HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11121996 - D2 D �
'i Contra
• .- � � `�' Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS '�
County
o
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ��• - �'
oSrA coaK'�
DATE: November 12, 1996
SUBJECT: A Wendt Ranch General Plan Amendment (GP 96-0012) , Rezoning (RZ 96-
3037) , Preliminary and Final Development Plan (DP 96-3004) and the
Final EIR for Shapell Industries of Northern California (Applicant and
Owner) for residential development in the Blackhawk/Danville area.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1 . Accept the following recommendations from the County Planning
Commission:
A. Certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report is
adequate and complete, has been prepared in compliance
with State and County CEQA Guidelines, and that the Board
considered the contents of the report prior to making a
decision on this project;
B. Adopt General Plan Amendment GP96-0012) and incorporate
it into the Consolidated General Plan Amendment;
C. Approve the Rezoning of the subject site from the Heavy
Agriculture (A-3) and the Exclusive Agriculture (A-40)
Zoning Districts to the Planned Unit District (P-I) ,
County File #RZ96-3037) as recommended by the County
Planning Commission;
CONTD ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
/RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMM TTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE•(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON Novemb'e'r 12 , 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER g
See the attached Addendum for speakers.
• IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the above matters is CONTINUED to November 19, 1996,
at 2:00 p.m. in the Board's Chambers; and staff is DIFTCTED to report on issues including traffic, schools,
and water; and impacts of development on the Siu's pond.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
_X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT III 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: Dennis Barry, CDD (335-1210) ATTESTED_ /02,
cc: Community Development PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Public Works AND C UNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Shapell Industries
Town of Danville B , DEPL,�TY
Board Order
November 12, 1996
Page 2
D. Approve Preliminary and Final Development Plan (County
File #DP 96-3004) subject to the conditions as
recommended by the County Planning Commission;
E. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program; and
F. Adopt the Findings as modified.
OR
2 . Accept the following recommendation from the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission:
Deny the General Plan Amendment request (GP 96-0012) , the
Rezoning request (RZ 96-3037) and the Preliminary and Final
Development Plan (DP 96-3004) .
Alternatively, the Board may wish to continue these matters to be
considered with the appeal of the Planning Commission conditional
approval of Subdivision #968002 on November 19, 1996.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Commission Recommendations :
The County Planning Commission and the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission held joint hearings on this
project. The County Planning Commission recommends the
approval of the project with conditions as modified. The
attached conditions include the modifications of the County
Planning Commission in an annotated format. The San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission unanimously voted to
recommend that the Board deny the General Plan Amendment and
the related project entitlements . The San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission felt that the approval of the
project' was premature in that the property is not contiguous
to lands either developed or planned for development and that
the subdivision improvements proposed were inappropriate for
the site.
Water Quality Issues :
During the public hearings on the project, several issues were
raised regarding water quality and the mitigation of water
quality impacts. The County Public Works Department has
provided additional information regarding these issues .
The developer has proposed to incorporate a basin for
mitigating water quality and water quantity impacts. The
incorporation of wetlands or a biofilter can be part of a
greater water quantity or peak reduction basin. However,
there is a nexus between the time the storage volume is
retained and the percent suspended solids remaining in the
runoff. Typical standards for detention basins require that
the basin drain in 24 hours in preparation for the next storm.
A water quality basin requires greater storage time of between
48 and 96 hours to effectively reduce or eliminate the
increased turbidity due to the suspension of solids like soil
and vegetative debris . This additional storage period
requires a larger basin and therefore requires significantly
more land area. The high value of developable land in Contra
Costa County measured against the diminishing returns of
Board Order
November 12, 1996
Page 3
retaining the water more than 24 hours have to be weighed
against each other. There may be additional, less expensive
measures that would also provide some redundancy in protection
that could be incorporated at a significantly lower capital
cost.
This redundancy provides several benefits in reducing the
impacts of urbanization on storm water quality. A single
measure has no protection against failure. The measure either
works or doesn' t, and when it doesn' t there is no other
protection against the impacts on storm water quality. A
single measure is often very costly, and in the case of the
aforementioned basin, may not provide the same possibilities
for education and recreation several measures would afford.
