HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01111994 - H.4 H. 4
_ Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa
°: � =•s Count
r amiih -_
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON � � y
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT '.,
00 =_ Ayti4
DATE: January 5, 1994
ST9,COUPI'1'�'G
SUBJECT: Continuation of Dame Construction Company Appeal Hearing on
Bettencourt Ranch Residential Designs (File #3014-93)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Continue the January 11, 1994 appeal hearing of Damd Construction
Company to January 25, 1994 at 2 : 00 P.M. as requested by the
appellant.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
In a letter dated January 5, 1994 , Dame Construction Company has
indicated that their representative will not be able to attend the
Board hearing on January 11, 1994 and has requested the matter be
rescheduled.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATU
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMM ON O B RD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON January 11 , 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
The Clerk of the Board having ascertained that there was not a quorum
of the Board of Supervisors present, continued the hearing on the above
matter to January 25 , 1994 at 2 : 00 p.m. in the Board Chambers .
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Robert Drake - 646-2031
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED January 11 , 1994
cc: Dame Construction Co. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Public Works-Mitch Avalon AND =UNTRADMIF TRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
t
a, 3aPm ,
APPEAL
DAME CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (Applicant & Owner)
COUNTY FILE #3014-93
A request to amend Final Development Plan #3034-88 to modify
existing restrictions to allow the development of two-story
residences on three hillside lots within the Bettencourt Ranch
project.
Danville/Tassajara area.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
JANUARY 11, 1994 - 2 : 30 P.M.
6F
Contra
TO:. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS —� z Costa
1;k'OX: HARVEY E. BRAGDON °1 _ _ County
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT; -„!
q COOK
DATE: January 11, 1994 ,
SUBJECT:. APPEAL OF SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF
REQUEST TO ALLOW TWO-STORY RESIDENCES ON THREE LOTS. IN THE BETTENCOURT
RANCH PROJECT IN THE DANVILLE/TASSAJARA AREA (File 13014-93)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
DENY the appeal of Dame Construction Company and SUSTAIN the denial
of the request by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
A request was filed by Dame Construction Company to amend the
conditions of approval of the Bettencourt Ranch Final Development
Plan to allow two-story residences on three hillside lots. The
request was justified by the applicant because:
• the proposed two-story homes would not be significantly taller
than the one-story home that otherwise would be built on this
site;
• that the lots are not very visible as seen from Camino
Tassajara; and
• that two-story units could be placed with greater setback to
the nearby PG & E overhead electrical transmission lines.
Such setback would presumably result in less exposure to the
electromagnetic field (EMF) associated wiWransmission
lines.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNA
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMIOLNdAtION OARD COMMITTEE `
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Bob Drake 646-2091 ATTESTED
cc: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Dame Construction Company THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Mitch Avalon-Public Works AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
BD:df
r
Page Two
The matter was heard by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission on September 22, 1993. After taking testimony, the
Commission voted 3-1 to deny the request..
On September 29, 1993, an appeal of the Commission's decision was
filed by Dame.
DISCUSSION
The appeal letter raise's no new issues that were not considered by
the Planning Commission. Therefore, staff is.recommending that the
Commission's denial decision be sustained.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Should the Board determine merit in the applicant's request, the
Board may grant the appeal and approve the project provided that
the Board is able to find that the Board can find that the proposal
is consistent with Intent and Purpose of the applicable Planned
Unit (P-1) District.
CEOA STATUS
In the staff report to the Commission, staff indicated that
additional environmental analysis would be necessary relative to
the EMF issue raised by the applicant prior to any approval . The
issue of the EMF was not addressed in the 1987 Environmental Impact
Report for the Bettencourt Ranch project. No additional
environmental review .was performed on this project because staff
was recommending denial of the project and did not wish the
applicant to unnecessarily encumber additional processing expenses
in order to reach a project decision.
On further review of the CEQA issue, staff has concluded that
additional environmental review would not be necessary in order for
the County to approve the project. The reason for this conclusion
is that there has been no credible scientific evidence that has :
been published on the hazards of. EMF. The earlier conclusions on
human health would not be made invalid based on speculated effects
of EMF conditions. Therefore, for purposes of compliance with CEQA
for this plan amendment request, the earlier EIR should be
considered adequate.
` RESOLUTION NO. 45-1993
BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEAL
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
STATE OF .CALIFORNIA
APPEAL - Dame' Construction, Applicant & Owner
Request to Amend the Final Development Plan #3014-93
Danville/Tassajara area
WHEREAS, on January 17 , 1989 the Board of Supervisors approved
the Final Development Plan #3034-88 for the Bettencourt Ranch area
in the Danville/Tassajara area;. and
WHEREAS, said approval restricted the height of residential
structures of several hillside lots to one-story only including
three lots adjoining a PG&E substation identified as Lots #263 , 264
and 265 of the approved subdivision Tentative Map #7188 which
subsequently became Lots #28, 29 and 30 of Subdivision Final Map
#7278; said restrictions were intended (1) to mitigate the
appearance of the project, and (2) to minimize views from the
subject lots into the PG&E substation located below the lots; and
WHEREAS, on August 3 , 1993 , Dame' Construction (Applicant &
Owner) , filed an application to amend Final Development Plan #3034-
88 (Bettencourt Ranch) to relax the development restrictions for
the three hillside lots to allow development of two-story
dwellings; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given,
a public hearing was scheduled initially before the San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission on August 18 , 1993 and
rescheduled at the applicant's request to September . 22 , 1993 ,
whereat all persons interested might appear and be heard; and "
WHEREAS, on Wednesday, September 22, 1993 , the San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission having fully reviewed,
considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted
in this matter; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission DENIED the request by Dame' Construction
Company to amend Final Development Plan #3034-88 ; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this decision are
as follows:
1. The applicant has failed to comply with the one-story height
restriction on four other lots within the Bettencourt Ranch
project which were restricted to a single-story (Lots 7 and 8
.PAGE TWO RESOLUTION NO. 45-1993
of SUB 7277 and Lots 105, and 108 of SUB 7278) ; and that the
County should not consider relaxation of building height
restrictions unless the applicant has "clean hands" .
2. The requested relaxation of height restrictions would not be
consistent with the intent and purpose of the . applicable
Planned Unit (P-1) District. Further, it is not possible to
make all of the pertinent P-1 evaluations for this request
inclusive that the proposal would constitute a residential
environment of sustained desirability and stability, and would
be in harmony of the character of the surrounding neighborhood
and. community'.
3. _ The original reasons for restricting the height of residences
on these lots which served as the basis for the 1989 approval ,
of the Final Development Plan remain valid.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the foregoing was given by vote of
the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission in a regular
meeting on Wednesday, September 22 , 1993 as follows:
AYES: Commissioners - Vaidorf, Cameron, Matsunaga
NOES Commissioners - Kaye
ABSENT: Commissioners - Auch, Jones, Moore
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that following the decision, a letter
was received by the Community Development Department on September
29, 1993 from the applicant appealing the decision of the San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors;
ATTEST:
rvey agdon, Secretary
f the n amon Valley Regional
Planning ommission, County
of Contra Costa, State of
California
BD/df
3014-93.res
Michael Rupprecht
D{-,me' Construction Co .
Pld. Box 1447
San Ramon, CA 94583
Page 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 ) 'Prcl:203-530-001-7 Site: 3402 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 9450
Ownr:PAISNER,JEFFREY A .& D Mail:3402 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA . 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: (510) 838-7698 Xmpt:Y Tfr: $354 ,500 Date:08/28/86
Loans: Yb: 1986 Doc Num: 13089275 Asd:$399,221 Imp:59%
Zn:Pl S4ft: 3,068 #Units: l Bdrms: 4 Bths: 3 .0 Lotsz: 16,250
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 ) Prcl:203-530-002-5 Site 3408 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:MORGAN,THOMAS F TR Mail:3408 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:1 RES&COMMN AREA Ph: (510) 820-1069 Xmpt:Y Tfr:$448, 000F Date:06/07/89
Loans: $336, 000 Yb:1981 Doc Num: 105355 Asd:$378,800 Imp:47%
Zn:Pl Sgft:2,,048 #Units: l Bdrms: 3 Bths: 2 .0 Lotsz: 12,800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------.----
3 ) Prcl:203-530-003-3 Site: 3414 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:ROSS,KENT&GAIL Y7,dl: 3414 .SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: Date: 08/06/93
Loans: Yb: 1981 Doc. Num:210377 Asd:$369,, 068 Imp: 55%
Zn:Pl Sgft:2 ,430 #Units: l Bdrms: 3 Bths: 2 . 0 Lotsz: 11, 102
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 ) Prcl: 203-530-004-1 Site: 3418 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:GIPSON,BEN J & MARY. A Mail: 3418 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr:$352 , 500F 'Date: 11/10/88
Loans: $300, 000 Yb: 19.82 Doc Num: 14708578 Asd: $381, 556 Imp:48%
Zn:Pl Sgft:2, 048 #Units: l Bdrms: 3 Bths: 2 . 0 Lotsz : 11, 160
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 - . ) Prcl: 203-530-005-8 Site: 3422 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:CRAWLEY,CHARLES. M Mail: 3422 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA. 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt: Tfr:$422 , 000F Date: 01/27/93
Loans: $203, 000 Yb: 1981 Doc Num:21940 Asd: $421, 500 Imp:50%
Zn:Pl Sgft:2 , 604 #Units: l Bdrms: 3 Bths: 2 . 5 Lotsz: 11,970
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 ) Prcl: 203-530-006-6 Site: 3426 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:CALDOW,DAVID M & MARG Mail : 3426 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: (510) 736-3933 Xmpt:Y Tfr: $422 , 500F Date: 03/10/89
Loans: $338, 000 Yb: 1981 Doc Num:44169 Asd: $477,807 Imp: 57%
Zn:Pl Sgft: 2 , 664 #Units: l Bdrms: 3 Bths: 2 . 5 Lotsz: 12, 642
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 ) Prcl : 203-530-007-4 Site: 3430 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:WALLACE,GARY C & DEBO Mail: 3430 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $230, 000 Date: 10/23/80
Loans: Yb:1981 Doc Num: 10060136 Asd: $328, 512 Imp: 57%
Zn:Pl Sgft: 3 , 145 #Units: l Bdrms: 6 Bths: 3 . 0 Lotsz : 12,726
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 ) Prc1 : 203-530-008-2 Site: 3434 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:LOUIE,TERENCE & MARYA Mail: 3434 SILVER,MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: (510) 736-2023 Xmpt:Y Tfr: . Date: 12/07/90
Loans: Yb: 1981 Doc Num: 252913 Asd: $349, 184 Imp: 59%
Zn: Pl Sgft:.2 , 977 #Units: l Bdrms: 3 Bths: 2 . 5 Lotsz: 12 , 726
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 ) Prcl : 203-530-009-0 Site: 3438 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:R & B FAMILY ESTATE T Mail : 3438 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: Date: 10/30/89
Loans: Yb: 1982 Doc Num: 218714 Asd: $375, 383 Imp: 64%
Zn:Pl Sgft: 2 , 663 #Units: l Bdrms: 3 Bths: 2 . 5 Lotsz : 13 , 200
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 1993 Dataquick Information Network
Page 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
io'%I ) Prcl:203-530-010-8 Site:3442 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr.:HALL,MILLARD D & JOY Mail:3442 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN ,AREA Ph: (510) 736-2708 Xmpt:Y Tfr:$455, 000F Date: 08/15/8 9
Loans: $341, 000 Yb: 1982 Doc Num: 155580 Asd: $482,849 Imp:58%
Zn:Pl Sgft:2 ,430 #Units: l Bdrms: 3 Bths: 2 . 0 Lotsz: 14 , 0.39
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 ) Prcl:203-530-011-6 Site: 3446 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:DERMODY,TIMOTHY L & S Mail: 3446 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: (510)736-3446 Xmpt:Y Tfr:$305,000 Date: 07/03/86
Loans: Yb:1982 Doc Num: 12980345 Asd: $343,476 Imp: 64%
Zn:Pl Sgft:2 , 604 #Units: l Bdrms: 3 Bths: 2 .5 Lotsz: 13 , 400
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 ) Prcl:203-530-012-4 Site: 3450 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:WESTERHOUT,DALE L & P Mail:3450 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $264, 000 Date: 01/16/81
Loans: Yb: 1982 Doc Num: 10168219 Asd:$355,270 Imp:60%
Zn:Pl Sgft:2 , 663 #Units: l Bdrms: 3 Bths: 2 . 5 Lotsz: 12 , 474
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 ) Prcl:203-530-013-2 Site: 3454 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:GEHRMANN,ROBERT S & M Mail: 3454 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: (510) 820-6067 Xmpt:Y Tfr: Date: 06/17/86
Loans: . Yb: 1982 Doc Num: 12944432 Asd: $298, 653 Imp: 58%
Zn:Pl Sgft: 2 , 048 #Units: l Bdrms: 3 Bths: 2. 0 Lotsz: 11, 193
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 ) Prcl:203-530-014-0 Site: 3458 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BAKER,JOHN N & KATHLE Mail: 3458 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $400, 000F Date: 05/01/91
Loans: $230, 000 Yb: 1982 Doc Num:80221 Asd: $416, 160 Imp: 53%
Zn:Pl Sgft: 2 , 604 #Units: l Bdrms: 3 Bths: 2 . 5 Lotsz : 11, 640
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 ) Prcl:203-530-015-7 Site: 3462 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:TAORMINO,HOWARD L Mail : 3462 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $492 , 500F Date: 06/21/90
Loans: $394 , 00.0 1Yb: 1981 Doc Num: 126476 Asd: $522, 644 Imp: 54%
Zn:Pl Sgft:2 , 412 #Units: l Bdrms: 3 ' Bths: 2 .0 Lotsz: 11, 328
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 ) Prcl:203-530-016-5 Site: 3466 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BERG,RICHARD J & EVA Mail : 3466 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $497, 000F Date: 03/20/92
Loans: $397 , 000 Yb: 1982 Doc Num: 66599 Asd: $506, 940 Imp: 65%
Zn:Pl Sgft: 2 , 913 #Units: l Bdrms: 4 Bths: 3 . 0 Lotsz: 11, 682
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 ) Prcl: 203-530-017-3 Site: 3470 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BONINO,ALEX C Mail : 3470 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: (510) 837-0647 Xmpt:Y Tfr: $35, 000 Date: 05/09/86
Loans: Yb: 1982 Doc Num: 12875446 Asd: $303 , 403. Imp: 44%
Zn:Pl Sgft: 2 , 048 #Units: l Bdrms: 3 Bths: 2 . 0 Lotsz : 12 , 348
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 ) Prcl: 203-530-018-1 Site: 3474 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:TOLDALAGI , PAUL M & MA Mail : 75 CAMBRIDGE PKY*CAMBRIDGE MA 02142
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: (617) 621-1328 Xmpt: Tfr: $78 , 500 Date: 08/03/84
Loans: Yb: 1982 Doc Num: 11909289 Asd: $374 , 352 Imp: 53%
Zn:Pl Sgft: 2 , 430 #Units: l Bdrms: 3 Bths: 2 . 0 Lotsz : 11 , 970
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 1993 Dataquick Information Network
Page 3
----------------------------------- -------------------------------------------j
19 ) Prcl:203-780-004-8 Site:4175 BLACKHAWK PLAZA CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:PLAZA RETAIL PROPERTI Mail:3820 BLACKHAWK RD*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:THEATERS Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: Date: 10/29/92
Loans: Yb: Doc Num:285.840 Asd: $3,369,770 Imp:.81%
Zn: Sgft:30, 504 #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz: 27,878
20 ) Prcl:203-780-005-5 Site:4165 BLACKHAWK PLAZA CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BLACKHAWK MEDICAL .CEN Mail:919 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD*DANVILLE CA 94526
Use:OFFICE BLDGS Ph: Xmpt.: Tfr:$900,000F Date:09/20/88
Loans: $4, 010,000 . Yb:1990. Doc Num:14599191 Asd: $3,269,901 Imp:70%
Zn: . Sgft:22, 000 #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz: 20,908
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 ) Prcl:203-780-011-3 Site: *DANVILLE CA 94506.
