Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12101996 - D.4-D.8 p q •:'' ,. Contra +' Costa Count TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS f y ,,tee"Y FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON cosri cotiK-- DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: December 10, 1996 SUBJECT: HEARING ON C0IMTECH SERVICESfLINDA BUDGE (Applicant) - DANIEL STRAFACE (Owner) REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 1.76 ACRES OF LAND FROM PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (P-1) FOR COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE TO PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (P-1) FOR A RESTAURANT (RZ963038) TOGETHER WITH COMPANION FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (DP963007) IN THE OAKLEY AREA. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1 . Certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and accept the environmental documentation prepared for these projects as being adequate. 2 . Approve Rezoning application RZ963038 and Final Development Pian #963007 as recommended by the East County Regional Planning Commission as shown on the attached Conditions of Approval marked (Attachment "A" ) . 3. Adopt the East County Regional Planning Commission ' s findings as set forth in Resolution No. 30-1996 as the determination for these actions (Attachment "B") . - 4 . Introduce the ordinance giving effect to the aforesaid rezoning, waive reading and set forth date for adoption of same . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE _ RECCbtMMATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S) ACTION OF BOARD ON December 10 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X See the attached Addendum for Board action. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT - - - - - TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES : ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:ART BERESFORD 335-1212 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED Dpcpmber 10 1996 cc: Public Works-Attn: Mitch Avalon PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Commtech Services/Linda BudgeAND CO Y ADMINIST TOR Daniel Straface AB/df BY �r DEPUTY bo3: 963038 .bo PAGE TWO FISCAL IMPACT None . BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On November 4, 1996, the East County Regional Planning Commission, after taking testimony, recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve the P-1 rezoning request and preliminary Development Plan (RZ963038) and the final Development Plan (DP963007) subject to the Conditions of Approval and Findings attached. ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.9 Agenda December 10, 1996 This is the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for the hearing on the recommendation of the East County Regional Planning Commission on the request by Comm Tech Services/Linda Budge (Applicant), and Daniel Straface (Owner), for approval to rezone a site from a P-1 (Planned Unit District) for a commercial center with a 4,690 square foot and a 12,810 square foot building to a P-1 District for a 111 seat restaurant with a drive- through window. A variance is requested to rezone a site to P-1 commercial that is less than 1.0 acres in area (County File #RZ 3038-96); and for approval of a final development plan to develop the site into a restaurant with a patio/children's play structure, sign and a drive-up window and site landscaping. (County File #RZ 3007-96). Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report and recommendations on this matter. Mr. Barry advised the Board regarding suggested modifications to the Conditions of Approval, including deleting the change to Condition 5 A, which would revise the entrance and entrance landscaping, (which were covered in the Public Works Department's Conditions of Approval), modifying the sign height from 25 feet to 20 feet, and deleting the words "...at the discretion of the Public Works Director when he determines there is no further reason to defer the frontage improvements", as stated in Condition 22 D (3). Mitch Avalon, Public Works Department, advised the Board that the Public Works Department's staff was in agreement with the modifications noted by Dennis Barry. The public hearing was opened, and the following person presented testimony: Linda Budge, Applicant, Comm Tech Services, 9571 Mira Del Rio, Sacramento. All those desiring to speak having been heard, Supervisor Bishop moved to close the public hearing, and adopt staffs recommendations and the recommendations of the East County Regional Planning Commission. Supervisor Canciamilla seconded the motion, and questioned the discrepancy between the existing sign height and the proposed sign height. Dennis Barry advised that the existing sign was originally for 20 feet, but the previous applicant requested 25 feet and the prior Board of Supervisors granted their request. Supervisor Canciamilla requested clarification on the modifications to Condition 22 D (3), and suggested amending the motion to permit the sign to be 25 feet in height and to eliminate the last sentence in 22 D (3) beginning with the words " at the discretion of.....". 1 Supervisor Bishop agreed to the amendment. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the East County Regional Planning Commission's decision to approve the Rezoning Application (County File #RZ 3038-96) of Comm Tech Services/Linda Budge (Applicant) and Daniel Straface (Owner) is UPHELD, and Ordinance 96-47 giving effect to the rezoning is INTRODUCED; Reading is WAIVED, and December 17, 1996, is SET for adoption of same; the Final Development Plan application (County File #DP 3007-96) with amended conditions is APPROVED; the Mitigated Negative Declaration is ADOPTED as adequate; and the findings contained in Commission Resolution #30-1996 are ADOPTED. 2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED PERMIT APPLICANT: ComTech Services APPLICATION NO. RZ963038 9571 Mira Del Rio DP963007 Sacramento, CA 95827 ASSESSOR'SPARCEL NO. 051-220-039 and -053 OWNER: Daniel Straface ZONING DISTRICT: P-1 4115 Blackhawk Plaza, #100 Danville, CA 94506 APPROVED DATE: 12/10/96 EFFECTIVE DATE: 12/10/96 This is to notify you that the Board of Supervisors has granted your request for a final development plan, land use permit and rezoning, subject to the attached conditions. HARVEY E. BRAGDON, Director Community Development Department Dennis Barry, Deputy Director PLEASE NOTE THE EFFECTIVE DATE and be aware of the renewing requirements as no further notification will be sent by this office. The Clerk of the Board will provide you a copy of the Board Order with approved Conditions of Approval. Unless otherwise provided, you have 36 months from the approval date to file the FINAL MAP. �. 9 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR REZONING RZ963038 AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN dp963007 AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DECEMBER 10 1996 1. This approval is based upon the exhibits received by the Community Development Department listed as follows: A. Exhibit A - Revised site plan, floor plan, elevation plans, landscape plan and sign plan received on September 30, 1996, by the Community Development Department for a 111 seat fast food restaurant on the 1.76 acre site. This approval is also based upon the following reports: B. Phase I Environmental Assessment Plan prepared by Purcell, Rhoades & Associates dated received May 28, 1996 by the Community Development Department, 2. A variance is approved to allow a P-1 zoning on a parcel: A. Less than 10 acres for non-residential uses. 3. The approval of the Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan RZ963038 and Final Development Plan DP963006 shall run concurrently with the time limits of SUB #MS960006. Zoning Administrator Review 4. The proposed buildings shall be similar to that shown on submitted plans. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, elevations and architectural design of the building and building roofing material shall be submitted for final review and approval by the County Zoning Administrator. The roofs and exterior walls of the buildings shall be free of such objects as air conditioning or utility equipment, television aerials, etc., or screened from view. The building shall be finished in wood and stucco or other materials acceptable to the Zoning Administrator. 5. Prior to issuance of any building permits, an overall plan for site development shall be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator showing proposed building setbacks, elevations, signs and site landscaping. A. A revised entrance/landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for Zoning Administrator review and approval. B. A revised landscape and irrigation fence plan that includes a 6-foot tall cyclone fence with slats along the south side of the property together with a row of suitable bushes and trees. 2 C. A revised landscape and irrigation plan showing a row of suitable small flowering trees along the west side of the drive through lane. The westerly and northerly planter area shall be mounded at least 3-feet tall. If necessary the building shall be moved south and/or east to accomplish this mounding. D. A revised pylon sign with total area of 50 square feet or less, a maximum height of 25 feet located in an area on the site acceptable to CALTRANS and the Public Works Department. All signs shall be outside of ultimate right of way locations other than directional or stop signs. E. A 20-foot wide paved drive within the 28-foot wide access to Neroly Road including necessary frontage improvements on Neroly Road. 6. The design of the patio playground equipment shall be subject to the review and approval of the County Zoning Administrator after review and comment by the-Oakley MAC. Play area shall be designed to reduce noise from road traffic to acceptable levels. Archaeolos*v 7. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a profes- sional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeology(SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitiga- tion(s), if deemed necessary. TDM Condition 8. At least 30 days prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) information program in accord with the requirements of Ordinance No. 92-31 for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Applicant shall also comply with the County Growth Management Program and Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations regarding transportation. Geologic Condition 9. At least 45 days prior to issuance of a grading permit, building permit., or installation of improvements or utilities, applicant shall submit a preliminary geology, soil, and foundation report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall carry out the recoimnendations of the approved report. This report shall include evaluation of the potential for liquefaction, seismic settlement and other types of seismically-induced ground failure by recognized methods appropriate to soil conditions discovered during subsurface investigation. 1 D .9 i 3 Landscagin 10. A revised landscaping and irrigation plan for all areas shown on the plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator at least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits. A cost estimate shall be submitted with the landscaping program plan. Landscaping shall conform to the County Water Conservation Landscape Ordinance 82-26 and shall be installed prior to approval of final building permit. The pian shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and shall be certified to be in compliance with the County Water Conservation Ordinance. 11. Prior to occupancy, an on-site inspection shall be made of privately owned lands by a licensed landscape professional to determine compliance with the approved landscape plan. A certification of completion shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval. SiQns/W alls/Lightine 12. All signs shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. No other outside displays are permitted. 1.3. The design, color and location of any project sign at the entrance to the property shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. 14. Exterior lights shall be deflected so that lights shine onto application's property and not toward adjacent properties. 15. At least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits, an exterior lighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall include details of location and design of outside lighting fixtures, proposed screening and hours of operation of exterior lights. Construction 16. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements: A. Noise generating construction activities, including such things as power generators, shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays. The restrictions on allowed working days may be modified on prior written approval by the Zoning Administrator. 4 B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible. C. At least one week prior to commencement of grading,the applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehi- cles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number, shall be expressly iden- tified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of major grading and construction activity. A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed. D. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Any violation of the approved program or applicable ordinances shall require an immediate work stoppage. Construction work shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate construction bond has been posted. E. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. Prior to issuance of building permits, the proposed roads serving this development shall be constructed to provide access to each portion of the development site. This shall include provision for an on-site area in which to park earth moving equipment. F. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to week days between the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM. G. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site. 5 Hazardous Materials Inspection IT Any chemicals stored on the site shall be properly removed and disposed of under County Health Services Department regulations. Prior to commencement of site grading or the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall have the site inspected by a competent hazardous waste materials expert who shall submit a report for the Zoning Administrator's review attesting to the removal of any hazardous waste materials on site. Sewage Line Easement 18. Prior to issuance of building pen-nits for site development, the applicant shall provide a letter from the Ironhouse Sanitary District attesting to the creation of a suitable easement across the site. 19. This application is subject to an initial application fee of $6,200.00 was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 120% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. You may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If you owe additional fees, a bill will be to you shortly after permit issuance. 20. The applicant(including the owner or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Cosa County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this development, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the developer of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. Public Works Conditions Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Titles, 8, 9 and 10 of the Ordinance Code. Any Ordinance Code exceptions must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval area based on the site plan submitted on September 30, 1996 and the Vesting Tentative Map received by Community Development on May 1, 1996. Comply with the following conditions of approval prior to filing of the Final Map: 21. General Requirements: Applicant shall submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer to Public Works and pay appropriate fees in accordance with the County Ordinance and these Conditions of Approval. —�i D .9 6 22. Roadway Improvements (Frontage/On-Site/Off-Site): A. Applicant shall construct curb, 2.0 meter(6.0±foot) sidewalk, necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, street lighting, border landscaping and irrigation, pavement widening along the frontage of this property. Applicant shall construct face of curb 3.0 meter(10±feet) from the widened right of way line. The outside 4.8 meter(16±foot) lane may temporarily serve as a drop off lane into this project. However, the design must consider its future extension as a separate right turn lane to southbound Neroly Road. B. Applicant shall cut existing pavement to a neat line along an existing adequate structural section when widening the pavement. Widening shall commence at that line and may require an exploratory trench or pothole to determine the limits of pavement widening. C. Applicant shall install safety related improvements on State Highway 4 and Neroly Road (including traffic signs and striping) as approved by the Public Works Department - Transportation Engineering Division. D. The applicant can enter into a Deferred Improvement Agreement to install the frontage improvements along Highway 4 consisting of curb, gutter, 3.0 meter (6.0 foot) sidewalk, pavement widening, longitudinal drainage, utility relocation and under grounding of utilities, street lighting and signing, border landscaping and irrigation as identified in A, B, and C above. The Deferred Improvement Agreement can be called up when any one of the following happen: (1) when the frontage improvements along Chevron on Highway 4 are funded and scheduled to be installed; (2) when project traffic affects the operation of Highway 4 such that the widening in the opinion of the Public Works Director, would relieve the intersection congestion. E. The applicant is not responsible for the relocation and reconstruction of the off-ramp and signal at the intersection of I-160 and Highway 4 adjacent to the project. 23. Specific On-Site Road Improvements: A. The applicant shall extend the throat length, from State Highway 4 to the access to the site parking and drive-through area, to at least 30 meter (100± feet) from the State Highway 4 right of way line. B. The applicant shall provide mounding or walls to block oncoming headlights, of . patrons using the drive-through, from the eyes of motorists on the State Highway 4 off-ramp and roadway. 7 24. Specific Off-site Road Improvements: The applicant shall provide at least a 6.0 meter(20-foot) roadway within at least a 8.4 meter (284!foot) access easement from the project site to Neroly Road. 25. Access to Adjoining Property: Proof of Access/Acquisition A. Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department -Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road or drainage improvements. B. Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department - Engineering Services Division,that legal access to the property is available from both State Highway 4 and Neroly Road. Encroachment Permit C. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Application & Permit Center for construction of driveways, or other improvements within the right of way of Neroly Road. D. An encroachment permit for construction within the State right of way shall be obtained from Caltrans through the Public Works Department -Engineering Services Division. Site Access E. Access is only allowed at the locations shown on the approved site/development plan as modified by these conditions of approval. 26. Sight Distance: Provide for adequate sight distance at the State Highway 4 access for a 90 kilometer per hour (554:mile per hour) design speed, and at the Neroly Road access for a 80 kilometer per hour (50t mile per hour) design speed in accordance with Caltrans standards. 