 ' 1 RR e4 cc: Correspondents of Supe visors and County Administrator Treasurer-Tax Collector Assessor By Deputy County Counsel Sheriff-Coroner Emergency Services Director Public Works Director 1. 100 LAW OFFICES OF A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING COOPER,WHITE & COOPER CONTRA COSTA OFFICE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 201 CALIFORNIA STREET SEVENTEENTH FLOOR 1333 N CALIFORNIA BLVD WALNUT CREEK TELECOPIER (415)433'5530 SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 9,4111 CALIFORNIA 94596 TELEX 262877 SCOOP (510)935-0700 X415) 433'1900 November 30, 1994 Via Federal Express [E:E IV ED Clerk, Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 1994 Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street, Rm. 106 SUPERVISORSMartinez, CA 94553 STACO• Attn: Shirley Casillas Re: SFPP, L.P. - Verified Claim for Refund Assessment Year 1990 Dear Clerk: This firm represents SFPP, L.P. Enclosed please find an original and three copies of the Verified Claim for Refund for assessment year 1990. Please file the original Claim, endorse- file stamp any copies not needed by the Board, and return the endorsed-file stamped copies to this office in the envelope provided. Please telephone me collect to clarify any questions you have regarding this matter. Very truly yours, -P, QA_A�� Robert L. Dunn RLD:rlr Enclosures cc: SFPP, L.P. 106933.1 • t. 1C7Q BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA In regard to Ad Valorem ) VERIFIED CLAIM FOR REFUND Property Taxes paid by SFPP, ) L.P. , formerly known as } SOUTHERN PACIFIC PIPE LINES ) Tax Bill, No. : PARTNERSHIP, L.P. on State ) Assessed Unitary Property with} Letter 10/01/90 respect to assessment year } EEE 1990 ) } AMOUNT OF CLAIM SFPP, L.P. , formerly known as SOUTHERN PACIFIC PIPE LINES PARTNERSHIP, L.P. ("Claimant") pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 5096, 5097 and 5097. 02 submits this claim for refund of ad valorem property taxes on, Claimant's state assessed unitary property for assessment year 1990 paid on property valued as of the lien date January 1, 1990. Claimant owns and operates a refined petroleum products intercounty pipeline system within the State of California and five other western states which is assessed on a unitary basis. by the State Board of Equalization ("the Board") pursuant to Article XIII, Section 19, of the California Constitution, the applicable provisions of the California Revenue and Taxation Code and Rules of the Board. , For assessment year 1990, the Board also assessed on a unitary basis Claimant's lands and rights of way. The "Board had no jurisdiction to assess Claimant's lands and rights of way. The total assessed value originally determined by the Board, -1- i. 100 including both Claimant's pipeline property over which the Board had jurisdiction, and Claimant's lands and rights of way, over which the Board had no jurisdiction, was $525, 000, 000. (This assessed value was later reduced to $510,000,000 by "the Board. ) A portion of the total assessment so determined by the. Board was allocated to this, county pursuant to the California Revenue and Taxation Code sections 745, 755, and 756. Thereafter Claimant paid ad valorem property taxes on such portion of such assessment to this county. The 1990 assessment determined by the Board of Claimant's state assessed unitary property is void in part, to the extent that it included assessment of Claimant's lands and rights of way, over which the Board had no Jurisdiction. The portion of the Board's assessment allocated to this county is void in part, for the same reason. Additionally, the 1990 assessment is void, in part, to the extent that it included assessment of Claimant's leaseholds and easements which are tax-exempt as the privately-owned lands subject to these leaseholds and easements are taxed at full value to their owners. The taxes paid were erroneously or illegally collected, or in the alternative illegally assessed or levied, to the extent that they were levied or collected on the assessed value of Claimant's lands and. rights of way over which the Board had` no jurisdiction, and. (as to leaseholds and easements) which were tax-exempt. The portion of the assessment allocated to this county on Claimant's lands and rights of way which is void and the taxes paid by Claimant to this county ,on the purported assessed value -2- 0,C) of Claimant's lands and rights of way for which refund is sought are as set forth in attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated by reference as part of this Claim for Refund. GROUNDS ON WHICH THE CLAIM IS FOUNDED The ground on which the claim for refund of tax is based are: (a) the taxes were erroneously or illegally collected; and/or (b) the taxes were illegally assessed or levied. The taxes were erroneously or illegally collected, or illegally assessed or levied, because the Board's assessment included an assessment of Claimant's lands and rights of way over which the Board had no jurisdiction under Article XIII., Section 19 of the California Constitution, the applicable provisions of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, and controlling judicial authority. A. Statement of Facts. Claimant is a Delaware limited partnership formed in 1988 to own and operate the refined petroleum products pipeline system of Santa Fe Pacific Corporation. Claimant is publicly traded, with 56 percent of its ownership in public hands. Claimant was formerly known as Southern Pacific Pipelines Partnership,, L.P. (The name only has been changed; the entity is the same. ) The pipeline system was previously owned by two indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries of Santa Fe Pacific Corporation: Southern Pacific Pipelines, Inc. and San Diego PipelineCompany. -3- I DO Claimant, a common carrier, is subject to regulation by the California Public Utilities Commission (the "CPUC") with respect to intrastate shipments through its pipeline system and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the "FERC") with respect to interstate shipments through its pipeline system. Claimant's pipeline system is located principally on leased rights of way or other leased property., The rights-of-way in which much of the pipeline system is located are already taxed at fair market value. B. Elements of the Assessment Contested. Claimant does not challenge the assessed values derived from the Board's application of its property assessment methods to Claimant's various properties. The Board's assessment is illegal, erroneous and void because the Board improperly included in its assessmentcertainproperty of Claimant over which the Board lacks jurisdiction under the California Constitution, the applicable provisions of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and controlling judicial authority. In particular. the Board assessed the lands and rights of way of Claimant notwithstanding the fact that Article XIII; Section 19 of the California Constitution does not extend to the assessment of such properties and Revenue and Taxation Code section 721 only confers upon the Board jurisdiction to assess property "that is to be assessed by it pursuant to Section 19 of Article XIII of the Constitution. " Instead, Claimant's lands and rights-of-way can only- be legally the subject of local assessment, if at all. The Board's -4- Illclo assessment of this property therefore violated California Constitution Article XIII, Section 19, and Revenue and Taxation Code section 721. C. Legal Background. In General Pipeline Co. v. Board of Equalization:, 5 Cal. 2d 253 (1936) ("General Pipeline") , the California Supreme Court defined "pipeline" under then Article XIII, Section 14 of the California Constitution, the predecessor of Article XIII, Section 19. The Court excluded lands and rights of way from its definition. Moreover, immediately after General Pipeline was decided, the Board properly deleted from its reporting instructions the reporting requirement for lands and rights of way. The Board continued its administrative practice of not assessing lands and rights of way every year for 48 years, before improperly resuming its assessment of lands and rights of way. Exclusion of lands and rights of way from the constitutional definition of "pipeline" is therefore mandated not only by General Pipeline, but also by the Board's many years of administrative practice of excluding lands and rights of way from the definition. In Southern Pacific Pipe Lines, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, 14 Cal. App. 4th 42 (1993) ("Southern Pacific") , the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that as a matter of law lands and rights-of-way are not included within the definition of "pipeline" in California Constitution Article XIII, Section 19. The Court of Appeal construed the decision in General Pipeline "as barring the SBE from assessing the lands and rights-of-way of private, intercounty oil pipelines. " (14 Cal. App. 4th at 53) . Moreover, to the extent that the Board included in its assessment leaseholds, easements, and other interests in privately-owned land less than fee interests, the assessment of these interests created illegal double taxation. As to leasehold estates, the owner of the fee is deemed to be the owner of the whole estate for the purposes of taxation. Graciosa Oil Co. v. County of Santa Barbara, 155 Cal. 140 (1909) The land subject to these leaseholds and easements is taxed at full value to its owners. The value of the ownership interest includes the value of all lesser interests, which are accordingly tax-exempt. Other owners of leaseholds and easements are not assessed on the value of these interests. This discriminatory assessment was. in violation of Claimant's rights of due process and equal protection under Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution and Amendment XIV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. NOTICE Any notice, communication or inquiry regarding this claim should be sent to: Mr. David P. Smith, Manager, Property Taxes and Insurance, Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline Partners, L.P. , 888 So. Figueroa St. , 2d Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017. -6- IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF THEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Board of Supervisors issue an order directing the appropriate officials to refund to Claimant no less than the amount described in the preceding Section 1 and set forth on Exhibit A hereto, or such other amounts as may be determined to be lawfully refundable, plus interest thereon allowed by law. Dated: November d`7 1994, at Los Angeles, . California. SFPP, L.P. , a Delaware Limited Partnership, By its General Partner SANTA FE PACIFIC PIPELINES, INC. By �:2Y Gary L. m Assist Treasurer Of counsel: Robert L. Dunn, Esq. Peter W. Michaels, Esq. Cooper, White & Cooper 201 California Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 (415/433-1900) -7- VERIFICATION I am Assistant Treasurer of SANTA FE PACIFIC PIPELINES, INC. , general partner of SFPP, L.P. a Delaware Limited Partnership, and am authorized to make this verification for and on behalf of SFPP, L.P. I have read the annexed Claim For Refund. of SFPP, L.P. Based on such information as is available to SFPP, L.P. , I am. informed and believe that the matters stated in the document are true and correct and on that •ground allege that the matters stated therein are true and correct. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this Verification is executed this a day of November, 1994 at Los Angeles, California. L Gary L. Pr i 7 102087.1 -8- �. (QQCl) r- o Cyt Cn CJ1 (J1 C37 A A A A W W W W W W W s O "' t� �J f� --' cam W C� W ycD .lam? AC.. C) W PQCAGY� W O ~ A 177, c C/) r"` Cf) � d _ O E3cr �o f" o n ��,jCA CD aim - � �'Q. m` aa (DQ- Q CD CD 5 5• a cn CD Cn 01 w-4 .' ' CO p tS? C�zy4D. W W"c3 '4 -46 " COt3� OwNOt� t53ibN a O-4 >l r,,0 -.1 CQ W0 s -4CDM V (0 -r- Cp0GO " 00 .4% .An0 -1Go � ►• � P, "M CDNCid -� imNQDC?. CDsCDCaocoOC7a ^< ((i NN � � N s -��P �.r%l -4 4 .9:6 OO) cnOCJICQCDCnCr) CJ C? (DQCJD OO V PCys " NM CTEWC7 CJD -4 CDMC7W MW CD tb:; p C7 C7 C7 CDOOC) (D00 C? 0 0QQ0400 � :tA2:: CTI V CD G) N N CD to Cp CJs N Q b y C7 O C:) CJt O CL cCL o O O;: N .� CJ; 00 C,Ti s W a N r s W j W C+) �A W fJ7 c N C� ch 'i to '� N � .r ;:•' ,p p CCS Cp Cts W C►s N O --1 CTt CD CD.C37 A CQ tV 0 C37 00 N -d Cs V N Cl (U CP C> v l 0) C n (0 1! 0 CA co -+ ©? � A C) C? -4 00 dy +5 ¢S N t70 P Ca s C O CD C) (D — r CD . <n Cat cn u? W NN (0 A`tvay -; .��ii0.yNCACb4A-, -4 (3) C) c1CL� tt7iaM � ;T C7 C7 C7 C?0 CSS CJ '�I E� �1 -� en e_n p C�0 -.E m CD W CD co CJ Q ca Cao ,� Cac� � c� ocDcDcD cargo oQ m -A. --k .•.i .1 .a _1 j � ...y .i .i i _..ti j ..i .1 .� ,� ...� tS OO G7C C7 C3 -sb6bC:7Q66QOC7Ca,CJC0CDCDCDCa -' }moi CD;'^ CT O N N CTs -J O •a N N W w W M W '-JP. " CTs Co Co ^ .A Co o W M C) -� mmmCSZO0 -4co ^! CoNCON'MMCts .p MCQCoCa -P CD 4N. CA pp: CnhJ .ANCb -10CJI .00 .P ACn01Cn -1yCaoMm -+ C+ 4 W CD OD .a � C a a o c o v-, Cb {)p f 7 i N A N W 1J {It W Cat EV .s C3) v -� �C -46C� C70 N r+ N Cp 6 CD W (D Ol 1,7 N CC7 (7) -4 D6 co l'1 (7) N `4 4N,D C� -� � CJt to � CG C) P � U : + � P VCnC71 -4 D6 C� G3CDNCAWNANC0 .PC) 0) * W CL EXHIBIT "A" 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR REZONING 2845-RZ NOTE: MM - refers to the Mitigation Measures in the project EIR. 1 . Development shall be based on the following exhibits except as modified by conditions herein: A. Revised tentative development plan dated August, 1991 . B. Partial development plan showing cross-sections of proposed Lots 1 through 9 dated March 24, 1993 C. Geotechnical investigation on the site conducted by Alan Kropp & Associates in 1989 and amended to review the proposed revised plan in 1991 . 2. A maximum of 19 single family residential lots shall be permitted with this develop- ment. There shall be no more than four residential lots south of the east/west road, subject to final approval of the Final Development Plan and Subdivision for the site. 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 issuance of building permits on any site, the Zoning Administrator shall review and approve the final development plans for each residential unit. 5. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits on the site, the applicant should be aware of the following guidelines having to do with construction on the site. (MM, Response Document, Page 1-10 and 1-1 1 , 1-15, 1-17) 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 5:30 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. 3 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 and residents along Sobrante Avenue between Valley View and the project entrance 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 maintain- ing 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. 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. The construction entrance road shall be fenced and gated. 6. 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. 7. The developer shall pay a fee of $400.00 per lot toward child care facility needs in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors. 8. 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 approval. The tax shall be the per parcel annual amount (with appropriate future CPI adjustment) then established at the time of voting by the Board of Supervisors. The election to provide for the tax shall be completed prior to the filing of the Parcel Map. The property owner shall be responsible for paying the cost of holding the election, payable at the time that the election is requested by the owner. 4 9. The development may be done in a phasing program which may be submitted at the time of the submittal for the final development plan and subdivision of the site subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 10. 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. 1 1 . Proposed Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be submitted for review with the Tentative 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 (MM. Response Document, Page 1-11): A. No recreational vehicle, boat, boat trailer or mobilehome shall be stored on the site overnight. Exterior materials and colors shall not vary from the palette approved for the original homes. 12. A suitable road maintenance agreement shall be formed for the maintenance of the private street and any landscaping along this street subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department and the Zoning Administrator. (MM, Response Document, Page 1-1 1) 13. A copy of the project's Final Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to filing the Final Map. (MM Response Document, Page 1-1 1) 14. The design of each residential unit when submitted for the final development plan shall include the proper sprinkling of the house to meet the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and/or the requirements of the local fire district. This shall include fire sprinklers for roofs, decks and garages. 15. At least 30 days prior to the request for the issuance of any grading permit on this site an erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the County Zoning Administrator. Erosion control plan shall provide for the following measures (MM, Response Document, Page 1-11 , 1-12, 1-17): A. All grading, excavation, filling shall be conducted during the dry season, May 1 st to October 1 st only. All areas of exposed soils shall be replanted to minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October 1 st only erosion 5 control work shall be allowed by the grading permit. Any modification to the above schedule shall be subject to review and approval by the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. A revegetation plan prepared by a professional plant ecologist (not a landscape architect) shall be submitted as part of the erosion control plan. The areas to be replanted shall be planted in California native species indigenous to the local area. Means to properly control dust shall be provided on the site during dry periods. 16. When the Final Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map is submitted the oak wood land areas and the proposed scenic easement that shall be clearly delineated.and displayed on the subdivision map. The application shall include detailed restrictions on use of the scenic easement area and how tree removal shall be reviewed and approved. (MM, Response Document, Page 1-12) 17. At least 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or filing of a Final Map, a grading/tree preservation plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall identify all trees with a trunk circumference of 30 inches or more, 4Yz feet above the ground. The trunk size, species and approxi- mate drip line of each qualifying tree shall be identified on the plan, and whether the tree is proposed to be removed or preserved. The objective of the review in part shall be to minimize the removal of existing mature trees. The plan shall be accompanied by a report from a qualified arborist on the proposed plan recommending measures to protect trees as appropriate during the construction and post-construction stages. The recommended measures from the arborist shall be integrated into or otherwise attached to the proposed grading plan. Prior to grading the drip line of trees shall be fenced to help guide and keep construction equipment out of the area under trees to be saved. (MM, Response Document, Page 1-12 & 1-13) 18. The final development plan and subdivision application shall be accompanied by a detailed landscaping plan showing the proposed landscaping along the southerly side of the site and any proposed landscaping to be done on the neighboring properties to help screen them from the development of the residences uphill. (MM, Response Document, Page 1-1 1 , 1-14) 19. When the Final Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map is submitted the applicant shall indicate the location of trees to be planted on the property near the west property setbacks so that they will be outside of any widening of the proposed public street. The applicant shall indicate that they have met and reached agreement with the neighboring owners regarding the location of these trees. (MM, Response to Document, page 1-1 1 , 1-14) 6 20. The application for Final Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map sha►I include detailed lot by lot design guidelines for all lots in the project. The design guidelines shall include drawn and written criteria for items such as, but not limited to, horizontal and vertical envelopes, building form and massing, architectural materials, and landscaping. Specific attention shall be given to providing architectural variety and reduction of the continuous mass of structures along the south side of the project. (MM, Response to Document, Page 1-10, 1-14) 21 . Prior to filing the Tentative Map, the applicant shall indicate that they have contacted the neighboring owner at the southwesterly corner of the site to determine if they can work out a lot line adjustment between the properties. If this has been accomplished prior to filing the Tentative Map, then this shall be so shown on the revised Final Development Plan and the Tentative Map. 22. When the Tentative Subdivision Map and Final Development Plan are submitted the house designs shall include proper wiring for the future recharging of electrical vehicles. 23. The site shall be served by the East Bay Municipal Utility District for water. Each unit shall have a separate water connection. The area shall be served by the West Contra Costa Sanitary District. Each unit shall have a separate sanitary sewer connection. (MM, Response Document, Page 1-17) 24. The conditions of approval for school services imposed on any subsequently filed final development plan and/or subdivision shall generally read as follows (MM, Response Document, Page 1-18): 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 on 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 contribu- tion 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. 