Ownr:PLAZA RETAIL PROPERTI Mail: 3820 BLACKHAWK RD*DANVTLLE CA 94506
Use:SHOPPING CENTERS Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: Date:06/30/92
Loans: Yb: Doc Num: 17632577 Asd: $646, 384 Imp: O%
Zn: Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz: 23, 522
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22 ) Prcl:203-780-012-1 Site: *DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:PLAZA RETAIL PROPERTI Mail: 3820 BLACKHAWK RD*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:SHOPPING CENTERS Ph: . Xmpt: Tfr: Date: 06/30/92
Loans: Yb: 1991 Doc Num: 17632577 Asd: $1,702 , 674 Imp: 46%
Zn: Sgft: 7,844 #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz : 33 , 105
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 ) Prcl:203-780-026-1 Site: *DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BLACKHAWK COMM OWNERS Mail:PO BOX V*WALNUT CREEK CA 94596
Use:COMMON AREA Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: Date:01/12/89
Loans: Yb: Doc Num: 14827185 Asd: Imp: O%
Zn: Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 ) Prcl: 203-780-027-9 Site: *DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BLACKHAWK COMM OWNERS Mail :PO` BOX V*WALNUT CREEK CA 94596
Use:COMMON AREA Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: Date: 01/12/89
Loans: Yb: Doc Num: 14827185 Asd: Imp: O%
Zn: Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz :
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 ) Prcl: 203-780-029-5 Site: *DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BLACKHAWK COMM OWNERS Mail :PO BOX V*WALNUT CREEK CA 94596
Use:COMMON AREA Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: Date: 01/06/88
Loans Yb: Doc Num: 14111850 Asd: Imp: O%
Zn: Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz :
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26 ) Prcl: 203-780-030-3 Site: *DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BLACKHAWK COMM OWNERS Mail:PO BOX V*WALNUT CREEK CA 94596
Use:COMMON AREA Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: Date: 01/06/88
Loans: Yb: Doc Num: 14111850 Asd: Imp: O%
Zn: Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz :
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27 ) Prcl : 203-780-040-2 Site: *DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BLACKHAWK COMM OWNERS Mail: PO BOX V*WALNUT CREEK CA 94596
Use:COMMON AREA Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: Date: 01/12/89
Loans: Yb: Doc Num: 14827185 Asd: Imp: O%
Zn: Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz :
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 1993 Dataquick Information Network
Page 4
28 ',, ) Prcl:203-780-041-0 Site: *DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BLACKHAWK COMM OWNERS Mail:PO BOX V*WALNUT CREEK CA 94596
Use:COMMON AREA Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: Date:01/12/89
Loans: Yb: Doc Num:14827185 Asd: Imp:O%
Zn: Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 ) Prcl:203-780-042-8 Site: *DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BLACKHAWK COMM OWNERS Mail:PO BOX V*WALNUT CREEK CA 94596
Use:COMMON AREA Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: Date: 01/12/89
Loans: Yb: Doc Num: 14827185 Asd: Imp: O%
Zn: Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 ) Prcl:203-780-043-6 Site: *DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BLACKHAWK COMM OWNERS Mail:PO BOX V*WALNUT CREEK CA 94596
Use:COMMON AREA Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: Date: 01/1x/89
Loans: Yb: Doc Num: 14827185 Asd: Imp: O%
Zn: Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz :
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31 ) Prcl:203-780-045-1 Site: *DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BLACKHAWK COMM OWNERS Mail:PO BOX V*WALNUT CREEK CA 94596
Use:COMMON AREA Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: Date: 01/12/89
Loans: Yb: Doc Num: 14827185 Asd: Imp: O%
Zn: Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz :
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32 ) Prcl: 203-780-046-9 Site: *DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BLACKHAWK COMM OWNERS Mail:PO BOX V*WALNUT CREEK CA 94596
Use:COMMON AREA Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: Date: 01/12/89
Loans: Yb: Doc Num: 14827185 Asd: Imp: O%
Zn: Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz :
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33 ) Prcl: 203-780-050-1 Site: *DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BLACKHAWK COMM OWNERS Mail :PO BOX V*WALNUT CREEK CA 94596
Use:COMMON AREA Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: Date: 01/06/88
Loans: Yb: Doc Num: 14111850 Asd: Imp: 0%
Zn: Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz :
------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------
34 ) Prcl : 203-780-051-9 Site: *DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BLACKHAWK COMM OWNERS Mail:PO BOX V*WALNUT CREEK CA 94596
Use:COMMON AREA Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: Date: 01/06/88
Loans: Yb: Doc Num: 14111850 Asd: Imp: O%
Zn: Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz :
-----------------------------------------------------------------=------------
35 ) Prcl:203-780-062-6 Site:4145 BLACKHAWK PLAZA CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:RENOWN ENTERPRISES IN Mail: 4145 BLACKHAWK PLAZA CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:OFFICE BLDGS Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: Date: 09/14/87
Loans: Yb: 1989 Doc Num: 13894510 Asd: $2 , 054 , 111 Imp: 71%
Zn: Sgft: 13 , 633 #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz : 13 , 952
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36 ) Prcl :203-780-070-9 Site: 3700 BLACKHAWK PLAZA CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BEHRING EDUCATIONAL I Mail : 3700 BLACKHAWK PLAZA CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:CULTURAL USES Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: Date: 07/08/85
Loans: Yb: 1988 Doc Num: 12394712 Asd: $18 , 266, 332 Imp: 77%
Zn: Sgft: 91, 153 #Units: Bdrms: Bths: I Lotsz : 2 . 71 A
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 1993 Dataquick Information Network
Page 5
----------------------------------------n--------------------------------------
37 ) Prcl:203-78 0075-8 Site: *DANVILLE CA 9450v
Ownr:.PLAZA RETAIL PROPERTI Mail: 3820 BLACKHAWK RD*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:COMMON AREA Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: Date: 06/30/92
Loans: Yb: Doc Num: 17632577 Asd: Imp: O%
Zn: Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz: 1.46 A
38 ) Prcl:203-780-078-2 Site: *DANVILLE CA 94506.
Ownr:BLACKHAWK COMM OWNERS Mail:PO BOX V*WALNUT CREEK CA 94596
Use:COMMON AREA . .Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: Date:01/06/88
Loans: Yb: Doc Num: 14111850 Asd: Imp: 0%
Zn: Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: , Bths:. Lotsz: 2.82 A
-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------
39 ) Prcl:220-750-002-2 Site: 3805 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BANSIL,ARTURO E & ALI Mail: 3805 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr:$350, 000F Date: 07/31/91
.Loans: $280, 000 Yb: Doc Num: 152818 Asd:$356,898 Imp: 52%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: l Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz: 6,975
40 ) Prcl:220-750-003-0 Site: 3809 SHEFFIELD. CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506 .
