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