27. Measure "C" LOS Requirements: The project will provide the following mitigation measures, based on the September, 1996 revision to the "Traffic Impact Report for a Proposed Restaurant Development on State Highway 4 in the Oakley Area", and these conditions of approval: D1 8 A. Install frontage improvements as identified in Condition of Approval Number 22, Roadway Improvements (Frontage/On-site/Off-site): Paragraph A B. The applicant will contribute to the Oakley/North Brentwood Area of Benefit, the Eastern Contra Costa Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee Area of Benefit and the Oakley Median Island Area of Benefit for other road improvements in the area. C. Provide at least a 30 meter (100±foot) throat length at the State Highway 4 access to this property before any site parking or drive-through. D. Provide street lights along State Highway 4 and safety lighting at the Neroly Road project entrance. 28. Road Dedication: Applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, a maximum of 26 feet of the right of way necessary for the planned future width of`41.5 meter (136± feet) along the frontage of State Highway 4 (width measured from the existing right of way line on the north side of State Highway 4). The new right of way shall not exceed the limit as identified as the`Building Set Back Line" on Parcel Map 53-84 (114 PM49). 29. Street Lights: Street lights shall be installed on State Highway 4 and the property annexed to County Service Area L-100 for maintenance of the street lighting. The final number and location of the lights shall be determined by the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. Application for annexation of CSA L-100 Lighting District shall be submitted prior to filing of the Final Map. The applicant may also be required to provide safety lighting at the Neroly Road access to this site. 30. Pedestrian Access: All public and private pedestrian facilities and access ways shall be designed in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This shall include all sidewalks, paths, trails, driveway depressions, as well as handicap ramps. 31. Utilities/Undergrounding: All utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground, including the existing overhead distribution facilities along the frontage of State Highway 4. 32. Noise Study: A noise study will not be required. 9 33. Drainage Improvements: Collect and Convey A. Division 914 of the Ordinance Code requires that all storm waters entering or originating within the subject property shall be conveyed, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. B. Storm drainage facilities required by Division 914 shall be designed and constructed in accordance with specifications outlined in Division 914 and in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department. 34. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements: A. Storm drainage originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner shall be prevented from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s). B. The applicant shall install within a dedicated drainage easement any portion of the drainage system which conveys run-off from public streets. 35. Compliance with the Drainage Area Ordinance: The applicant shall be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage Area 29H as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. 36. Drainage Area Reimbursements: A. Drainage Area 29H Improvements: Certain improvements required by the Conditions of Approval for this development or the County Subdivision Ordinance Code may be eligible for credit or reimbursement against the drainage area fee. The developer should contact the Public Works Department to personally determine the extent of any credit or reimbursement for which he might be eligible. Any credit or reimbursements shall be determined prior to filing the Final Map or as approved by the Flood Control District. Drainage improvements required to convey stormwaters to, or to tie into, Drainage Area 29H facilities will not be reimbursable. B. Other Drainage Improvements: The applicant may be able to obtain reimbursement from other property owner(s) who will utilize the same drainage facilities to convey their drainage to the'Drainage Area 29H system. The applicant would be responsible . for executing and recording a reimbursement agreement, paying County administrative costs associated with that agreement, and monitoring development in the area and commenting on the pertinence of reimbursement under the agreement. io Comply with the following conditions of approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit: 37. Compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) Program: The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay - Region II or Central Valley-Region V). A. Develop BMP's in accordance with the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program for the site's stormwater drainage. B. Sweep the parking lot at least once a year between September 1 and October 15. Verification (invoice, etc.) Of the sweeping shall be submitted to the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program to substantiate that the work has been accomplished within 10-days of completion of the work. C. Stencil all storm drainage with"No Dumping Drainage to Delta" using thermoplastic tape. Comply with the following conditions of approval prim to issuance of a Building Permit: 38. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Oakley/North Brentwood Area of Benefit, the Eastern Contra Costa Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee Area of Benefit, and the Oakley Median Island Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. ADVISORY NOTES PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. A. The applicant/owner should be aware of the expiration dates and renewing requirements prior to requesting building or grading permits. B. Comply with the requirements of the Ironhouse Sanitary District. C. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. D . 9 D. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division. E. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Building permits are required prior to the construction of most structures. F. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish& Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish & Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish & Game Code. G. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. AB/aa DPIII/3007-96c.AB 10/21/96 11/4/96 - EC (a) 12/17/96 - B/S (a) ATTACHMENT "B" q b . l RESOLUTION NO. 30-1996 RESOLUTION OF THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE REQUESTED REZONING AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT CHANGE BY COMMTECH SERVICES/LINDA BUDGE (APPLICANT) AND DANIEL STRAFACE (OWNER) (County File #RZ963038) IN THE ORDINANCE CODE SECTION PERTAINING TO THE PRECISE ZONING FOR THE OAKLEY AREA OF SAID COUNTY, ALONG WITH COMPANION FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (DP963007) . WHEREAS, a request by CommTech Services/Linda Budge (Applicant) and Mr. Daniel Straface (Owner) County File #RZ963038, to rezone land in the Oakley area from Planned Unit District (P-1) Commercial Office Use to Planned Unit District (P-1) for a restaurant on a site under 10 acres in area was received on February 22, 1996, along with companion applications DP963007, LP962021 and MS960006; and WHEREAS, in connection with the applicant's requests, an Initial Study of Environmental Significance was prepared by the Community Development Department which determined that the requested entitlements would not have any significant adverse environmental impacts other than for traffic impacts; and WHEREAS, per Measure C, a Traffic Impact Report was prepared, submitted and found acceptable; and WHEREAS, the Owner submitted a written agreement to comply with the mitigation measures as outlined in the accepted Traffic Impact Report; and WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and State and County CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significant was prepared, pasted and circulated; and WHEREAS, after notice was lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the East County Regional Planning Commission on Monday, November 4, 1996; whereat all persons interested might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, on Monday, November 4, 1996, the East County Regional Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and D `l Page Two Resolution No. 30-1996 WHEREAS, on Monday, November 4, 1996, the East County Regional Planning Commission approved Land Use Permit LP962021 and Minor Subdivision MS960006; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the East County Regional Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, APPROVAL of the Rezoning and Final Development Plan request from CommTech Services/Linda Budge (Applicant) and Mr. Daniel Straface (Owner) County File #RZ963038, to rezone the site from Planned Unit District (P-1) for Commercial Office Use to Planned Unit District (P-1) for a restaurant on a site under 10 acres in area, and that this Rezoning change be made as indicated on the Findings Map entitled: Page G-24 of the County' s 1978 Zoning Map and that Final Development Plan #DP963007 be approved; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this recommendation are as follows: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan for the County. 2 . There is a community need for the proposed use. 3 . The applicant intends to start construction within two and one half years of the effective date of this change and plan approval. 4 . Traffic congestion will not likely be created by the proposed development or will be obviated by the project improvements with proper entrance and exists and by internal provisions for traffic and parking on the site. 5. The Development is a harmonious, integrated plan and will be an attractive efficient center which does not adversely effect adjacent and surrounding development and which justifies exception from normal application of this code. 6. The Variance of allowing a P-1 zone on a site under 10 acres in area will not be a grant of special privileges because of special circumstances the variance should be granted, and the variance substantially meets the intent and purpose of the land use district in which the subject property is located, and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the East County Regional Planning Commission shall respectively sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors all in accordance with the Planning Laws of the State of California. D-9 Page Three Resolution No. 30-1996 The instructions by the East County Regional Planning commission to prepare this resolution were given by motion of the East County Regional Planning Commission on Monday, November 4 , 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Hanson, Sobalvarro, Nunn, Wetzel, Wagner NOES: Commissioners - None ABSENT: Commissioners - Anderson ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None JEFFREY WAGNER Chair of the East County Regional Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: Dennis M, Barry, Sec etary of the East County Regional Planning Commission, State of California AB/df bo3 :rz963038 .res Findings Map PPRN 0 a . H-I W EAST o L-I y . Z w 2 `J Rezone From?