Ownr:DHAMI,MANDHIR S . & SUS Mail: 3809 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94-506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr:$356, 000 Date: 06/28/91
. Loans: Yb: Doc Num: 16700024 Asd: $370,277 Imp: 53%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: l Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz: 7, 650
---------------=--------------------------------------------------------------
41 ) Prcl: 220-750-004-8 Site: 3813 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:OLINGER,THOMAS P & SA. Mail : 3813 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $340, 000F Date: 10/08/91
Loans: $200, 000. Yb: . Doc Num: 211926 Asd: $346, 698 Imp: 51%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: l Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz : . 9, 300
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42 ) Prc1 :220-750-005-5 Site: 3817 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:ARONIAN,LOU & ELLEN H Mail : 3817 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: Date: 05/31/91
Loans: Yb: Doc Num: 16634788 Asd: $358, 266 Imp: 69%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: l Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz: 12, 800
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
43 ) Prcl:220-75 0006-3 Site: 3821 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:HIRA,AMRIK S&BALJEET Mail: 3821 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $356, 000 Date: 06/12/91
Loans: Yb: Doc Num: 16659321 Asd: $370,277 Imp: 53%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: l Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz: 9, 050
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
44 ) Prcl :220-750-007-1 Site: 3825 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:MIRAMONTES,ROBERTO C Mail: 3825 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $358, 000F Date: 11/01/91
Loans: $55, 000 Yb: Doc Num: 230469 Asd: $167, 160 Imp: 68%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: l Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz : 6, 900
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
45 ) Prcl :220-75 0008-9 Site: 3829 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BURNS,JOHN R & JEAN L Mail: 3829 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: (510) 736-8145 Xmpt:Y Tfr: $350, 000 Date: 06/06/91
Loans: Yb: Doc Num: 16648308 Asd: $364 ; 035 Imp: 52%
Zn: Pl Sqft: #Units : l Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz : 7 , 762
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 1993 Dataquick Information Network
Page 6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46 ,j ) Prcl:220-750-009-7 Site:3833 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Awnr:AW,CHARLES & GLORIA Mail:3833 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: (510) 676-2670 Xmpt:Y Tfr:$330, 000F Date:03/31/92
Loans: $105, 000 Yb: Doc Num:76312 Asd: $73,615 Imp:70%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: l Bdrms: Bths: . Lotsz: 7,460
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
47 ) Prcl:220-750-010-5 Site: 3837 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:YEE,EDWARD NOON GIN & Mail:3837 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr:$360,091 Date:06/28/91
Loans: Yb: Doc Num: 16703710 Asd:$363,95.0 IImp:55%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: l Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz: 7, 150
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
48 ) Prcl:220-750-011-3 Site: 3841 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:HOWARD,GREGORY&LYNDA " Mail:3841 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: (510) 736-2819 Xmpt: Tfr:$149, 000F Date:04/07/93
Loans: $300, 000 Yb: Doc Num:90099 Asd: $378 ,930 Imp: 55%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: l Bdrms: Bths_: Lotsz: 8,425
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
49 ) -Prcl:220-750-012-1 Site:3845 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:WANG,SHIH KUANG Mail: 3845 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:RES VACANT LAND Ph: (510) 736-0903 Xmpt:Y Tfr: $353, 000F Date: 08/01/91
Loans: Yb: Doc Num: 153069 Asd:$359,958 Imp: 52%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz : 7, 865
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50 ) Prcl: 220-750-013-9 Site:3849 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:KHAN,M FEROZ & SHAHIN Mail: 3849 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:RES VACANT LAND Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $360, 000F Date: 04/24/92
Loans: $272, 000 Yb: Doc Num: 101568 Asd: $379,440 Imp: 58%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz : 7, 150
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
51 ) Prcl:220-750-014-7 Site: 3853 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:MOORE,DAVID & WENDY Mail: 3853. SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:RES VACANT LAND Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $375, 000 Date: 06/27/91
. Loans: Yb: Doc Num: 16696127 Asd: $390, 045 Imp: 55%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz : 7, 150
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
52 ) Prcl:220-750-015-4 Site: 3857 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:MAYORGA,DANILO Mail: 3857 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:RES VACANT LAND Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $362 , 000F Date: 11/01/91
Loans: $253 , 000 Yb: Doc Num: 230473 Asd: $369, 138 Imp: 53%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz : 8, 600
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
53 ) Prcl: 220-750-016-2 Site: 3861 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:KILZER,DAVID J & BONN Mail: 3861 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:RES VACANT LAND Ph: (510) 736-4770 Xmpt:Y Tfr:$378, 500F Date: 09/13/91
Loans: $340, 000 Yb: Doc Num: 186140 Asd: $385, 662 Imp: 55%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz : 8,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
54 ) Prc.1 : 220-750-017-0 Site: 3865 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:DIETRICH,RONALD J & P Mail : 3865 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:RES VACANT LAND Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $363 , 000F Date: 08/28/91
Loans: $250, 000 Yb: Doc Num: 174841 Asd: $370, 158 Imp: 54%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units : Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz : 8 , 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 1993 Dataquick Information Network
Page 7
-------------------------------=--------7-------------------------------------
55 ) Prcl:220-750-018-8 Site: 3869 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94501
Ownr:SILVA,RICHARD J N & V Mail: 3.869 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:RES VACANT LAND Ph: (510) 736-5852 Xmpt:Y Tfr: $373,000F Date:07/31/91
Loans: $280, 000 Yb: Doc Num: 152815 Asd: $367, 640 Imp:53%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz: 7,500
----------I
) Prcl:220-750-025-3 Site: 3874 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BALDACCI,LOUIS R Mail: 3874 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:RES VACANT LAND. Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr:$315, 000F Date: 12/30/91
Loans: $115, 000 Yb: Doc Num:273245 Asd: $364, 140 Imp:53%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz: 6,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
57 ) Prcl: 220-750-026-1 Site: 3870 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BENAOUDA,ABDELKADER & Mail: 3870 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:RES VACANT .LAND Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr:$325,000F Date:02/26/92
Loans: $195, 000 Yb: Doc Num:42375 Asd: $331, 398 Imp:48%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz : 8,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
58 ) Prcl:220-750-027-9 Site: 3862 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:HEATHMAN,BRYAN W & DO Mail: 3862 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:RES VACANT LAND Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $350, 000F Date: 02/28/92
Loans: $280, 000 Yb: Doc Num:46094 Asd: $356, 898 Imp: 52%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz : 8, 100
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
59 ) ,Prcl: 220-750-028-7 Site:3858 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:PREDMORE,JAMES E & SY Mail: 3858 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:RES VACANT LAND Ph: (5.10) 736-9235 Xmpt:Y Tfr: $368, 000F Date: 08/09/91
Loans: $304 , 000 Yb: Doc Num: 160899 Asd: $394 , 398 Imp: 56%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz: 71800
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 ) Prcl: 220-750-029-5 Site: 3854 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Owhr:SZETO,SUM-KUEN & YEE- Mail: 3854 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:RES VACANT LAND Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $363 , 000F Date: 08/27/91
Loans: '$150, 000 Yb: Doc Num: 173267 Asd: $370, 158 Imp:54%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz : 7,800
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
61 ) Prcl: 220-750-030-3 Site: 3850 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BREGER,RONALD C & LIS Mail:3850 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:RES VACANT LAND Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $330, 000F Date: 03/20/92
Loans: $202 , 000 Yb: Doc Num: 65984 Asd: $336, 498 Imp: 53%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz : 7 ,800
-------------------------------------=----------------------------------------
62 ) Prcl: 220-750-031-1 Site: 3846 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:HSU,TOM 'Mail : 3846 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:RES VACANT LAND Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $365, 000F Date: 07/08/92
Loans: $150, 000 Yb: Doc Num: 171826 Asd: $364 ,900 Imp: 58%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz : 7, 870
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63 ) Prcl : 220-750-032-9 Site: 3842 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:KACZMAREK,KEITH W & T Mail : 3842 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:RES VACANT LAND Ph: (-510) 736-7353 Xmpt:Y Tfr: $363 , 000F Date: 08/01/91
Loans: $337 , 000 Yb: Doc Num: 153066 Asd: $370, 260 Imp: 54%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: . Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz : 8 , 900
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 19.93 Dataquick Information Network
l
Page 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
64,, . ) Prcl:220-750-033-7 Site:3.838 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Owfir:LOCKWOOD,LISA ANN Mail: 3490 BUSKIRK AVE*PLEASANT HILL CA 94523
Use:RES VACANT LAND Ph: Xmpt: Tfr:$353, 000F Date: 08/23/91
Loans: $100,000 Yb: Doc Num: 171264 Asd:$359,958 Imp:52%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz: 7,700
------------------------------------------------------- --------------
65 ) Prcl:220-750-034-5 Site:3834 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:STRAUB,DUANE P &. KATH Mail: 3834 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:RES VACANT LAND Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr:$368, 000F Date:08/08/91
Loans: $230, 000 Yb: Doc Num: 158875 Asd:$375,258 Imp:54%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz: 8, 160
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
66 ) Prcl:220-750-035-2 8ite: 3830 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:WARD,ROBERT E & TERRI Mail : 3830 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:RES VACANT LAND Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $350, 000F Date: 05/06/92
Loans: $260, 000 Yb: Doc Num: 112497 Asd: $356,898 Imp: 56%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
67 ) Prcl: 220-750-036-0 Site: 3826 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BRANSON,GARY W & DIAN Mail: 3826 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:RES VACANT LAND Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $365, 000F Date: 05/15/92
Loans: $240, 000 Yb: Doc Num: 123027 Asd: $381, 276 Imp: 59%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
68 ) Prcl: 220-750-037-8 Site: 3818 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:MARTINEZ,PAUL A & MAR Mail: 3818 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:RES VACANT LAND Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $354 , 000F Date: 09/06/91
Loans: $283 , 000 Yb: Doc Num: 181597 Asd: $360, 672 Imp: 52%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz :
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
69 ) Prcl:220-750-038-6 Site: 3804 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:MC CANN,ANTHONY H & C Mail : 3804 SHEFFIELD CIR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:RES VACANT LAND Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $365, 000F Date: 06/09/92
Loans: $274 , 000 Yb: Doc Num: 145297 Asd: $372 , 198 Imp: 58%
Zn:P1 .Sgft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
70 ) Prcl: 220-750-041-0 Site: 105 BEDFORD CT*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:CUCCIA,MICHAEL F & DE Mail: 105 BEDFORD CT*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:RES VACANT LAND Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $370, 000 Date: 11/27/91
Loans: Yb: Doc Num: 17043127 Asd:$377 , 298 Imp: 54%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
71 ) Prcl:220-750-042-8 Site: 106 BEDFORD CT*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:EDDY,JAMES D & LESLIE Mail : 106 BEDFORD CT*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:RES VACANT LAND Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $350 , 000F Date: 04/22/92
Loans: $270, 000 Yb: Doc Num:96885 Asd: $356, 898 Imp: 56%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: ILotsz :
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
72 ) Prcl : 220-750-047-7 Site: 320 NEWGATE CT*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:WAGNER,JON R & DONNA Mail : 320 NEWGATE CT*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:RES VACANT LAND Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $350 , 000F Date: 05/08/92
Loans: $315, 000 Yb: Doc Num: 115062 Asd: $356, 898 Imp: 56%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz :
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 1993 Dataquick Information Network
Page 9
73 ) Prcl:220-750-048-5 Site 316 NEWGATE CT*DANVILLE CA - 94506`
Ownr:MC DERMOTT,DANIEL E & Mail:316 NEWGATE CT*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:RES VACANT LAND Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $360, 000F Date: 05/20/92
Loans: $328, 000 Yb: Doc Num: 126414 Asd: $371, 790 Imp: 58%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 1993 Dataquick Information Network
Page 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 ) Prcl:203-530-022-3 Site:4114 SUGAR MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:DAVIS,JAMES I & ROBER Mail:4114 SUGAR MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: (510) 736-3411 Xmpt:Y Tfr: Date: 10/01/92
Loans: Yb: 1982 Doc Num: 17894733 Asd: $578, 357 Imp: 65%
Zn:Pl Sgft:2, 809 #Units: l Bdrms: 2 Bths: 2. 5 Lotsz:. 20,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 ) Prcl:203-530-023-1 Site:4120 SUGAR MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:LUKITO,YAN & SUSAN C Mail:4120 SUGAR MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use:l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt: Tfr:$440, 000F Date:01/15/88
Loans: $396,000 Yb: 1985 Doc Num:14127143 Asd:$485,792 Imp: 63%
Zn:Pl Sgft:3,459 #Units: l Bdrms: 3 Bths: 2. 5 Lotsz: 23, 085
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 ) Prcl:203-530-024-9 Site:4126 SUGAR MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:DOYAS,ELAINE N Mail: 4126 SUGAR MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: (510) 837-5437 Xmpt:Y Tfr: Date: 12/30/86
Loans: Yb: 1982 Doc Num: 13355122 Asd: $419, 965 Imp: 72%
Zn:Pl Sgft: 2,955 #Uhits: l Bdrms: 4 Bths: 2 . 5 Lotsz: 32, 000
---------------------------------------------------------=--------------------
4 ) Prcl:203-530-025-6 Site:4130 SUGAR MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:SWAMY,VISHNU DEO & LA Mail:4130 SUGAR MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: (510) 625-1893 Xmpt:Y Tfr:.$651, 000F Date: 08/09/90
Loans: $487, 000 Yb: 1990 Doc Num: 162254 Asd: $677 , 300 Imp: 65%
Zn:Pl Sgft: 3,892 #Units: l Bdrms: 4 Bths: 3 . 0 Lotsz: 16, 800
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 . ) Prcl:203-530-026-4 Site: 4131 SUGAR MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BACA,DENNIS E Mail: 5139 PT CHICAGO HWY*CONCORD CA 94520
Use:RES VACANT LAND Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: $105, 000 Date: 06/25/85
Loans: Yb: Doc Num: 12375024 Asd: $123 , 021 Imp: 0%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz: 15, 840
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 ) Prcl:203-530-029-8 Site: 4119 SUGAR MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:CRAWFORD,JOHN C & MAR Mail : 4119 SUGAR MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $435, 000 Date: 08/26/87
Loans: Yb: 1985 Doc Num: 13860344 Asd: $480, 272 Imp: 62%
Zn:Pl Sgft:2 , 593 #Units: l IBdrms: 4 Bths: 3 . 0 Lotsz: 15, 500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 ) Prcl : 203-530-049-6 Site: 3463 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:PAPADOPOULOS,PANOS & Mail: 3463 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $565, 000F Date: 11/28/90
Loans: $450, 000. Yb:1985 Doc Num:245748 Asd: $587 , 826 Imp: 46%
Zn:Pl Sgft: 3 , 525 #Units: l Bdrms: 3 Bths: 3 . 5 Lotsz: 15, 488
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 ) Prcl:203-530-050-4 Site:3457 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:CONNELLY,JOSEPH J & H Mail: 3457 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: (510) 837-7266 Xmpt:Y Tfr: Date: 07/02/92
Loans: Yb: 1985 Doc Num: 169073 Asd: $384 ,804 Imp: 64%
Zn:Pl Sgft: 2 , 748 #Units: l Bdrms: 4 Bths: 2 . 5 Lotsz: 14 , 514
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 ) Prcl: 203-530-051-2 Site:400 FULL MOON WAY*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:DIGGINS,JAMES E & CHR Mail:400 FULL MOON WAY*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES.&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $383 , 000 Date: 03/13/87
Loans: Yb: 1985 Doc Num: 13505979 Asd: $466 , 223 Imp: 61%
Zn:Pl Sgft: 3 , 070 #Units: l Bdrms: 4 Bths: 3 . 5 Lotsz : 20, 800
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 1993 Dataquick Information Network
- rt
Page. 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 ) Prcl:203-530-058-7 Site:405 FULL MOON WAY*DANVILLE CA 94506'
Ownr:HOLZAPFEL,PAUL F & DO Mai1:405 FULL MOON WAY*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr:$346,500 Date: 08/02/85
Loans: ., Yb: 1981 Doc Num: 12439058 Asd:$398,015 Imp:70%
Zn:Pl Sgft:2,825 #Units: l Bdrms: 3 Bths: , 2 .5 Lotsz: 15, 600
11 ) Prcl:203-530-059-5 Site:401 FULL MOON WAY*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:ARNETT,THOMAS G & MAR- Mail:401 FULL MOON WAY*DANVILLE CA 94506 .