One of the concerns raised regarding the introduction of
wetlands into a detention basin, is that due to current
regulatory restrictions, the basin would become
unmaintainable. Once wetlands establish themselves in a
detention basin, the regulatory process necessary to remove
the vegetation during desilting of the basin becomes very
arduous . The sediments settling within the basin would
degrade the flood protection historically provided. In answer
to this concern, the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) has adopted an understanding with other
regulatory agencies that wetlands introduced for water quality
benefit would not need the usual regulatory permits . There
has been no test of this policy to date, and the risk still
exists that the introduction of wetland vegetation could also
foster the growth of endangered species . Then truly, the
basin would no longer be maintainable. Consequently, a tiered
basin that separates detention/storage from water quality
areas clearly makes more sense, so that the detention portion
of the basin can be consistently maintained without the fear
of heightened regulatory interest.
By incorporating several mitigation measures, the measures can
be small, integral features of the development that in and of
themselves provide a natural amenity to the looks of the
subdivision. Staff would advocate that the developer provide
a more complete plan to mitigate storm water pollution which
provides a well-rounded approach and includes certain
redundancies .
Another issue considered as part of the storm water pollution
program is that of performance standards. To date, local
municipalities have tried to keep the RWQCB from developing
the same standards in the hope that the work necessary would
not be beyond the resource and expertise of the local
municipality. Requirements could be as simple as street
sweeping or as onerous as treatment of storm water much like
our current sewer system. Therefore, local governments have
advocated measures that reduce storm water pollution to the
maximum extent practicable. This more "reasonable" standard
interjects a common sense approach into the decision making on
individual measure (s) . However, it is important to note
that only by very gross standards is money a reasonable excuse
for rejecting an individual measure. The measure is more
likely to be rejected because of the return on investment. If
a measure is very expensive for the effectiveness standard it
meets, several other measures may be advocated in its place
with significantly better results.
Several concerns regarding the Siu Family pond have been
raised and all of the issues should be addressed in further
study. The dam should be analyzed for its integrity for
Board Order
November 12, 1996
Page 4
longer saturation periods as the peak is extended. In
addition, the development of a passive means of insuring that
the Siu pond has some protection against the first storm
• carrying most of the pollutants and the possible failure of
the sewage pumping plant should be incorporated into the
design of the project. It is anticipated that the potential
impacts to the Siu pond can be mitigated.
The Public Works Department recommends that all of the issues
alliterated here be resolved prior to the filing of the first
final map or by July 1, 1997 whichever comes first.
COK:aw
j:\aw\wendtr.bo
ADDENDUM TO MM D.2
November 12, 1996 Agenda
This being the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on
the Wendt Ranch General Plan Amendment (County File #GP 0012-96); Rezoning (County
File #RZ 3037-96); Preliminary and Final Development Plan (County File #DP 3004-96); and
the Final EIR for Shapell Industries of Northern California (Applicant and Owner) for
residential development in the Blackhawk/Danville area.
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, and Mitch Avalon, Public Works
Department presented the staff reports and recommendations.
The following persons spoke:
Tom Koch, Shapell Industries of Northern California, 2682 Bishop Dr., #206, San
Ramon,
Brian Welch, Development Services Director for the Town of Danville, 510 La
Gonda Way, Danville;
Stuart Goldware, San Ramon Valley Unified School District, 84 Milaw Court, San
Ramon;
Stephanie McFarland, 4111 Creekpoint Court, Danville, (offered 84 signed petitions
opposing the application for rezoning);
Lettie Siu, 1465 Lawrence Road, Danville;
Howard Siu, 1465 Lawrence Road, Danville;
Robert Perussina, Bettencourt Ranch Homeowners' Association, 842 Buckingham
Place, Danville;
Marilyn Mackey, P.O. Box 847, Alamo;
Don Beaton, 1631 Lawrence Road, Danville;
Jim Blickenstaff, Mt. Diablo Sierra Club, 2410 Talavera Drive, San Ramon;
Kristin Yanker-Hansen, 569 Contada Circle, Danville;
Steve Condie, Southeast Danville Association, Tassajara Valley Little League, San
Ramon Valley Sports Alliance, 412 Triomphe Court, Danville;
Linda Lemon, Save Our Danville Creeks, 522 Zenith Ridge Drive, Danville;
Dan Sweet, Building Industry Professionals for Environmental Responsibility, 7975
Hillmont Drive, Oakland;
Beth Brokman, D.V.M., 1463 Lawrence Road, Danville;
David Nesmith, Sierra Club, 2530 San Pablo, Berkeley;
Jim Richards, 1463 Lawrence Road, Danville;
Tom McDaniel, 1253 Lawrence Road, Danville;
1
Tom Moders, Greenbelt Alliance, 500 Ygnacio Valley Road #250, Walnut Creek;
Scott Couture, 166 Teracina Drive, San Ramon;
Nancy Mulvihill, 4490 Fleetwood Road, Danville;
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
presented.
2
RESOLUTION NO. 29-1996
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF
CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS ON THE
REQUEST BY SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA (County File
#SD968002) TO SUBDIVIDE 165 ACRES INTO 296 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS AND
PARRS AND OPEN SPACE, IN THE DANVILLE AREA.
WHEREAS, a request by Shapell Industries (Applicant & Owner)
County File #SD968002, to divide 165 acres into 323 single family
residential units was received by the Community Development
Department on January 18, 1996; and
WHEREAS,on November 4, 1996 the County Zoning Administrator
recommended certification of the Subsequent Dougherty Valley Final
Environmental Impact Report and the County reviewed and certified
the Wendt Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, in response to the Draft EIR Alternative 4, the
applicant modified the request to include approximately 8.4 acres
for Multiple Family Low Density Residential Use and a maximum of
323 units on the entire project site; and
WHEREAS, notice of the hearing having been lawfully given, a
public hearing was scheduled before the County Planning Commission
in a joint meeting with the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission on October 8, 1996, and subsequently continued to
November 5, 1996, whereat all persons interested could speak; and
WHEREAS, the County Planning Commission having fully reviewed,
considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted
in this matter; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning
Commission APPROVED file SD968002 with modifications to the staff
recommended conditions of approval; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the reasons for this
recommendation are as follows:
1. This approved Resolution concerns Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map 8002 ("Map") . The Map related to the 165 acre
Wendt Ranch project.
2 . An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared by the
County in compliance with CEQA, State, and County Guidelines
and the Commission has reviewed and considered the information
contained therein. Based on this review, and considering the
recommendation of the Zoning Administrator, this Commission
has made the findings required by the California Environmental
Quality Act.
0 -D. a-
Page Two Resolution #29-1996
3 . All governmental and utility agencies affected by the Map have
been notified and given the opportunity to respond to the Map.
4. The proposed Subdivision, together with the provisions for its
design and improvement is consistent with the General Plan as
amended by the proposed Wendt Ranch General Plan Amendment
(GP960012) and County zoning, as amended by proposed Rezoning
3037-RZ which regulate development on this site.
5. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of.
development proposed.
6. The design of the Subdivision or proposed improvements as
conditionally approved are not likely to substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife habitat.
7. The design of the Subdivision or proposed improvements are not
likely to cause serious health problems.
8. The design of the Subdivision or proposed improvements will
not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large,
for access through or use of property within the proposed
Subdivision.
9. The approval of the Map helps to achieve a balance between the
housing needs of the region, the public service needs of
County residents, and the available fiscal and environmental
resources.
10. The design of the Subdivision or proposed improvements
provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural
heating or cooling opportunities.
11. The land subject to the Map is not subject to the California
Land Conservation Act of 1965.
12 . Waste discharge from the proposed Subdivision would not result
in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Page Three Resolution #29-1996
BE IT RESOLVED that the forgoing APPROVALS were given by vote
of the County Planning Commission in a regular meeting Tuesday,
November 5, 1996 as follows:
AYES: Commissioners - Terrell, Clark, Gaddis,
Hanecak, Wong
NOES: Commissioners - Guncheon, Pavlinec
ABSENT: Commissioners - None
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None
WHEREAS, on November 6, 1996 an appeal was filed by Shapell
Industries of Northern California.
ATTEST:
Dennis M. Barry, Secre ary
of the Planning Co ission,
County of Contra Cost State of
California
DC/df
bo3 :968002.res