7 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. D. In the event that the Board of the School District does not ratify the acceptance of this condition, applicant shall pay the the currently required amount, payable prior to issuance of each building permit. 25. The tentative map shall indicate a means to connect the existing residence to the sanitary sewer system. (MM, Response Document, Page 1-17) 26. The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road, and utility improvements will require the review and approval of the Public Works Department, and are based on the "Revised Plan 2845-RZ" dated August, 1991 . This development shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Division 914 and Division 1006 of the County Ordinance Code. However, the recommended conditions of approval have been based on the requirements for a subdivision since it appears that the developers intent is to subdivide and develop this property. Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. A. ON-SITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS: 1) Construct the roadway along the westerly property line as a 28-foot road within a 40-foot right of way which can be ultimately widened to a 36-foot road within a 56-foot right of way. Construct curb and 4-foot 6-inch sidewalk (width measured from curb face)along the easterly edge of the roadway, necessary longitudinal and traversed drainage and pavement. The curb face shall be located 10-feet from the right of way line. Construct a temporary turnaround in the vicinity of the northerly terminus of this road. 2) Construct the road along the southerly portion of this property as a 20- foot paved private roadway (width measured from curb face) within a 30-foot access easement where parking is not required and as a 28-foot paved private roadway (width measured from curb face) within a 38- foot access easement where parking is required. The private road shall be curbed on both sides and shall be bordered with a 4-foot 6-inch sidewalk along the north side for pedestrian traffic. The road easement shall extent 1-foot north of the proposed sidewalk. The building and garage setbacks to residences may be measured from the face of curb or back of sidewalk. The private road shall be aligned with the easterly 8 extension of Andrew Way to the west. The north-south public road shall intersect with the easterly extension of Andrew Way at a right angle, subject to the review of the Public Works Department, Engineer- ing Services Division. Adequate parking bays shall be provided to minimize the need for on-street parking, subject to the review of the Public Works Department and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator 3) Widen street frontages to ultimate half-section widths (MM, DEIR, Page 3-46). B. OFF-SITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS: 1) Construct the roadway from the easterly portion of the on-site roadway to the point where it turns south to intersect with Sobrante Avenue as a 20-foot roadway with a 2-foot gravel shoulders on the south side within a 40-foot access easement. The roadway shall be curbed with a 4-foot 6-inch sidewalk along the north side for pedestrian traffic. The applicant shall be permitted to eliminate the off-site sourtherly curb provided that he provides a 2-foot gravel shoulder and findings which support an exception from the Environmental Impact Report mitigation. 2) Construct the proposed private roadway from the point where it turns south to intersect with Sobrante Avenue to Sobrante Avenue as a 36- foot road within a 56-foot right of way with curb on both sides, 4-foot 6-inch sidewalk along the westerly side, and necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage. 3) Extend roadway improvements including travel lanes, gutters, drainage, sidewalk, and any required utility relocations from the site to Sobrante Avenue. (MM, Response Document, page 1-15.) 4) Widen Sobrante Avenue between the site access and the Sobrante Avenue/Circle Drive westerly intersection to contain, at a minimum, two 10-foot travel lanes and two 2-foot paved shoulders. The applicant shall repave the roadway in this area if not done by the County. (MM, DEIR, page 3-42.) 5) Widen Sobrante Avenue between Circle Drive and Valley View Road to provide two 10-foot lanes and two 2-foot paved shoulders, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. 6) The applicant shall be required to design and construct a path between Valley View Drive and the project access near the westerly Circle Drive intersection. If the applicant wants reimbursement from future development for a portion of the path he shall execute a reimbursement agreement and submit a study analyzing anticipated development which would be benefitted by this path; an estimate of the cost o f the 9 proposed work; and a segregation of the costs. The DEIR states that the applicant should be required to contribute toward provision of a pathway along one side of Sobrante Avenue between Valley View Drive and the westerly Circle Drive intersection (MM, DEIR, page 3-42). The DEIR also requires the applicant to eliminate potential safety hazards to bicyclists, pedestrians and automobile traffic prior to initiation of any construction (MM, Response Document, page 1-16). If it is determined that a 4-foot path is not feasible along Sobrante Avenue, the applicant shall be required to provide a 2-foot paved shoulder and a 4-foot rock shoulder on one side of the road for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. 7) Mitigate the cumulative impact of connection of this property to Andrew Way: a) Contribute a pro rata share of the following improvements to a Road Improvement Fee Trust (Fund No. 819200-0800): *a. Install a "Stop Sign" on the Andrew Way approach to Rancho Road. (MM, DEIR, page 3-46.) * Widen and repave (where needed) Andrew Way between Argyle Road and the north site access to contain, at a minimum, two 10-foot lanes and two 4-foot paved shoulders. (MM, DEIR, page 3-46.) * Install a stop sign on the northbound Andrew Way '! approach to the Andrew Way/Argyle Road intersection. (MM, DEIR, page 3-46.) * Argyle Road should be widened to provide a second approach lane (one for left turns and one for right turns) to the Appian Way intersection. Other benefitting projects, including the EI Sobrante Christian School, should contribute toward this roadway improvement (MM, DEIR, page 3-47). * Align the future extension of Andrew Way to provide the maximum amount of clear space between the roadway and existing residences located northeast of the existing roadway terminus (MM, DEIR, page 3-47). Andrew Way should be designed to intersect the proposed public north- south road on this subdivision at a 90 degree intersection. The alignment of the public and private roadways in this subdivision shall be modified to reflect this. 10 C. ROAD DEDICATIONS: 1) Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, 40 feet of right of way for the planned future road along the westerly property line for the planned future roadway north of the Andrew Way extension. The property owner shall also provide easement rights to the adjacent property owner and succeeding property owner(s) for access to this roadway and installation of road improvements. D. STREET LIGHTS: 1) Install street lights along the frontage of the proposed public roadway along the westerly boundary of this property 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. 2) Application for annexation to County Service Area L-100 Lighting District shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits or filing of the Final Map. E. REPAIR OF CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC DAMAGE TO ROADS: 1 ) Develop a pavement monitoring program in conjunction with the Public Works Department (use before and after video evidence of pavement condition). In particular analyze the three intersections at the Appian Way/Sobrante Avenue/Valley View Road triangle (unless these roadways have been recently improved by a recent County project) to determine if the stop/start load impact of project construction traffic results in damage to the pavement. Replace all damaged pavement per County design standards. The applicant should post a bond to ensure the proper repair of any damage to pavement (MM, Response Document, page 1-15). The monitoring program shall include the portion of Sobrante Avenue between the project's access and Valley View Drive. The pavement evaluation study shall be conducted with the County. The applicant shall be required to post bonds to ensure proper repair of damage to the pavement. 2) Restrict construction traffic to using Sobrante Avenue for access to the site. Restrict delivery of heavy equipment and construction materials to outside the peak hour periods. Contractors responsibility (MM, Response Document, page 1-15). The applicant shall ensure that the contractor responsibility implement this condition. 11 F. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: 1) Submit 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 stripping plans for review by the Public Works Department, Road Engineering Division. The improvement plans shall be signed by a geotechnical engineer. 2) 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. 3) Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, that legal access to the property is available from Sobrante Avenue. 4) Prevent storm drainage originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner, from draining across the sidewalks and drive- ways. 5) Provide for adequate sight distance at this projects access to Sobrante Avenue, and at the intersection of this project's private road intersection with the proposed public road which connects with Sobrante Avenue in accordance with CALTRANS standards for a 35 mile per hour design speed. 6) Garages shall be setback: a. On the private road, at least 22-feet from the back of sidewalk or 22-feet from the curb face, whichever is greater. If the garages are set back less than 20-feet from the road easement line, the applicant shall install vertical rise garage doors with automatic garage door openers. b. On public road, at least 17-feet from the fright of way line. If the garages are set back less than 20-feet from the fight of way line, the applicant shall install vertical rise garage doors with automatic garage door openers. 7) On all public roads with longitudinal slopes less than 8%, all public pedestrian access ways shall be designed in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap access). This shall include all driveway depressions as well as handicap ramps. 