Us.e; l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: $340, 000 Date: 03/05/85
Loans: Yb: 1984 Doc Num: 12210103 Asd:$428,455 Imp: 61%
Zn:Pl Sgft: 2,741 #Units: l Bdrms: 4 Bths: 3 . 0 Lotsz: .17 , 160
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 ) Prcl:203-530-060-3 Site:3435 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:MARKAKIS,CHARLES P & Mail: 343,5 SILVER MAPLE hR*DANVILLE CA - 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA. Ph: (510) 736-2055 Xmpt:Y Tfr:$325, 000 Date: 12/02/86
Loans: Yb: 1981 Doc Num: 13291952 Asd: $365,998 Imp: 66%
Zn:Pl Sgft:2 ,712 #Units: l Bdrms: 4 Bths: 2.5 Lotsz: 10, 600
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 . ) Prcl:203-530-061-1 Site: 3431 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:JOHNSON,JOEL M & CHRI Mail:3431 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA. Ph: (510) 820-6847 Xmpt:Y Tfr: $413 , 500F Date: 12/29/.88
Loans: $175, 000 Yb: 1983 Doc Num: 14798718 Asd:$447,584 Imp: 67
Zn:Pl Sgft:21, 692 #Units: l Bdrms: 3 Bths: 2 . 5 Lotsz : 10, 700
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 ) Prcl: 203-530-062-9 Site: 304 RED MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:WHEELER,CALVIN B&SARA Mail : 304 RED .MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $415, 000F Date: 11/09/87
Loans: $332 , 000 Yb: 1983 Doc Num:6876000 Asd: $458, 190 Imp:.42%
Zn:Pl Sgft: 3, 333 #Units: l Bdrms: 4 Bths: 3 . 0 Lotsz : 18, 920
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 ) Prcl: 203-530-089-2 Site: 17 RED MAPLE PL*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:SERBIN,ROBERT & YVONN Mail : 17 RED MAPLE PL*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: (510) 736-7402 Xmpt:Y Tfr: $238, 000 Date: 06/24/82
Loans: Yb: 1983 Doc Num: 10826099 Asd: $315, 210 Imp: 50%
Zn:Pl Sgft:2 , 637 #Units: l Bdrms: 4 Bths: 2 .5 Lotsz: 16, 800
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 ) Prcl :203-530-090-0 Site: 15 RED MAPLE PL*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:COOPER,RONALD&ELIZABE Mail : 15 RED MAPLE PL*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l. RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: $530, 000F Date: 04/02/93
Loans: $424 , 000 Yb: 1983 Doc Num:84383 Asd: $476, 160 Imp: 69
Zn:Pl Sgft:2,769 #Units: l Bdrms: 4 Bths: 2 . 5 Lotsz : 16, 800
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 ) Prcl: 203-530-093-4 Site:-325 RED MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:DAVIS,ROBERT&LISA Mail: 325 RED MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: $452 , 000F Date: 05/06/93
Loans: $400,000 Yb: 1982 Doc Num: 118124 Asd: $425, 582 Imp: 67%
Zn:Pl Sgft: 2 , 647 #Units: l Bdrms: 4 Bths: 2 . 5 Lotsz: 20, 640
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 ) Prcl: 203-530-094-2 Site: 321 RED MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506 .
Ownr:ULSTAD,CLARENCE. P & I Mail : 321 RED MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA _ 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: (510) 820-0245 Xmpt:Y Tfr: $289, 500 Date: 07/29/81
Loans: Yb: 1982 Doc Num: 10427179 Asd: $352 , 108 Imp: 55%
Zn: P1 Sgft: 2 , 931 #Units: l Bdrms : 5 Bths: 3 . 0 Lotsz : 15 , 840
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 1993 Dataquick Information Network
Page 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 . ) Prc1:203-530-095-9 Site:317 RED 'MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:HUMAYDAN,HASIB S & AN Mail:317 RED MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt:Y, Tfr: $425, 000F Date: 07/01/88
Loans: $319, 000 Yb: 1982 Doc Num: 14430468 Asd:$460, 033 Imp: 68%
Zn:Pl Sgft:2,956 #Units: l Bdrms: 5 Bths: 3 . 0 Lotsz: 15, 500
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 ) Prcl:203-530-096-7 Site: 305 RED MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:CAVALLARO,MICHAEL&DON Mail: 3.05 RED MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA - 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: $19,_000P Date: 07/16/93
Loans: Yb: 1982 Doc Num: 189141 Asd:$440,547 Imp: 66%
Zn:Pl Sgft: 2,749 #Units: l Bdrms: 4 Bths: 2 . 5 Lotsz: 12 , 000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 ) Prcl:203-530-097-5 Site: 301 RED MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:NEVIS,BEVERLY A Mail:301 RED MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: Date: 09/10/91
Loans: Yb:1981 Doc Num: 183859 Asd: $323 , 027 Imp:51%
Zn:Pl .Sgft: 2 , 637 #Units: l Bdrms: 4 Bths: 2 . 5 Lotsz: 13 , 560
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22 ) Prcl: 203-530-098-3 Site: 3419 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:PEABODY,VERNON C&JANI Mail:3419 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: (510) 837-6278 Xmpt:Y Tfr: Date: 05/21/90
Loans: Yb: 1982 Doc Num: 104141 Asd: $357 , 034 Imp:56%
Zn:Pl Sgft: 2,949 #Units: l Bdrms: 5 Bths: 3 . 0 Lotsz : 12 , 480
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 ) Prcl: 203-530-099-1 Site: 3415 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr: DOS,PASSOS HELENICE Mail: 1450 MARLBOROUGH DR*ANN ARBOR MI 48104
Use:RES VACANT LAND 'Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: Date: 08/23/85
Loans:. Yb: Doc Num: 12474091 Asd: $93 , 858 Imp: O%
Zn:Pl Sqft: #Units: Bdrms: Bths: Lotsz : 12 ,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 ) Prcl: 203-530-100-7 Site: 3411 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:BLACKBURN,DEBORAH Mail :PO BOX 1926*DANVILLE CA 945.26
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt:Y Tfr: $100, 000 Date: 03/08/84
Loans: Yb: 1985 Doc Num: 11686352 Asd: $349 , 967 Imp: 65%
Zn:Pl Sgft: 2 , 828 #Units: l Bdrms: 3 Bths: 2 . 5 Lotsz: 12 , 954
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 ) Prcl : 203-530-101-5 Site: 3407 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:VINSON,ERNEST&JOAN Mail: 3407 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: Xmpt: Tfr: $575, 000F Date: 04/23/93
Loans: $460, 000 Yb: 1987 Doc Num: 104602 Asd: $574 , 118 Imp: 76%
Zn:Pl Sgft: 3 , 389 #Units: l Bdrms: 4 Bths: 3 . 5 Lotsz: 13 , 125
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26 ) Prcl: 203-530-102-3 Site: 3403 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Ownr:SEXTON, DAVID W & PAME Mail: 3403 SILVER MAPLE DR*DANVILLE CA 94506
Use: l RES&COMMN AREA Ph: (510) 820-9069 Xmpt:Y Tfr: $270, 000 Date: 10/17/86
Loans: Yb: 1984 Doc Num: 13198746 Asd: $340, 408 Imp: 52%
Zn:Pl Sgft: 2 , 303 #Units: l Bdrms: 3 Bths: 2 . 5 Lotsz: 16, 000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c.) 1993 Dataquick Information Network
S1w
. HOMES BY DAME
DA E1007. 31
0CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.P.O
SAN RAMON,CA 94583 3/
(510)837.0544
MICHAEL W. RUPPRECHT
VICE PRESIDENT-COUNSEL
October 14, 1993
Robert Drake, Senior Engineer
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 94553-0095
Re: Somerset Appeal to Board of Supervisors
Dear Bob:
Please refer to Dennis M. Barry's leter dated September 30, 1993
regarding our appeal on the Somerset project. This appeal must
be heard by the Board of Supervisors and Mr. Barry advises us
that we will be notified by the Clerk of the Board when the
appeal has been scheduled for hearing. Mr. Barry requested us to
.send the enclosed pre-addressed and stamped envelopes along with
a compiled list of those property owners who are within 300' of
the Somerset property no later than October 21, 1993 .
Please let me know if you have any questions or if any additional
information is required.
Ver/y� truly yours,
Gail Watkins
Administrative Assistant
Enclosures
c: Dennis M. Barry, AICP, Deputy Director
Agenda Item #2
:.Community Development Contra Costa County
SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, September 22 , 1993 - 7 : 30 P.M.
I. INTRODUCTION
3ETTENCOURT RANCH
DAME CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. , (Applicant & Owner) , County
File #3014-93 A request to amend Final Development Plan
3034-88 (Bettencourt Ranch) to relax the development
restrictions for three hillside lots to . allow development of
two-story dwellings. The subject site consists of three
lots identified as Lots #28 , 29, and 30 of Final Map 7278
(also known as Lots #263 , 264 and 265 of approved Tentative
Map 7188) respectively located at #975, #965 & #955
Chesterfield .Lane in the Danville/Tassajara area.
II. BACKGROUND
This item was noticed to be heard by the Commission on
August 18 , 1993 . After the notice was issued, the applicant
requested that the matter be rescheduled to this date
because he was unable to -attend the August .Commission
meeting.
Attached is the staff report from the August meeting.
III. RECOMMENDATION
Denial.
FD:3014-93&.rpr .
RD
Agenda Item #
' Community Development Contra Costa County
SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL'PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, August 18, 1993 - 7:30 P.M.
I. INTRODUCTION
BETTENCOURT RANCH
DAME CONSTRUCTION COMPANY , INC. , (Applicant & Owner) - A
request to amend Final Development Plan 3034-88 (Bettencourt
Ranch) to relax the development restrictions for three
hillside lots to allow development of two-story dwellings.
The subject site consists of three lots identified as Lots
#28 , 29 , and 30 of Final Map 7278 (also known as Lots #263 ,
264 and 265 of approved Tentative Map 7188) respectively
located at #975, #965 & #955 Chesterfield Lane in the
Danville/Tassajara area.
II . SUMMARY
The applicant wishes to eliminate the one-story residential
design. restriction for the three lots because of potential
health safety reasons (single-story units would result in
structures placed somewhat closer to nearby electrical
transmission lines) . The applicant also feels that this
limitation unreasonably constrains the development potential
of the site.
Staff feels that the visual concerns that caused the
Commission to limit the size of these residences remain valid.
Further, the possible health hazard alleged by the applicant
is speculative. No conclusive scientific information on
whether or not a hazard exists will be available for many
years. Similarly, if EMF is determined to be a hazard, it
will probably be some period of time before it could be
determined that the proposed site plan changes will result in
any material improvement of health conditions at the three
lots .
III . RECOMMENDATION
Denial
Y R OZn w X Lib
' e
• Q Y'1
+ t'-
- c
Q t
c
= r
M II
3 I> I I
A Y
�• %
MTTTTM
Q
i
� � 8
� � 1
F ' gin f
J - t:"
IV. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Environs
The Bettencourt Ranch development is located north of
Camino Tassajara and immediately north of the Town of
Danville. It is located west of Blackhawk Plaza and the
Somerset Townhouse project now under development. To the
east is the Shadow Creek development.
PG & E power lines run in a north-south orientation
through the middle of the project. A PG & E substation
lies along the frontage of the Bettencourproject.
B. Background
The relevant background to this application extends back
to the time of the general plan amendment preceding the
subdivision approval .
1. 1987 General Plan Amendment and EIR - In 1987 and
1988, the County processed a "Camino Tassajara"
General Plan Amendment (GPA) which encompassed the
Bettencourt Ranch site as well as several smaller
adjoining properties. The Bettencourt Ranch is a
hillside site. The plan amendment review was
initiated at the request of a development firm,
Braddock and Logan, Associates Inc. The plan
amendment proposed the redesignation of land from
general open space to residential .
Prior to hearing the merits on the General Plan
Amendment proposal, the County prepared and
certified as adequate an environmental impact
report on the proposed plan amendment.
The General Plan Amendment was adopted by the
County in 1988 .
2 . Bettencourt Ranch Subdivision - Following adoption
of the GPA, .Braddock & Logan submitted applications
for rezoning, final development plan and tentative
map approval to allow for 470 single family
residential lots. The development was proposed as
a mass-graded project, in part to allow for the
repair of several major landslides. A copy of the
tentative map proposal is included in the
Commission packet. ' After taking testimony , on
December 8 , 1988 , the San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of
the project for a maximum of 469 units and subject
-2-
• 2
J r
r
�= • \ \
41
•are• ry � IL
WL
CA
46
got
701 /A
t �! <!. r•l�ts.i tri!6¢IUl
o/`,,•. b
� •mac � � .�, , r
VI,
I
to a number of site design changes and
restrictions.
3 . Site Design Restrictions - At the hearing for this
project, the Town of Danville appeared. and
expressed concern about the amount of grading and
other visual concerns. These were articulated in
extensive lists of proposed changes to the site
design.
One of the areas where Danville expressed concern
pertained to three lots (Lots #263 , 264 & 265)
located immediately uphill of the PG & E
substation. Danville had proposed to visually
soften the amount of proposed grading by reducing
the proposed graded slope from 3 : 1 to 5 : 1 , as
described in a letter dated November 10 , 1988 from
the applicant's legal firm, Thiessen, Gagen &
McCoy. The applicant objected to this modification
to the site plan for concern that it might force
the removal of the lots.
After reviewing the matter, instead of limiting the
amount of grading, the Commission chose to restrict
the height of the housing for these lots. The lots
were limited to one-story residences with provision
of special landscape treatment to help screen the
view of the houses . See C/A #18 .
C. Transfer of Ownership and Project Development
Shortly after all discretionary project approvals were
granted, the project was acquired by Dame Construction
Company. Most of the physical development of the site
has been conducted under the auspices of Dame
Construction Co.
Development of the Bettencourt Ranch project has
proceeded in phases. All of the site has been graded;
and four of five- final maps have been recorded to date .
Approximately half of the approved residences have been
built. The development largely consists of production
units (as opposed to custom homes) .
D. Other Project Modification Requests
Following initial project approval, Dame has filed two
other applications to amend the terms of the project
approval .