-L_To'P-( Area I, J• W AG N E11Z Chair of the East County Regional Planning Commission,Contra Costa County,State of California, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Aj5F_ G-24 OF TNEe6U*YWs 1972 indicating thereon the decision of the East County Regional Planning Commission in the matter of L'omAA EGkt S! icgs VIZ A(0 3038 A,TTEST: Secretary of the East Count " Regional Planning Commission,State 01 California Qio Contra Costaf TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: December 10, 1996 SUBJECT: REPORT REGARDING PROCESS DEVELOPED FOR KELLER CANYON LANDFILL PROPERTY VALUATION PAYOUT SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)6 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: ADOPT attached "Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Payout Process" developed by staff. FISCAL IMPACT: On November 19, 1996 the Board of Supervisors allocated $485,000 from the Keller mitigation reserves to fund the attached "Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Payout Process". BACKGRO IND/RFAfinNS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: On November 19, 1996 the Board of Supervisors directed staff to return to the Board on December 10, 1996 with a recommended process for payout of the funds allocated for Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation. Staff has developed the attached "Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Payout Process". CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR —RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE _APPROVE —OTHER SMNATUREISI: ACTION OF BOARD ON December 10, 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_ OTHER x Please see Addendum (Attached) for a list of speakers and Baord Action on this matter. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ------ I ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. AYES: NOES: ATTESTED December 10, 1996 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PHIL TC LOR,CLER%MI D OF Contact: Val Alexeeff(510)646-1620 U RS AND OUTOR CC: County Administrator County Counsel GMEDA Departments SFIIKeller Canyon Landfill City of Pittsburg Finance Committee (via CAO) VAIDD:dg j:lgroupsl...lddingVCCL-PVS2.BO D.10 ADDENDUM Item D.10 December 10, 1996 The following persons commented to the Board on the issues: John C. Stoneking, 615 Bailey Road, Bay Point; Warren L. Smith, 1. 100 Bailey Road, Pittsburg; Lance J. Dow, 2232 Concord Drive, Pittsburg; Frank Aiello, 1734 Bridgeview, Pittsburg; Frank. Sharkey, 751 Bailey Road, Pittsburg; Sandra Leavy, 11 La Mesa Lane, Walnut Creek; and John Hawthorne, 2241 Westwood Lane, Pittsburg. All persons desiring to speak having been heard, the Board took the following action: 1. ACCEPTED the attached report from the Director of Growth Management and Economic Development Agency (GMEDA) regarding the payout process options for the Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Program; 2. REFERRED the attached report to the Finance Committee to solicit a voluntary contribution for the payout program from Browning Ferris Industries, to review property loss impacts, and to finalize the map and the payment plan; and 3. DIRECTED the Finance Committee to submit a report within 45 Days to the Board of Supervisors. cc: County Administrator Finance Committee (via CAO) County Counsel GMEDA Departments BFI/Keller Canyon Landfill City of Pittsburg Do /o ICELLER CANYON LANDFILL PROPERTY VALUATION PAYOUT PROCESS BACKGROUND There will continue to be ample dispute regarding which properties have been affected by the landfill and by how much. At one extreme, BFI states that the landfill is run in an orderly manner and there are none of the obnoxious effects credited to landfills prior to the stringent standards under which Keller Canyon Landfill is operating, and therefore, there is no devaluation due to physical conditions. Under other interpretations, residents claim that the effect on their property values in the area does not stem exclusively from the recession, but from Keller. A study prepared for the County concluded that Bailey Road frontage residences on the east side are affected by truck traffic. The individual property effect within the Hillsdale neighborhood is far less certain. Properties that do not share property lines with the landfill or have no view of the landfill will find it far more difficult to document impacts. Perception has been held as lacking justification for compensation. To respond to the issue of benefit for those properties that have the highest awareness of the landfill, the Board of Supervisors has appropriated $485,000 for dispersement to eligible property owners. Most of the interest regarding property value compensation has come from specific individuals who have been particularly opposed to the landfill (spoke against approval). Others in the area, as evidenced in the Anderson report, have not been as keenly affected or aware of the issues and politics surrounding the landfill. It is of benefit to both the County and less concerned property owners to have an expedited community benefit disbursement. To this end, staff offers PIAN A. For who have documentation related to the physical effects of the landfill and choose to pursue claim above the lump sum amount we have developed PLAN B. Transaction cost to administer/implement this process is estimated to be $25,000. REVISED: 12/3/96 at 2:00 p.m. -PAGE 1 - I:\GROUPS\CDADPOOL\DDING\P V S•PRCS.NOT KELLER CANYON LANDFILL PROPERTY VALUATION PAYOUT PROCESS PLAN LUMP SUM -- BAILEY ROAD A lump sum payout of $5,000 is offered to those eligible property owners who own existing residences along east side of Bailey Road prior to July 24, 1990. No more than one check shall be given per property. Those property owners that would like to receive the lump sum payout must provide the following and submit to the County during the claims period (January 1, 1997 through April 30, 1997): a. a completed form (form prepared by staff and available by the end of December) b. a title report (or other proof of ownership/eligibility - property must have been constructed &owned prior to 7/24/90) C. a signed waiver/release of liability against the County (relinquishment of further claims against the County) LUMP SUM -- HILLSDALE A lump sum payout of $2,000 would be offered to those eligible property owners who own one of the designated properties in the Hillsdale neighborhood (a list will be prepared of addresses based on proximity and view of the landfill). Those property owners that would like to receive the lump sum payout must provide the following and submit to the County during the claims period (January 1, 1997 through April 30, 1997): a. a completed form (form prepared by staff and available by the end of December) b. a title report (or other proof of ownership/eligibility - property must have been constructed &owned prior to 7/24/90) C. a signed waiver/release of liability against the County (relinquishment of further claims against the County) REVISED: 12/3/96 at 2:00 p.m. -PAGB2- l:\GROUPS\MADPOOL\DDAIO\P V S-PRCS.NOT D , lo KELLER CANYON LANDFILL PROPERTY VALUATION PAYOUT PROCESS PLAN INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS -- BAILEY ROAD & HILLSDALE Those that choose to pursue a claim in excess of the lump sum amount or were not included among properties designated could apply to a funding pool. Property owners who apply to the pool would forfeit the right to a lump sum. The balance of the funds not paid out to property owners under PLAN A and not paid in administrative costs (including payment to attorneys, claims examiner and/or consultants) would be set constitute the pool of money available for dispersement to eligible property owners (from along Bailey Road or in Hillsdale) who have filed claims and provided substantiation/evidence. A claims examiner will appropriate the funds. Those property owners who choose to file individual claims must provide the following and submit to the County during the claims period (January 1, 1997 through April 30, 1997): a. a completed form (form prepared by staff and available by the end of December) b. a title report (or other proof of ownership/eligibility - property must have been constructed &owned prior to 7/24/90) C. proof of property value losses or reductions attributable to Landfill impacts, such as aesthetics, noise, traffic, or pollution, rather than the recession or other factors The individual claims and supporting documentation must be filed during the claims period (January 1, 1997 through by April 30, 1997). The claims would then be evaluated by claims examiner. First priority will be given to claims from eligible property owners along Bailey Road. Staff recommends there be no appeal beyond the claims examiner. No funds can be disbursed until all appeals are settled, the County will not commit funds beyond those appropriated. Those property owners who choose to accept payout under PLAN B must provide the following and submit to the County during the claims period (January 1, 1997 through April 30, 1997): a. a signed waiver/release of liability against the County (relinquishment of further claims against the County) REVISED: 12/3/96 at 2:00 p.m. -PAGE 3 - l:\GROUPS\CDADPOOL\DDING\PV S-PRCS.NOT DRAFT CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY VALUES Name: Address: Assessor's Parcel Number: Name on Title of Property: Ownership timing and duration: 1 . Was your property sold prior to July 24, 1990? ❑ Yes ❑ No 2. Was your property purchased after July 24, 1990? ❑ Yes ❑ No 3. Have you owned the property continuously between July 24, 1990 and the present? ❑ Yes ❑ No 4. if you have sold the property, when did you sell it and what was the sale price? — 5. Was the property sold to a relative? ❑ Yes ❑ No 6. Has your property been foreclosed by a lien holder? ❑ Yes ❑ No 7. Have you acquired the property by inheritance? ❑ Yes ❑ No 8. Please firmish a title report and other documents to substantiate this infortnation. VA:Jg ke1gm t (1276) p , tO Landfill Effect: Besides activities related to construction, please list the specific physical impacts created by the landfill and ]low they affect your property. What evidence have you furnished to substantiate this claim? What is the distance from your property to the landfill boundary? Can the landfill be seen from your residence? ❑ Yes ❑ No (Please provide photographs.) Can the landfill be seen from your property? ❑ Yes ❑ No (Please provide photographs) Sales Loss: If you sold your property since the approval date of the landfill, do you have at least two examples of comparable sales to indicate that your loss was due to the landfill and not the economic recession? If you sold your property and the buyer paid a "tower" price because of the landfill, can you substantiate that this was not a bargaining strategy? VA:ag kdquot 2 (12/96) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: December 9, 1996 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Val Alexeeff SUBJECT: D-10 KELLER PROPERTY VALUATION I am enclosing 3 correspondences related to item D-10. Responses from Pittsburg and BFI related to Board requests for contribution and staffs proposal for distribution of the $485,000 appropriated from the Board. These items were received following preparation of the Board Packet. VA:Iz AlexecMD10_mem b , o CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: December 9, 1996 FAX TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors FROM: Val Alexeeff, Director By: Deidra Dingman, Senior Planner SUBJECT: STAFF PROPOSAL REGARDING SPECIFIC PROPERTIES IN HILLSDALE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR LUMP SUM PAYOUT UNDER THE KELLER CANYON LANDFILL PROPERTY VALUATION PROGRAM (Item D.10 on 12110196 agenda) The following list of properties and map for the Hillsdale neighborhood have just been completed I staff based on proximity and view. Therefore we are transmitting this separately to each Supervisor's office for the Board's consideration of Item D.10 on December 10, 1996. The list and map were developed by staff based on proximity and view. The list and map identify 113 residences in Hillsdale which staff is recommending be eligible for the $2,000 lump sum payout under Plan A of the Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Payout Process (assuming property owner meets all eligibility requirements). cc: Clerk of the Board Press Box City of Pittsburg BFI/I(eller Canyon Landfill VAidd DDW:60SHLSDL.MEM STi4FF HILLSDALE a 'I Carmel Ct. Santa Maria Dr. Jacqueline Dr. (cont'd) 2222 2246 2285 2224 2247 2286 2227 2248 2288 2229 2249 2290 2231 2250 2292 2233 2251 2294 2235 2252 2296 2297 Rome Ct. lacqueline Dr. 2298 2212 2236 (2 story) 2300 2213 2249 (2 story) 2302 2214 2250 2303 22I5 2251 2304 2216 2252 2308 2217 2253 2218 2254 Concord Dr. 2255 2234 (2 story) Mt Whitney Dr. 2256 2249 (2 story) 2218 2257 2251 2257 2258 2253 2259 2259 2254 2261 2260 2255 2262 2261 2256 2264 2262 2257 2266 2263 2258 2267 2264 2259 2268 2265 2260 2269 2266 2261 2270 2267 2262 2271 2268 2263 2272 2269 2264 2274 2270 2265 2271 2266 Westmont Ct. 2272 2267 1059 2273 2268 1060 2274 2269 1061 2275 2270 1062 2277 2271 1063 2279 2273 1064 2281 -------------------------------------- 1065 2283 TOTAL = I066 2284 113 residences DDIO:hlMalclst y f jY a KO00 N aY 0. two -r— Ir V F � l05 GIL LfA_ Cf \ U4 -,W 5 ruMa � k � aa Zv— .•• Itb •` 13 X 2N 26q a ke 00 cm pi Wo RR11 w _ --- �� z[rne 04 L y�f 455 ol i $ ` `�'._.�'-'-'.-s_..._r.►.....,PtYY813U9tU 7 I Aryu vcL L ry .�. '� ♦1Y ` iii' 9 � v k IRecycled paper BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES GOLDEN GATE DIVISION Dennis P. Fenton Divisional Vice President Valentin Alexeeff, Director Growth Management and Economic Development Agency Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, No. Wing, Second Floor Martinez, CA 94553-1213 Dear Val: I am writing in response to your request of December 4, 1996, that BFI make a voluntary contribution to a community benefit fund for neighborhoods near the Keller Canyon Landfill. As you know, BFI offered to join with the City of Pittsburg and the County in establishing a voluntary community benefit fund following the Pittsburg City Council's unanimous selection of BFI last April to provide disposal services for the Pittsburg Transfer Station and direct a public hearing to determine whether to reduce the rates given the BFI proposal. You will recall from our several meetings with City and County representatives that we had offered to participate in a voluntary mitigation program for local residents as well as other programs (such as an air monitoring program and a good neighbor agreement) in consideration for the Keller Canyon Landfill receiving additional wastestream from the Pittsburg Transfer Station. For reasons which remain unclear, the City determined in July to call for a new disposal bid from the Potrero Hills Landfill. BFI was apprised of the City's decision to seek new bids by the City Manager a few business days before the Council meeting, at which, the Council reversed itself and awarded the disposal contract to the Potrero Hills Landfill. This reversal by the City was subsequent to the Board of Supervisor's determination to temporarily transfer $1.25 per ton in County mitigation funds to the City by a few days. The Board's determination was coupled with a request that the City continue to participate in joint negotiations with the County and BFI consistent with the parties' previous discussions. In electing to send its solid waste to the Solano County landfill, the City precluded Contra Costa County from receiving more than $750,000 per year in franchise fees and BFI of significant additional landfill revenues, all of which could have made possible the additional considerations that BFI, the County and Pittsburg were contemplating. 6601 OWENS DRIVE, SUITE 250 • PLEASANTON, CA 94588 • (510) 468-1010 • FAX: (510) 468-1111 pi ' O Recycled paper Valentin Alexeeff, Director Growth Management and Economic Development Agency December 9, 1996 Page 2 Further, by sending solid waste to Solano County, the City is no longer able to consider a rate reduction for its residents as originally contemplated as a result of BFI's proposal. As always, BFI remains willing to participate in joint mitigation programs with the County and City of Pittsburg, provided BFI can enjoy additional revenue from waste services in the City of Pittsburg which would make such a contribution possible. For these reasons, we are unable to participate at this time. Sincerely, Dennis P. Fenton cc: Members, Board of Supervisors Phil Bachelor, County Administrator DPF:sf/20.Mr City of Pittsburg Civic Center • P.O. Bax 1518-0158 • Pittsburg,California 91565 F7ECEIF-;'J i"Fe - S 1996 December 4, 1996 tMj ceMF,d ,.;o Mr. Valentin Alexeef, Director Growth Management And Economic Development Agency Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, North Wing, Second Floor Martinez, California 94553-1213 Dear Val: At its meeting on December 2nd, the City Council considered your letter of November 21, 1996, inquiring if the City would be willing to use the Keller Canyon Landfill mitigation funds it will receive beginning January 1, 1997, to help mitigate the impacts on residents surrounding the Landfill. The City Council voted 5-0 to decline to provide funding for the Landfill Property Valuation Program. The City is very appreciative of the Board's actions, as well as those of staff, to move forward with compensating residents near the Landfill for economic losses attributable to the facility. However, Pittsburg intends to use the Landfill mitigation funds that it receives for the betterment of the entire community and to offset revenue losses to the City, and therefore must respectively decline your request to dedicate these funds specifically to the Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Program. During its long and well-documented opposition to the siting of the Landfill, the City identified a myriad of possible impacts associated with the facility, including the potential for affecting property values in the surrounding neighborhood. Pittsburg has always maintained that in addition to adversely affecting neighboring property values, the Landfill would, and has negatively impacted the City as a whole. The City has taken great strides to differentiate these economic impacts. This is evidenced, in part, by Pittsburg's adherence to County Ordinance 89-81 which specifies the process for determining compensation to communities impacted by the siting of a landfill. The City notified the County of its intent to pursue compensation under Ordinance 89-91 in July 1992, and took steps to initiate the process two years later. League of California C#ics Helen Putnam Award-1988 National Center for Public Productivity Exemplary Award-1989 City of New Horizons t 10 Although Pittsburg believes the Landfill's impact on the entire community to be far greater, earlier this year the City agreed to accept $1.25 per ton in compensation from the Landfill mitigation monies as a means of moving forward on the resolution of other issues, including the Property Valuation Program, without further delay. At the time the Board allocated these funds to the City, no mention or commitment was made that the monies were to be directed to the Property Valuation Program for which other funding sources have been historically identified. To use these monies to fund the Property Valuation Program, as is now being requested, would simply amount to transferring funds intended to mitigate one Landfill impact to mitigate another separate and distinct impact. The County continues to receive an additional $1.75 per ton in mitigation fees which could be allocated to the Property Valuation Program and increase the settlement funding if needed in the future. While the City is unable to provide additional funding for the Property Valuation Program, we remain committed to maintaining the cooperative relationship that has developed between our staffs and Keller Canyon Landfill as a means of resolving outstanding issues related to the facility. In this respect, we look forward to moving from what has been a positive dialogue to positive actions relative matters such as developing a goad neighbor agreement and an ambient air monitoring program. Sincerel T I y C City Manager cc. Mayor and City Council Chairperson and Board of Supervisors Consider w1A D/D CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: December 9, 1996 FAX TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors FROM: Val Alexeeff, Director By: Deidra Dingman, Senior Planner SUBJECT: STAFF PROPOSAL REGARDING SPECIFIC PROPERTIES IN HILLSDALE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR LUMP SUM PAYOUT UNDER THE KELLER CANYON LANDFILL PROPERTY VALUATION PROGRAM (Item D.10 on 12/10/96 agenda) The following list of properties and map for the Hillsdale neighborhood have just been completed by staff based on proximity and view. Therefore we are transmitting this separately to each Supervisor's office for the Board's consideration of Item D.10 on December 10, 1996. The list and map were developed by staff based on proximity and view. The list and map identify 113 residences in Hillsdale which staff is recommending be eligible for the $2,000 lump sum payout under Plan A of the Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Payout Process (assuming property owner meets all eligibility requirements). cc: Cleric of the Board Press Box City of Pittsburg BFI/Keller Canyon Landfill vada DD 10:BOSHLSDL.MEM STAFF HILLSDALE b, to Carmel Ct. Santa Maria Dr. Jacqueline Dr. (cont'd) 2222 2246 2285 2224 2247 2286 2227 2248 2288 2229 2249 2290 2231 2250 2292 2233 2251 2294 2235 2252 2296 2297 Rome Ct. Jacqueline Dr. 2298 2212 2236 (2 story) 2300 2213 2249 (2 story) 2302 2214 2250 2303 2215 2251 2304 2216 2252 2308 2217 2253 2218 2254 Concord Dr. 2255 2234 (2 story) Mt. Whitney Dr. 2256 2249 (2 story) 2218 2257 2251 2257 2258 2253 2259 2259 2254 2261 2260 2255 2262 2261 2256 2264 2262 2257 2266 2263 2258 2267 2264 2259 2268 2265 2260 2269 2266 2261 2270 2267 2262 2271 2268 2263 2272 2269 2264 2274 2270 2265 2271 2266 Westmont Ct. 2272 2267 1059 2273 2268 1060 2274 2269 1061 2275 2270 1062 2277 2271 1063 2279 2273 1064 2281 -------------------------------------- 1065 2283 TOTAL = 1066 2284 113 residences DD10:hllsdale.lst 1 �/�• t _ 1 � �r, Lam" ps pa y wi � C j s 6�i ..•• =p r c n2 ern x I / F I'•�• Yt WH1KY pa ZS 8 ..r n 01G :+ VU MLS 1, S � zuw oa _ Im- R. y .. PITT82U01O C.C. C. PC r f y � v pN WAY L D.11 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on December 10, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors DeSaulnier, Canciamilla and Smith NOES: Supervisors Rogers and Bishop ABSENT: None ABSENT: None Subject: Preliminary and Final Development Plan (County File NDP 3004-96); Appeals by Howard and Lettie Sin (Applicants), and Shapell Industries of Northern California (Applicant) on the recommendation of Contra Costa County Planning Commission's decision relative to the Wendt Ranch Subdivision (County File #SD 8002-96); Ordinance 96-43 for rezoning land in the Danville/Blackhawk area (County File #DP 3004-96). On November 19, 1996, the Board continued to this date consideration of the following matters: A. The request of Shapell Industries of Northern California (Applicant and Owner) for a Preliminary and Final Development Plan for 323 residential units (County File #DP 3004- 96), Danville/Blackhawk area; B. The consideration of adoption of Ordinance 96-43, rezoning land in the (County File #RZ 3037-96) (Wendt Ranch), Danville-Blackhawk area; C. The request for an appeal by Shapell Industries of Northern California (Applicant and Owner) for approval of a vesting tentative map (Wendt Ranch) on the 165 acre parcel to allow for 323 residential lots, park, and open space parcels (County File #SD 8002-96), Danville/Blackhawk area; D. The request for an appeal by Howard and Lettie Siu (Appellants) from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the application of Shapell Industries of Northern California to modify the tentative map agreement (Wendt Ranch) (County File #SD 8002-96), Danville/Blackhawk area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, and Mitch Avalon, Public Works Department, presented the staff reports and recommendations. Mitch Avalon, introduced a memo on this date from the Public Works Department to the Board members with revised conditions. The Board discussed the matter. Supervisor Bishop recommended accepting the memo with the revised conditions, with the understanding that discussion of the Siu's appeal would proceed today, but that decision on the appeal would be continued for one week. Supervisor Smith restated that the motion would be to accept Public Works' Memorandum and continue Agenda Items A, C, and D to next week, and to hear public testimony today, adding that Agenda Item D.I1 B could also be acted on today, if so desired. 1 D , il Supervisor DeSaulnier seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, DeSaulnier, Canciamilla and Smith NOES: Supervisor Bishop ABSENT/ABSTAIN: None The following persons presented testimony: Tom Koch, Shapell Industries of Northern California, 2682 Bishop Dr., #206, San Ramon; Marilee Gunyon, Sycamore Associates, biologist consultant for Shapell Industries of Northern California; Lettie Siu, appellant, 1465 Lawrence Road, Danville; Howard Siu, appellant, 1465 Lawrence Road, Danville; Paul Speroni, 245 Joseph Lane, Pleasanton; Linda Lemon, Save Our Danville Creeks, 522 Zenith Ridge Drive, Danville; Jim Blickenstaff, Mt. Diablo Sierra Club and Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee, 2410 Talavera Drive, San Ramon; Jim Richards, 1463 Lawrence Road, Danville; Joe Herr, 2109 Granite Drive, Alamo; Mike Conklin, 2428 Talavera Drive, San Ramon; Peter Bosma, East Bay Bicycle Coalition, 2379 Sandpiper Way, Pleasanton; Tom Koch, Shapell Industries of Northern California, 2682 Bishop Dr., #206, San Ramon, spoke in rebuttal; All persons desiring to speak having been heard, the Board considered the issues. Supervisor DeSaulnier moved that the public hearings be closed, that Ordinance 96-43 be adopted, and decision on the other matters be continued until December 17, 1996, at 2:00 p.m. Supervisor Canciamilla seconded the motion. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the recommendation of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the request of Shapell Industries of Northern California (Applicant and Owner) for a Preliminary and Final Development Plan for 323 residential units, (County File #DP 3004-96), DanvilleBlackhawk area is CLOSED; and decision is DEFERRED to December 17, 1996, 2:00 p.m. in the Board's Chambers. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ordinance 96-43 is ADOPTED, rezoning land in the (County File #RZ 3037-96) (Wendt Ranch) DanvilleBlackhawk area; 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on the appeal by Shapell Industries of Northern California (Applicant and Owner) for approval of a vesting tentative map (Wendt Ranch) on the 165 acre parcel to allow for 323 residential lots, park, and open space parcels.(County File #SD 8002-96), DanvilleBlackhawk area is CLOSED; and decision is DEFERRED to December 17, 1996, 2:00 p.m. in the Board's Chambers. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on the appeal by Howard and Lettie Siu (Appellants) from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the request of Shapell Industries of Northern California for a vesting tentative map (County File #SD 8002-96) (Wendt Ranch), DanvilleBlackhawk area is CLOSED; and decision is DEFERRED to December 17, 1996, 2:00 p.m. in the Board's Chambers. 0091 60 this a s cw af4 s sof M nfotn and onland on ftminolw M IM aura of BuP"y��Ph-on tlro-dab 1tlesnt. AMMD:,Y lu/111./9`II� PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of thebard of Buporvlaora and Qpuny Administrator Do" c.c.Community Development County Counsel Public Works Owners Applicants 3 Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa C FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: December 10, 1996 SUBJECT: Final Development Plan (County File #DP96-3004) , and Appeals by Howard and Lettis Siu and by Shapell Industries of Northern California (Applicant) of the County Planning Commission's decision relative to the Wendt Ranch Subdivision (County File #SD96-8002) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) 6 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RFs OMMENDATIONS 1. Certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and with State and County CEQA Guidelines. 2. Adopt the Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations related to the approval of this project. 3. Render a decision on the appeal filed by Shapell Industries of Northern California with one of the following options: A. Shapell Appeal Option 1• Deny the appeal of Shappell Industries of Northern California and uphold the decision of the County Planning Commission approving Subdivision 968002 with the conditions as modified herein. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMIT EE _ APPROVE OTHER IT SIGNATURE(S) : ACTI OF BOARD Oz'i APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER • I i VOTE OF SUPERVISORS HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A _ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: TION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MI TES OF THE BOARD OF Contact: Dennis M. Barry 33 SUPE ISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Community Develo ent Department ATTESTED cc: Howard and Let a Siu PHIL ATCHELOR, CLERK OF Shapell Indus ries THE BO D OF SUPERVISORS County Couns 1 AND COU ADMINISTRATOR Public War City of S Ramon BY DEPUTY Town of D nville 3;\aw\wendt1.bo Board Order - Wendt Appeals December 10, 1996 Page 2 B. Shapell Appeal Option 2: Grant the appeal of Shapell Industries of Northern California and amend the EIR Impact Statement, the Mitigation Measure and permit Condition #89 to reflect that a Kit Fox mitigation plan and consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game is only required if preconstruction surveys indicate the presence of the species on the site (refer to Exhibit B for suggested text changes) . 4. Render a decision on the appeal filed by Howard and Lettie Siu with one of the following options : A. Siu Appeal Option 1: Deny the appeal of Howard and Lettie Siu and uphold the decision of the County Planning Commission approving Subdivision 968002 with conditions as modified herein. B. Siu Appeal Option 2 Grant the appeal of Howard and Lettie Siu and amend conditions as necessary to incorporate the Board's decision. 5 . Approve the permit condition changes proposed by the County Public Works and Community Development Departments which were discussed at the November 19, 1996 Board hearing on this project (refer to Section D herein and to Exhibits D and E) . 6. Approve Final Development Plan (County File #96-3004) with conditions as modified herein. 7. Adopt the findings contained in County Planning Commission Resolution #29-1996 as the basis for the Board's action (refer to Exhibit F) . 8 . Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared for this project. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On November 5, 1996, the Planning Commission approved subdivision 968002 with modifications to the staff recommended conditions. Appeals were filed by Shapell Industries of Northern California on November 6, 1996 and by Howard and Lettie Siu on November 14, 1996. On November 19, 1996, the Board continued the hearing on the Final Development Plan (County File #DP96- 3004) to this date to be considered along with the appeals of the Subdivision. The letters of appeal from Shapell Industries and from Howard and Lettie Sue have been included as Exhibits A and C. A. Shapell Appeal:, Shapell appealed permit condition #89 which is a mitigation measure to address impacts of the project on Kit Fox habitat. The discussion of the appeal is provided in more detail in the report for the Board's November 19, 1996 meeting, and is summarized here. In general, the Environmental Impact Report concludes that the "Project Development would result in reduction of San Joaquin kit fox foraging habitat and may adversely affect individual animals. For the habitat, this is a significant impact; for individual animals, the impact level is unknown" (reference: DEIR pg. III .J-15) . The corresponding mitigation measure, which is included as permit condition #89, requires the preparation of an off-site mitigation habitat program for the Kit Fox. The appellant suggests that there is insufficient evidence presented to conclude that the project is in fact kit fox foraging habitat, x, 11 Board Order - Wendt Appeals December 10, 1996 Page 3 while acknowledging that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game consider it as such. In short, the appellants believe that verification of the presence of kit fox is necessary to demonstrate that the site is in fact foraging habitat and thus warranting mitigation. The appellant proposes that Condition #89 be amended such that the habitat program is only required if preconstruction habitat surveys verify the presence of kit fox. If the Board agrees with the appellant, Impact Statement #Jl, Mitigation Measure #J1 and permit condition #89 should be modified. Suggested text is provided in Exhibit B. B. Siu Aor)eal• The letter of appeal, which addresses a number of issues, is included as Exhibit C. Mr. Siu included a letter from Save Our Danville Creeks regarding the hearings held before the County Planning commission. Since that letter includes concerns regarding the process, rather than the project itself, the letter has been included for the Board's information. No additional discussion is provided herein other than to note that the County Planning Commission held hearings on this project on October 8, 1996 as well as on November Sth, where all those who requested to speak were heard by the Commission. Those hearings were noticed and conducted consistent with State Planning laws and with County ordinances and procedures . The following section responds to the issues of the appeal in the order present in the letter from Mr. and Mrs . Sui. The letter of appeal had a number of attachments (refer to Exhibit C) . Since these attachments are copies of documents previously provided to the Board for the November 19th meeting, no additional discussion is provided herein. 1. Public Services and Utilities: Statement of Aop)eal Summary: A permanent sewer management program must be planned to pump sewage to the north, and must not potentially dump untreated sewage into Alamo Creek in case of repair, power outages or other facility emergencies. Staff Response: The design and construction of sewer facilities for this project are under the jurisdiction of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. The Sanitary District requires that any sewer pump station incorporate specific backup safety measures (e. g. redundant pump systems, alternative power source, and alarms) to protect against back- up or overflow in the event of power outages or other facility emergencies. This issue was also addressed in the November 15, 1996 memo from the Public Words Department to the Board along with the recommendation that a permit condition be added to require verification that the back-up measures have been incorporated into the system design. Statement of Aooeal Summary: Given the significant increased wildland fire risk, Shapell should provide a substantial land buffer between the Sui property which can be accessed from both the Siu and Wendt properties in order to maintain a 30 to 90 foot fire break. Shapell must help maintain the Siu access dirt road to facilitate access to this fire and multi-purpose buffer zone. Staff Response: Permit condition #110 requires the applicant to prepare an "Open Space Fire Management Plan" and to submit the proposed Plan to the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District and to the Zoning Administrator prior to the filing of the final map. The report would address fire prevention as well as fire suppression measures. The need for, and the proper size/location of, a fire break should be determined through this review with the Fire District. Similarly, provisions for accessing a fire break would be addressed through this process. D . II Board Order - Wendt Appeals December 10, 1996 Page 4 Although we believe that this issue is sufficiently handled by the existing permit conditions, the Board could amend Condition #110 by adding the following language: ��,���'t?P����g�a�m!:��'�ratt�blaria�ement �1an sha}1 sgeczfically ddasbFietcxia fiize breakf�stween,ttie agerY space fill, a� � sate and khe 5iu grape�ty.` Tie Planshal� � d an rneoessany;access !to' the ;open' sliaas''farir� P,�#Y � ?� i�d#,suZsBressian«. 2. Air Quality: Statement of Appeal u ma v• There is a significant increased risk of Coccidioidomycosis or Valley Fever from spores, which are made airborne by grading. Shapell should be liable for medical treatment, loss of income or other effects for 5 years after grading. Staff Response* The appellant did not provide evidence to support the position that grading substantially increases the incidence of Coccidioidomycosis. The Environmental Impact Report disclosed that grading of the site, as well as construction and demolition, would increase dust. The report included ten (10) mitigation measures all of which have been included as permit conditions (refer to permit conditions 72A- J. In addition, the permit requires the applicant to submit monthly construction reports to verify compliance with the fugitive dust control conditions. 3. Noise: Statement of Appeal Summarv: There will be a significant noise impact on the Joseph and Verna Simpson Lake and Wildlife Reserve. The noise would be mitigated by eliminating the southwest cluster of 16 units and by design and landscaping requirements. (Note: the appellant cites Impact F1 of the EIR. ) Staff Response: Impact FI states that traffic generated by this project together with cumulative development, will increase ambient noise levels by up to 5dBA. The cumulative traffic considers development that would occur by the year 2010. Projects considered in the cumulative analysis include Dougherty Valley (11,000 units) , Tassajara Valley (5,950 units) and Tassajara Meadows (230 units) plus approximately one million square feet of commercial space. There is no evidence to suggest that eliminating sixteen residential lots or imposing design/landscaping requirements on the Wendt site would measurably alter this calculation. Further, it should be noted that the contribution of Wendt Ranch to the cumulative noise increase is only IdBA. An increase of 3 dBA must be achieved before a noise increase is generally perceptible. A. Soils and Geohazards: Statement of .appeal Summary_: Grading on all slopes greater that 26% within 200 feet of the creeks should be avoided based on slides, erosion and creek siltation concerns. Staff Response: The primary conditions which address the appellant's comment are the requirement to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CoA 158)and the requirement that final grading and development plans eliminate construction and grading within 100 feet of Alamo Creek to the extent feasible (COA 99) . The permit also includes a number of other conditions which address slides, erosion and creek siltation. They include D, li Board Order - Wendt Appeals December 10, 1996 Page 5 avoiding making cuts on the lower portion of unstable hillsides (COA 19) , improving the stability of open space lands (COA 19) , preparating a design level geotechnical report and a slope stability analysis (COA 21) , preparing an erosion control plan addressing site development and long term maintenance (COA 24 and 25) and repairing unstable slopes (COA 36) . Statement of Aooeal Summary* The potential of liquefaction should be evaluated. Based on the high risk of liquefaction, Shapell should avoid building in the vernal marsh area and the east-west seepage areas into Alamo Creek. Staff Resoonse: The permit conditions require an analysis of liquefaction potential prepared in consultation with the County's geologist. Consistent with the ESR, the report must either propose engineering designs to mitigate the hazard or retain the area for open space use (refer to COA 20) . S. Hydrology: Statement of Appeal summary: The increase in storm runoff in the East Branch of the Alamo Creek watershed could aggravate the existing flooding, siltation and erosion problems at the Simpson Lake and Wildlife Reserve. The appellant suggests that an adjustable outlet be used on the detention basin and requests that their hydrologist review all plans and provide input before the project proceeds . Staff Resnonse: The issues raised are addressed by permit conditions #150, 151 and 152 as modified by the memos from the Public Works Department to the Board. These permit conditions are standard conditions which are commonly required for projects such as this development. The permit requires the applicant to mitigate post-development flows in Alamo Creek to predicted pre-development flow levels by constructing an on-site detention basin. The applicant is required to submit a drainage study which analyzes existing, interim, and ultimate conditions and the feasibility of the drainage plan to mitigate flows. The applicant is also required to analyze creek bank and levee stability, creek velocities and erosion potential for drainage facilities within the project and downstream of the project including creek banks adjacent to the Siu pond and the spillway structure. The analysis will also include recommendations necessary to address any findings in the analysis. Statement of Aooeal Summary: Shapell should provide specific mitigations for progressive erosion on the Siu property. Staff Response: Refer to the response provided above. Statement of 11 al Summary• An independent inspector should be provided during the construction period so that the Lake inlet gate could be Controlled in the event of a spill or siltation. The water quality basins should be oversized and should be located and maintained to maximize biofiltration efficiency. The southwest group of 16 lots should be moved to allow for an oversized wet marsh as an in-line biofilter. Staff Resnonse: The issue of accidental siltation or chemical spill during grading and construction is addressed by permit condition #158. The applicant is required to file a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan which addresses storm water quality impacts during grading and construction of the project, including how siltation and chemical spills will be prevented from entering Alamo Creek. The issue of a water quality basin is addressed by permit conditions #159 and 160 as modified by the Public Works memos to the Board. The applicant is required to develop a Storm Board Order - Wendt Appeals December 10, 1996 Page 6 Water Quality Plan for the reductionlelimination of storm water pollutants in Alamo creek. This includes the construction of a water quality basin as well as other features to improve storm water quality. The applicant is also required to submit a storm water quality maintenance and monitoring plan which will identify a perpetual funding source and entity that will be responsible for the long-term maintenance and monitoring of the storm water quality program. Statement of Appeal Summary• Monitoring and maintenance of water quality, drainage facilities and contamination of the Siu's ecosystem should be funded by a property owners association. Staff Response: Refer to the Response above. 6. Biology: Statement of Appeal Summary: A biologist has documented that the Wendt and Sui properties are foraging areas for a resident pair of American Peregrin Falcons. Staff R spons : All grassland areas in the vicinity of the project site (including the TVPOA and Dougherty Valley areas) are generally suitable foraging habitat for the American Peregrin Falcon. The issue is whether the proposed project would create an adverse impact on this species. The relatively minor acreage of land to be used for this residential development (as compared to the open space lands in the vicinity) , does not justify a finding of significance. Statement of Appeal: Shapell should address pollution runoff issues (appellant references Impact Statement J.7) , and should be required to obtain the approval of a qualified hydrologist who has been approved by the appellant. Staff Response: All mitigation measures, which reduce this impact to a level of less than significant, have been incorporated in the permit conditions. Additional discussion is provided in response to Hydrology comments above. 7. Visual Quality, Light and Glare: Statement of Appeal summary• Architectural and landscaping criteria should address minimizing degradation of visual quality, light, sound and glare to the Sui property. A representative of the Suis should be allowed to comment on submittals. The southwest group of sixteen lots should be eliminated or moved. Staff Response: The EIR analysis found that the residential project would contrast with some of the lands surrounding the site including the south and west boundaries, but did not find significant impacts on the Siu property based on light, sound or glare The appellant did not provide any information to support this contention. However, the permit conditions include the common requirements regarding the reflectivity of structures (must be less than 50$) and the downward direction of exterior lighting (COA 42F) . The permit conditions address buffering between the Sui property and the sixteen lots located at the southwest portion of the site. The conditions require a site design evaluation which will consider altering the number of lots, the lot sizes, as well as lot use restrictions and other mechanisms to buffer the two uses. The evaluation must be reviewed with the Suis to obtain their comments prior to a decision by the Zoning Administrator. � . I1 Board Order - Wendt Appeals December 10, 1996 Page 7 If the Board believes that these measures are not sufficient, and that the sixteen lots at the southwest portion of the site should be moved, the following replacement for Condition 43G is suggested: ` aratan 'the sixteen lots located„at !the ao� �es��ApQ�txan� a� "Y�gsite tq the interxor�pf the-site mufifipie� ,family `area `at the 'nprtheaern between tile project! site and tile sin property . The the lot size- as well -- --- use. _e .. C. Permit Condition Modifications Recommended by Staff: The Public Works Department and the Community Development Department proposed several modifications to the permit conditions. These modifications have been previously presented to the Board. The recommendations from the Public Works Department are detailed in their memorandums dated November 15, 1996 and November 19, 1996. These documents have been attached as Exhibits D and E. The report prepared by the Community Development Department for the Board's November 19, 1996 hearing recommended that Condition #90 be amended to incorporate a change to an EIR mitigation measure which provides for the permanent protection of both branches of Alamo Creek. The following text should be added to Condition #90: 3$ to"t1Se`ailing of 'the first final map, the applicant shall ride perpetual on-site protection of the wildlife corridor S� thrances o °Alamp Creek, Such protection may take'-the easements, dedication of development �w ufr�r the Gounty', or another equivalent instrument �depta �e ,,to tae .=County. D. Further Discussion: The Public Works Department conditions of approval approved by the County Planning Commission on November 5, 1996 and the modifications to those conditions as recommended by staff in memorandums to the Board of Supervisors dated November 15, 1996 and November 19, 1996 adequately address the drainage and water quality issues raised in the appeal from Howard and Lettie Sui. As a courtesy to Dr. Siu, staff has met with the applicant and Dr. Siu since the November 19, 1996 Board hearing in an attempt to resolve their concerns about the project. Staff will provide a report on these meetings under separate cover and/or at the Board hearing on December 10, 1996. j:\wendtl.bo ORDINANCE NO. 96-43 (Re-Zoning Land in the Danville Area) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION To Page U-19,V-19 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map(Ord.No.78-93)is amended by re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s)attached hereto and incorporated herein(see also Community Development Department File No. RZ 963037 .) A-3 Heavy Agricultural FROM: Land Use District A40 ( Exclusive Agricultural TO: Land Use District P-1 f Planned Unit Development ] and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec.84.2.003. A-3 HAI A2 �x A-3 A-2 1 A-2 j &. A-80 r . i A-80 A-80 A-80' SFTN 11, EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in the San Ramon Valley Times a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on December 10. 1996 by the following vote: Supervisor AX& NQ Absent Abstain 1. J.Rogers ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) 2. J.Smith (X) ( ) ( ) ( ) 3. G.Bishop ( ) {g} ( ) ( ) 4. M.DeSaulmer (X) ( ) ( ) { } 5. J. Ganciamilla (X} { } { ( } ATTEST. Phil Batchelor,County Administratoi an Clerkofthe ardofSupervisors �,++ i q th and - By � Dep. Jeff Smith Barbara S rant ORDINANCE NO, 9643 RZ 963037 Shapell � d 1 N 12 .wry{ O OD I A V-A lom dm ¢ M m O lu ul 000 CD 2z 1 t 1 w w > w a I mcg m wow a a sm r t O O I t w x �d p o v ' w aC �6 xo m I cAp px �o 6 � U r I I � Z I II ,. W w 'Z Z t I a d O a N O tQD Z ° pCCY _ rr cmiw o s Ica r r 7 {.IlZ _� 7p WN N C 1mm 1 R tail> r 1 .>oO gm oH tr- r0 cn o o U 7' Q O✓ � Iyt J(� W N � ° �' C � U Z W I X N W Jcc o7 w6 Qa Ow �Qg c� LO S z d o �° z z�Cn t'1 00 N - oow m co N3 = I, o °' CD 0 00 cr- 0 pW IZNsZW � m � w ' ��� 2 1