12 8) Install "No Parking" signs along project roadways to prevent on-street parking, where parking is to be prohibited. (MM, DEIR, page 3-42.) 9) Provide deed notification and signing to inform prospective property owners that the following roads may be extended in the future: The proposed road along the westerly property line may be extended to the north in the future and may be extended westerly to connect with Andrew Way. 10) Maintenance responsibilities should be clearly defined as part of the project (MM, Response Document, page 1-1 1). Develop and enter into a maintenance agreement that will insure that the proposed private road will be maintained and that each property owner in this development that uses the proposed private road will share in its maintenance. 11 Pay an off-site per unit traffic mitigation fee (MM, DEIR, page 3-46). The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the EI Sobrante Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. 12) Contact all area residents along Sobrante Avenue between Valley View Road and the project access prior to advent of heavy construction truck usage of Sobrante Avenue. (MM, Response Document, page 1-15.) 13) Prior to initiation of any construction, the applicant's representative shall discuss with Public Work's staff possible improvements to Sobrante Avenue needed to eliminate potential safety hazards to bicyclists, pedestrians, and automobile traffic resulting from project construction traffic. Specific insurance provisions should be provided by the applicant which hold the County harmless in the vent of incidents involving project construction traffic. (MM, Response Document, page 1-16.) G. UTILITIES/UNDERGROUNDING: 1) Underground all utility distribution services along the proposed public road. This shall include existing distribution facilities, if any, along the frontage of that road. H. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS: 1) This development shall conform to the requirements of Division 914 (Drainage) of the Subdivision Ordinance (MM, DEIR, page 3-51). Conformance with Division 9814 includes the following requirements: 13 a. 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 water- course. b. Designing and constructing storm drainage facilities required by Division 914 in accordance with specifications outlined in Division 914 and in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department. C. The Ordinance prohibits the discharging of concentrated storm waters into roadside ditches. 2) Install, within a dedicated drainage easement, any portion of the drainage system which conveys run-off from a public street. 3) Improve the inlet to the 21-inch pipe which conveys run-off from the site across Greenbrae Court to Heath Drive. (MM, DEIR, page 3-52.) 4) Replace the 12-inch pipe under Sobrante Avenue near the proposed eastern access to the site with an 18-inch diameter pipe. (MM, DEIR, page 3-52.) 5) Provide a detailed drainage study, prepared by a qualified hydrologic engineering firm verifying the capacity of existing drainage facilities from 5418 to 5360 Sobrante Avenue. If the existing drainage facilities are inadequate, and if stormwater from this proposed project will enter it, specific improvements should be designed and implemented prior to creation of impervious surface on the site. (MM, Response Document, page 1-16.) 6) The applicant shall construct creek capacity improvements as called out in the "San Pablo Creek Watershed Study" and as directed by the Public Works Department, Flood control Division. OR, AT THE APPLICANT'S OPTION Contribute 50.25/square foot of additional impervious surface area to the San Pablo Creek watershed mitigation fund, to be used for creek capacity improvements to Appian Creek within the San Pablo Creek Drainage Area. (MM, Response Document, page 1-16.) The DEIR requires that the applicant pay the drainage improvement fees to fund on-going improvements to local storm drainage facilities within Drainage Area 73. (MM, DEIR, page 3-52.) 14 ADVISORY NOTES PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OS ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. 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 shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal, construc- tion and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay- Region II or Central Valley - Region V). The DEIR requires that the applicant obtain the necessary NPDES stormwater discharge permit from the SFRWQCB. (MM, DEIR, page 3-52. and Response Document, Page 1-17). D. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the EI Sobrante Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. E. The applicant will be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage Area 73 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The DEIR requires that the applicant contribute drainage fees to help fund planned improvements in the project vicinity, as established for Drainage Assessment Area 73 and the San Pablo Creek drainage. (MM, DEIR, page 3-51 .) NOTE: "MM" refers to the Mitigation Measures in the Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and Response Document. AB/aa RZXIX/2845-RZC.AB 2/24/94 3/14/94 5/3/94 C WZ vVEL m `o vv CL 17 03 qz LF e 40 a lo32Hf 71 8b c� O� H L ci o O C O O c �a $ m CD Lo a O. o a as as a 8 a _ oo•�,e75 c E ug i of jo Q awe > 32 oo ooSr- IE � __°a `o c� a� 28cm � '5mo . -- m 3v_ �_ � "a 1D c mai° m ° ev > ° -90 M Ile CL CD 75 E 2E v c £ C$ 7� m o t9 �u 0 O i o CC lu Q d O p S 32 0 v CL Z 7 p _ d >a Q e mac c 'D >m O .... Q 7 O GZ 42 gaol ma r 1— c c. cm SE O . a c E o c o IL 3Efom as c 000 �o � � boo •3 CL p0 ° o $ � aI � ' E QZ wco E _ _g E $ m " EO7° v � � E $ Coa CL.i1 O '• C 1 • � 1 � � • • w tm >.2 Z' E � aEe � � a fig $ zZ ci ; $ Ec � E� p �Eg°� � io -78 aw8 jr,ju It oco l Q IL • 0a3bccd 2 lu 10, 0 IM a �L $ • r IDL o a E Lb EE HasE WiiE � 0 rL E � mor E s gra . _ m a �3 � a • gECc o IE -a Im � to CL ui CL CD CL A a � oc ♦ ESB o $ bc acgaE40 12L2 $ E � � a� i c oohE �� + o _ J x Z a � E � m IL € '$e 2iI OL � E a �� • � co 'Soo � m . .o a� $ � { a a � c c c c s E SE Ls Au� $' fir c �� E� � �s CL HE St CL SBS ; Sd CL CL CL a CL 8 • o 0 0 $ a € •-32 S o a o • � 'em rod 0 � a E zo 3 m m Eat cd cd Sd Z:j c o � c 15 0 0 15 ID OE 0 CD 2 � a .0 of �° c � .. o c oID g c mV Q Sr- f � � � c a o8 m > $a � ee • � � ri ot �CIL � cs g Yo ;$ •.� rL EB CD a s y *3 T�i�'e Q 5 a a o av �i a�b e 0 4 �aa p ac c '� � •5 3 � � E ov_ 3 E { o f $ `d m 0. v CO .. K E� � 20 a E > c �i � gl : ~ o � o 00 �W�yCZ � E cm o v o E a3 $ aao Z.ti ° s a � bb F o > •a a � b d3 �b �� Ef Vs � bE orLc � o.b � c� a 0 Oaq .Qcm ro 0 a 5 5 t .Q a • a =b € a, � g T m TL CL E E m cm Z.Us E c E m .0 ju � � E9 Z j ° v c CL T E ° m egg � � i o m - c f rL 03 0 13 0 LM c a g g F • m ma o E � am tcoED r013 41 oc o IBL z U ° }o g' a b c n M o � AU T. a ° E E a c ^ z cd z $ oasis � ° _ _ _ - a gg o gg o c� a�, i � �£o � a •o,c � o � � CL tr > .o•� �°� oT m a Q � o o E rifirc° ato � ic•i �c� a v � a58a �i ■ ■ ■ • • ° a - v � � a' 8° o a F E mcc 93c (Mat 0 .0 mg° QO S � o �$ ~ $ v W¢I E 9 .8 c 32 CD lb s m a lot a°L a 02 d/ a �q a v v p� C a s p c p !�j° 0 a O c� 35 E E a,E — � m r 75 E RR a75 21 0 _j a E v > 5 as a E E cw". IL CL 0 co CL EEo �oc 40 LL M $ - Il ' $ E ' S E 15 CL CL CL CL . - am ° 5.8 CF 0 09 32 �$o IL a 0-2 2 COL -10 rp V cs° c c t! a $ c � � v E a E > $ v iIL - Et bwp °i a— 5 m n 0 m e o 7 m O Ed 'Z' E $ ES g°� E f 00 soof f g'� � o Au u: • 2 � � 5 v c r£� CL. Cc S CL 8 `8 = led AS 3 35 32 c Yo Au C . o SCS • • —c C� • Biu Ec � � � '� ��.� a � p lu lu c 5- , � 'a I i s a -7 -6 E 8 � 932 OE a rx ` E o SC E o E 'S c ■ O_ $ e i $ ��: p ; ■ E � � o- � i g m e W _ § o -a as t4 `2 � dE a coo C Q' . tg e t $apo g° Y • �.� b • a E o. • 2 c ; aga IE c0 ZSE � c c .Q $ � � �� fig $ Qpm Eoo °' 5mo cmc $ a� > per`c �0 o $ 2 g a = a $ � � • 5 —ca $ $ � o � $ fact 0i' o � 'E $ E ■ ■ o 0Q3 � � o � � $ • c � g E �a �p � orb a; 3tt ; � $ c coo o n>>: a • ■ ■ E Vit! g' 40 e 3 _ E c -2 932 c co rS CL 16 32 0 .0 a L g • c 8 • — c�i0. aiaa : 3' ii civ > Ev is� � tpoi� �d $ if �> ab' fir'• g a ` Ea B �5 $ Qe c Wo E • O. QQc m e uv E c o l 2`Z2 � ao3 � OIt� E o E pc o : s ' � a � CL U coo _E > cc w 0. 0. coqQ a c V.2� ! CL ° E �� c �. Z.0 c a - '.0��: �Ei e � E V e E y~ • s e m � w • M � � `• E O C � tlOp � o E 0 �IL c CL 17 Qo.d' Q i iEE -c a� Cg c e CL c � c E � � 3 = � � g� = vc E • ° Er p E ai Z ii g Jai � g _ kk CY lilt CEL •St pa c �e _a c • ci 8 � arJL89 �gi3 _ E �e°[�t $ � e a g Z E` c EL g' o_ c �'� _ o� E ,� i° c o � '�� � o 3� o€� � � � ac E o � � wIE [32 o f o z � g � • � � � � ..otiE • c � ow CL c E v >. n F- aE 2 t n c v 5�' � 3 1< c o w . v.E a e I E 3 I 0Eo � a E w3 � �e i b � { b �Cg � ■ • ■ ■ ■ � e • 06 0 0 c °D�• c . Q oV ; c E a is ME g > FE zo. 16 w3 rL z co r�• �. E o op o� � xo � � = s w ° a tm 0 -6 t0 � ro- o8 � f -02 CL EE SP° ; $ ,�. o.EY a't � c o 3 � 3ro E Fi f E m Va at o an ra � � � £ $ � ` � 3 � M$ � 0 ! s $ 0 d a 5�a apt►ii$�' Q pp,, p a t :� o a2 _ r C � C � ° 9o . o o EL O $ t F imEc � � O C O o c c�� e� it X� � Q wa° 5Ef $ S 3 3 E £ a, ai $o • 3 cv E WHOA Q z w ko -; v� cg 0. cc as F w a o _ cg ° $ a 4 - mi' c lu • off' aZ gcg = o ul tA a� � we €€ Q S 'H E w O zz M� O.iu: 00 � CL E E z � 8g0 .4 a ti g � TL c ale Ro y 8 Z E w a 32 � o =E o �� aoosoa a �` � o " w � $ z ci • S �� b C, a Ma VI m = C an ao EYES a • EXHIBIT C CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE SILKSTONE HILL PROJECT AND FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO THAT PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 1. INTRODUCTION A. Overview. 1. These findings are made by this Board of Supervisors ("Board") of Contra Costa County ("County") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public _ Resources Code Section 21000 et se .), the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Administrative Code Section 15000 gd& ..) and the County regulations promulgated thereunder (collectively referred to as "CEQA"). These findings include this Board's certification of the final environmental impact report ("EIR") prepared for the Silkstone Hill development project ("Project") which consists of the development described in the applications listed below ("Project Applications"). These findings further include this Board'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 Starker El Sobrante L.P., for the development of a 6.85-acre site located north of Sobrante Avenue and north-easterly of Heath Drive and Greenbrae Court, in the El Sobrante area ("Project Site"). The Project Applications are comprised of the following: (i) Rezoning Application 2845 RZ to rezone the Profect Site from Single Family Residential District R-10 to the Planned Unit District (P-1) for 20 single family, residential units and private and public roads. 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, and 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 Board 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 Board prior to taking action on the Project Applications. 