HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02111997 - D4-D8 D.4 MR
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
DATE : February 11, 1997 MATTER OF RECORD
-----------------------------------
SUBJECT: Public Comment
On this date, the Board of Supervisors heard comments from
Mr. Luis Santos, 1126 East Leland Road, Pittsburg, on Family Law
courtroom procedures .
THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY
NO BOARD ACTION TAKEN
Contra
+ Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS °; _ County
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON w
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT oosra c uK�
DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 1997
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION OF THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
A REZONING WITH PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN, FOR SHERMAN RANCH. COUNTY FILES #RZ963041 AND #DP963022, IN THE
ALAMO AREA.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
•
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Find the Environmental Documentation prepared for this project
as adequate.
2. Adopt the findings of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission contained in Resolution 4-1997 as the Board's own.
3 . Approve the Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan and
Final Development Plan, County Files DP963022 and RZ963041
with the conditions as amended by the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission and the modification to Condition
139.3 as recommended by staff.
4. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared for the
project.
5. introduce the ordinance giving effect to Rezoning RZ963041,
waive reading and adopt.
6. Direct staff to post the Notice of Determination with the
County Clerk.
FIECA . IMPAC
NONE
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI TEE
_ APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON February 11, 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X
See attached Addendum
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT T IS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERFD ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD 0?
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:DEBBIE CHAMBERLAIN 335-1213
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED February il, 1g97
cc: County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Public Works-Attn: Mitch Avalon THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
David L. Gates & Associates AN COUNTY MINIS
Martin Sherman
B , DEPUTY
DC/df
bo3 :RZ963041.bo
2
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The background information for this matter is contained in the
January 15, 1997 staff report to the Commission, included with the
Board' s packet. The Commission after taking testimony and
requesting clarification from staff on the conditions of approval,
voted to recommend approval of the rezoning with preliminary
development plan and the final development plan to the Board of
Supervisors and declared their intent to approve the subdivision
and continued it to March 19, 1996. The continuance of the
subdivision application was to ensure that any decision made by the
Commission's would not conflict with Board' s decision on the
rezoning and final development plan request. The annotated
conditions of approval included with the Board's packet are
reflective of the Commission' s action of January 15, 1997 .
Condition of Approval #39 . 3 was recommended by the Commission for
a 15 foot pedestrian/equestrian access with a 6 foot compacted
dirt/gravel walkway with a 2 foot clearance on each side of the
walkway. The Condition as recommended by the Commission does equal
a total of 15 feet as required in the Condition. The Condition
should be modified as follows:
The pedestrian equestrian access between Lots #3 and #4 shown
on Figure 2 of Volume I of the PUD shall be 4 . 5 meter (15
feet+/-) and be improved with a 1. 8 meter (6 foot +/-)
compacted dirt/gravel walkway (to match the existing EBRPD
path) with 1.3deter (4.5 fop.tff.^)', clearance on the outside
edges. Bollards, or other acceptable means, shall be provided
to prevent uses by motorized vehicles, subject to the review
of Public Works and the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator. The pedestrian equestrian access shall be
extended off-site to connect with the EBRPD path to the north.
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.5
February 11, 1997
This is the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on
the recommendation of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission
on the request by David Gates and Associates (Applicant) and Martin Sherman
(owner), (County File #RZ 3041-96), for approval to rezone a 30 acre parcel to
P-1, Planned Unit Development, and for approval of a Final Development Plan
(County File #DP 3022-96), to establish fifteen lots (15) on the parcel which is
bisected by Miranda Creek and addressed as #225 Livorna Road, Alamo area.
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, and Mitch Avalon, Public
Works Department, presented the staffs reports on this matter.
The public hearing was opened, and Patricia Curtin, attorney for the owner, 279
Front Street, Danville, commented on the issues. All persons desiring to speak
having been heard; the public hearing was closed, and the Board discussed the
issues.
Supervisor Gerber moved approval of the staffs recommendations with the
conditions as amended, including an indemnification agreement for the General
Plan creek setback modification.
Supervisor Canciamilla seconded the motion.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing is CLOSED; staffs
recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are APPROVED with AMENDED
conditions (see attached Exhibit A); Rezoning Ordinance 97-3 is
INTRODUCED, reading WAIVED, and February 25, 1997, is SET for adoption
of same.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
APPROVED PERMIT
APPLICANT: David L. Gates & Assoc. APPLICATION NO. RZ963041
2440 Tassajara Lane DP963022
Danville, CA 94526 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 193-180-007
OWNER: Martin L. Sherman ZONING DISTRICT: P-1
3405 Piedmont Ave.
Oakland, CA 94611 APPROVED DATE: 2/11/97
EFFECTIVE DATE: 2/11/97
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. The time limits on this permit run concurrently with
Subdivision 968029.
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 968029, FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN 963022. AND REZONING RZ963041 AS APPROVED BY THE SAN
RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION ON MARCH 19. 1997
P-1 District Findings
A. The applicant has indicated that they intend to commence construction within two and one-
half years of the effective date of final project approval.
B. The 15-unit project, as conditioned, is consistent with the County General Plan. The project
site plan and architectural guidelines as amended by the proposed conditions assure aesthetic
protection of the hillside areas.
C. The project will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability,
and will be in harmony with the character of the nearby community. The project which
proposes lot sizes ranging from 0.58 to 15 acres and which would designate approximately
62% of the site within a scenic easement will link the site with both the adjacent higher
density residential areas, and the nearby park lands.
D. In accordance with the required findings of the planned unit district, the County finds that
the development of a harmonious integrated plan, like this project,justifies exceptions from
the normal application of the ordinance codb, including variations in parcel configurations
and design to provide better conformity with the environmental features of the site.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Development shall be based upon the following documents received by the Community
Development Department except as modified by conditions herein:
A. Revised vesting tentative map dated November 6, 1996.
B. "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation of Sherman Ranch, Terrasearch, November
30, 1995.
C. Sherman Ranch, Volume 1, Planned Unit District (PUD) Final Development Plan
booklet, dated November 6, 1995,
D. Proposed design guidelines for SUB 8029, dated received by the Community
Development Department on November 6, 1996 and Errata dated December 24,
1996.
E. Construction Mitigation Plan dated November 4, 1996-
2. A maximum of 15 single family residential lots shall be permitted as shown on the revised
vesting tentative map dated November 6, 1996 as modified by the conditions herein.
2
3. The approval of the Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 963041, and Final
Development Plan DP963022 shall run concurrently with the time limits of SUB 8029.
4. At least 45 days prior to the filing of the Final Map, the issuance of grading permits, the
approval of improvement plans, or any construction on the site, the applicant shall submit
to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval a revised site plan, a grading plan and
two copies of the related documents listed below. The revised site plan and grading plan
shall incorporate any applicable recommendations of the documents.
All documents shall detail the mechanism/procedures necessary to ensure implementation.
The documents shall clearly identify changes to the site plan and grading plan necessitated
by their recommendations.