-3-
t' ti
- QO,• d
�., O V
loo/
N
m d
4 Q N d
2 W O Q
`
Q
.m ���.s. ie$ ��• V
�s :rs aw O
4l cis a
F0. � 00.
a s� s
cP't
t t' �,J r# a sf
.p O t. 0 � • i y �., 'J
It
�'t• ag �,b a ,` 52 FF FFr� n ..••7 .-bt'
Gt. z. �.6 y 1
� Z d a01'�9.
y.!N d ! ? n ti � .ice'�,�• i'K r v'
IF
w $ •`~ Fpl 2N t� t2t h �c � ~",'/ �„n •�: �-� o h
a s•�h 9.9� �n pf ,t •, N
h SOSIF
3 t B't'8Bt
r" G y .g DL./r, F. b op •'t0 cv i,sour y P `h } ►0,�
rN" C hn �✓ �O� n vv r� �.!^. •`t$ygy 2i. a A"' oy �'
dN
4, f o t t f' «w •t'F
.LI/+'•'iCYIt' m 9'fT/ '� c � S'Ft7! tin n 2'.J� "�/ ♦.,. �M?'to
el
Ar
n
pts'�` < r .as•zE .N O�ti .fir»�`�-" ? � G L hs� ne3i»Flh
jr
�-m.\=l � �. � $ � 'RC1 op•��� � p�' F Cact �ti � ,
VA
is o CG � 9 .' d Ccsz �p.L q,, 05���Y)ty
.Et+'y 'X •� t 2B"nr `4S�.i� �,`� y0� •,af ^ ,r .
.i.Y LLi•y r4 t>`-� 9 p � �� t�ti•4`� 'pc�c' � � °.
MANSFIELD 3 pR. a i y ' z eta s p
� O
$.n 5 E sdy�9rr •3D '�Z•E
� a o
.fJ
a
1. Proposed Road Design Modification - In July 1991,
the applicant submitted an application (FDP 3023-
91) to modify the alignment of an internal road
crossing the ridgeline.
At the time of . the. project approval in 1988 ,
considerable attention was given to placement of
this road extending from the southern to the
northern portions of the project due to its
possible visibility from various off-site vantage
points. Ultimately, the alignment shown of the
Tentative Map, along the eastern boundary of the
site next to Shadow Creek, was' approved. However,
the approval also mandated that any proposed
modification would have to be reviewed by the San
Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission.
The modified alignment would allow for a portion of
the road to be routed through the common open space
area of the adjoining Shadow Creek project .
The applicant has been endeavoring to secure the
approval of the Shadow Creek HOA, and may have
succeeded. However, staff does not wish to
schedule this application for hearing until
evidence is received that the Shadow Creek HOA is
in agreement with the re-aligned concept.
2 . Recreation Facility Modification - In June 1992 ,
the Commission approved a modification of the
project recreation facility. The original facility
was designed as a clubhouse that would be based on
membership within and outside the project. After
acquiring the project, Dame re-designed the
original proposed facility to be consistent with
the actual built project as a more conventional
homeowner association operated recreation facility.
V. PROPOSAL
On June 18 , 1993 , the applicant submitted an application to
amend the approved final development plan for the Bettencourt
Ranch project to eliminate the -one-story restriction on three
of the lots in the tentative map approval of Subdivision 7188 ,
Lots #263 , 264 , and 265 . These lots became Lots #28 , 29 , and
30 of Final Map 7278 , the third of the five phased final maps .
These lots are located near the center of the Bettencourt
Ranch. The lots are* also within 400 feet of the electrical
transmission lines and PG & E substation.
-4-
Attached is Exhibit A from the applicant explaining the
reasons for this request. Also , attached is a set of site
plans and perspectives (and a building elevation) of the .
proposed two-story design. - The site plans contrast the
smaller building footprints of the two-story residence with a
potential single-story design. The applicant contends that:,
• limiting these lots to one-story residences would
make development of the site infeasible;
• development of two-story homes would not harm
existing views. The proposed two-story home would
be only 3 . 5 feet taller than a single story
residence on this site;
• allowing the development of two-story homes is more
consistent with the prevailing development pattern
in the area; and
• the applicant suggests that development of one
story residences may be subjecting the future
occupants to unacceptable safety hazards . The
applicant has submitted readings of . the
,.. electromagnetic field (EMF) emanating from the
nearby PG & E overhead transmission lines at the
three lots and other sites within the Bettencourt
project. These readings seem to indicate that
there is more exposure at pointscloser to the
power lines than at points further removed.. The
applicant contends that allowing two story
structures - would permit a smaller building
footprint; permitting greater setback from the
powerlines and reduced EMF exposure; and thus
greater safety to the future residents . '
VI . REFERRAL TO AGENCIES
Copies of the proposed modification and supporting
documentation have been forwarded to the Town of Danville and
the Health .Services Department, Environmental Health Division
for comments. To date, no written response has been received
from either agency.
VII . DISCUSSION
The following discussion addresses the health concerns and
visual considerations raised by the applicant .
-5-
A. Health (EMF) Considerations
The potential health hazard of an Electromagnetic Field
associated with the PG & E transmission lines and
substation was not addressed in the Camino Tassajara
General Plan Amendment EIR, nor was it raised as an issue
by public comments at that time. There has been recent
speculation that EMF may be damaging to human health,
however no definitive studies have been completed.
In discussion with County Health Services Department
officials, staff has learned that there are no State or
Federal standards as to acceptable EMF levels . It is
staff's underst .nding that there are several long-term
(generational) studies on this subject which are underway
but which will not be completed for a number of years.
Based on these considerations, definitive scientif.ic
conclusions on the degree of risk associated with EMF is
not likely to be known for some period of time .
B. Site Design Considerations
The applicant has not submitted any information on the
alternative floor plans (single-story vs. two-story) for
the proposed structures. It may be possible to construct
smaller residences than the applicant envisions .
Alternatively, it may be possible to custom-design
single-story residences to fit the sites rather than rely
on the limited designs of the production units .
The applicant has not submitted adequate information to
justify modification of the existing residential design
restrictions. Notwithstanding the applicant' s claims,
staff continues to believe that a single-story design is
possible for each of the three lots. The concern about
avoiding "perched" and visible development in this
location remains valid.
Further, there is no assurance that allowing the proposed
two-story residences (with the greater setbacks from the
transmission lines) will significantly decrease the
claimed health hazard. Accordingly, staff is
recommending that this application to amend the
development restrictions be denied, and that the single-
story restrictions not be altered.
Whether or not the Commission approves the relaxed design
standards , it is staff's understanding that existing real
estate laws will require the applicant to disclose to.
potential buyers of these lots the referenced EMF readings .
-6-
If the applicant has misgivings about proceeding with the
development of single-story residences because of.possible EMF
health hazards, then he may choose to refrain from development
of these sites until definitive scientific studies on .EMF are
completed and public health standards are adopted.
VIII.CEOA STATUS
For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, staff is required to determine whether this
proposal may result in .any potentially significant impacts.
In this regard, staff is requ4red .to determine if the prior
(1987) EIR remains valid . or if there is new information . that
requires further study.
A. Supplemental EIR Required
After reviewing the project, staff generally finds that
the 1987 EIR adequately addresses all possible
environmental impacts associated with the project, with
one major exception. The new information provided by the
applicant concerning the potential health hazard of
electromagnetic fields (EMF) is not addressed in the EIR.
Pursuant . to Sections 15163 and 15162 of the. State CEQA
Guidelines, staff has determined that a Supplemental EIR
should be prepared and certified as adequate for this
project prior to any approval . A Supplemental EIR is
required. where:
1 . New information of substantial importance to the
project becomes available , and
a . the information was not known and could not
have been known at the time the previous EIR
was certified as complete, and
b. the new information shows the project will
have one or more significant effects not
previously discussed in the EIR.
2 . Only minor additions or changes would be necessary
to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the
project in the changed situation.
The preceding .conditions exist with respect to the EMF
information introduced by the applicant. Therefore, a
Supplemental EIR is warranted.
-7-
To date, staff has elected not to require the preparation
of a Supplemental EIR because:
• staff feels the requested modifications are without
merit;
• no additional EIR review is required for a denial
decision;
• the findings for a supplemental EIR are likely to
be inconclusive on the question of whether or not
an EMF hazard at these sites exists, or if the
proposed designs would materially: diminish ' any
documented .health risk; and
• the costs of preparing the EIR would have to be
borne exclusively by the applicant. Staff does not
wish the applicant to have to bear these expenses
if a project denial decision is a likely outcome.
B. Error in Hearing Notice
It should be noted, that the hearing notice for this
project incorrectly indicated that the 1987 Camino
Tassajara GPA EIR was being used for this application for
purposes of compliance with CEQA. The notice should have
stated that a Supplemental EIR is required.
If the Commission is inclined to make any approval of the
project - even if the Commission does not believe a
supplemental EIR to be necessary - the hearing should be
continued so that the notice can be corrected .
IX. DECISION ALTERNATIVES
If the Commission is dissatisfied with the staff
recommendation, then there are at least two alternative
decisions which the Commission could consider.
A. Prepare Supplemental EIR
If the Commission feels there may be some merit in the
requested design modifications, then before granting any
approval , the Commission should ( 1) continue the
application indefinitely and (2) direct staff to arrange
for the preparation of a Supplement to the 1987 Camino
Tassajara GPA EIR to address the new information about
the possible hazards of the alleged Electromagnetic Field
in accord with State and County CEQA Guidelines .
-8-
The EIR preparation and review process is likely to take
a minimum of 7=8 months. A Supplemental EIR is subject
to the same public notice (Notices of Preparation and
Completion). and public comment periods . as any other
project EIR.
{
The costs of the - EIR would also have to be absorbed by
the applicant. A consultant would have to be hired.
Staff has not made any effort to estimate the cost of the
preparation of a Supplemental EIR for this project.
However, it can safely be said that the cost of just
about any EIR is likely to be at least $12 , 000 , and
potentially higher.
Should the Commission take this course of action, then
the applicant should be requested to provide additional
site plan information on possible one-story vs. two-story
designs (e.g. , floor plans, landscape plans) to be
included in the EIR review.
B. Use Previous EIR .
The Commission may override staff' s finding and determine
that the 1987 EIR adequately covers the subject
application for purposes of compliance with CEQA, and
approve the project.
Staff does not support this approach, particularly with
respect to the CEQA determination. The concern is that
the County could be found liable for not complying with
CEQA by failing to investigate and report in the manner
prescribed by law on the alleged health hazard.
X. CONCLUSION
The visual concerns that caused the Commission to impose the
single-story design restrictions on the three affected lots in
1988 remain valid. The applicant has not conclusively
demonstrated the infeasibility of single-story residences on.
the site.
The possible hazard associated with the electrical
transmission lines has not been clearly proven. There is no
evidence that the requested relaxation of design standards
will result in any significant improvement in public health
conditions .
FD:3014-93.rp -
RD
-9-
I.
EXHIBIT A
TO
DAME' CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 'S
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR BETTENCOURT RANCH
Dams Construction Company, Inc. , would like to amend condition
#18 of the Bettencourt Ranch Conditions of Approval. As you will
note, those conditions require single-story homes on the subject
Lots. Those lot numbers correspond with the lot numbers 263 , 264
and 265 on the Tentative Map. It is not feasible to build
single-story homes on those lots. These lot locations do not
obstruct the view from the valley floor if the lots are built
with two-story homes.
The majority of homes, not only in Bettencourt Ranch but also in
the. surrounding area, are two-story homes by virtue of the size
of the lots. Building single-story homes on the subject lots is
not feasible economically or physically. Further, by building
two-story homes, less building site is used and the EMF readings
are thereby lower at the edge of the homes. Further, the height
differential between our two-story and one-story home is only
approximately three feet (31 ) .
From an economic standpoint, because of the size of the lots and
the required setbacks, single-story homes would be too small to
sell on the lots of that size; the price that we would have to
charge for that house would make it impossible to sell because
the house would be too small for the price per square foot.
LAW OFFICES OF
BaIAH a TN1e85EN THIESSEN, GAGEN & McCOY
MICHAEL W.CARTER
WILLIAM E.GAGEN,JR.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION VICTOR J.CONTI
-
GREGORY L MCCOY 2n FRONT STREET ROBERT M.FANUCCI
PATRICK J.McMAHON P.O..BOX 216 KENNETH J.FISHBACHRICHARD A-FRANKEL
M.SUE GREICAR DANVILLE,CALIFORNIA"526-0218
MARK L ARMSTRONG BARBARA OUYAL JEWS
�_
LINN K.COOMBS TELEPHONE(413)6774)385 CHARLES A.KOSS
STEPHEN W.THOMAS FAX 63665 CAROLE A.LAW.
(113)11
CYNTHIA LOVE MAREX
MICHAEL J.MARKOWTT
OF COUNSEL DIRECT DUAL Ego./ DOLORES S.SARGENT
EVELYN SPIROU
WILLIAM W.BASSETT SUE GOUGE WILLIAMS
JOHN B.CLAUSEN
November 10, 1988
Karl Wandry _-
Contra Costa County `
Community Development Departmerit -
651 Pine Street
Martinez , CA 94553
Re: Bettencourt Ranch (Braddock & Logan Associates)
PUD No. 2816-RZ C,)
Final Development Plan No. 3.034-88
Subdivision 7188
Dear Karl :
At the three-and-a-half-hour meeting on Monday afternoon,
November 7 , 1988., with Bob Drake and you on behalf of _the
County, Joe Calabrigo and Kevin Gailey on behalf of the Town of
Danville and representatives of the developer in attendance ,
several issues were resolved. That meeting was followed the
next day by a three hour meeting at our office with Kevin
Gailey, our civil engineers and myself in attendance, to discuss
specific lot and grading concerns raised by the Town. As a
result of these meetings, each of the points raised .by the Town
in Kevin' s letter to Bob Drake dated October 28, 1988 and its
Attachment B, were addressed.
Most of these points have been resolved, as I understand, to the
common satisfaction of the County, Danville and the developer .
On some points, Danville continues to disagree with- the recom-
mendation of the Community Development Department and/or the
position of the developer ( see attachment to this letter ) .
The following is an attempt to summarize the conclusions of our
meetings . Kevin suggested to include in this summary both items
of agreement and disagreement (with a brief explanation ofthe
disagreement ) , so that the Planning Commission will have one
document to refer to concerning those issues that have been
resolved and those that remain. For convenience , I will use the
same -numbering system to identify issues as used in my memo to
Karl Wandry
November 10, 1988
Page 2
you and Bob Drake dated November 2, 1988 in response to
Danville' s October 28, 1988 letter .
1. Hiking and Trails System (resolved) . Condition of . Approval
No. 5.G. should be modified to state as follows:
"A public and private trail system shall be
designed as shown on the revised Preliminary
Landscape Plan dated November , 1988 . The
private trail system shall link homesites
with recreational facilities and the ridge-
line area. The final design of the private
trail system shall be subject to review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to
filing a final map. The public trail connec-
tion shall be provided along the perimeter of
the detention basin, extending to the east
along the creek bed, and connect with the
Shadow Creek open space and trail system, as
well as to the ridgeline area. Continuation
of the trail beyond the property line. along
the creek bed and through the Shadow Creek
project open space is the preferred route.
The applicant shall use diligent efforts to
obtain the necessary right-of-way . for that
alternative. Otherwise, the trail shall
extend to the ridge along the easterly
property line. -The .applicant 's obligation to
construct the trail along the perimeter of
the detention basin to the easterly boundary
line at the creek bed and the dedication of
an easement to extend the trail to the
ridge is contingent on a public agency
accepting the easement, providing adequate
security fencing, accepting liability, con-
structing the remainder of the trail and
maintaining the entire public trail. A
floating easement on the ridge shall be
dedicated and extend to the property line
through the PG & E right-of-way. Final
design of the public trail shall be subject
to review and approval of Zoning Administra-
tor and East Bay Regional Park District prior
to filing a final map. "
Karl Wandry
November 10, 1988
Page 11
25. Lot 154 . .(disagree) . Danville wants a turfed
recreational area here. For reasons previously stated, we. dis-
agree that it is necessary or appropriate in light of recrea-
tional amenities already provided.
26. Lots 255 - 262. "Lot 262 : adjust to impose minimum
l,ad width standard on this lot and adjust Lots 255 261 as
necessary to accommodate change. "
27. Lots 263 - 265 (disagree) . Danville prefers a grade of�
5:1, not 3 :1 as proposed. 3: 1 is more than adequate in our
judgment. The only view really affected here is from inside the
PG & E site. If the . grade were to be changed per Danville ' s
request, all three lots would have to be dropped.
28. Lots 266 -. 269. "Lots 267 and 268: soften grade at
southwest side of lots . "
29. Lots 270 - 296. "Lots 290 - 296 : adjust and recon-
figure as possible to soften slope behind Lot 296 . "
30. Lots 297 - 308. "Provide pedestrian path behind Lot
297 . 1.
31. . Lots 309 - 323. "Add pedestrian connection. Provide
minimum rear lot width of 55 feet without exception. "
32 . Lots 324. - 340. "Provide 55-foot minimum rear yard
width without exception. "
33 . Lots 341 - 358. "Lot 355 : soften grading at lot and
relocate lot if possible. "
34 . Lots 359 - 380. No change.
35 . Lots. 381 - 196. No change .
36. Lots 397 - 407. No change .
37 . Lots 408 - 422.' No change.
38 . Lots 423 - 424. "Lot 424 : adjust pad elevation to
more than 100 feet from ridge line; house to be single-story
profile. "
39 . Lots 425 - 431 . No change .
` EXHIBIT B
'CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PREL_IMINA_RY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2816-RZ, •FINAL DEVELOP- -
WENT PLAN 3034-88 AND VESTING_TEUKTIVE SUBDIVIS•ION'718a (.BETTENCOURT RAar6 C
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Development shall be based'on t-hi &llowing .submitted exhibits except as
modified by the conditions,.below::.. -
Final Development' PTaWesting Tentative Subdivision Map
- Revised Conceptus-"" landscape Plan dated received 11/9/88
Bettencourt Ranch brachbr.e
Revised Front Eniry-Exhibit - Western Entrance, received 12/7/88
Zoning Plat _ ...
7/29/88 Hermans/Z`alewski �(Blackhawk Homeowners) Development Agreement
Preliminary Detention Lake and Entry Plan
Open space Vista_Poa.nt Plan-
North East Road,=Pre-1timinary Profile, Sheets 1 and 2
Tassajara EstatelBettencourt Ranch Merged Exhibit
2. A maximum of 469 lotsshaTl':•be' permitted subject to further review cursuant
to conditions 4 and 5. Approval of Vesting Tentative Subdivision 7188 is
contingent on Final approval of Rezoning #2816-RZ and Final Development
Plan 3034-88. by the Board WSupervisors. '
3. A phasing program for the development may be submitted for the review and
approval of the. Zoning-Administrator:
In the event that the •Tassajara-Estates- (Ujdur) property comes under common
ownership with the Bettencourt Ranch Property, 'an Amended Final Development
Plan application for the.Tassajar.a Estates Property -shall -be submitted for
approval of the San Ramon Vall'6j Regional; Planning Commission. The revised
Plan shall provide for a coordinated site plan addressing trail systems,
.grading' circulation and..access 'limitations:'
4. At least thirty (30) days prior to issuance, of grading permits or filing of
a Final Map, revised grading and site plans shall be submitted for the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. At least six sets of
plans shall be submitted for-referral by the County Community Development
Department to the Town of'Danville, California Fish and Game Department,
Public Works Department, County Planning Geologist and other appropriate
public agencies.
A. No grading shall be permitted along the centerline (crest) of the
major unnamed ridgeline. Any proposal to regrade the crest will -
1
E� a;gKI?.xprejarryerd`shall bye.prpyi ded;.."-Thi s rectangular area shall not be
- µRpprte 6y..re atn�fig. woos. _ _
16. 'bn1'ess'of erwise� specifierd�below; lots�bnder 10,000' square feet in^area
shall be governed by the R-6 zoning district -with respect to allowed use,
structure height, number of stories .and minimum setback requirements. Each
lot shall provide. for a minimum two off-street parking spaces.
" h ,o jijmum font•yard'se'tbkck.,hall be:20 feet from the face to curb or
;3tffiere. is a si'aewalk,'_'then from the back of the sidewalk. Fora
•side-entry •garage, the minimum front yard setback shall be 6 feet from
behind the sidewalk or 10 feet from*he face of curb, whichever provides
the greater:"s.etback'. No two-story elements facing the curb shall be
.01.1owed in, locati.Qns where less. than the standard. front yard setback is
zed'.. .
Maximuin.' 4-foot tall cI
rblock or other decorative retaining wall shall be
"required for any sideyard slope 5 feet tall or- taller in vertical height.
A minimum 3-foot clear, level sideyard shall -be provided.
The minimum reasonable pad depth shall be 80 feet so as to provide for a
functional, rear yard. A minimum 10-foot by 20-foot, level , clear,
rectangular. rearyard shall be provided. This rectangular area shall not be
supported by.. .retaining walls.
17. . The Zonjng Administrator shall review and approve the individual site
plans,• landscapi"ng,' design and architecture. Special consideration shall
be given to rear elevations facing south and east in order to mitigate
visual impacts .(the architectural design "shall be similar to a front
elevation under sgch .circumstances) .
Special architectural/landscape treatment and review of lot 136 is required
prior' to issuance of a building permit. The residence on this lot should
serve as, .a design element for the project and contribute to the community
identity. Perimeter fencing shall be limited to open, wrought iron
fencing. ' In-•addition to review of the standard construction drawings, a
perspective of the proposed development shall be provided as viewed from .
the access road -near lot 93.
Except for Lot 157, a minimum 15-foot (rear or sideyard, as appropriate)
setback shall•"be observed for all residential structures along the
perimeter- of the Bettencourt Ranch property. If lot 157 is retained, a 10
foot minimum setback from the Tassajara Estates property shall be observed.
SPECIAL .LOT CONSIDERATIONS
18. Lots 233, 234 , 263 through 265, 432 through 436 and 419 through 422 shall
be restricted to s-ing a-s pry ouses . Lots 424 shall be restricted to
single-story profile. Special landscape treatment (e.g. , 24" box trees )
shall be provided on lots 136, 263, 264 and 265.
c
of
-13
Al���i�
u t �1it�Z�N ►;��. _
,fit � ty�t� ���{�tib _ :. •
I
y
411
of
` `rVrr Fi
Fj
IN
v�
t
i
1
Q�Q �
QQ
J 1 { Q
' �GUQ
�v .t
lG�(,�ys~�•- � ,.yam •�Y•' _w ! • • \ 1
3 �
p
� Ii 121
e
l
• t Iif
P ..•may � ��), rs
«s1 K
0
- to
PAO =7 5 d,I d'
RF. = -7s1. t t N
t ',5 PI.AQ 545
N
IV
U- Lil
Lti 1
tcI
T2AC-T "7278
gca�c , 20� LOT
S.
y�M k
O
r `n
T2-ACT -7'Z "78)
L C-7 '%
O
W'
r
r
,�y. > .,.�yS� ...FFF I .. � �:' t •i.�,.r1.iil�'Zj'' it
`y * 1 a
i's. �• ... Y ,A'.' ..;y.' « y �^'4'1:••.1 �`"''ir t•4��'�__777 , J.S11 �♦.•..r�+�..�^a.
t■ V k }M �c _
�K `t• _ , 'Lra'�••+s r,tr.� ► .: 1 rl,', 1� i CC 1M� `, r
4 ! �.
,:
+•Y'e+'r.''• ' Ssr. ;Y =7':7a ,,, ,,' ., 1'; ,, �• -.
!
'1 h�` " i! .it 1 ; i� t>�r ♦t:i`'
y'H ":R�.4' �1•j'' .'i .t .*'::''i •1. :� , .i-, t , ':�:,' •c,'a Jt"�.,... �'�,:,.,1�.'j.•u
A .
+� •s.. C.%*`jL, .•e� rt. .,� ':�•a�tl ;,•4`sR- a '• 4•'r >.f.iF s Ati :�;.
r:- •.: � .. ,f=it. �`': >• ,J �a r ,,; �, �� s�q,,.,
i 3p:.• •. i.f� �'yl�.•.:' �Ifi f c'�w"1 ♦;,� , ,•.�..:�:a�'::•: ` 1-.. .fs�,�.o..
t f :, .,;�,:`.•s 4 �•{Iy 1 ti .. e•�'i'•• y,� 7\ ♦V.L .4 '
{a.'+r' •._.,{;•.fes.t*. %�s '�� ;1 }••��'.5�:;• •t=�l;,+.i•� Z;i�rLT'_�
3 yY�` `' »s�:'�.V•�x r s� '�' r� z«•:� �Y` .,,,�, t tr IX rC �.:4' sk�'v.t �,�{
>��7..i, i`R• yry..(.rT ,�+,M 'G., �i • •i•:s.r.Ytr� R• r:,,j.r... �i,:�,.�y S'
y`ir.�.y;X,,t,,,•�-.y�.'4 r.; S -`;v1; ''r, i?t:i:.:. 'Yz+i..�j,.✓�.;' «:Y,•;•.l•L*. :�.:::;^Y�w�1
1•' .1 {t 1 ."�'';Y'all'�'t'�'tti•. .�.: Mi 't .rr�r`.;n.: ?�s''v7-- ::
,•, {,.Zu ty�ti.F;�;I •,€t'�, •C. ,� -�t'��r'r '�o �.�••'•�y+,r,�.•'} .h it ."j`: .`!a."s
�•k, .1' •t�� si k�`��'„�'' �'. .,• r `.], •�• a '"��' Y`�*',. r "'a ,tl
1•�..,t Y• F�1� ��r'•.: 4� 1� :t
t•. •',P 'S• .t. .� a _ ... '.l. .,_ 'i'•., •:'•R: 'iii: .r, :.'e +- •�
'�• - , -e• y nii • � ;��i.r ,�•Na� I e<I�,,i:�,. .� ,#t>• ,• tl�m•: ..nf `.:�,r
'• �,.•✓ ) , .� �: :� ,fit v • :::. _.., '.•�:^'!'• r •„►$}..it+}}
't 1 �s':,c,,•t'. `t :'r r,:. :�`�•.��.:`"i w3yk{�s�`; ..1. �:t :��.�•.4y:f�'.`?�:��
. � { 1iM " • f� Vigo , I.+.� ,�t �n. `iii r+'�•`�+.k
v.,►_1 :t� NC.
•_t.,: ., > �,�.':wt.. tea' 1 SSi� .'L7.� yr•.
'� • �.r r ...'.s i � .S.••••"y t ,•\ a s.�t y; .`:.',r.!. � �t+� ,its , -a
Tell
' • i .±� t y�
+ -.l: f.r+3� ,' �•', r��.#' .F 'ss "s + .� j::�#7;1i:.1. * ;f•.?���
i+L�' -t\f!`'� 4_ ,,u. ''C"�,•`���> �_ rl' �_;. - ��w1'y :V`.r�:;;j' •+.��•�.t�',,+ ,Y.': 1
'r. -77_.}1'.+S'.�'a. .1!" ,�'I', a �.{ ,.:.� .rt- .�r•. ':^cI �':.r•`4r - ."'4!\:`�.°:!� r
.''�Y: �',.�'1;" R.; a�. n..�i � �•r •:> .,' �,,'L '�'��.�'! {,'a�y�'•.fr. j � 1 �,.
Vt
1*4
{`�."`•Cti j,1'�.•� }' J: t ♦fa t�.w, J�:� „S ;:,.i.: �i. �'f t c Y
rt y". ♦ Lgv+i 2 a -�, :j4� 'r, ,y Z,}1 '-r1•!• ay. ��-�"j". .. ..
N \• NE+�4 r '•�l�,y 1 � n _•'t'.t\ � '•:.ta-t. .,,r •1,.Ar'r'. y,
�•, ,,yS,.'�t L<ih•��fY r1�. ;` .-�/ � ♦�(,�• „s \ �'• ate,'.k '}.
�+k,,�•{Y ,� ,,tti�2^,��a.ltit � � (� �S' � -4 •+� �'1a, yyy{{,�,�'`..` Y
-rat.» .t �n o
B41
v
i
MAY 12 193 10: 43 F-ROM GIDDY UP RCH-SALES TO MAIN OFF PAGE . 001
• "r,!�"�G�..-. :. -w-'ttT..': ..+..r..�.:..' .. ..w-••:.r.-t'.��3•i`�.'�'•:'��",•'_,••^�v 'k''r�M .1.:.:w... _ •�����::r::ti-._ .4..-;;
1293, r
.p :i:.:' •'yC�Ytin:✓:: r•� NN:.f. •a�7+�: ..., ..',�'Z:.�s')�Jk>L'�r-��•+..�=�.w� �•�.•�`^'i•r..
mow✓_ :-in.w •��w�W�j���.+•aL�--_-^'�. .••.•f•. f^t.-
�y `1 ._ F:M�?rn. yT•..i • :4Y f...�: r"i'n•7'C•:+• � h� !'_f �T.•rr..
�• ��'ersr-.^'•%�!`.' _1E.•,Y;.�:.•:4., � �^••.�.v.:X+l•'• '41� ^-q f• �^ �.�•.,w�.. •.
.tiyys/,�t-yc��e�� cr, •>t' r:�'t,?:s=_ •r..!'.��r,�...: ..R.. .u�•��-�+._`�.., ^S. .... .. �r�u'd•�=��.:�,t�t.�.
�' r. -•.v:�� r:: `.•••''�. __ ':�:.":::;• :�'.i•s. ter=' �'xt.�:-••"a„4 .:�++.a•�s•_'?:�'"..4�.i,.-...-w�''i.�•c.�: ..�:�_,.- ;"�`�•-:
.•K'�r5•�".a..n-w•..�„ '•:,^•S..h:�.w... �,�. �j^rw....�i T►A.... ,1 ,. ,t-- �:.IJ~_'�i f••..��ti .-_.w
If Ma et c'Surveys 4;s Gate F Roaa,'Suite ZI6,Sausalito,CA 9496u '
:�•_•-_.�� :.. • • •. _ _ _•�-•.r,�.-::-:• - (41513312976;=A�15)3312977 ..
..t. •y. - •• .. '`' - �'J•�•.r. �•iti;''S^ii::�^ '4.'_ !rf s�'..�s':...; '...`F_�� � :s,.
;y.«'Y.•.,:+=:^!'�`:. .�:« � •f'• +»� '::, : �i'v.. tr..}r ii-• '.'�.. - .�:�. � iii: '_;.:
MAGNEIMC FIELD SURVEY REPORT FOR DAME HOMES at Subdiyisiord?188:
The A.0 magnetic field strengths were measured on Tuesday;January26,1933,between 11:3i
- AM and 1 PM.One measurement was taken at the front of the house and one at the.Year.Where
: no house had been built,the location of the front and near were estimated.
Measurements: (in•mfiligauss(mG)) :
.ot# front ,per
21 0.95 0.6
70 0.4 0.35
71 0.4 0.3
' 72 0.7 0.5
73 _ 0.95 0.6
74 0.6 0.5
75 0.55 0.4
28 1.6 • 2.7
29 0.7 1.9.
30 0.5 1.0 `
0.2 0.2
32 0.2 0.3
33 0.2 0.3
Tennis,Courts(measured at middle of net position):
#1 15.0
#2 27.8
#3' 27.8
#4 10.1
05 3.4rt:
Basketball cou4.2 1.0
Pool Area: 1.8 0.6
Club House site: 0.7 0.4
Playing Fields:
upper.9A mid:29.8 end:8.2
lower.31.9 mid:50.4 end:6.0
Though the substation is imposing visually, the magnetic fields generated inside have a faster
weakening rate than that of the lines,and so they are not a significant source of fields at the
distances to the house sites measured.
Meters used:MSI-20/25 gaussmeter,calibrated to an EPA-tested meter and meeting ANSI
Standard 644-1987,and a Teslatronics Model 70 triaxial gaussmeter.Measurements by Karl
Riley.
CEQA: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALTry ACT.
of the conditions described in Section 15162.would require preparation of a subsequent or
supplemental EIR
Note:
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21C87, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections
21100,21151,and 21165,Public Resources Code. Formerly Section 15068.
Discussion:
The purpose of this section is to grant Lead Agencies clear authority to use an EIR prepared
forone project over again for a second project which is essentially the same as the project forwhich
the EIR was originally prepare(:.The section places necessary conditions on the use of a prior EIR
to avoid abuse of this approach. Where two projects are essentially the same in terms of .
environmental impact,there is little reason to require preparation of a separate EIR for the second
project.
Subsection(b)prescribes the procedures for an agency to use in implementing this authority.
Use of a Negative Declaration is not appropriate.Although a Negative Declaration does stat-than
an EIRwill notbe prepared,the reason for preparing a Negative Declaration is that the project will
not have a significant effect.An EIR is needed if the project may have a significant effect although
under some circumstances a previously prepared EIR may be used as the basis for review. The
procedures prescribed in subsection (b) should reduce the confusion that has often been
experienced in this situation.
This section is different from tiering in that this process does not involve a series of approvals
moving froth the general to the specific with EIRs omitting issues fully addressed at the earlier
stages.The use of a previously prepared EIR is most appropriate where an EIRwas prepared earlier
for a project very similar to the one currently being examined by the Lead Agency.
Article 11. Types of EIRs
15160.
This article describes a number of examples of variations in EIRs as the documents are tailored to General
different situations and intended uses.These variations are not exclusive.Lead Agencies may use
other variations consistent with the Guidelines to meet the needs of other circumstances.All EIRs
must meet the content requirements discussed in Article 9 beginning with Section 15120.
Note:
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections
21061, 21100, and 21151,Public Resources Code.
Discussion:
This section describes the contents of this article and explains that the types of EIRs described
here are not the only possibilities. ,
15161.
The most common type of EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific development Project EIR
project, This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would
result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project including
planning,construction, and operation.
Note:
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections
21061, 21100,and.21151, Public Resources Code.
Discussion:
This section is necessary for the clarity and completeness of this article and to show how this
type of EIR differs from the other types discussed in this article.
15162.
(a) Where an EIR or Negative Declaration has been prepared,no additional EIR need be prepared Subsequent EIR
unless:
GUIDELINES 10'
"QA.- CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(1) Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require important revisions
of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental impacts not considered in a previous EIR or Negative Declaration on the.
u project;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken,such as a substantial deterioration in the air quality where the pmj ect will
be located, which will require important revisions in the previous EIR or Negative
Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not
covered in a previous EIR or Negative Declaration; or
(3) New information of substantial importance to the project becomes available, and
(A) The information was not known and could not have been known at the time the .
previous EIR was certified as complete or the.Negative Declaration was adopted,
and
(B) .The new information shows any of the following:
1. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed previously
in the EIR;
2. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe
than shown in the EIR;
3. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects of the project; or
4. Mitigation measures or alternatives which were not previously considered in
the EIR would substantially lessen one or more significant effects on the
environment.
(b) If the EIR or Negative Declaration has been completed but the project has not yet been
approved,the Lead Agency shall prepare or cause to be prepared the subsequent EIR before
approving the project.
(c) If the project was approved prior to the occurrence of the conditions described in subsection
(a), the subsequent EIR shall be prepared by the public agency which grants the nem
discretionary approval for the project.In this situation no other Responsible Agency shall
grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been completed.
Note:
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section
21166,Public Resources Code. Formerly Section 15067.
Discussion:
This section implements the requirements in Section 21166of CEQA which limit preparation
of a subsequent EIR to certain situations. This section provides interpretation of the three
situations in which the statute requires preparation of a subsequent EIR.These interpretations are
necessary to add certainty to the process.
Subsections (b) and (c) explain which agency would have responsibility for preparing a
subsequent EIR under different circumstances.A subsequentEIR must,of course,receive the same
circulation and review as the previous EIR
Fund for Environmental.Defense v. Orange (1988) 204 Cal. App. 3d 1538, contains a
discussion of the application of§15162 and§15163.The Courtin Bowmanv.Petaluma(1986)185
Cal.App. 3d 1065 distinguished requirements for a subsequent EIR from the threshold required for
initial EIR preparation,saying`whereas§15064(§21151 PRC)requires an EIR if the initial project
may have a significant effect on the environment, §15162(§21166 PRC)indicates a quite different
intent,namely, to restrict the powers of agencies byprohibiting them from requiring a subsequent or
supplemental EIR unless "substantial changes"in the project or its circumstances will require major
revisions to the EIR. §15162 (§21166 PRC) comes into play precisely because in-depth review has
already occurred, the time for challenging the sufficiency of the original EIR has long since expired,
and the question is whether circumstances have changed enough to justify repeating a substantial
portion of the process.
6Supp:lement 15163.
(a) The Lead or Responsible agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an FIR rather than
108 G ELINES
_ CEQA:CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALrrY Acr.
a subsequent EIR if:
(1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a
subsequent.011,and
(2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR
adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.
(b)The supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous
EIR adequate for the project as revised.
(c) A supplement to an EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and public review as is given
to a draft EIR under Section 15087.
(d) A supplement to an EIR may be circulated by itself without recirculating the,previous drab
or final EIR.
(e) When the agency decides whether to approve the project, the decision-making body shall
consider the previous EIR as revised by the supplemental EIR.A finding under Section 15091
shall be made for each significant effect shown in the previous EIR as revised.
Note:
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section
21166,Public Resources Code. Formerly Section 15067.5.
Discussion:
This section provides a short-form method where only minor additions or changes would be
necessary in the previous EIR to make that EIR apply in the changed situation.The section also
provides essential interpretations of how to handle public notice,public review, and circulation
of the supplement
15164.
(a) The Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency shall prepare an addendum to an EIR if: Addendum
'(1) None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a to an EIR
subsequent EIR have occurred;
(2). Only minor technical changes. or additions are necessary to make the EIR under
consideration adequate under CEQA;and
(3) The changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise important new issues about
the significant effects on the environment.
(b) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to
the final EIR.
(c) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to making
a decision on the project.
Note:
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section
21166,Public Resources Code.
Discussion:
This section is designed to provide clear authority for an addendum as a way of making minor
corrections in EIRs without recirculating the EIR.The addendum is the other side of the coin from
the supplement to an EIR.
15165.
Where individual projects are, or a phased project is, to be undertaken and where the total Multiple and
undertaking comprises a project with significant environmental effect, the Lead Agency shall Phased Projects
prepare a single program EIR for the ultimate project as described in Section 15168.Where an
individual project is a necessary precedent for action on a larger project, or commits the Lead
Agency to a larger project,with significant environmental effect,an EIR must address itself to the
scope of the larger project.Where one project is one of several similar projects of a public agency,
but isnot deemed a part of a larger undertaking or a larger project,the agency may prepare one
EIR for all projects,or one for each project,but shall in either case comment upon the cumulative
effe ct.
GUIDELINES 109
00
JANUARY 1992
AMERICAN
PLANNING
ASSOCIATION
advocated prudent avoidance.The concept, which first
Land Use and appeared in the context of the EMF debate in a report
Electromagnetic Fields published by Carnegie Mellon University's engineering and
public policy department,is based on a doctrine in
At first glance, many planners may wonder why Zoning environmental law called the precautionary principle. The
News would report on a subject that many of us have not report described prudent avoidance as"limiting exposures
considered since studying high school physics.What which can be avoided with small investments of money and
possible relationship could electromagnetic fields have to effort."The logical extension of this is to consider
land-use decisions?Other planners,however,have already approaches to mitigating public risk from exposure to
dealt with concerned citizens electromagnetic fields.
and political leaders seeking € 9 y Besides the ovetridins
f rt = rte.
clear policies in the face of concern for public health and
proposed sizings of new safety,a little proactive
�,,
transmission lines or other \ :- regulation of EMF emitters
power facilities. < ' "" may go a long way toward
So far,.planners have defraying future costs. One
found the issue as clear as ', need not look much further
mud.The questions•on ,KIS �} `, than the local landfill to see -
electromagnetic fields how community facilities
(EMFs) are coming faster r „ once regarded as benign have
than the answers. Over the �" F �� instead turned into dangerous
last two years, APA's PASI 4' and expensive headaches.
subscribers have made the x; r ti .'. Policy-based approaches that
health effects of exposure to �F .4 are flexible enough to chane
electromagnetic fields—and : "� 'r ;; with the growing understand-
possible land-use controls to ing of risk can help stave off
reduce them—the fifth most `, : ,ri : future difficulties. As public
requested topic for infotma- ,x policy professionals, planners
tion. It is an issue on which have an important role in
we are better able to offer shaping these approaches.
discussion than recommen-
dations or solutions. \ Two Sides
i What are the basic ` ,'S With growing public kno%%l-
concerns for planners?Over _ " edge about the health threats
the last several years, the 7 posed by EMFs,debates over
medical community, led \ electric utility extensions
mostly by epidemiologists, - threaten to become as
has raised a caution flag - acrimonious as those over the
about electromagnetic fields siting of nuclear power plants.
as possible promoters of The citizens most likely to be
cancer,especially among concerned about EMFs are
children. (Promoters do not politically enfranchised
directly cause cancer but homeowners with young
may inhibit the body's children and a general concern
immune system from raare_r - for health issues.They may
preventing it.)Articles on -_ - ----- -- �':f' '' have been active in other
this topic have appeared in Power lines rower over houses in Burbank, California. environmental issues,and thev
periodicals ranging from the often see ambiguous scientific.
British science journal Nature to the consumer magazine information as an attempt to obscure the issue rather than as the
Redbook. The public is generally aware and concerned about result of an open debate.Public anger stems from a sense of loss
possible health effects from exposure to electromagnetic of control over exposure to a harmful agent.
fields, making the matter also a concern for public officials. On the other side, utility representatives, usually
Planners face a dilemma in determining the best response engineers, view the siting process as rational. Through a set
to an issue so much in need of further study. In attempting to of mutually agreed upon rules, engineers decide on the best
regulate electromagnetic fields, policy analysts have possible site for a new facility in terms of cost and
engineering efficiency.Attorneys and other professionals go emissions have faced difficulties.One approach has been a
through the licensing process, fill out environmental impact moratorium on siting new transmission lines and substations''!
statements,and make sure all legal requirements are met. In October 1990,East Greenwich,Rhode Island,passed an
The tension between these widely varied perspectives can ordinance banning the siting of all new high-voltage lines for
cause the siting process to break down,as it did in Whatcom three years.The Narragansett Electric Co.had proposed to
County,Washington.In this case,the regional utility company construct two transmission lines,of 345 and 115 kV,whose
proposed a large transmission project to convey.power from rights-of-way would pass through the town. Citizen concern
British Columbia to Washington,to meet growing power mounted,and the town council placed a moratorium on
demands resulting from rapid regional growth and for sale to. construction of transmission lines greater than 60 kV,assum-
other utilities.Public opposition centered around health ing that three years would allow the scientific community to
concerns that citizens felt were not being addressed. clear up some of the ambiguities surrounding health effects
Western Washington had been the site of a bitter battle from EMFs.The utility challenged the ordinance,and it was
over.nuclear power in the late 1970s, when a prolonged struck down in court as a violation of the U.S.Constitution's
grass-roots campaign defeated an attempt by a interstate commerce clause and Fifth Amendment.
consortium of Washington utilities to site a nuclear plant. Performance standards are another step that can be taken
Thr. Washington Public Power Supply System(WPPSS, to allay public concern. However,no dose response level
nicknamed"Whoops"by environmentalists)project led to (see box on page 3)has yet been established for EMF
one of the largest public bond defaults in American history exposure.As a result, any standard setting a limit of
and served as a radicalizing event for all parties in the region. exposure is mostly an estimate. Florida is currently the onl}
Thus,the seeds of distrust had been sown by the time the state that regulates both electric and magnetic emissions at
transmission line was proposed,but planners and other the edge of a right-of-way. In the report that accompanied its
governmental officials were not prepared to provide leadership regulation,the Department of Environmental Regulations
on the EMF issue.Citizens took matters into their own hands stated that the standard was only based on the best available
and passed a referendum that restricted transmission lines to scientific guess and may need to be altered in the future.
industrial districts.This left local government with two One of the first local governments to regulate EMFs in
untenable options: to effectively ban all transmission line the U.S. was Multnomah County,Oregon. Its ordinance is
extensions or to se4erely degrade local land-use codes through concerned mostly with controlling EMFs from television
amendment.The ordinance has in effect prevented any new and radio transmitters(see Regulating Radio and TV
transmission lines in the county. Towers,PAS Report No.384),which emit fields at consider-
ably higher frequency than the 60 Hz fields that are associated .
The Nature of EMFs with utility transmission lines.The.ordinance sets up a series
All power in an electrical system begins at a generating of performance standards for various field strengths. However.
.plant and must be distributed to consumers through a this may be difficult to enforce.The equipment that measures
network of transmission and distribution lines. Power from these fields can be expensive,and zoning administrators must
a generating plant is sent out at extremely high voltages. In be trained to operate them correctly.
any energy system, some energy is lost to resistance. High Wilmette, Illinois,included a standard for exposure to
voltages are necessary to reduce this loss and to make EMFs as part of a conditional use permit for a new facility.
electric systems more efficient.Typically, power is sent out The local transit authority approached the village about
at between 115 and 765 kilovolts(kV).This is far too expansion of a rapid transit yard.The improvements
powerful to be of any use to most power consumers.Large required a new substation to supply power to the site. After
transmission lines send power across regions,from one significant debate,the village board attempted to balance
.utility to another,and to substations where the power can be the public concern about exposure to EMFs with the
reduced or"stepped down"to levels that consumers can use. advantages offered by the new transit facility. It adopted
At the substation, power is conducted out at low voltages special conditions to make sure that no increase in exposure
along distribution lines. Along the distribution system, power resulted at the lot line of neighboring properties and set an
is stepped down by transformers until it reaches absolute level of two milligauss (see box) for the project's
consumers at around 115 volts. field strengths.
` All energy systems have associated electromagnetic An Irvine,California,ordinance takes advantage of the
fields. Concerns about electric utility systems, though,have consistency in emissions from transmission lines by
centered on electromagnetic radiation at around 60 Hz, a requiring that no new residential construction be allowed
t level endemic to AC power transmission systems.The within a predetermined"four-milligauss contour" along a
amount of radiation is governed by the relative balance transmission line's path. The regulation resulted when a .
between positive and negative charges along the system. As a previously undeveloped parcel was subdivided and
result,the greatest EMF emitters are substations and zoned residential. Citizens and the planning department
transformers, where the power is stepped down, and the expressed concern that any potential residents could be
system's distribution lines, where varying demands for exposed to EMFs from two existing transmission lines,
current can yield imbalances. In contrast, the transmission crossing the site, one of 220 kV and one of 60 kV. The local
lines, running between the generating plant and substations, utility was required to produce assessments of the fields
will have a constant and dependable field strength because associated with the line, and the ordinance forbade the siting
the substations use a constant volume of power. of residential units or schools in areas exposed to four or
more milligauss of 60 Hz electromagnetic fields, which.the
Attempts at Regulation city chose as the best possible standard to protect public
Like Whatcom Count, other attempts at regulating EMF safety.
r
Mitigation as an Alternative for the efficient provision of electric power.
No local government yet has adopted engineering solutions -This article is condensed from a forthcoming PAS Report,
h to mitigate EMF emissions.But a regulatory decision by Electromagnetic Fields and Land-Use Controls. D.B.
Colorado's public utility commission in 1989 allowed for an
upgrade of an existing transmission line if a utility took
proper steps to mitigate EMF exposure.
The proposal by the Public Service Co.of Colorado was Kansas Modernizes Planning
to increase the capacity of a transmission line in Douglas and Zoning Laws
County from 115 kV to 230 kV.The commission found that
the utility could justify the increases in demand and that the The Kansas legislature has adopted enabling,legislation that_
upgrade was warranted.Concerns about EMFs were raised at updates and simplifies its planning and zoning laws and
public hearings.The commission attached EMF mitigation creates a uniform statutory scheme for cities and counties. Its
requirements to its approval,including a single-pole action reflects a national trend among states to update
construction,a 230 kV double-strand line,and reversed outmoded legislation and allow communities to use a wider,
phases along the line.The commission estimated the total more creative range of tools for regulating development.
cost of these improvements to be around S5 million. Most of the provisions of the two new laws,Senate Bill 2
A similar local regulation could potentially be very and House Bill 2449,took effect on January 1. While SB 23
effective.Requiring different configurations of the lines is comprehensive, HB 2449 deals with only two topics—
themselves with the aim of reducing EMF exposure would be groups homes and floodplain regulations.Their enactment
an effective way to protect the public while allowing for the capped a decade-long effort by APR's Kansas chapter to
transmission of needed electric power. Various configurations update the state's planning and zoning enabling laws.
that take advantage of cancellation effects between positive The measures establish new procedures for many planning
and zoning actions,including changing the composition and
internal procedures of planning commissions, formalizing the
An EMF Glossary approval process for rezonings and special use permits. and
Current: The speed - power is transmitt-• requiring city or county council approval for comprehensive
throughplans.The new laws also authorize the use of various planning
Dose Response: • • between exposure • an, and zoning techniques already in place in many other states,
environmentalagent an• physiological r- •• including overlay zoning,guidelines for inclusion of
population. i manufactured housing and group homes in communities,
Electromagnetic - • transferable development rights for several purposes including
electrons -• through a conducting medium' historic preservation,and the allowance of payment of fees in
They have • components,one electric,the other. lieu of land dedication in subdivision regulations.
fieldsmagnetic.These '• periodicity, Neil Shortlidge, a Kansas City attorney who served on the
measured in hertz. Kansas APA chapter's legislative committee, says that one of
Gauss: A measure of density. '• to SB 23's most important aspects appears in its first sentence,
compare relative strengths of -• fields. which states that the legislation is intended to protect the
frequencyHertz. A unit that measures health, safety, and welfare of cities "and is not intended to
systems that have a wave pattern.Abbreviated Hz. prevent the enactment or enforcement of additional laws and
Volt. power in an electrical system. regulations in the same subject which are not in conflict with
the provisions of[the] act."Shortlidge says this is a message
to the courts that cities and counties should be given the
and negative charges and that reduce EMFs by balancing the freedom to adopt land-use regulations suitable to their
lines ought to be encouraged. Requiring the lines to be particular needs.
underground,however,is not useful. Soil is not an effective Arthur Chambers, the Kansas APA chapter president and
shield against EMF emissions,and this solution may, in fact, city planning director in Olathe, agrees that the legislation's
exacerbate the problem by placing the lines closer to people. most beneficial result is that it was written to allow as much
Communities should require all new electric transmission home rule as possible. "This allows different-size
projects to have an EMF mitigation plan as an element in the communities to adopt land-use regulations that fit their
project's environmental impact report.The community's cities," he says.
standards could be flexible,requiring the utility to set up The most controversial provision applies to manufactured
alignments so as to reduce residential exposure to EMFs to housing. Communities can no longer adopt regulations that
the fullest extent possible.The utility industry has been have the effect of completely excluding manufactured
funding research on field reduction techniques,and this housing. They also must not exclude "residential-designed
process is yielding some promising engineering solutions. A manufactured homes" from single-family districts. The lacy
community could also require that existing lines be helps communities cope with this provision by allowing them
retrofitted in accordance with the utility's capital to adopt design guidelines for manufactured housing.
maintenance and improvement plan. The first step for most communities was to adjust their
notification and hearings procedures by January 1. Through-
Public concern abrut EMFs is likely to grow. The best out this year. communities will be expanding their planning
approach is to have some "regulation in place before a utility and zoning powers to include those provisions of the new
seeks siting approval for a new line.That regulation must be law that are needed to regulate local development. A1.til.
sufficiently rigorous to allay public concerns �khile allowing
Contra
Health Services Departme
Costa
/. C ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
East/Central Office
1111 Ward Street
- >>
County �y�..•�, ��/
Goun
Martinez,Ca!iforma 94553-1352
(510)646-2521
August 11, 1993
Bob Drake, Project Planner -
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, Second Floor, North Wing .:
Martinez, CA 94553 —
Dear Mr. Drake: "
RE: MAGNETIC FIELD MEAS o
(DAME HOMES SUBDIVISION 7188)
There are no regulatory standards in the State of California.
Currently, there is much active research on both the Federal and State level.
The Department of Energy has recently stepped up its research and the State
Public Utilities Commission is embarking on an educational and research
on magnetic field measurement and possible effects on human health.
Lack of knowledge has constrained scientists from recommending any
health-based regulations. With the scientific information now available, it is
not possible to set a standard or say that any given level is "safe" or
"dangerous". Neither the County nor the State expect any guidelines to be
promulgated within the foreseeable future.
Very truly yours,
Charles Nicholson, Acting Deputy Director
By Frank Angelo, Supervising Health Specialist
F3;3;. 5'92j