2. In so certifying, this Board 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 Board must base its decisions and these findings on that substantial evidence in the record that it finds most compelling. Therefore, by these findings, this Board clarifies and/or makes insignificant modifications in the EIR 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 Board in these findings, which are based on the substantial evidence in the administrative record as a whole. This Board further adopts the analysis and conclusions of the E.I.R. except as expressly modified by these Findings. C. The Project Site, 1. The Project Site is owned by Starker El Sobrante Land L.P. ("Applicant"). The site currently is comprised of 6.85 acres. 2. The Project Site is located in the El Sobrante area in West Contra Costa County. The site is located between Interstate I- 80, San Pablo Dam Road, and is about 1,800 feet east of Apian Way. Vehicle access to the site is provided off of EL Sobrante Avenue approximately 200 feet east of the Sobrante Avenue first intersection with Circle Drive. A wide paved common driveway extends for a distance of approximately 100 feet from Sobrante Avenue with access to the site continuing west through a 44 foot wide right of way along a largely unpaved or narrowly paved roadway. The roadway continues along the southern and western boundaries of the site and the East Bay Municipal Utility District reservoirs gain access across this site. The project site includes approximately 6.85 acres. The property forms the south and west facing slopes of a prominent knoll with the elevations on site ranging from 275 to 445 feet above sea level. 3. The Project Site is currently vacant. Land uses in the Project vicinity are predominately residential. Land to the south of the site has been subdivided into lots used for single family residential purposes. Most of the area was developed under SUB 3043 (Heath Heights). The lot sizes range from about 6,300 sq. ft. to 9,000 sq. ft. West of the site is a 4-acre parcel designated a mix of Single Family Residential-High density, and Medium Density Single Family Residential, and Open Space on the General Plan. There is a 50' wide strip dedicated to the County for roadway purposes across that site. The 2-acre site owned by East Bay Municipal Utility District northwesterly of the application site is designated open space. There is a reservoir on that site. Property to the north of the site is designated open space. There is one parcel with a residence on it in this area. There is another 3-acre parcel owned by East Bay Municipal Utility District with a reservoir on that site. Land to the east of the site is mostly designated open space on the General Plan. The southwesterly portion of that property is designated Single Family Residential-Medium Density on the General Plan. D. Procedural History. 1. Collaborative Design Architects (Applicant), Starker El Sobrante Land L.P. (Owner), (2845-RZ), to rezone an 8.1 acre site from Single Family Residential District (R-10) to Planned Unit District (P-1), for 32 units was received by the Community Development Department on July 13, 1989. 2. Michael Woldemar & Associates Architects, was employed to redesign the project and became project applicant in November 1990. The area of the project was reduced to 6.85 acres and the number of proposed units reduced to 20. County staff prepared an Initial Study of the Project's potential environmental 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. 3. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project; and after proper public notice, the County Zoning Administrator took testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Report on March 22, 1993. After consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report on July 26, 1993, the County Zoning Administrator APPROVED the Final Environmental Impact Report as being complete and adequate. 4. After proper public notice, the County Planning Commission took testimony on the P-1 rezoning project (2845-RZ) on March 10, 1994 and March 22, 1994 and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report. The County Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony A and evidence submitted in this matter and voted to recommend to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, that the Final Environmental Impact Report for 2845-RZ be certified and that the request by Michael Woldemar & Associates (Applicant), Kris Tamaki/Starker El Sobrante Land L.P. (Owner), be APPROVED as to the requested change from R-10 to P-1, as is indicated on the findings map entitled: Page H-6 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map. 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 Board in all respects and are fully and completely supported by competent and substantial evidence in the record. 2. This Board 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 Board 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 Board 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. S 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 Board, based on the entire record before this Board, 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 Board in full. 5. This Board intends that these findings be considered as an integrated whole and that any finding required or permitted to be made by this Board 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 Board, whether or not any particular caption, sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. 6. Although the discussions under the captions "Facts," below, may primarily or entirely be based on the EIR, this Board intends that each finding herein is based on the entire record, including written and oral testimony to this Board. The omission of any relevant fact from the summary discussions below is not an indication by this Board 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 Board recognizes that many of the Conditions of Approval adopted by this Board 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 Board 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 Board'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. 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 Board and are imposed as Conditions of Approval to the Rezoning. B. Land Use. 1. Impact: Land Use Incompatibility - Potential for incompatibility with adjacent uses could be mitigated to a level of less than significant through design review and possibly eliminating one lot along southern boudary of site. Mitigation: a) To ensure compliance with the provisions of County design guidelines and compatibility with adjacent land use, the Tentative Map for the project and proposed building plans for individual residences should be reviewed by the County Zoning Administrator after receiving input from the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Committee. Future review should focus on the design and setback adherence of lots along the southern boundary of the site, to ensure architectural variation in the rear elevations of the houses, sideyard setbacks and landscaping to break up the continuous mass of structures, and adequate landscape screening to protect the privacy of downslope residents. b) The aggregate sideyard setbacks of lots along the south boudary of the site should be increased to break up the contiuous mass of structures in views from Heath Drive. If necessary, consideration should be given to eliminating one of the proposed lots to provide greater flexibility in siting residences and to increase the aggregate sideyard setbacks. Facts. R The Project's potential impacts on land use are discussed on pages 3-1 through 3-12 of the Draft EIR, in the Response to Comments and in the other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. The EIR identifies those impacts that are potentially significant. Findings. Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project's significant land use impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the imposition of Conditions 2,4,18 and 20 of the Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures 1 and 2, under land use section in the mitigation measures. 2. Impact: Project-Generated Noise - Potential for disruptive noise levels could be mitigated to a level of less than significant by limiting construction hours. Mitigation: Construction activities on the site should be restricted to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. (Monday through Friday) to minimize the impact of the surrounding neighborhood, particularly excessive noise levels. The construction entry road should be fenced and gated, and access to the site monitored by a construction supervisor. Violations and complaints should be logged and reported weekly to the County and applicant. Persistent violations may result in the issuance of a stop work order or further restrictions on construction hours. Facts. The Project's potential impacts on land use are discussed on pages 3-1 through 3-12 of the Draft EIR, in the Response to Comments and in the other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. The EIR identifies those impacts that are potentially significant. Findings. Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project's significant Project-Generated Noise impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the imposition of Condition 5 of the Conditions 4 of Approval and mitigation measure 3, under land use section in the mitigation measures. 3. Impact: Project-Generated Dust - Potential for excessive dust could be mitigated to a level of less than significant by routinely watering graded slopes. Mitigation: The Erosion Control Plan recommended in the Hydrology and Drainage section of this report should include provisions to routinely water graded slopes to control dust during dry periods until the roadway is surfaced and slopes revegetated. The frequency of watering should reflect site-specific conditions, with applications repeated as necessary to suppress project- generated dust. Facts. The Project's potential impacts on land use are discussed on pages 3-1 through 3-12 of the Draft EIR, in the Response to Comments and in the other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. The EIR identifies those impacts that are potentially significant. Findings. Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project's significant Project-Generated Dust impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the imposition of Conditions 5 and 15 of the Conditions of Approval and mitigation measure 4, under land use section in the mitigation measures. 