A. Revised Final Development Plan. The revised site plan shall incorporate the
following changes:
1) The creek structure setback from centerline to the edge of setback shall be a
minimum of 50-feet on each side. An exception is granted to this
requirement for Lots 2 and 3 where a maximum of 42-feet on the north side
and 58-feet on south side of Miranda Creek shall be provided. If this
exception is utilized for Lots 2 and 3, the developer shall execute a
recordable release and indemnification agreement with the County which
states that the developer and the owner and future owners of Lots 2 and 3 will
hold harmless Contra costa County and the Flood Control District in the
event of damage to on-site improvements as a result of creek-bank failure or
erosion.
2) A Creek Revegetation Plan for the area along Miranda Creek which are not
culverted. The revegetation plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist
per the approved protocol of the Department of Fish & Game.
3) In order to avoid any potential impact to the CRFs, a temporary 3-foot high
barrier wall shall be erected on the north side of the creek and at the road
right-of-way on the south side of the creek (according to the applicant's
Construction Mitigation Plan) prior to the construction and maintained
during construction. In addition, a pre-construction survey shall be
conducted in the creek area prior to the commencement of grading and
construction in this area to determine if any CRFs may have moved into this
area. If CRFs are found, a biologist shall be retained to determine additional
protective measures. (MM)
B. Street Li hp, t Plan: The street light plan shall address all streets within the project site.
Ornamental standards are encouraged. Lights shall be limited to low profile
standards.
�5
3
C. Design Level Geotechnical Studv: Two copies of the geotechnical study which
addresses all of the related conditions herein must be submitted. The study must
include recommendations to ensure adequate maintenance of site improvements.
D. Revised Design Guidelines: The revised document shall include text and graphics
based on the revisions to the site plan and the conditions herein.
E. Retaining Wall Designs: The submittal shall identify the location and dimensions for
all retaining walls, and shall include proposed colors and materials.
F. Building Envelope Description/Scenic Easement: This submittal shall consist of a
metes and bounds description for each building envelope and a certification from a
licensed civil engineer that the description accurately reflects the location of the
building envelopes based on the November 6, 1996 revised tentative map as
amended by the conditions herein.
The building envelopes and the scenic easement shall be shown on the Final Map.
5. At least 30 days prior ro the issuance of building or grading permits or any on-site
construction, the applicant shall post a cash bond (or other acceptable surety) to assure the
protection of the existing trees located in the vicinity of the areas of the site where
construction will occur. Prior to posting the bond, a licensed arborist shall assess the value
of the trees in reasonable compensatory terms in the event that a tree to be preserved is
destroyed or otherwise damaged by subdivision related activities. The term of the bond shall
extend at least 36 months beyond the completion of the subdivision improvements. The tree
bonding program shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
Construction Requirements
6. To avoid unnecessary scarring of hillsides, haul routes for grading activities shall generally
be limited to those areas of the site which are proposed to be graded. The grading/tree
preservation plan shall provide a delineation of the perimeter of areas and trees to be
preserved by the use of taping and stakes, or other appropriate barriers. These barriers shall
be installed prior to the commencement of grading activities.
7. The applicant shall retain the geotchnical engineer and engineering geologist (who prepared
the design level geotechnical report) during the construction phase to ensure that the
conditions are as anticipated and to recommend appropriate changes based on site
conditions. The geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist shall submit to the Zoning
Administrator a letter summarizing the results of the observation.
4
A. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-
site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until
a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional
Archaeology(SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find
and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary.
B. If any significant cultural materials such as artifacts, human burials, or the like are
encountered during construction operations, such operations shall cease within 10
feet of the find, the Community Development Department shall be notified within
24-hours and a qualified archaeologist contacted and retained for further
recommendations. Significant cultural materials include, but are not limited to,
aboriginal human remains, chipped stone, groundstone, shell and bone artifacts,
concentrations of fire cracked rock, ash, charcoal, shell, bone, and historic features
such as privies or building foundations.
C. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the site, there shall
be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably
suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Contra Costa County has
been contacted, per Section 7050,5 of the California Health and Safety Code.
D. Appropriate mitigation of the cultural resources may include monitoring of further
construction and/or systematic excavation of the resources. Any artifacts or samples
collected as part of the initial discovery, monitoring or mitigation phases shall be
properly conserved, catalogued, analyzed, evaluated and curated along with
associated documentation in a professional manner consistent with current
archaeological standards.
9. 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 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 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.
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
5
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.
Residential Design and Construction
10. Development of individual residential lots shall conform to the following requirements:
A. Development shall conform to the approved Design Guidelines, as modified by this
approval.
B. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of building or grading permits for homes,
proposed residential designs shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for
review and approval. The submittal shall include the site plan, a grading plan,
structural elevations, floor plans and a sample palette of exterior colors and
materials. A tree preservation plan and arborist report shall be required if determined
by the County Zoning Administrator that construction on the subject lot will impact
any trees.
C. All structures shall be located within the building envelopes. To the extent that any
ancillary structures are permitted, they shall be located completely within the
building envelope(s). Unfenced tennis courts, patios and decks not higher than 18
inches above natural grade are allowed within the building envelopes. Small
n5
6
"outbuildings" may be allowed within the building envelopes if they do not exceed
15-feet in height and a total of 600 square feet. Tennis courts are not permitted on
the valley lots (7 - 15).
D. Exterior wall and roof colors and materials shall utilize medium to dark earthtone
colors, defined as those having less than 50% light reflectance. A licensed architect
shall certify submitted elevations with this requirement.
E. Construction on individual residential lots shall conform to the R-20 zoning district
standards except as modified by the approved Design Guidelines and by the
conditions herein.
Residential Design and Construction
11. At least 45 days prior to the filing of the Final Map, the issuance of grading permits, the
submittal of improvement plans, or any construction on the site, the applicant shall submit
to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval the revised Design Guidelines. The
Guidelines shall include text and graphics which includes changes/additions based on the
revisions to the site plan and the other conditions herein and shall:
A
A. Require residential building plans to incorporate storage areas for the storage of
recyclable materials.
B. Require water conservation measures to be used for landscaping consistent with
County Ordinance Code Chapter 82-6.
C. Require water conservation devices to be incorporated in residential designs.
D. Require each residence to have an electrical outlet installed in the garage which is
designed to designed to dedicate for future use in recharging electrical vehicles.
E. Inform residencelbuilders that the building requirements contained in the guidelines
are standard which shall be used by the County in the issuance of any necessary
permits.
F. Include the following changes to the Guidelines:
1) If tennis court lights are requested for Lots 1 - 6 which exceed 7-feet in
height an amendment to the Final Development and payment of all necessary
fees must be submitted for the review and approval of the County.
2) Removal of any trees on-site shall be in conformance with Chapter 816-6 of
the County Code.
V
7
G. Any modification to the Design Guidelines shall required a noticed public hearing
before the County Zoning Administrator.
H. The structure height for Lots 7 - 15 (Valley Lots) shall not exceed 30-feet as
measured vertically from existing grade.
13. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of building permits for the construction of individual
residences, a site specific geotechnical report which evaluates the building plans must be
submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
14. All improvement planned in areas of 26% slope shall be sensitively designed consistent with
the Design Guidelines (MM).
15. Thirty (30) days prior to issuance of each building permit for each valley lot (Lots 7 - 15),
a geotechnical engineer shall provide an investigation which identifies a suitable building
site for each lot. A suitable building site shall take into account the architecture of each
building. The investigation shall include one or more geologic points of observation on each
lot (boring to test pit). In the case of slide areas that threaten building sites, the slides shall
be evaluated and a corrective concept presented. (MM)
i
16. The geotechnical investigation shall clearly indicate the measures proposed to assure long-
term stability of areas mantled by non-engineered fill. It shall provide criteria and standards
for grading that are consistent with the Design Guidelines. (MM)
17. The developer and applicant shall adhere to the following tree preservation standards
required by Section 816-6.1202 of the County Code:
A. Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving
or change in ground elevation on a site with trees to be preserved, the applicant shall
install fencing at the dripline or other area as determined by an arborist report of all
trees adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Prior to grading or issuance of any
permits, the fences may be inspected and the location thereof approved by
appropriate County staff.
B. No grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching, paving or change in ground
elevation shall be permitted within the dripline unless indicated on the grading plans
approved by the County and addressed in any required report prepared by an arborist.
If grading or construction is approved within the dripline, an arborist may be
required to be present during grading operations. The arborist shall have the
authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Upon completion of
grading and construction, an involved arborist shall prepare a report outlining further
methods requiring for tree protection if any are required. All arborist expense shall
be borne by the developer and applicant.
p5
8
C. No parking or storing vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials,
construction trailers and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within
the dripline of any tree to be saved.
Fencing
18. No fencing is allowed within the scenic easement area. Fencing to the rear of the building
sites shall generally be limited to open wire construction with 6-foot or greater centers.
Alternate fencing may be allowed upon the approval of the Zoning Administrator.
Scenic Easement Area
19. Prior to the filing of the Final Map, the applicant shall submit to the Zoning Administrator
for review and approval, the final text of the conservation easement which shall include the
following requirements:
A. The easement shall provide that no tree shall be altered or removed without the
issuance of a tree permit in accordance with the County's Tree Ordinance 818.6-6.
B. The easement shall specify that no grading or development activity may occur within
the easement area. In addition, the erection of structures including, but not limited
to buildings (regardless of whether a building permit is required), pools and tennis
courts will be prohibited. Grazing will also be prohibited within the easement area.
C. Minor grading is allowed within the easement area necessary to install utilities and
drainage. The disturbed area shall be immediately returned to its previous
appearance.
D. Prior to the issuance of each grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that the
trees located in the construction area shall be preserved and protected following the
implementation of the tree preservation measures in the Design Guidelines and
according to the applicant's Construction Mitigation Plan (other than the willow will
be removed indicated in the application materials). (MM)
E. The scenic easement shall provide that no trees shall be altered or removed without
the prior written consent of the Zoning Administrator in accordance with County
Ordinance Code 818.6-6. The Zoning Administrator may allow the removal of trees
upon the finding that the tree may be hazardous to structures for human habitation
or may jeopardize the health of the surrounding trees. (MM)
9
Other Requirements
20. Concurrent with or prior to recording the final map, the applicant shall record a statement
to run with the deeds which identifies that the site is subject to Architectural Design
Guidelines and must be consistent with the Guidelines and the Conditions herein. In
addition, the requirement herein regarding development restrictions shall be included. Prior
to recording the deed notification, the applicant shall submit to the Zoning Administrator for
review and approved the text of the deed notification.
21. A phasing program may be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator. Request for phasing must be accompanied by the appropriate review fee.
22. The owner of the property shall participate in the provision of funding to maintain and
augment police services by voting to approve a special tax for the parcels created by this
subdivision action. The tax shall be the per parcel annual amount (with appropriate future
CPI adjustment) then established at the time of voting by the Board of Supervisors. The
election to provide for the tax shall be completed prior to the fling of the Parcel Map. The
property owner shall be responsible for paying the cost of holding the election, payable at
the time that the election is requested by the owner.
23. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including the subdivider or
any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Cosa County
Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack,
set aside, void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this subdivision map application,
which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The
County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and
cooperate fully in the defense.
24. The applicant shall show proof that water and sewage service is available and that any
necessary boundary changes have been approved prior to recording the Final'Map.
25. At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map, plans shall be submitted for review by the
Community Development Department, Graphics Section, to obtain addresses and for street
name approval (public and private). Alternate street names should be submitted in the event
of duplication and to avoid similarity with existing street names. The Parcel Map cannot be
certified by the Community Development Department without the approved street names and
the assignment of street addresses.
26. Record a statement to runs with the deeds to the property acknowledging the approved
Geotechnical Report by title, author (firm), and date, calling attention to approved
recommendations, and noting that the reports are available from the Community
Development Department.
D.5
io
27. Prior to the submittal of the final map, the applicant shall either bond for the work or submit
to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval verification that the undocumented fill
of Lot 5 has been removed and replaced consistent with the recommendations of an approved
geotechnical investigation.(MM)
28. The applicant shall provide to perspective buyers written notice regarding the restrictions
on the use of the property including the requirements for building within the approved
envelopes. A copy of these conditions and the approved Design Guidelines shall also be
provided. (MM)
29. The development shall comply with the requirements of the Child Care Ordinance. Prior to
filing the Final Map, a proposed program shall be submitted for the review and approval of
the Zoning Administrator.
30. Prior to the construction of the new driveway bridge across Miranda Creek, consult with the
Department of Fish & Game to determine if a stream bed alteration agreement will be
needed with the Department. The construction of the driveway bridge will not commence
until the agreement is obtained. (MM)
31. The project will be required to pay the drainage fees to address the additional run-off. These
fees shall be paid upon the issuance of each building permit for each lot. (MM)
Public Works Department Conditions
The attached conditions of approval include road and drainage requirements, based on the Vesting
Tentative Map dated September 10, 1996, the Planned Unit District Final Development Plan revised
November 6, 1996, and the Design Guidelines revised November 6, 1996 as modified by the
December 23, 1996 revision listing. The applicant shall comply with the Ordinance Code
requirements as they pertain to this development. The following issues should be carefully
considered with this project:
32. The Applicant shall Comply with the Requirements of the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System Program:
A. 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).
B. The applicant shall develop a mitigation program in accordance with the Contra
Costa County Clean Water Program utilizing Best Management Practices (BMP's)
subject to the review of Public Works and the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator. The applicant can submit the program to Public Works for review and
comment prior to the project hearing for review and preliminary comment. The
BMP's shall consider use of check dams in the creek traversing this property in order
to decrease velocities in the creek to reduce sediment from creek bank erosion. The
applicant shall perform a hydraulic and soils analysis to determine erosive velocities
in the creek.
The mitigation program shall include a comprehensive Storm Water Quality Plan for
the reduction, or elimination, of storm water pollutants applying the following
performance standards: implementation of the project will not degrade the water
quality in the creek traversing this property such that the beneficial uses identified
by the Regional Water Quality Control Board in the current basin plan would be
unduly impaired or precluded. Two copies of this plan shall be submitted to the
Public Works Department and one to the Community Development Department for
review.
C. Stencil all storm drains with "No Dumping Drains to Delta" using thermoplastic
tape.
D. The applicant shall minimize his impact on the creek adjacent to Serafix Road by
constructing a storm drain collecting storm drainage from the lots and conveying the
flow to minimize the number of out falls into the creek. The storm drain design
should consider the runoff coming from the property to the north.
E. Provide a landscape erosion control program to stabilize disrupted slopes after
grading operations with vegetation and return them to a natural appearance.
F. The applicant shall submit a General Construction Activity Storm water Permit. A
Notice of Intent for this permit shall be submitted to the State Water Resources
Control Board. Applicant shall provide a copy of the Notice of Intent to Building
Inspection prior to the issuance of a grading permit. A Storm water pollution
prevention plan(SWPPP) and monitoring program shall be required with this permit.
COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO FILING OF THE
FINAL MAP:
33. General Requirements:
A. Applicant shall submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer to
Public Works and pay appropriate fees in accordance with County Ordinance and
these Conditions of Approval.
12
34. Roadway Improvements (On-Site):
A. Provide a road and landscape easement which extends at least 3.0 meters (10± foot)
beyond the edges of paved roadway, along each side of the Serafix Road easement
to provide a rural character.
B. Provide a road and landscape easement which extends at least 3.0 meter(10-foot +/-)
beyond the edges of the paved roadway, along each side of the Serafix Road
easement to provide a rural character.
C. Applicant shall provide a paved turnaround to County private road standards for each
road serving more than 2 lots or parcels.
35. 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. This shall include providing proof of emergency access
through the properties to the east to a County maintained road.
B. Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services
Division, that legal access to the property is available from Livorna Road.
36. Sight Distance:
Sight distance analysis shall include consideration of obstructions such as grading, retaining
walls, fencing, gazebos, trellises, arbors and vegetation. In accordance with Caltrans
standards provide for adequate sight distance:
A. At the Serafix Road intersections for a design speed of 55 kilometer per hour (34
miles per hour+/-).
B. Along the "valley road" for a design speed of 50 kilometer per hour (31 miles per
hour +/-) in the vicinity of the retaining wall near lots 12 and 13.
C. Along the other roads for a design speed of 25 kilometer per hour (15 miles per hour
Sight distance requirements may preclude utilization of a solid wood fence along portions
of Serafix Road.
Q5
13
37. Street Lights:
Application for annexation to County Service Area L-100 Lighting District shall be
submitted prior to issuance of building permits.
38. Bicycle - Pedestrian Facilities:
Bicycle Circulation
1) The applicant shall design project access points to Serafix Road to be compatible
with use of that road for safe bicycle access.
Pedestrian Access
2) 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.
3) The pedestrian equestrian access between Lots 3 and 4 shown on Figure 2 of Volume
1 of the PUD shall be 4.5 meters (15f feet) and be improved with a 1.8 meter (6t
foot) compacted dirt/gravel walkway (to match the existing EBRPD path) with 1.3
meter (4.5t foot) clearance on the outside edges. Bollards, or other acceptable
means, shall be provided to prevent use by motorized vehicles, subject to the review
of Public Works and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The
pedestrian equestrian access shall be extended off-site to connect with the EBRPD
path to the north.
39. Parking:
A. Parking shall not be permitted along any of the roads within this subdivision, unless
the roads have been further widened or parking bays provided subject to Public
Works review and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Parking
bays along one side of the"valley road" will require widening to at least an 8.4 meter
(28-foot +/-) width roadway. Parking bays along one side of Serafix Road will
require widening to at least a 9.6 meter (32-foot +/-) width, subject to the review of
Public Works and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
B. The applicant shall be required to provide either
1) 6 off-street parking spaces per lot, OR
n
14
2) 4 off-street parking spaces per lot and shared parking for one additional car
per each two lots. The shared parking must be within 60 meter (200-feet +/-)
of the units being served.
C. The applicant shall provide and record a deed notification which specifically informs
potential property owners and provides for implementation of the parking
requirements.
40. Utilities/Undergrounding:
All utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground, including the existing
overhead distribution facilities along the frontage of Serafix Road.
41. Maintenance of Facilities:
Applicant shall develop and enter into a maintenance agreement that will insure that the
proposed private roads within this subdivision and oft-site to Livorna Road will be
maintained, and that each lot in this subdivision that uses the proposed private roads will
share in their maintenance.
42. Structure Setback:
Garages shall be set back at least 6.0 meter (20-feet +/-) from the road easement. On the
inside of the curve at the"valley road," garages shall be set back further to provide adequate
sight distance along the road with a van parked in the driveway.
43. Drainage Improvements:
Collect and Convev
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.
C. Lot grading and lot drainage shall take into consideration runoff from adjacent
property.
- 05
15
44. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements:
A. Storm drainage originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner
shall be prevented from draining across the 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.
C. To reduce the impact of additional storm water run-off from this development on
Miranda Creek upstream of Miranda Avenue, the applicant shall:
1) Remove 1.3 cubic meter (one cubic yard +/-) of channel excavation material
from the inadequate portion of Miranda Creek for each 65 4-65 square meter
(50 square feet +/-) of new impervious surface area created by the
development. All excavated material shall be disposed of off-site by the
developer at his cost. The site selection, land rights, and construction staking
will be by the Flood Control District.
Upon written request, the applicant may make a cash payment in lieu of
actual excavation and removakof material from the creek. The cash payment
will be calculated at the rate of$1.08 per square meter ($0.10 per square foot
+/-) of new impervious surface area created by the development. The added
impervious surface area created by the development will be based on the
Flood Control District's standard impervious surface area ordinance. The
Flood Control District will use these funds to work on the creek annually.
2) Mitigate drainage impacts identified in the public hearing process, subject to
the review of Public Works and the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator, OR, in the absence of identified significant drainage impacts,
he shall be required to contribute $5,000 to a County Drainage Deficiency
Fee Trust (Fund number 812100-0800).
D. To reduce the impact of additional storm water run-off from this development on San
Ramon Creek, 1.3 cubic meter (one cubic yard +/-) of channel excavation material
will be removed from the inadequate portion of San Ramon Creek for each 6-5 4,65
square meter (50 square feet +/-) of new impervious surface area created by the
development. All excavated material shall be disposed of off-site by the developer
at his cost. The site selection, land rights, and construction staking will be by the
Flood Control District.
Upon written request, the applicant may make a cash payment in lieu of actual
excavation and removal of material from the creek. The cash payment will be
calculated at the rate of$1.08 per square meter ($0. 10 per square foot +/-) of new
impervious surface area created by the development. The added impervious surface
16
area created by the development will be based on the Flood Control District's
standard impervious surface area ordinance. The Flood Control District will use
these funds to work on the creek annually.
45. Creek Structure Setbacks:
A. The applicant shall relinquish "development rights" over that portion of the site that
is within the structure setback area of the creeks, traversing this property, based on
the criteria outlined in Chapter 914-14, "Rights of Way and Setbacks," of the
Subdivision Ordinance. The structure setback area may be reduced subject to the
review of the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, and the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, based on a hydrology and
hydraulic study and geotechnical analysis of the soil which shows that the creek
banks will be stable and non-erosive with the anticipated creek flows. The
hydrology and hydraulic study shall be based upon the ultimate development of the
watershed.
B. In the event that changes are made to the existing condition, the applicant shall be
required to show that the creek bank along Serafix Road will be stable where:
f
1) The roadway is located within the creek structure setback area, AND
2) The creek bank and/or roadway will be modified.
The applicant should be required to assure the stability of the creek bank, as required
above, by providing engineering plans and specifications for necessary creek bank
modifications needed to provide long term stability to the bank of the creek. The
plans shall be signed and stamped by a licensed geotechnical engineer and shall note
the geotechnical engineers assurance of the long tern stability of the creekbank.
COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A
BUILDING PERMIT:
46. Compliance with the Bridge Crossings and Major Thoroughfares Ordinance:
The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare
Fee Ordinance for the Alamo Area of Benefit and the Southern Contra Costa Regional Area
of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
48. The applicant shall be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage
Area 76 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
17
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 renewing requirements prior to recording the
Parcel Map or requesting building or grading permits.
B. Applicant shall comply with the Park Dedication Fee Ordinance.
C. Comply with the requirements of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District.
D. Comply with the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District.
E. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department, Environmental Health
Division.
F. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Building permits are
required prior to the construction of most structures.
G. 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 the development that may affect any
fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code.
H. The applicant is required to pay an environmental review fee of $1,250.00 for the
Department of Fish and Game at the end of the appeal period. Failure to do so will result
in fines. In addition, the approval is not final or vested until the fee is paid. A check for this
fee shall be submitted to the Community Development Department made out to Contra Costa
County for submittal with the final environmental documents.
I. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare
Fee Ordinance for the Alamo Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
J. The applicant shall be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage
Area 76 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
is
K. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 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-
Regional Il or Central Valley-Region V).
L. Vested Rights and Fees: This project is subject to the development fees and regulations in
effect under County Ordinance as of February 6, 1995, the date the vesting tentative map
application was accepted as complete by the Community Development Department. These
fees are in addition to any other development fees which may be specified in the conditions
of approval.
An estimate of the fee charges for each approved lot may be obtained by contacting the
Building Inspection Department at 335-1196.
M. The applicant is advised that the tax for the police services district is currently set by the
Board of Supervisors at $200 per parcel annually (with appropriate future Consumer Price
Index (CPI) adjustments). The annual fee is subject to modification by the Board of
Supervisors in the future. The current fee for holding the election is $800 and is also subject
to modification in the future. The applicable tax and fee amounts will be those established
by the Board at the time of voting.
N. Expiration of Vested Rights: Pursuant to Section 66452.6(g) of the Subdivision Map act,
the rights conferred by the vesting tentative map as provided by Chapter 4.5 of the
Subdivision Map act shall last for an initial period of two (2) years following the recording
date of the final/parcel map. These rights pertain to development fees and regulations.
Where several final maps are recorded on various phases of a project covered by a single
vesting tentative map, the initial time period shall begin for each phase when the final map
for that phase is recorded.
At any time prior to the expiration of the initial time period, the subdivider may apply for
a one-year extension. The application shall be accompanied by the applicable filing fee. If
the extension is denied by an advisory agency, the subdivider may appeal that denial to the
Board of Supervisors by filing a letter of appeal with the appropriate filing fee with the Clerk
of the Board within 15 calendar days.
The initial time period may also be subject to automatic extension pursuant to other
provisions of Section 66452.6(g) relating to processing of related development applications
by the County.
At the expiration of the vesting time period, remaining development (i.e., new building
permits) within the subdivision shall be subject to development fees and regulations in effect
at that time.
19
O. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is
the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and 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 and Game Code.
P. 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.
DJC/aa
DPIV/3022-96c.DJC
12/19/96
12/30/96(dc)
1/15/96 - SR(a)
1/24/97
2/18/97
3/19/97 - SR (a)
5/14/97
D. (P
_ Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Costa
_
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON C��nty
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT n`
DATE: February 11, 1997
SUBJECT: Consideration of Holcomb General Plan Amendment
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Open the public hearing and receive testimony on the Holcomb
General Plan Amendment;
2 . Close the Public Hearing and APPROVE the Holcomb General Plan
Amendment as recommended by the Contra Costa County General
Plan; and
3 . Include adoption of the Holcomb General Plan Amendment as part
of the first consolidated General Plan Amendment for 1997 .
FISCAL IMPACT
Covered by Developer Fees.
BACKGROUNDfREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
This was unanimously approved by the County Planning Commission
without opposition
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATUR
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATIOk OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON February 11, 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X
See Attached Addendum
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT) Sup. 111 AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
_ AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
_ ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
SHOWN.
Contact: Jim Cutler (335-1236)
cc: Community Development Department ATTESTED February 11 , 1997
CAO PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE
County Counsel BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
Public Works COUNT MINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
J:\aw\holcomjc.bo 10
04
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.6
February 11, 1997
This is the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on
the recommendation of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the
request by Robert Holcomb (Applicant) to amend the General Plan Amendment
(County File #GP 95-0011) for an approximate one-third acre parcel, on the
northeast corner of the intersection of Saranap Avenue with Boulevard Way,
from Commercial to Multiple Family Residential Medium Density.
Jim Cutler, Community Development Department, presented the staff report.
Chairman DeSaulnier opened the public hearing, and Applicant Robert
Holcomb, Holcomb & Nazair, 2175 Oakdale Road, Walnut Creek, commented
on the matter.
The hearing was closed, and the Board discussed the issues. It was noted that
the prior use of the property was a gas station, and the Board members
expressed concerns regarding residual hazardous waste.
Supervisor Gerber moved the staffs recommendations, contingent upon the
County's verification that the environmental assessment is complete.
Supervisor Uilkema seconded the motion.
And the Board took the following action:
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing is CLOSED; and
staffs recommendations are APPROVED, contingent upon completion of the
environmental assessment clearance; and Resolution No. 97/74, determining to
amend the General Plan, is ADOPTED.
RESOLUTION NO. 5 -1997
RESOLUTION OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A HOLCOMB
AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN (#GP 95-0011)
WHEREAS, Mr. Robert Holcomb requested a general plan amendment for an
approximately one-third acre site from Commercial to Multiple Family Residential Medium
Density in the Saranap area of Walnut Creek; and
WHEREAS, this application is Categorically Exempt from CEQA; and
WHEREAS, staff prepared a report recommending changes in the General Plan for the
area and circulated it to interested agencies, organizations and individuals; and
WHEREAS, after notice was lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the
County Planning Commission on Tuesday, January 15, 1997, at which all persons interested might
appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, no person testified on the issue and the public hearing was closed; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County Planning
Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL to the Board of Supervisors of the Holcomb General
Plan Amendment as recommended by staff; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all written and graphic material developed for and
pertaining to these proceedings are made part of the record; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Contra Costa County Planning
Commission shall sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the
Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the provisions of State Planning Law.
The instruction by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission to prepare this
resolution was given by motion of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on Tuesday,
January 15, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Clark, Terrell, Pavlinec, Wong, Guncheon, Hanecak
Gaddis
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
1, Harvey E. Bragdon, Secretary of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission,
hereby certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on January 14, 1997.
ATTEST:
ey E. t4don, Secretary of the
Contra Costa gounty Planning Commission,
Contra Costa County, State of California
j:Vw\hokomb.nB
RESOLUTION NO. 5-1997
IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SUBJECT: In the Matter of the )
Holcomb General Plan Amendment)
County File# GP-95-0011 ) RESOLUTION NO. 97/74
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT:
There is filed with the Board and its Clerk a copy of Resolution No. 5-1997 adopted by the Contra
Costa County Planning Commission which discusses a General Plan Amendment in the Walnut Creek
Area(County File#GP-95-0011).
On Tuesday, February 11, 1997, the Board held a public hearing on said General Plan Amendment
discussed by County Planning Commission(Resolution No. 5-1997). Notice of said hearing was duly
given in the matter required by law. The Board, at the hearing, called for testimony and only the
applicant appeared.
The Board closed the public hearing and APPROVED the General Plan Amendment and directed
staff to include the Holcomb General Plan Amendment into one of the consolidated General Plan
Amendments as allowed by State Planning Law.
The Board further directed staff when considering development applications on the site to verify with
Environmental Health that clearance of hazardous materials due to the prior gas station use has been
obtained.
PASSED by the following vote of the Board of Supervisors on the 11th day of February 1997.
AYES: Uilkema, Gerber, DeSaulnier, Canciamilla
NOES: None
ABSENT: Rogers
ABSTAIN: None
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of
the Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid.
Contact: Jim Cutler (5 10) 335-1236
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) Witness my hand and the Seal of the
Public Works Department Board of supervisors affixed on this
CAO llthday of Fe--ruary , 1997 .
County Counsel
Bob Holcomb Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of
2175 Oakvale Road Supervisors and County Administrator
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
By:
Deputy Clerk
Jjjbigg/holcomjc.res RESOLUTION NO 97/74
Holcomb General Plan Amendment
County File#GP 95-0011
Recommended General Plan Amendment
Figure A
ML -- -------_-
AYE
CO - -- North
1'=300'
-- - - ------- ----
S
O
U
MM MH
CO
Subject Site to Multiple SH
Family Residential- J
U Medium Density a
Go
�o
J
Q
O
ZMM W
Y
o MM a MH
SM
0 SM
J
M M ----LL
SALLY LN i
i
SH
ai i I
J
N
SH
SM
OS
SM.
LEGEND
SM Single Family Residential-Medium Density CO Commercial
SH Single Family Residential-High Density OS Open Space
ML Multiple Family Residential-Low Density
MM Multiple Family Residential-Medium Density
MH Multiple Family Residential-High Density
I hereby certify that this amendment to the I hereby certify that this amendment to the
Contra Costa County General Plan was ap- Contra Costa County General Plan was adopted
proved by the Contra Costa County Planning by the Board of Supervisors on
Commission on February 11, 1997. JJ4 //� /9 F7
Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervi-
Ak sors and County dministrator
H e E. Br g on
Director of Community Development By: Deputy
Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS rj1C}a
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON County
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT `,
DATE: February 11, 1997
SUBJECT: Consideration of Oakley old Town General Plan Amendment & Specific Plan
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Open the public hearing and receive testimony on the Oakley
old Town General Plan Amendment and the related Oakley Old
Town Specific Plan concurrently.
2 . Close the public hearing and APPROVE the Oakley Old Town
Specific Plan Amendment and ADOPT the Oakley Old Town Specific
Plan Amendment subject to adoption of the first consolidated
General Plan Amendment being adopted.
3 . Include the Oakley Old Town General Plan Amendment as part of
the first consolidated General Plan Amendment for 1997
recommended by the East County Regional Planning Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT
Covered by Community Development and Redevelopment Agency budgets.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
This project is in fulfillment of the County redevelopment program
for the community of Oakley.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR R1 )MMENDATIO OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON February 11 , 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X
See attached Addendum .
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT) - - - - - AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
_ AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
_ ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
SHOWN.
Contact: Jim Cutler (335-1236)
cc: Community Development Dept. ATTESTED February 11 , 1997
CAO PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE
County Counsel BOAR OF SUPERVISORS AND
Public Works CO
UN DMINISTRATOR
BYPMJAA , DEPUTY
J:\aw\oakotjwc.bo
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.7
February 11, 1997
This is the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on
the recommendation of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the
request of the County of Contra Costa to consider modification of the County
General Plan policies for the Oakley Old Town General Plan Amendment
(County File #GP 0005-95), Oakley area; and recommendation of the Contra
Costa County Planning Commission on the request of the County of Contra
Costa for the Oakley Old Town Specific Plan establishing policies, plan and
program to revitalize the area. It includes roadway infrastructure improvements
and realignment to State Route 4, other infrastructure improvements, creating a
commercial core as a center of economic activity and through major urban
design activities. (County File #SP 0003-95), Oakley area.
Jim Cutler, Community Development Department; Jim Kennedy and Heather
Ballenger, Public Works Department, presented the staff reports on this matter.
The hearing was opened, and the following people presented testimony:
Ron Rives, 2211 Railroad Avenue, Pittsburg;
Danny Yang, United Centro Properties, 2156 W Alpine Avenue, Stockton;
Vince Granberg, 6190 Sellers Avenue, Oakley;
Kathleen Dickson, 3100 Main Street, Ste 264, Oakley;
Aaron Meadows, Chairman, Oakley Municipal Advisory Council, P.O.
Box 5, Oakley;
Virgil Chavez, Esq., 312 Georgia Street, #200, Vallejo.
The Board considered the issues.
On the recommendation of Supervisor Canciamilla, IT IS BY THE
BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the above matter is CONTINUED to
March 18, 1997, at 3:00 p.m. in the Board's chambers.
07
RESOLUTION NO. 19-1996
RESOLUTION OF THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COUNTY
GENERAL PLAN, OAKLEY OLD TOWN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT#95-0005 AND
OAKLEY OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN# 95-0003, FOR THE OAKLEY AREA.
WHEREAS, the County initiated a proposal to amend the Land Use Element of the
County General Plan. The request is to change the Land Use Designation on 54 acres in the
Oakley Old Town Specific Plan area; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the General Plan
Amendment study area and Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, staff prepared a report recommending changes in the proposed General Plan
amendment and Specific Plan for the area and circulated it to interested agencies, organizations
and individuals; and
WHEREAS, after notice was lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the
East County Regional Planning Commission on Monday, August 5, 1996, and continued to
October 7, 1996; at which all persons interested might appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, after taking public testimony on the issue, the public hearing was closed; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the East County Regional Planning Commission
accepts the Environmental Impact Report to be adequate to consider this amendment; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed general plan amendment and a Oakley
Old Town Specific Plan would help implement the Oakley Redevelopment Plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the East County Regional Planning Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Oakley Old Town General Plan Amendment and Oakley
Old Town Specific Plan to the Board of Supervisors; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the lands at the Northwest corner of Vintage
Parkway and the realigned State Route 4 should be redesignated from Single Family Residential
High Density and Commercial to Mixed Use and staff is directed to revise the General Plan and
Specific Plan text accordingly; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all written and graphic material developed for and
pertaining to these proceeding are made part of the record; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the East County Regional Planning
Commission shall sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the
Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the provisions of State Planning Law.
RESOLUTION NO. 19-1996
The instruction by the County Regional Planning Commission to prepare this resolution
was given by motion of the Commission on Monday, October 7, 1996.
AYES: Commissioners- Sobalvarro, Anderson,Nunn
NOES: Commissioners- Wetzel
ABSENT: Commissioners- Andrieu, Hanson, Wagner
ABSTAIN: Commissioners- None
I, Harvey E. Bragdon, Secretary of the East County Regional Planning Commission,
hereby certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on October 7, 1996.
ATTEST: J41
/
4
i
ey E. BfagVon, Secretary of the
East CountylRegional Planning Commission
Contra Costa County, State of California
BL:as
M: Jim Coder
Debbie Foley
BUeasfco.m
D.8
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on _February 11, 1997 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Gerber, Canciamilla,
DeSaulnier
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Payout
Process
The Board considered the recommendations of the Finance
Committee relative to the Keller Canyon Landfill Property
Valuation Payout Process adopted by the Board on December 1,
1996. A copy of the Finance Committee's Report is attached and
included as a part of this document.
V. Alexeeff, Director, Growth Management and Economic
Development Agency (GMEDA) , spoke on the need for identifying
tangible factors in determining the impact of the landfill on
area homes as the basis for the payout schedule.
The following persons spoke on the impacts of the
landfill with respect to reduced property values, more noticeable
accumulation of dust, and increased seagull and mice/rat
infestation; inquiries as to why a specific property was included
for mitigation funds while others were not; requests for
inclusion for mitigation funds; visual impact of the landfill;
opposition to the valuation payout process; and support for a
proposal to require BFI to contribute to the mitigation fund:
Frank Aiello, 1734 Bridge View, Pittsburg;
Lance Dow, 2232 Concord Drive, Pittsburg;
Jorge M. Bustos, 670 S. Broadway, Bay Point;
Tifton Grantt, 2228 Santa Maria Drive, Pittsburg;
Maureen Wright, 2226 Ridge Crest Way, Pittsburg;
James Wright, 2226 Ridge Crest Way, Pittsburg;
Valerie Patton, 1024 Via Ventio Way, Pittsburg;
Franklin M. Griego, 2232 Jacqueline Drive, Pittsburg;
Sally Bone, 2253 Mt. Whitney Drive, Pittsburg;
Ralph de Vries, 2250 Westwood Lane, Pittsburg;
Vicky Carr, 2250 Mt. Whitney Drive, Pittsburg;
John Hawthorne, 2241 Westwood Land, Pittsburg;
Peter Thomas, 1093 Alamo Court, Pittsburg;
Michael McGovern, 2237 Daffodil Drive, Pittsburg;
Ron Wood, 2252 Concord Drive, Pittsburg;
Peter S. Terry, 2245 Concord Drive, Pittsburg;
Andrew Thomas, 2219 Concord Drive, Pittsburg;
Ned Pehrson, 2250 Concord Drive, Pittsburg;
Frank Sharkey, 751 Bailey Road, Pittsburg;
Jim Morrison, 2200 Santa Maria Drive, Pittsburg;
Randy Weeks, 4081 Clayton Drive, Concord;
Cecilio L. Quintana, 2261 Jacqueline Drive, Pittsburg;
Kevin Carunchio, 340 Marina Boulevard, Pittsburg;
Mary K. Mullen, 2218 Santa Maria Drive, Pittsburg; and
Debra Hampton, 2240 Westwood Lane, Pittsburg.
Keller Property Payout Process
February 11, 1997
Page 2
The Chair read the comments of Nancy Dion and Mark
Rusch who were in opposition to the valuation payout process.
All persons desiring to speak were heard. Board
Members discussed the issues presented by the speakers, and took
the following actions:
1. APPROVED the Finance Committee Report for the
Bailey Road Corridor;
2 . CLOSED the public comment procedure but left open
for 20 days (March 3 , 1997) the administrative
record to allow for the submission of additional
written or video documentary evidence, and SET
March 18, 1997, 4 p.m. , for decision on the balance
of this matter;
3 . CAPPED the administrative costs of the program to
$30, 000;
4. REQUESTED the Director, GMEDA, to report to the
Board on March 18, 1997, on the questions raised
including the process determined for making pay-
ments, the notification procedure, and options
available to the Board in the permitting process
relative to the responsibility of the landfill
operator to the community; and REQUESTED the
Health Services Director to report on the LEA
permit procedure.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN .
ATTESTED February 11, 1997
Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and County Administrator
BY�� C , Deputy
cc: Director, GMEDA
Health Services Director
County Counsel
County Administrator
TC> BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ..... Contra
FROM: / / \\ Costa
Finance Committee t ,
County
DATE: February 11, 1997
SUBJECT: KELLER CANYON LANDFILL PROPERTY VALUATION PAYOUT PROCESS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)& BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. REAFFIRM Board action of December 10, 1996 on the Keller Canyon Landfill
Property Valuation process.
2. AMEND the number of eligible residences for lump sum payment in the Hillsdale
neighborhood from 113 to 117.
3. ACKNOWLEDGE that Browning Ferns Industries has declined to contribute to the
Property Valuation Payout Program.
BACKGROUND:
On January 27, the Finance Committee discussed the Keller Canyon Landfill Property
Valuation Payout Process adopted by the Board on December 10, 1996 (see attached).
The Committee approved the recommendation of the Director of the Growth Management
and Economic Development Agency to add four additional eligible residences in the
Hillsdale Neighborhood to the lump sum payout program (see attached). Supervisor
Canciamilla indicated that recent discussions with Browning Ferris Industries has revealed
their unwillingness to contribute to the Payout Program.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COU ADMIN TOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
—APPROVE TH
SIGNATURES : anClamllla Gayle B. Uilkema
ACTION OF BOARD O APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER —
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,C4ERK OF THE BOARD OF
CC: GMEDA SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
County Counsel
County Administrator
BY DEPUTY
KELLER 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 cast side are
affected by truck traffic. The individual property effect within the Hillsdale
neighborhood is far less certain. Properties that do not share propertv 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 disbursement 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 Countv and less concerned property owners to have an
expedited community benefit disbursement. To this end, staff offers PLAN A. For those
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: 1/29/97
- PAGE 1 -
DD1G PVS-PRCS.N0T
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 furnish a title report and other documents to substantiate this
infonnation.
,N,dg
Adgtwst I
12'96)
KELLER 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 arc
affected by truck traffic. The individual propertv effect within the Ilillsdale
neighborhood is far less c-rtain. Properties that do not share propertv 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 disbursement 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 propertv owners to have an
expedited community benefit disbursement. To this end, staff offers PLAN A. For those
who have documentation related to the physical effects of the landfill and choose to
pursue claim above the lump suln amount we have developed PLAN B. Transaction Cost
to administer/implement this process is estimated to be $25,000.
REVISED: 1/29/97
-PAGE 1 -
DDIO:PVS-FRCS.N01
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL PROPERTY VALUATION
PAYOUT PROCESS
PLAN A
LUMP SUM -- BAILEY ROAD
A lump sum payout of $5,000 is offered to those eligible property owners who own
existing residences along the cast side of Bailev 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 Count\,
during the claims period (four month period):
a. a completed form (form to be finalized by staff)
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 117 designated properties in the Hillsdale neighborhood (as directed by
the Board, staff has prepared a list of addresses and a map of designated properties 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 (four month period):
a. a completed form (form to be finalized by staff)
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 Countv (relinquishment of further
claims against the County)
REVISED: 129/97
- PAGE 2-
DDW PVS-PRCS NO
DRAFT
CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY VALUES
Name:
Address:
Assessor's Parcel Number:
Name on Title of Property:
Ownership timing and duration:
I . 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 inlieritance? ❑ Yes ❑ No
8. Please fiirnish a title report and other docu rents to substantiate this
infonnation.
\'A.dg
1,lyu<I 1
(12 96)
Landfill Effect:
Besides activities related to construction, please list the specific physical impacts
created by the landfill and how 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 photogaphs.)
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 "lower" price because of the landfill,
can you substantiate that this was not a bargaining strategy?
VA dg
Aclyuc l 2
(1296)
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL PROPERTY VALUATION
PAYOUT PROCESS
PLAN B
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 payment. 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
constitute the pool of money available for disbursement 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 (four month period):
a. a completed form (form to be finalized by staff)
b. a titL_ report (or other proof J 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 (four month period). 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 (four month period):
a. a signed waiver/release of liability against the County (relinquishment of
further claims against the County)
REVISED 1/29/97
- PAGE 3 -
DDI2PVS-PRCS_NOI
BAILEY ROAD (LUMP SUM)
Bailey Road
581
591
605
611
615
631
671
681
705
717
725
727
731
735
739
743
747
751
TOTAL=
18 residences
HILLSDALE (LUMP SUM)
Carmel Ct. Santa Maria Dr. Jacqueline Dr. (cont'd)
2222 2246 2296
2224 2247 2297
2227 2248 2298
2229 2249 2300
2231 2250 2302
2233 2251 2303
2235 2252 2304
2308
Rome Ct. Jacqueline Dr.
2212 2236 (2 story) Concord Dr.
2213 2249 (2 story_ ) 2234 (2 story)
2214 2250 2249 (2 storv)
2215 2251 2251
2216 2252 2253
3317 2253 2254
2218 2254 2255
2255 2256
Mt. Whitney Dr. 2256 2257
2218 2257 2258
2257 2258 2259
2259 2259 2260
2261 2260 2261
2262 2261 2262
2264 2262 2263
2266 2263 2264
2267 2264 2265
2268 2265 2266
2269 2266 2267
2270 2267 2268
2',71 2268 2269
2272 2269 2270
2274 2270 2271
2271 2273
Westmont Ct. 2272
1059 2273 Westwood Lane
1060 2274 2240
1061 2275 2241
1062 2277 2250
1063 2279 2251
1064 2281
1005 2283 --------------------------------------
1066 2284 TOTAL =
2285 117 residences
2286
2288 �M;.,,i ia„arv •r. � ,,,,
2290
2292
2294
tr!'o
W�"� 'v
✓y
��
T--� �Y
���� '"t 54���r
� �
p �
y\yep` + F'� 4 � p
n � �` ab[r
r � L y i/ � � � �\��ti Rj�8�
�4 � 1 `
.1 ��� �`
UegS � ti�, � l r �'1� � � �,
mak � - l i � � �:n
� �� 4
;..
� �,
� �.an•., p,
i �' � � �� say
c
�� F
� ,m v � V
r105
t in �
t � �. _ ._. 2Pii fA Ui'
-� � ���� [14" � �
A9J+
or my .
�_
seg � � �,\ � ���,�
� �� des ��,�� <m e�'}.
,�,,,,�,,,.,ms � a � 1 �'
,� "s � �;�� � � m`";
_ � a �
a �r / � �
1 r i°
a
a � � � 1 ��
YI MMt!(
s � � � �
$ � � �I �_
{� Q AQ
mr � � G � � � �� E� �. � � � �� ski ��' . �6
+ pp Ft- p{y pp AAkk .�k i � �y,o�
.Y CRS � aL tl &pp � � �
h �Mu[ia[ w ! t' r
1t a J
d ' t+.. 1 �t �$
1 Q � �f �7�1 �, t`� �tl� ��
�Cyy r+
�� ,� r ye �� � f+�]N� � �
//rn, _ � � � � t _ �.
v — �
� a».• w
c + _'
�3 1Yw tl5 Q ste
\ y�tr� � �
� ,�n 4 ,
� ,
� �
�y +
""'�•...
��
1
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, 1100 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
BFI1Keller Canyon Landfill
City of Pittsburg
KELLER 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 landfillwill 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 -
J:KiROUPS\CDADPOOUDDINO W V S-PRCS.NOT
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL PROPERTY VALUATION
PAYOUT PROCESS
PLAN A
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.
-PAGE2-
J:1GROUPS\CDADPML\DDINGWS-PRCS.NOT
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL PROPERTY VALUATION
PAYOUT PROCESS
PLAN B
INDMDUAL 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 -
I:U:ROUPS`.CDADPWL\DDtN(PPVS-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 lieu holder? ❑ Yes ❑ No
7. Have you acquired the property by inheritance? ❑ Yes ❑ No
8. Please fiirnish a title report and other documents to substantiate this
infonnation.
VA:dg
kc1quM 1
(1296)
Landfill Effect:
Besides activities related to construction, please list the specific physical impacts
created by the landfill and how they affect your property.
What evidence have you fi(nnished 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 "lower" price because of the landfill,
can you substantiate that this was not a bargaining strategy?
VA:dg
kc1qucst 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
AlexeefflDI O.mem
! Fecycle,J paper L�
i
BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES
GOLDEN GATE DIVISION
Dennis P. Fenton
Divisional V"Presitlem
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.
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
OPFsf/20Atr
City of Pittsburg
Civic Center • P.O. Box 1518-0158 • Pittsburg,California 94565
RECCONTRA COS rA COUNTY
DECU - 51996
December 4, 1996 GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND
ECONOMIC OEVEi O?MENt AGENCY
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 Iong 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 Cities Helen Purnam Award-1988
National Center for Public Fwducriviry Exemplary Award-1989
Citv of New Horizons
Although Pittsburg believes the Landfill's impact on the entire community to be far greater,
eailier 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. 1n this respect, we look forward to moving from what has been a positive
dialogue to positive actions relative matters such as developing a good neighbor agreement
and an ambient air monitoring program.
Sincerel ,
7 y C. Kolin,
City Manager
cc: Mayor and City Council
Chairperson and Board of Supervisors