4. Impact: Loss of Privacy - Potential loss of privacy of adjacent residents could be mitigated to a level of less than significant through provisions for landscape screening. Mitigation: Landscape screening should be provided along the southern boundary of the site as necessary to protect the privacy of downslope residences. Consideration should be given to creating a landscape easement along a 15-foot setback from the southern property line which would prohibit removal of landscape improvements. In Facts. The Project's potential impacts on land use are discussed on pages 3-1 through 3-12 of the Draft EIR, in the Response to Comments and in the other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. The EIR identifies those impacts that are potentially significant. Findings, Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project's significant Loss of Privacy impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the imposition of Conditions 18 and 19 of the Conditions of Approval and mitigation measure 5, under land use section in the mitigation measures. 5. Impact: Long-term Maintenance - Potential for poor maintenance and adverse impacts to scenic easement area could be mitigated to a level of less than significant through formation of homeowners association or deed restrictions. Mitigation: To ensure adequate maintenance of private roadways, landscape improvements, and common open space or scenic easement areas, maintenance responsibilities should be clearly defined as part of the project, either through deed restrictions as currently proposed or through formation of a homeowners association. Facts• The Project's potential impacts on land use are discussed on pages 3-1 through 3-12 of the Draft EIR, in the Response to Comments and in the other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. The EIR identifies those impacts that are potentially significant. Findings. Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project's significant Long term maintenance impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the imposition of Conditions 11, 12 and 13 of the tt Conditions of Approval and mitigation measure 6, under land use section in the mitigation measures. C. Biotics. 1. Impact: Loss of Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat - Potential loss of woodland vegetation and wildlife cover could be mitigated to a level of less than significant through adherence to restrictions on modifications within proposed scenic easement and implementation of Vegetation Management Plan to provide for revegetation with native species and control of undesirable species. Mitigation: a) Detailed restrictions should be prepared by the applicant's architect which prohibits future development within the proposed scenic easement and prevents disturbance to the woodland habitat. The restrictions should be incorporated into the deed to lots containing the scenic easement area. At minimum the restrictions should prohibit: - future development within the scenic easement area, including grading, additions to residences, construction of ancillary structures, and landscaping; - tree removal; - fencing of lot lines to ensure wildlife access is not impeded; and - keeping of livestock within the scenic easement area. b) A detailed Landscaping and Vegetation Management Plan should be prepared for the project which meets with the approval of the County. The plan should: - incorporate detailed scenic easement restrictions to prevent disturbance to woodland vegetation; - provide for the revegetation of graded slopes; - emphasize the use of native, drought-tolerant plant species; - define areas where landscape restrictions are necessary to protect mature native trees and provide for adequate lanscape screening along the southern property line; - identify maintenance responsibilities for street trees and other landscape improvements; and - include a program to eradicate French Broom from the site. Facts. (a) The Projects impacts on vegetation and wildlife are discussed at pages 3.13 through 3.21 of the Draft EIR, in the Response to Comments and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. The EIR identifies certain impacts of the Project as potentially significant. (b) The EIR identified the potential loss of woodland vegetation and wildlife cover could be mitigated to a level of less significant through adherence to restrictions on modifications within proposed scenic easement and implementation of Vegetation Management Plan to provide for revegetation with native species and control of undesirable species. Findings. Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board 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 15, 16 and 17 of the Conditions of Approval and mitigation measure 3 under Biotic resources of the mitigation monitoring program. 2. Impact: Tree Removal - Potential adverse impacts to most native trees could be mitigated to a level of less than significance through adherence to preservation guidelines. Mitigation: A qualified arborist should be retained by the applicant to evaluate the condition of individual trees considered for preservation within 50 feet of proposed building envelopes and roadways, both with regard to their long-term health and desirability of preservation, and the possible hazard posed to future residents of the site. Specific guidelines should be developed to protect the canopy, trunk and root zone of trees to be retained. The guidelines should be completed and , where approprate, implemented prior to any construction on the site. The guidelines should: - identify accepable grading and excavation procedure, minimizing grade changes and prohibiting trenching within the tree dripline; - require fencing along the outermost edge of the dripline of each tree or group of trees to be retained within 20 feet of proposed grading; - specify contractor responsibility to protect and repair damage to individual trees; - establish limits of impervious surfaces, structures, and other hardscape improvements within the dripline of individual trees; and - provide necessary landscape restrictions, primarily to control over-watering and changes to the tree root zone. Facts. (a) The Projects impacts on vegetation and wildlife are discussed at pages 3.13 through 3.21 of the Draft EIR, in the Response to Comments and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. The EIR identifies certain impacts of the Project as potentially significant. (b) The EIR identified the potential loss of woodland vegetation and wildlife cover could be mitigated to a level of less significant through adherence to restrictions on modifications within proposed scenic easement and implementation of Vegetation Management Plan to provide for revegetation with native species and control of undesirable species. Findings. id Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project's significant impacts on tree removal will be reduced to a less than significant level by the imposition of Condition 18 of the Conditions of Approval and mitigation measure 4 under Biotic resources of the mitigation monitoring program. D. Visual and Aesthetics. 1. Impact: Loss of Privacy - Provisions for landscape screening would mitigate potential loss of privacy of adjacent residents to a level of less than significant. Mitigation: Landscape screening should be provided along the southern boundary of the site to protect the privacy of adjacent downslope residents and to soften the visual impact of structures in views from the south. A minimum 15-foot setback should be provided along the southern property boundary, and a landscape easement created to protect vegetation planted to serve as screening. Existing trees should be retained to the extent feasible, particularly in the southwestern corner of the site, with supplemental plantings provided along the landscape corridor to protect the privacy of residents of downslope properties. Facts. (a) The Project's visual Quality and Aesthetics are discussed on pages 3-21 through 3.29 of the Draft EIR, in Response to Comments and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. The EIR identifies those impacts that are potentially significant. (b) The EIR recommends that landscape screening be provided along the southern boundry of the site to protect the privacy of adjacent downslope residents and to soften the visual impact of structures in views from the south. Findings. Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project's significant loss of privacy impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the imposition of Conditions 18, and 19 of the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation 1S r Measure 1 under Visual Quality of the mitigation monitoring program. 2. Impact: Visual Character and Continuity - Potential for adverse visual impacts could be mitigated to a level of less than significant through detailed design review and possibly eliminating one lot along southern boundary of site. Mitigation: a) To ensure visual continuity between the project and adjacent residences, the Tentative Map and proposed building and landscaping plans for individual residences should be reviewed by the County Zoning Administrator after receiving input from the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Committee. Future review should focus on methods to provide adequate sideyard setbacks and architectural variation in the rear elevations of lots along the southern boundary of the site, including use of one and two-story building elements. b) The sideyard setbacks of lots along the southern boundary of the site should be increased to break up the continuous mass of structures in views from Heath Drive. If necessary, consideration should be given to eliminating one of the proposed lots to provide greater flexibility in siting residences and to increase the aggregate sideyard setbacks. Facts, (a) The Project's visual Quality and Aesthetics are discussed on pages 3-21 through 3.29 of the Draft EIR, in Response to Comments and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. The EIR identifies those impacts that are potentially significant. (b) The EIR recommends that landscape screening be provided along the southern boundry of the site to protect the privacy of adjacent downslope residents and to soften the visual impact of structures in views from the south. Findings. Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project's significant visual character and continuity impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the imposition of Conditions 2 and 20 of the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 under Visual Quality of the mitigation monitoring program. E. Traffic/Circulation, 1 . Impact: Project Access - Potential hazard created by additional project-generated traffic could be mitigated to a level of less than significant through improvements to proposed and existing access off Sobrante Avenue. Mitigation: a) Sobrante Avenue should be widened between the site access and the Sobrante/Circle Drive westerly intersection to contain, at a minimum, two 10-foot travel lanes and two 2-foot paved shoulders. The roadway should be repaved in this area if not done by the County. b) The applicant should be required to contribute toward provision of a pathway along one side of Sobrante Avenue between Valley View Drive and the western Circle Drive intersection. c) As directed by County Public Works staff, "no parking" signs should be provided along project roadways to prevent on-street parking where parking is to be prohibited. d) Roadway improvements along the proposed private street, including travel lanes, gutters, drainage system, sidewalk, and any required utility relocation should be extended from the site to Sobrante Avenue. Facts. The Project's impacts on traffic and circulation are discussed at pages 3-29 through 3-47 of the Draft EIR, in the Response to Comments and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. The EIR identifies certain impacts as potentially significant. Findings. Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project's significant project access impacts will be mitigated 'to a less than significant level by the imposition of Condition 26 of the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Traffic and Circulation section of the mitigation monitoring program. 2. Impact: Construction Equipment - Potential damage to roadways due to construction vehicles and equipment could be mitigated to a level of less than significant through repair. Mitigation: a) The applicant should be responsible for repairing any damage to roadway surfaces attributable to construction vehicles and equipment. The applicant should develop, in conjuction with Public Works staff, a pavement monitoring program with before and after video evidence of pavement conditions. In particular, video evidence of pavement conditions for the three intersections aat the Appian Way/Sobrante Avenue/Valley View Road triangle should be used to determine if the stop/start load impact of project construction traffic results in damage to the pavement at these intersections. All damaged pavement should be replaced in accordance with County pavement design requirements. The appolicant should post a bond to ensure the proper repair of any damage to pavement. b) All project construction traffic should be restricted to using Sobrante Avenue for access to the site. Delivery of heavy equipment and construction materials should be made outside the peak hour periods. c) - All area residents along Sobrante Avenue between Valley View Road and the project access should be given prior warning on the advent of heavy construction truck usage of Sobrante Avenue. d) Prior to initiation of any construction, the applicant's representatives should discuss with Public Works staff possible improvements to Sobrante Avenue needed to eliminate potential hazards to pedestrians, bicycles, and automobile traffic IQ resulting from project construction traffic. Specific insurance provisions should be provided by the applicant which holds the County harmless in the event of incidents involving project construction traffic. Facts. The Project's impacts on traffic and circulation are discussed at pages 3-29 through 3-47 of the Draft EIR, in the Response to Comments and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. The EIR identifies certain impacts as potentially significant. Findings. Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project's significant construction equipment impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the imposition of Conditions 5 and 26 of the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures 5, '6, 7, and 8 of the Traffic and Circulation section of the mitigation monitoring program. F. Hydrology and Drainage. 1 . Impact: Drainage Control - Potential for down gradient drainage capacity problems could be mitigated to a level of less than signigicant through drainage improvements and fee assessment. Mitigation: To minimize the potential for flooding and adhere to County standards, the following physical improvements, compiance requirements, and fees are necessary: a) improve the inlet to the 21-inch pipe which conveys run-off from the site across Greenbrae Court to Heath Drive. This work should be sufficient to enable the culvert to safely convey the design storm peak flows. b) replace the 12-inch pipe under Sobrante Avenue near the proposed eastern access to the site with an 18-inch diameter pipe. This would ensure adequate capacity and would comply with the minimum standard adopted by the County Flood Control District. 10 c) the project must comply with Division 914 of Title 9 of the County Ordinance, and all drainage improvements would be subject to approval during the improvement plan review. d) a detailed drainage study should be conducted by a qualified hydrologic engineer verifying the capacity of existing drainage facilities from 5418 to 5360 Sobrante Avenue. If the existing drainage facilities are inadequate, specific improvements should be designed and implemented prior to creation of impervious surfaces on the site. e) the applicant should contribute drainage fees to help fund planned improvements in the project vicinity, as established for Drainage Assessment Area 73 and the San Pablo Creek drainage. f) in addition to the Drainage Area 73 fees, the applicant should contribute drainage fees to help fund improvements to Appian Creek. The assessment would be based on $0.25 per square foot of impervious surface area created by the development. Facts. The Project's impacts on drainage and water quality are discussed at pages 3-47 through 3-52 ofthe Draft EIR, in the Response to Comments and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. The EIR identifies certain impacts of the Project as potentially significant. Findings. Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project's significant drainage control impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the imposition of Condition 26 of the Conditions of Approval and mitigation measure 1 of the Hydrology and drainage section of the mitigation monitoring program. 2 . Impact: Erosion and Sedimentation - Potential for erosion and sedimentation could be mitigated to a level of less than significant through control of run-off, revegetation of graded slopes, and implementation of Erosion-Control Plan. I? n Mitigation: A detailed Erosion Control Plan should be prepared for the project prior to issuance of a grading permit. The plan should include use of sedimentation catch basins, provide detailed measures to control erosion of stockpiled earth and exposed soil, and include information on a monitoring program of the plan's effectiveness. Aspects of the plan should include: a) Conditions that any sediment that may accumulate off-site be removed, and additional silt fences or hay bales placed to intercept sediment generated during construction. b) Concentrated run-off or sheet flow should not be allowed to move over cut or fill slopes, with drainage features incorporated into the plan to protect these and other areas of disturbance from erosion. e) Cut slopes should be stabilized using hydromulching or an alternative but equally effective method and revegetated, preferably with native species common to the area. Facts. The Project's impacts on drainage and water quality are discussed at pages 3-47 through 3-52 ofthe Draft EIR, in the Response to Comments and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. The EIR identifies certain impacts of the Project as potentially significant. Findings. Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project's significant erosion and sedimentation impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the imposition of Condition 5 and 15 of the Conditions of Approval and mitigation measure 2 of the Hydrology and drainage section of the mitigation monitoring program. 3 . Impact: Water Quality Degradation - Although degradation of water quality is consedered less than signigicant, a stormwater discharge permit must be obtained by the applicant. 1) 1 Mitigation: Although the project contribution to water quality degradation would not be signigicant, when combined with run-off from other urban areas, the net result is degraded receiving waters. The applicant must obtain the necessary National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System stormwater discharge permit from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Facts, TheProject's impacts on drainage and water quality are discussed at pages 3-47 through 3-52 ofthe Draft EIR, in the Response to Comments and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. The EIR identifies certain impacts of the Project as potentially significant. Findings. Based upon the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Project's significant water quality degradation impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level (refer to Advisory Note C.) of the Conditions of Approval and mitigation measure 3 of the Hydrology and drainage section of the mitigation monitoring program. G. Sanitary Sewer Service. 1. Impact: Service Provisions - Annexation to the Sanitary District and expansion of existing improvements would be necessary to service the project. Mitigation: a) Provision of sanitary sewer service to the proposed project would require review and necessary annexation approvals by the Local Agency Formation Commission and the West Contra Costa County Sanitary District. b) Requirements specified by the West Contra County Sanitary District, including off-site improvements and fee contributions, must be met by the applicant to receive sanitary sewer service. Facts. The Project's impacts on Sanitary Sewer Service are discussed on pages 3-5 and 3-53 of the Draft EIR. Findings. Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Projects significant impacts on Sanitary Sewer Service will be reduced to a less than significant level by the imposition of Conditions 23 and 25 of the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures 1 to 2 under the Sanitary Sewer service section of the mitigation monitoring program. H. School Services, 1. Impact: School Capacity - Project impacts on existing school capacity could be mitigated to a level of less than significance through payment of statutory fees. Mitigation: All residences constructed as part of the project would be subject to the applicable school facilities development fees, or alternatively the applicant may pay separate fees negotiated with the District to mitigate impacts on school facilities. Facts. The Project's impacts on existing school capacity are discussed in the Response to Comments Document and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. The Draft EIR indicated that the Project would not have a significant impact on schools. Findings. Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Projects significant impact on School Services will be reduced to a less than significant level by through payment of fees by the imposition of Condition 24 of the Conditions of Approval and the mitigation measure outlined in the School Service Section of the mitigation monitoring program. III. OTHER FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT IMPACTS � z A. Significant Unavoidable impacts, 1 . Facts. (a) The Project's significant effects are discussed in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of the Draft EIR, in Response to Comments and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board 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 Board 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 Board 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 Projects cumulative impacts are discussed in Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Draft E.I.R. and in Response to Comments and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. These impacts are specifically addressed in the various Project impact categories analyzed in the E.I.R. and in Sections II, III, and IV of these findings. (b) The E.I.R. states that several cumulative impacts of the Project are potentially significant when considered with other approved, planned or reasonably forseeable projects including, without limitation, the (i) traffic impacts on local intersections. (c) The E.I.R. recommends mitigation measures for Projects cumulative impacts in conjunction with the mitigation measures recommended for the Projects direct impacts. Id f 2 . Findings. Based on the E.I.R., the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that the Projects significant Cumulative impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the Conditions of Approval referenced in Sections II and III of these findings. IV. FINDINGS REGARDING THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The EIR evaluates and compares four alternatives to the Project, including the No Project Alternative, in Section 4.0 of the Draft EIR, in tahe Response to Comments and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. In considering the Project, this Board has considered whether the alternatives to the Project would reduce the Project's impacts while still achieving the Project's benefits. This Board 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 Board finds that the EIR sets forth a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project to foster informed decision making and informed public participation and to permit a reasoned choice and that the alternatives are adequately discussed and evaluated in the EIR. This Board adopts the findings set forth below regarding these alternatives. A. No Project Aternative. 1 . Facts. (a) The No Project Alternative is discussed at page 4-1 of the Draft EIR, in the Response to Comments and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board 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 ? S proposed Project or any other alternative involving development of the Project Site. However, the alternative is impractical as most of the site is designated single family residential, median density in the County General Plan. Pressure to develop the project parcels would persist, consistent with the Single Family Residential-Medium Density designation and R-10 zoning of the site. Accordingly, some development on the Project Site is probable. 2 . Findings. Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board 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. Accordingly, this Board rejects the No Project Alternative. B. Modified Project Design Alternative, 1 . Facts. (a) The modified project alternative of 19 units, retains the basic components of the project, proposed rezoning of the site to Planned Unit district and preliminary development plan approval, with changes in the proposed design to incorporate mitigation recommended in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR. The proposed Planned Unit rezoning of the site would serve to provide flexibility in the design of the alternative, incorporating environmental factors of concern into the project. (b) Important design modifications focus on screening and breaking up the continuous building mass of residences along the downhill side of the proposed private street. (c) This alternative addresses the potentially significant adverse impacts associated with the project. As indicated on pages 3.1 through 3.5 of the Draft EIR, the Project is adjacent to several developments 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. 96 Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Board finds that this alternative is feasible because it would produce marketable units and increase obtainment of the environmental, social, economic and other benefits to be derived from the Considerations set forth in Section V of the findings. Accordingly, this Board is in favor of the Modified, 19 unit, Project Design Alternative. C. Alternative Project Sites. 1 Facts. (a) The Alternative Project Sites are described in Figure 25 of the Draft EIR. The alternative site locations discussed were included for comparative purposes only, and were selected based on similarities in size to the proposed project site and general location in the El Sobrante area. 2 . Finding Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the administrative record, this Board finds that the Alternative Project Sites are infeasible because they 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 Board, therefore, rejects the Alternative Project Sites. V. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A. Generally,, This Board 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 Board 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 17 r 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 Project Benefits. Specifically, this Board 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 2.6 of athe Draft EIR, in the Response to Comments and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Board relies. The Project will provide 19 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 .Yobs. The Project's creation of jobs is discussed in the administrative record upon which this Board relies. The Project will provide local and regional development- related emplyment 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, houshold-related purchases for groceries, hardware, supplies and similar items will have permanent beneficial effects on the local economy. 3. Public Revenues. 1) R 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 lacal businesses by construction-related emplyees and Project residents and similar transactions. The Project will also contribute fees toward local and regional solutions to public services and facilities needs. VI. FINDINGS SUPPORTING APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION. A. The 19 unit project, as conditioned, is consistent with the County General Plan. The project site plan and the site as amsended by the proposed conditions will assure aesthetic protection of the hillside areas. Special measures are provided to safe guard against fire hazards (eg., interior sprinklers, fire retardant roofs). B. The project will constitute a residential environment of sustainable desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the nearby community. The project which proposes lot sizes of approximately 5,200 square feet to 15,000 square feet of net area is in character with the general range of parcel sizes located in the surrounding area. Further, the project is proposing to set aside approximately 40% of the total gross area of the site (2.71 acres of land, approximately) within an open space scenic easement. The scenic easement would prevent the erection or construction of structures within the upper portion 'of the site. C. In accordance with the required findings of the Planned Unit District, the County finds that the development of a harmonious integrated plan like this project as amended by the attached Conditions of Approval, justifies exceptions from the normal application of the Ordinance Code, including variations in parcel configuration and design to provide better conformity with the environmental features of this site. � 4 REC/P/ENVS COPY. AA"KAGE` 3598827514 '. : ?ederal Express ® QUESTIONS?CALL 800-238-5355 TOLL FREE. TRACKING NUMBER 3598827514 _..e_� _ Date --- ',� From(Your Name)Please Print Your Phone Number(Very Important) To(Recipient's Name)Please Print Recipient's Phone Number(very Important) Robert Lo Dunn (4l�'_-)'�3��7t9go _Clerk, Board of Super#' e ) Company _-...-.-.. DepartmenUFloorNO. Company CONTRA CO'a'I'A COUNTYp rtment/FloWN67 Street Address _ _ --------------- Exact S ree'ddress a annot a rve-o . .Boxe or"P.O.'[ip Codes.) �o 291 :1'tL ,A rOP1 TA ST 1 TTI4 F L Casill- City State j/PRequired City State j/PRequired YOUR INTERNAL BILLING REFERENCE INFORMATION(optional)(First 24 characters will appear on invoice.) IF HOLD AT FEDEX LOCATION,Print FEDEX Address Here Street 9520-4301 Address 5AYMENT 1 Bill Sender 2 Bill Recipient's FedEx Acct.No. 3 Bill 3rd Party FedEx Acct.No. 4 Bill Credit Card City State j/PRequired ❑cash/ Check SERVICES DELIVERYAND SPECIAL HANDLING Rlcxesrs wEtGnr YOURDECLARED. Emp.No. in YDate Federal Express Use 1 - (Check only one box) (Check services required) Only (See rppx) Return Received Base Charges All1otyD-nw StandardOvemlght WeelydaySeMce E](Dnfreryeyrm lleusiness momirgrl (Derveryby nexfbosme ft-o4n. 1 ❑HOLD AT FEDEX LOCATION-WEEKDAY ❑ Returo-Shipment Rosaurowdel eryt) _�__��_�__�_„_ _�_�_�_...._ Third Pa Chg.To Del. Ch To Hold Declared Value Charge - (Fill in Section H) - - ❑ Party ❑ 9� ❑ 9� 11❑OTHER CKAGING 51❑OTHER DELIVER WEEKDAY Street Address ---_----__- .-_.�__.____.__..._....___..__. 16❑FEDEX LETTER'56 "FEDEX LETTER` Saturday SerNce Other 1 12❑FEDEX PAK' 1 52❑FEDEX PAK' 31 [:]HOLD AT FEDEX LOCATION SATURDAY v City State Zip (Fill in Section HI 13❑FEDEX BOX 53❑FEDEX BOX 3❑DELIVER SATURDAY ________Total Total Total Other,2 (Extra charge)(Not available Received B 14❑FEDEX TUBE 54❑FEDEX TUBE 9❑SATURDAY PICK-UP o all locations) r y: (Extra charge) 1 Total Charges Economy Two Day GoverrrawtOvem/ght --------------------------------- DIM SHIp:M NT(ChargeableWeight), X (Ddeerybysecordbusinessday t) (ReardctedIla autho-duses onm Specia/Handiing / _ DateRme Received FedEx Employee Number • REVISION DATE 4/94 30❑ECONOMY" 46❑GOVT 4❑DANGEROUS GOODS(Extra charge) ❑ lbs. PART#145412 FXEM 11/94 LETTER REcenomy Letter Hate notavaiWble. �/ FORMAT#160 M;nimum carpe: 41 GOVT .6 DRY ICE o.. L X '• X H . One pound EcaromyPrra�teLg ❑PACKAGE �❑Dangerous Goods Shipper's Declaration not repaired 1ij (Iorpackapes orait��iMl. Pyka9.IM1&5, x__kg.904111 Received At OVERNIGHT TWO-DAY „prpa; 1❑Regular Stop 3❑Drop Box ®19 70❑FREIGHT" 80❑ FREIGHT" ❑ ( I PRIN a°0"OQAedA HOLIDAY DELIVERY of offered) <O B.S.C. Release u.s. toe canxry meet may Declared value Urnit M. 012❑ be later in some areas. "Call for delivery schedule. (Ext!-charge) zOOr1-Cau Stop ®tagon Signature: