HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06181985 - 2.4 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
DATE: June 18 , 1985
MATTER OF RECORD
a=a
SUBJECT: Decision on Subdivision 58089 Bankhead Ranch
The Board, on June 4, 1985 , declared its intent to approve
the Subdivision application_ of Bankhead Ranch (deny the appeal of
People for Open Space) and directed staff to prepare findings for
its consideration and adoption on June 18, 1985. In compliance with
the Board's direction, a staff-drafted resolution was considered by
the Board this day, approving Subdivision 5808 subject to the con-
ditions approved by the Planning Commission on March 23, 1981 and
including findings, explanations, and statements to support this
decision.
Supervisor Fanden, Chairwoman, referred to the instruc-
tions of the Superior Court Judge and advised that since public hearings-
on the Subdivision application were previously held and a complete
record of said hearings exists as part of the administrative record
before the Board, no new public hearing is required or allowed con-
cerning the administrative record and its contents. For this
reason, further public testimony will not be received by the Board.
Supervisor Fanden then inquired of the Board members if they desired
to discuss this matter further. Supervisor Schroder moved the adop-
tion of the resolution and the motion was seconded by Supervisor
Powers .
Supervisor Torlakson expressed reservations relative to
adopting the proposed resolution at this time. He suggested post-
poning decision on the resolution for a week to afford the Board
members opportunity to further review the contents of the resolu-
tion. He referred to the earlier decision of the Board denying the
application, and expressed concern that by approval of Subdivision
5808, the Board might be setting a precedent for future or similar
type applications. He indicated that he did not believe that rela-
tive issues noted in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were ade-
quately addressed-. From his brief review of the documents, he
advised that there appears to be a need for additional conditions .
Supervisor Torlakson moved to table the motion for one week.
Supervisor McPeak seconded the motion. The vote to table the motion
was as follows:
AYES: Supervisors McPeak and Torlakson
NOES: Supervisors Powers , Schroder, and Fanden
The motion failed to carry.
Both Supervisors McPeak and Torlakson were of the opinion
that conditions need to be added since certain issues identified in
the EIR were not addressed. They agreed to address these issues
after the Board voted on the main motion. The Chairwoman then
called for a vote on the original motion. The vote was as follows:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, and Fanden
NOES: Supervisors McPeak and Torlakson
The Chair announced that the motion carried (see
Resolution 85/319) .
Supervisor Torlakson referred to a statement he made on
issues relative to deed notification, including school facilities,
fire and police protection, the proximity of a proposed windmill
farm, etc . He moved that these issues be part of the deed notifica-
tion process. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McPeak. The
vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Supervisors McPeak and Torlakson
NOES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, and Fanden
The motion failed to carry.
Supervisor Torlakson referred to the conditions for a com-
munity water system and the problems that can occur in a rural area
particularly as they relate to maintenance and repair. Supervisor
Torlakson then moved that the Board not grant exceptions to septic
tank systems and the community water system that would be a part of
the approval process of this application. The motion was seconded
by Supervisor McPeak. The vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Supervisors McPeak and Torlakson
NOES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, and Fanden
The motion failed to carry.
Supervisor Torlakson then moved that the applicant be
required to fund a General Plan review and zoning change to protect
the service considerations and resource issues that have been
involved in the Bankhead project. Included in his motion was an
understanding that the fire chief had as a condition of approval
that all conditions that the fire district needs, including the
building of the fire station be included in this project.
Supervisor McPeak seconded the motion. The vote was as follows:
AYES: Supervisors McPeak and Torlakson
NOES: Supervisors Powers , Schroder, and Fanden
The motion failed to carry.
This concluded the discussion on Subdivision 5808.
cc: County Counsel
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Reconsideration and Decision )
on Subdivision 5808 on Remand ) RESOLUr ION No. 85/ 319 _
in Bankhead Ranch v . Board of )
Supervisors, Contra Costa )
Superior Court No . 231017 )
------------------------------------
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County Resolves That:
INTRODUCTION. Bankhead Ranch (Owner) on March 10 , 1980, f i led
an application for approval of a Tentative Map ( 5808) for a
1 ,128-acre project known as The Bankhead Ranch, located on the
east s ide of Vasco Road adjacent to the Alameda County 1 ine in the
East County Area. A Draf t Envi ronmental Impact Report ("EIR" ) ,
dated October 31 , 1980 , was prepared and completed and made
avai labl e f or revi ew f rom November 3 , 1980 , to December 19, 1980 .
The County Planning Commission, on March 17 , 1981 , after con-
ducting a duly-noticed publ is hearing on the Draf t EIR on January
13 , 1981 , certified as adequate and complete the final EIR, which
incorporated written and oral comments on' the Draf t EIR. The
Commission, on March 24 , 1981 , after conducting a duly-noticed
public hearing on the Tentative Map on March 17 , 1981 , unanimously
approved the Tentative Map, subject to conditions of approval
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
The Board of Supervisors thereafter received correspondence
from Congressman George Miller , dated March 31 , 1981 , complaining
that the County Planning Commission' s approval of the Tentative Map
would increase the land acquisition costs to the Federal
Government in the event that a decision was made to proceed with
the proposed Los Vaqueros Reservoir project .
After the receipt of Congressman Miller' s letter, the Board of
Supervi sors considered._ whether to itself appeal the Planning
Commission' s approval of the Tentative Map. However, People for
Open -Space, on April 2 , 1981 , filed an appeal with the Board of
Supervisors of the Planning Commission' s approval of the Tentative
Map.
The Board of Supervisors, after conducting a hearing on the
aforesaid appeal on April 28, 1981 , declared its intent to grant
the appeal and directed staff to prepare appropriate findings
denying approval of the Tentative Map and granting the appeal . On
October 6 , 1981 , the Board of Supervisors met to review the
staff' s findings .
On October 20 , 1981 , the Board of Supervi sors, by Resolution
No . 81 /1226 , of ter ful 1 revi ew and consideration of the EIR
together with documents received during the public review process ,
concurred in and ratified the previous certification by the
Planning Commission that the Final EIR is adequate and complete
and that it has been completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and State and local guidelines . By the
aforesaid Resolution No. 81/1226 , the Board of Supervisors, by a
3 -2 vote, granted the appeal of People for Open Space, set aside
the Planning Commission' s approval of the 'Tentative Map and denied
the application for approval of the Tentative Map.
The Owner, on January 15 , 1982 , f iled two actions in the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of
Contra- Costa, being Case No. 231015 and Case No. 231017, seeking,
among other things , a writ of ordinary mandamus and a writ of
administrative mandamus . The Court, in Case No . 231017, on April
12 , 1985 , filed its Order Granting Peremptory Writ of Mandamus and
issued its Peremptory Writ of Mandamus , which, together with the
Court' s Memorandum of Intended Decision of February 59 19859 as
modified on March 5 , 1985 , ordered the Board of Supervisors to set
z
1,
aside its decision of October 20 , 1981 , and to reconsider and
redecide the administrative appeal without consideration of
Congressman Miller' s letter of March 31 , 1981, or the effect
approval of the proposed subdivi sion might have on acqui sition
costs for the proposed Los Vaqueros Reservoir.
The Board of Supervisors , on April 23 , 1985 , acknowledged
receipt of the aforesaid Writ of Mandamus , Order , and Statement of
Decision and declared its intention to review the administrative
r eeord, r econs i der and redeci de t he s ubj ect s ubdi vi s i on appeal i n
accordance with the Court' s directions . The Board of
Supervisors, on June 4 , 1985 , reconsidered the appeal and declared
its intent to approve the subdivision application .of Owner and to
deny the appeal of People f o.r Open Space and directed staff to
pr epare f i ndi ngs f or i is cons i derat i on and adopt i on on J une 18,
1985 .
ACTION AND FINDINGS. Pursuant to the Order and Peremptory
Wri t of Mandamus i ssued Apr i 1 12 , 1985 i n Contra Costa Super i or
Court No. 231017 , this Board HEREBY SETS ASIDE in its entirety
its decision of October 20 , 1981 , set forth in Resolution 81/1226 .
Pursuant to said Order and Writ , this Board has conducted a
compl ete revi ew of the Record that was bef ore thi s Board at the
time of its October 20 , 1981 decision and, upon reconsideration of
the matter under the terms of the Cour t' s Order, Wr i t and
Statement of Decision, HEREBY APPROVES Subdivision 5808 subject to
the conditions approved by the Planning Commission on March 23 ,
198J , and HEREBY MAKES the following findings , explanations and
statements of overriding consideration, which this Board believes
to be supported by the relevant evidence in the record.
1 . Thi s Board i n F i ndi ng 1 of i is Resolut ion 81 /1226, dated
October 20 , 1981 , found that the subdivi sion was premature with
respect to the East County General Plan and was not consistent
with County water policy . In Finding 4 of Res . 81 /1226, this
3 _
i,
Board found the subdivision to be in conflict with the County' s
water pol ici es . The Court ordered this Board to set aside its
decision of October 20 , 1981 , because the Court found that this
Board considered the Los Vaqueros Reservoir even though the Los
Vaqueros Reservoir was removed from the East County General . Plan
prior to the applicants' proposal for Subdivision 5808 and the
possibility of the Reservoir being built appears to be remote.
Thus , the rationale for the Court' s decision was that it was a
denial of the requirement of a fair hearing to consider a reser-
voir project which is speculative and not shown on the County
General Plan.
2 . In finding 2 of Resolution 81/1226 , denying the proposed
subdivision on October 20 , 1981 , this Board determined that it
could not find that the proposed subdivision is not likely to
cause serious public heal th problems because the proposed reser-
voir, if built, would inundate much of the area of the sub-
division, leaving the remaining area questionable as to water
supply f rom the proposed wel 1 sources . As determined by the
Superior Court, it was improper to consider the effects of a
potential Los Vaqueros Reservoir on the proposed subdivision,
because the proposed establ ishnent of the reservoir is speculative
and not shown on the County General Plan . Accordingly , this Board
cannot now base a Government Code §66474 finding of potential
public health problems on such concerns arising from consideration
of the potential Reservoir.
;3 . Upon further review of the record, this Board determines
that the evidence supports the conclusion that additional wells
could be drilled and that such wells would likely be approved by
the heal th officer, so as to eliminate any deficiencies in flow
rate or potential problems with impurities . Pages 7 -9 of the EIR,
as well as the report of the developer' s water system consul taut ,
support this conclusion.
c;
4 . This Board hereby finds that the proposed subdivision,
together with its provisions for design and improvement , is con-
sistent with the County General Plan and the criteria unanimously
adopted by this Board in Resolution 83/407 for the subdivision of
lands within the Agri cul ture-Res i dent i al General Plan category,
for at least the fol lowing reasons. The proposed subdivision is
on land designated on the General Plan for Agriculture Residential use, it will provide additional housing which is in
short supply within the County, and it is a very low density resi-
dential developnent averaging only one home per 17 acres . Because
of its low density and relatively few units, because of the design
and qual ity of the subdivision , because it has its own sewer and
water system, and because the land to be used for. the subdivision
is minimal with respect to the total amount of similar agri-
cultural land that is available in the Southeast County, the sub-
division will not materially impact the provision of public
services nor unduly impact agricultural uses or encourage other
developnent in the Southeast County and . is thus acceptable even
though other subdivisions such a distance from contiguous deve-
loped areas might not be.
5 . Pursuant to the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act
and the Contra Costa County Subdivision Ordinance, this Board
finds that:
(a) Granting of the exceptions of Conditions of Approval
2-B, 2-E , 2-F and 5 will not be materially detrimental to the
publ_,ic welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in
which 4he Subdivision is situated; and
( b) Granting of the exceptions of Conditions of Approval
2-B, 2-E, 2-F and 5 is essential to efficient development of the
property into 65 large " ranchette" parcels, ranging in size from
6 . 6 acres to 66 . 8 acres , with an average size of approximately
17. 35 acres , and therefore the exceptions are necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of the applicant' s development of the
property in accordance with the A-2 General Agricultural District
Zoning and the General. Plan, and
(c ) Granting of the exceptions of Conditions of Approval
2-B, 2-E , 2-F and 5 is merited because the property is affected by
special circumstances and conditions , in that it is rolling
hillside topography in a fairly remote area and the western,
southern and southeastern property lines are generally bounded by
Kel logg Creek.
6 . CEQ, findings on the significant effects identified in the
E IR.
(a) Findings.—explanation_of-----mitigation and statement of
------ ---------------
'6verr i di ng cons i derat i ons_ius t i fyi ng_the_pro�ect_renardl ess_of
any_remai ni ng_en_vi ronmental _impact_f or the i dent i f i ed s igni f ieant
effect of visual _impact.
The E IR identified changes in visual impact as an effect of
the Subdivi sion. Like any development , this Subdivision will
necessarily :have some unavoidable visual impact . The only alter-
native
lter-native to some effect of visual impact would be to deny all deve-
lopment , and this Board cannot make the Map Act findings requi red
to support such an alternative. Condition No. 8 requires the
Applicant to provide, 30 days prior to filing for a building per-
mit, a 200-scale topographical map for the review and approval of
the Zoning Administrator . The map shall indicate: ( 1) proposed
home sites and driveways , ( 2) proposed home type, ( 3) a
landscaping plan, ( 4) areas of cuts and fills, and ( 5) amounts of
cuts and fills required for the proposed grading. Cut and fill
shall be balanced on the site with minimal grading. Dedication of
a scenic easement to the County may be required at the time of
bui ldi ng permit approval . Impl ement i ng thi s condi tion shoul d miti-
gate the visual impact significant effect to the extent feasible.
c -
To the extent any impact remains unmitigated , this Board f inds
such impact justified by the need to increase the stock of housing
available in the County , in a variety of housing types, densities
and prices , in order to accommodate the County' s growing popula-
tion
opula-
tion and employment base; this need to increase the housing stock
makes infeasible the complete mitigation of such impact or imple-
mentation
mple-
mentation of the project alternatives described in the E IR.
Given the develoPnent allowed by the existing zoning, this deve-
lopnent is as visually pleasing and acceptable as as could be
expected.
( b) FindingsZ_explanation_of mitigationt_and statement
of override ng_considerations iustifyi ng_the_Qro�ect_regardless_of
o f o v e------
any_remai ni ng_envi ronmental --imeact_f or the i dent i f i ed s igni f icant
----- - ----------------
effect of domestic_water_impact.
A wel 1-based smal 1 communi ty water system is proposed for the
Subdivision. The E IR identifies a potential impact on the long-
term groundwater suppy and expresses concern that the water supply
f or the project would be rendered inoperable if the Los Vaqueros
Reservoir were built. As indicated by the decision of the
Superior Court, the Los Vaqueros Reservoir is not shown on the
General Plan and is a speculative project at this time, and it is
not appropriate under the court' s decision and the law to consider
speculative impacts as significant effects on the envi ron-nent .
Pursuant to Condition 5 , the Health Department will require
further documentation of the long term availability of ground-
wate,r , including flow rates . Adequacy of the water supply will be
subj ec-t to approval of the health department , i n accordance with
Condition 5 . This should entirely mitigate the potential problem
of insufficient water. To the extent any impact remains unmiti-
gated, this Board f i nds such impact justified by the need to
increase the stock of housing available in the County, in a
variety of housing types , densities and prices , in order to accom-
modate the County' s growing population and employment base; this
7
need to increase the housing stock makes .i of eas ibl a the complete
mitigation of such imp.act or implementation of the project alter-
natives described in the E IR. If the heal th department deter-
mines that an adequate water sys tem cannot be i nstal led and
maintained, it will not render its approval and the project will
not proceed unless an adequate alternative source is found.
(c ) Findings ._explanation_of mi tigationl._and_statement
of overr i di considerations_ius t i fyi ng_the_Qroiect_regardl ess_of
an r emai ni ng—en_vi ronmental act ct_f or_the_identified s igni f i cant
ef fect_of_sept ic_tank_imeaet.
The E IR expresses concern over the steepness of the slopes,
the distance of septic tanks from wells, the percolation of the
soil and setback distances from the potential Los Vaqueros
Reservoir. The setbacks from the Los Vaqueros Reservoir are not
a proper significant effect to be addressed because Los Vaqueros
Reservoir is not shown on the General Plan and any impacts
resulting therefrom are speculative. As to the other concerns ,
condition no. 6 requires the applicant , prior to filing a final
map , to obtain the necessary approval of the health department as
to septic tank locations and percolation. This should eliminate
the potential adverse effect from slopes that are too steep, from
leach fields too close to wells and from improper percolation. To
the extent that septic tanks on any parcels cannot meet the heal th
department' s requirements in any of these respects , construction
will not be approved for that parcel . The potential impacts should
thee>efore be entirely mitigated. To the extent any impact remains
unmitigated, this Board finds such impact justified by the need to
increase the stock of housing available in the County, i n a
variety of housing types , densities and prices , in order to accom-
modate the County' s growing population and empl oynent base; this
need to increase the housing stock makes infeasible the complete
mitigation of such impact or imple9nentation of the project al ter-
natives described in the E IR.
s�
(d ) Findings�_explanation_of mitigation_and_statement_of
------ - -- -------- ------- ----- --- --------- --
overri di ng cons i der at Lons_Zus t i fyi ng_the_p,roiect_regardl ess of
any_remai ni ng_envi for or_the identified s ign i f ieant
of feet of f ire hazards.
----------------------
The E IR identifies an increase in fire hazards as a signifi-
cant
ignifi-
cant effect, due to the potential introduction of over 20-0 resi-
dents
esi-dents in a currently unpopulated area. The EIR expresses concern
that the flow rate from the wells may not be high enough for a
long enough time to allow adequate water for fire protection. To
the extent feasible, Condition Nos . 4 and 16 lessens the increased
risk of fire due to introduction of over 200 residents in a
currently unpopulated area. It does so by requiring the applicant
to comply with the requirements of the Eastern Contra Costa Fire
Protection District , including:
a . Providing a water storage system capable
of supplying the required flow rate for
the required time (or other alternative
acceptable to the district ) .
b . Providing fire hydrants of the East Bay
type at sites to be approved by the fire
district and zon.i ng administrator.
c . Providing fire department access at three
locations , including access easements
specified in deeds as fire department
r ights-of -way.
d . Deeding of a lot to the East County Fire
Protection District for the development
of o f ire station, at a location and in a
size meeting the fire district' s
requirements.
e . Providing the necessary funds , not to
exceed $11 , 000 , to equip a 20-person
volunteer fire crew.
The foregoing should mitigate the increased fire hazard from 200
residents t o the extent feasible. Any more extreme conditions
would not be justified by the type of development and would not be
necessary to insure a reasonable level of fire protection. The
only alternative to having some unavoidable fire risk is to deny
the development altogether. To the extent any impact remains
unmitigated, this Board finds such impact justified by the need to
increase the stock of housing available in the County, in a
variety of housing types , densities and prices , in order to accom-
modate the County' s growing population and empl oSrnent base; this
need to increase the housing stock makes infeasible the complete
mitigation of such impact or implementation of the project alter-
natives described in the E IR. Further, this Board finds any
remaining fire risk acceptable.
(e ) Findings .—explanation of mitigationZ_and_statement
of overriding__considerations_Zustifying_ h.e_Qroieet_regardless- of
-----------
an�_remai ni ng_envi ronmental --imgacts_f or the asserted--s igni f ieant
-- — ------------ --
ef fect_of_i npact_on_schools.
The E IR identifies an impact on schools because an esti -
mated '59 elementary students and 26 high school students would be
generated by the proposed project . The EIR notes that both the
school districts which the students would attend are beyond capa-
city at this time. This is not a significant effect within the
meaning of the CEQA Regulations (See 14 CA Code 515382) , because a
significant effect is limited to a substantial or potentially
substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions
within the area affected by the project including land, air,
water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of
historic or esthetic significance. As Section 15382 indicates , an,
economic or social change, such as the effect on the schools,
should not be considered a significant effect unless directly
related to a physical change. Although the impact on schools is
not the kind of impact intended to be a significant effect in this
case, this Board nonetheless makes the following finding and
explanation.
Any residential development is bound to result in some
increase in school population and, unless further development is
to be completely frozen, the school sys tem must accommodate an
increase in student population resulting from developments . Under
the Subdivision Map Act , an effect on schools is not an adequate
ground for denying a development otherwise conforming with the
applicable zoning and the Map Act . Further, increased taxes
generated from the increased value due to the new construction
will likely pay for much of the increased burden on the schools.
Finally , the Board of Supervisors has always approved interim
school fees when requested by impacted school districts . For
example, of particular relevance to this project , this Board takes
official notice of its passage, by Resolution No. 84/623 , of a
school bedroom tax f or the Byron Union Elementary School District .
To the extent any impact remains unmitigated, thi s Board f inds
such; impact justified by the need to increase the stock of housing
available in the County, in a variety of housing types , densities
and prices, in order to accommodate the County' s growing popula-
tion
opula-tion and empl oynent base; this need to increase the housing stock
makes infeasible the complete mitigation of such impact or imple-
mentation of the project alternatives described in the EIR.
(f ) Findi ngs ._explanation_of mitigationi_and_statement
of overr i di ng—cons i der.at i ons_ius ti fyi ng—the- proi ect - restardl ess of
any_remai ni ng_envi ronmental _imp_acts_f or_the asserted s igni f ieant
police services—impact.
The E IR identifies a potential impact on police services
provided by the sheriff' s department . This is not a significant
effect within the meaning of CEQN, as it is an economic or social
change. It is not a adverse change to the physical conditions in
the area and not a change directly related to a physical change in
the area. Notwithstanding, to the extent that some might consider
thi s a s ignf icant of feet , t hi s board makes the f of lowing f indi ngs
and explanation.
The asserted significant effect is that the patrol force in
the unincorporated area has reached capacity level and any further
development adding additional homes would cumul a-t ivel y impact the
department , resulting i n longer response times to emergency calls
and more limited patrol time in other areas of the County. Longer
response times and more limited patrol times are impacts on the
provision of services and should not have an impact on the
environment. While this project , 1 ike any housing project , may
have some impact on the provision of police services , an admi-
nistrative decision must be made; based on the needs of the entire
area, as to whether to attempt to maintain or increase the police
force to maintain the current level of service. The increased tax
base from the new construction of the proposed subdivision would
generate significant additional tax revenues which could be
budgeted for police protection services . In addi tion, this is a
low density development which should not cause the type of problems
expected in a high density development . Further, given the
long projected buildout , the project should have little impact
on police protection in the East County. As is the case with any
development , there may be an increase in the need for police pro-
tection.
ro-
tection. To the extent any impact remains unmitigated, this Board
finds such impact justified by the need to increase the stock of
housing available in the County, in a variety of housing types,
densities and prices, in order to accommodate the County' s growing
population and empi oynent base; thi s need to i nerease the housing
stock makes infeasible the complete mitigation of such impact or
impl ementation of the project al ternatives described i n the E IR.
( g) Finging!i,_tlplanation _of-mitiLration.-and-statement
of overridi n.S_Sonsiderations_iu§.tifyi ng_Ihe-j?Loje* ct_Legardless of
al!.y_LeiLnai ning-envi .ronmental,_impact s, f or- the i dent f ied sig!li ficant
effect-on-mosquito abatement.
The E IR identifies a potential significant effect that
mosqui tos breedi ng i n the standi ng water of Kel logg Creek
could be a nuisance to future residents. The EIR also notes the
dunping of debris into the creek by residents could cause ponding
and increase mosquito production and reduce effectiveness of
controls. This is the kind of problem which cannot be entirely
mitigated short of a massive undertaking to reroute or otherwise
alter Kellogg Creek, which would in itself have very severe
adverse environmental consequences . The desirability of pre-
servi ng the creek i n i is natural state outweighs the minor
possible of feet of an increase i n mosqui to hazard due to people
occupying the area of the creek. The best way to avoid the
problem is for residents to take the normal precaution of not
du-npi ng debris into the creek. Condi tions 9 12, and 13 require
that any new crossing of Kel I ogg Creek shat I be accomplished with
a bridge rather than a culvert so that the flow of water will not
be impeded, that the Creek be preserved i n i is natural state, and
that the developer notify the Department of Fish and Game of any
proposed construction that might effect the Creek'. These
Conditions should mitigate the impact to the extent feasible. To
the extent any impact remains unmitigated, this Board finds such
impact justified by the need to increase the stock of housing
available in the County , in a variety of housing types , densities
and prices , in order to accommodate the County' s growing popula-
tion
opula-
tion and empl oyrnent base; this need to increase the housing stock
makes infeasible the complete mitigation of such impact or imple-
mentation
mple-
mentation of the project alternatives described in the EIR.
(h ) Fi ndi ngs.,_e xl anat i on_of_mi t igat i on.--and-s tatement
of overri di ng cons i derat i ons ius t i fyi ng_thexerotect_regardl ess_of
any_asserted_impact_on PG&E.
The EIR notes that PG&E easements traverse the pro-
perty so that the Subdivi sion could have an adverse of feet on
PG&E's abi lity to maintain the gas lines (e .g . , affect PG&E's
assessibility) . The EIR also notes that extensive grading might
expose pipel ines or place more f i 11 over the lines than is accep-
table for their operations . This is not a significant effect
under CEQA but rather a potential adverse effect on PG&E 's ability
to maintain its gas 1 i nes , which is a consideration beyond the
scope of CEQk. The EIR' s statement that the hilly terrain might
require extensive grading that could expose the pipelines or place
more f ill over them than acceptable is not a val id concern.
Condi tion No. 17 requi res that the plan be revi ewed by PG&E to
i nsure compatibi lity with the exi sting f aei lities . With the
review of the plans, PG&E will be able to enforce its legal rights
to protect its easement. Thus , Condition ' 17 should mitigate
entirely any purported significant effect . To the extent any
impact remains unmitigated, this Board finds such impact justified
by the need to increase the stock of housing available in the
Court-ly, ika variety of housing types, densities and prices , in
order to accommodate the County' s growing population and
employment base; this need to increase the housing stock makes
infeasible the complete mitigation of such impact or implementation
of the project alternatives described in the EIR.
( i ) Findings .-explanationof mi tig!1 i onZ_and_statement
of overr i di ng_cons i derat i ons_ius t i fyi ng_the_eroieet_regardl ess of
------------
any_remai ni ng_envi ronmental _impact_f or_the_identified significant
of f ect_of_poor_s 1 ope_s tabi 1 i ty.
The EIR identifies a significant effect of potential
landslides , particularly where the natural slope has been altered
by grading. The EIR also notes that construction of Los Vaqueros
Reservoir would create special problems with regard to slope sta-
bi l i ty. As indicated by the Court' s decision, it is improper to
consider any potential effects of Los Vaqueros Reservoir because
it is not in the general plan and is a speculative project .
Further, any impact of a reservoir on slopes can be evaluated at
the time an EIR is drawn for any reservoir project- that `actually
is undertaken.
The EIR suggests that a more detailed geotechnical
investigation be conducted prior to approving a revised tentative
map and includes several requirements for the report . Condition
No. 18 requires such a report, which will provide the data to
allow the final siting of homes in the safest possible manner.
Should i t occur that the report shows some area to be unsafe, the
condition presumes that homes will not be built in such an area.
Accordingly , the condition will mitigate potential slide risks to
the extent feasible. To the extent any impact remains unmiti-
gated, this Board finds such impact justified by the need to
increase the stock of housing available in the County, in a
variety of housing types , densities and prices , in order to accom-
modate- the County' s growing population and employment base; this
need to increase the housing stock makes infeasible the complete
mitigation of such impact or implementation of the project alter-
natives
lter-natives described in the EIR.
0
(j ) F i nd i ngs.L_t.xpLa n at i on of—mi tigali on.—and—s.tatement
of overri di .Dg_cIoDs i derat i ons_jus,t i fyi 1!.g_the—p!101.ecj, Lega.Edjess, of
a.nyy_r�eLn.2i ni ng—envi ro,nmental i.mpact_f.2r the i dent i f i ed� seismic
hazard_s igni f icant ef feet.
The EIR notes that the property is located in an area of
moderate seismic risk , because of a minor unnamed fault which
bisects the northwest corner of the property, an active fault
approximately 1 , 000 feet southwest of the site, and other faul is
i n the Bay Area. Condition 18 requires a detailed geotechnical
investigation which will include evaluation of the movement and
seismic risks of the bedrock fault for lots 57 , 63, 64 & 65:
Also, Condition 19 requires building sites to be located away from
drainage swales and landslide areas. In addition, all building
will be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code which will
insure that potential impact from any earthquake will be reduced
to the extent modern construction methods can do so. To the
extent feasible, these conditions should mitigate the seismic
hazards. To the extent any seismic hazards remain, they are
largely the unavoidable hazards which exist throughout the Bay
Area. To the extent any impact remains unmitigated, this Board
finds such impact justified by the need to increase the stock of
housing available in the County , in a variety of housing types,
densities and prices , in order to accommodate the County' s growing
population and employment base; this need to increase the housing
stock makes infeasible the complete mitigation of such impact or
implementation of the project alternatives described in the EIR".
I
W Findinvs , explanation of mitigations' and statement
---------- -------
of overriding_con I siderations—iustifying -the—project—regardiess- of
aDj_r!eiLnaining—envi ro,nmental i.mp-act—for- the identified significant
effect of erosion, hazards.
The EIR notes that the development poses potential to
increase erosion and create downstream turpidity and siltation
problems . Condition 20 requires that runoff from developed areas
not be discharged in a: concentrated manner. Condi tion 21 requi res
an erosion control plan be approved prior to issuance of the
grading permit. Such a plan would reduce drainage problems
arising from sedimentation. The applicant also is required by
Condition 21 to work with the Publ is Works Department to design
appropriate onsite drainage facilities , including a flood plane
with wide drainage easements, in order to mitigate the cumulative
impact on downstream flooding. These conditions should mitigate
the potential erosion and flood hazards to the extent feasible.
To the extent any impact remains unmitigated, this Board finds
such impact j us t i f i ed by the need to i ncrease the s tock of hous i ng
available in the County , in a variety of housing types , densities
and prices, in order to accommodate the County' s growing popula-
tion and empl oynent base; this need to increase the housing stock
makes infeasible the complete mitigation of such impact or imple-
mentation
mple-
mentation of the project alternatives described in the E IR.
( 1 ) Findings ._explanation_of mitigationi_and_statement
of overr i di ng_eons i derat i ons_ius t i fyi ng_t he_eroiect_regardl ess_of
-----------
any_remai ni ng_envi ronmental _imeacts_f or_the --
_i dent i f ied s igni f icant
----- -------- —
effect of imeact_on wild life and rare_and_endangered_spt i es.
The EIR notes potential impacts on several species , which
would be unavoidable because construction and human occupation
will inevitably eliminate some wild life habitat . Condition 22
requires that deed restrictions be imposed to prohibit poison bait
use%:and restrict roaming dogs in order to reduce the potential
effect- on the rare San Joaquin Kit Fox . Further, the Condition requi rE
that , prior to filing the final map , additional biological study
be done in c000perat i on with the Department of Fish and Game so as
to identify rare and endangered animals and plants which might be
affected and to assess specific impacts on them and consider what
mitigation measures might be appropriate to minimize those
impacts. In addition, Conditions 9 & 13 require that any new
17
crossings of Kellogg Creek be accomplished with a bridge rather
than a culvert that th-e Creek be preserved as habitat in its
natural state. To the extent any impact remains unmitigated, this
Board finds such impact justified by the need to increase the
stock of housing available in the County, in a variety of housing
types , densities and prices , in order to accommodate the County' s
growing population and empl oynent base; this need to increase the
housing stock makes infeasible the complete mitigation of such
impact or implementation of the project alternatives described in
the E IR,
(m) Findings .-explanationof mi t igat i on_L_and_s tatement
of overr i di ng_cons i derat i ons_ius t i fyi ng_the_eroiect_regardl ess_of
-----------
an�_remai ni ng_envi ronmental_imeacts_f or the identified traffic
------- -----------------------
significant_effect.
The EIR identifies a potential traffic impact which may
result from the project . The concern is the long- range cumulative
effect of the minor amount of traffic generated by the project in
addition to other increased traffic on Vasco Road. It is expected
that Vasco Road will be widened in Alameda County to accoranodate
four lanes and 1 of t turn bays as devel opnent occurs within the
City of Livermore and Alameda County. In addition, Condition 2-C
requires conveyance to the County , by offer of dedication, an
additional 21 feet of right-of-way on Vasco Road along with the
appropriate slope easements to accommodate a planned future width
of 92 feet . Also, Condition 2-H requires the construction of
safety improvements on Vasco Road at all new intersections and
where deemed necessary by the Publ is Works Department . Further ,
Condi tion 2-I requi res that , al 1 pubi ie and pr ivate roads be
al igned to the appropriate road standards of the County
Subdivision Ordinance, except where topographic constraints make
such al ignments i of eas ibl e in which event modi f icat ions are to be
coordinated with the Public Works Department . Finally, Condition
11 requires that, except for lot 64 & 65, all parcels must have
access from the interior roadway system rather than Vasco Road.
The conditions will mitigate traffic impacts to the extent
f eas ibIl e. To t he e xt ent any impact r emai ns unmi t igated t hi s
Board finds such impact justified by the need to increase the
s tock of hous i ng avai labi e i n t he Count y, i n a var i ety of hous i ng
types, densities and prices, in order to accommodate the County' s
growing population and employnent base; this need to increase the
housing stock makes infeasible the complete mitigation of such
impact or implementation of the project alternatives described in
t he E III.
(n ) finding§_L_e.xpLanation of-mitiLration.-an.d statement
of over r i di nZ_cons i derat i ons_iu!Lt i fyi n_g, th.2_pr2j.2cI, LeS!jrdItss of
aU_LeTainin.g_tnyironmental-imnets for the identified sig!lificant
effect of increased runoff and_impact_on water _qIIaIii.Y'- :
The EIR notes that an additional 2% of runoff may occur on the
site because of physical changes. Although the EIR recognizes
that this amount may not be an adverse effect on existing environ
mental conditions by itself, the EIR expresses concern that the
runoff analysis cannot predict all the results of improper
d rai nage act i vi ti es. For e xampl e, s peci f i c construction tech-
niques could incrrease runoff significantly and exacerbate con-
ditions downstream. The EIR also expresses concern that runoff
sedimentation could occur to t-he Los Vaqueros Reservoir if in fact
the Los Vaqueros Reservoir is ever constructed. As noted pre-
viously , consideration of the impacts regarding the Las Vaqueros
project is inappropriate because the Los Vaqueros project is spe-
culative and the proposed reservoir is not shown on the General
Plan..
Condition 21 requires an erosion control plan prior to
issuance of grading permits. The plan' will reduce drainage
problems which could arise from sedimentation. Also, the a ppl I-
cant mus t 'work with the County Publ is Works Department to design
appropriate on site drainage facilities, which should mitigate
downstream impacts. Further, Condition 2-G requires dedication of
a drainage easement and structure setbacks pursuant to Ordinance
r,
Code requirements and the Flood Control District regulations for
creeks . If the Publ ie. Works Director determines that the descrip-
tions for the drainage easements and structural setbacks
require extensive topographical surveys and creek cross sections,
that will be accomplished in order to insure that the easements
and setbacks are accurately described. Condition 5 requires the
applicant , prior to filing a final map, to satisfy the Heal th
Department that water from the proposed system will be adequate.
In addition, Health Department regulations for bacteriological and
chemical content will have to be met . The foregoing should miti-
gate, to the extent f eas ibl e, any increased runoff and water
qual it'y impacts. To the extent any impact remains unmitigated,
t hi s Board f i nds such impact justified by the need to increase the
stock of housing available in the County, in a variety of housing
types, densities and prices , in order to accommodate the County' s
growing population and employment base; this need to increase the
housing stock makes infeasible the complete mitigation of such
impact or implementation of the project alternatives described in
the E IR.
(o) Findi ngsZ_exglanation of mitigationZ_and statement
of_overr i di ng-cons i derat ions i!!st i fyi ng_t he_protect,regardl ess*qf_a lI
remai ni ng_envi ronmental impacts-f or_t he identified LosVaqueros
Res er vo i r/ gubl i c_pol i cy_i mplact .
The E IR i den ti f ies a purported envi ronmental of feet because
approval of the subdivision would purportedly conflict with
pos,9 ibl e S tate and/or Federal pl ans f or a reservoi r. The E IR
notes -that approval of the subdivi sion would render land acqui si-
tion for the potential reservoir more costly and that approval of
development above the potential reservoir might conflict with land
uses contemplated by the State and/or Federal plans . The EIR also
notes that the Los Vaqueros project is associated with the
Peripheral Canal project , the construction of which is highly spe-
culative. First , increasing land acquisition costs for a poten-
tial reservoir is not a significant effect within the meaning of
CEQA. In addition, as the Court indicated in its decision, it is
improper to consider the potential impacts from a speculative pro-
j ect . Further, the potential Los Vaqueros Reservoir was speci fi-
c al 1y removed f rom the General P Ian. Moreover, the Court
speci fical ly held that it was improper for the board to consider
that approval of the subdivision could increase acquisition costs
for the potential Los Vaqueros Reservoir.
To the extent any impact remains unmitigated, this Board finds
such in-pact justified by the need to increase the stock of housing
available in the County, in a variety of housing types, densities
and prices, i n order to accommodate the County' s growing popula-
tion and employment base; this need to incease the housing stock
makes infeasible the complete mitigation of such - impact 'or imple-
mentation of the project alternatives described in the EIR'.'
( p) Findipgs,._ex2lanation _of-mitigalion.-and s-tatement
of overrid' considerations the- pr2j,2cl Legardl.2ss- ofnZ_ ------i ua t i f yin--.g_ -
apj_reLn.ainingr_environmental imp!jcjs_jor_the identified-significant
effect of inducinz_grolyth.
The EIR identifies a growth inducing impact of the develop-
ment , based on the conclusion that the developnent would be
precedent setting and encourage further develoiment in the area.
This board recognizes that the County' s population is growing
and that growth of the employment base in areas within reasonable
convAute, distance of the area in question demand additional housing
projects which will inevitably have some impact on the environment
and provision of services and reduce agricultural and open space
lands. This Board recognizes that a reasonable amount of growth
and commensurate need for new housing 'is virtually inevitable in
this area and that. this Board has an obligation to insure that
quality developments such as proposed Subdivision 5808 meet those
needs. This Board further recognizes that the general plan
designation of Agriculture-Residential and zoning of A2 is
intended to accommodate development of this type in order to help
meet those needs . The design of this development , with approxi -
mately a 17 acre average parcel size , will encourage growth less
than would more dense developments. To the extent any impact
remains unmitigated, this Board finds such impact justified by the
need to increase the stock of housing available in the County, in
a variety of housing types , densities and prices , in order to
accommodate the County' s growing population and employment base;
this need to increase the housing stock makes infeasible the
complete mitigation of such impact or implementation of the pro-
ject alternatives described in the E IR.
( q) FindingsZ_explanation_of mitigation._and_statement
of overriding_considerations Justifying the_eroiect_regardless_of
any_remaining_envi ro_nmental imeacts_for_the_identified_signifieant
of fect_of_impact_on_cul tural _resources.
The E IR identifies two prehistoric archaeological sites and
two historic archaeological sites in the area of the proposed sub-
division. Condition 14 requires t hat the archaeological sites
identified i n the cultural resources survey of the Bankhead Ranch
property be preserved as open space. If deemed necessary for pro-
tection of the sites, fencing and identification will also be
required. Further, Condition 15 requires t hat to the extent
archaeological materials are uncovered during grading, trenching
or other on site excavation, earthwork within 30 meters of these
mat,6rials will be stopped until a professional archaeologist has
had art opportunity to evaluate the significance of the f ind and
suggest appropriate mitigation measures if necessary. The .
foregoing should mitigate to the extent feasible any impact on
cultural and historical resources. To the extent any impact
remains unmitigated, this Board f i nds such impact justified by the
need to increase the stock of housing available in the County, in
a variety of housing types, densities and prices , in order to
accommodate the County' s growing population and employment base;
this need to increase the housing stock makes infeasible the
complete mitigation of such impact or implementation of the pro
ject alternatives described in the EIR.
7 . Concl udi nZ_ExEpL,gn,at i on,__F i ndi ngs-and Ainroval .
County Ordinances , the General Plan, the zoning', the
Subdivision Map Act , and the housing needs of Contra Costa County
have been considered by the Board in acting o-n this project . This
Board has considered the balance of regional housing needs against
the public service needs of County residents as well as against
the available fiscal and environmental resources , as these needs
and resources have been identified within the approval process for
the Bankhead Ranch project . The project is designed to minimize
the impact on the environment . To the extent feasible, t-he pro-
posed Subdivision has been designed to take advantage of passive
or natural heating and cooling opportunities . Given the proper-
ty' s rolling topography , the need for adequate street access ,
drainage and sewerage, and the need to maximize advantageous expo-
sure to open space and minimize environmental impact , lot sizes
and configurations have been designed to the extent feasible to
allow for east/west alignment of structures, southern exposures,
and exposure to shade and breezes .
This Board has considered any and all relevant evidence
bearing on any possible finding under Government Codes $66474,
wbi6h would justify disapproval , and hereby det'ermines that it
cannot" make any such f inding. Given the f oregoing, and balanci ng
the need for the project against the environmental consequences
and impact on publ is services , this Board f inds that the project
is sound, desirable and should be approved.
PASSED AND ADAPTED on June 18, 1985 by the following vote:
AYES: --Supervisors Powers , Schroder, Fanden
NCES: Supervi sors McPeak, Torlakson
ABSENT: None
I hereby certify that this Is:- and correct copy of
,an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: Z12S:4i /4' /fr i�e-r
PHIL BA*HELOR,Cleric of the Board -
of Supervisors and County Administrator
By 274-.44�� Deputy
cc: Distributinn by
County Counsel
tMITIONS 01' APPROVAL, FOR VJ 1Dj%1!.Sj0,N #!,go$ (lZct•icecl)
s •
i 1. The application is approved per the tentative milt submitted to the Planning;
lkpartment and dated received on March 11, 1980, subject to the follov.-ing
f + conditions.
i
• 2. Comply with the requirements of the Public Works, Delhirtrent as follows:
A. This subdivision shall con Corm to the provisio►tc of 'title 9 oC this
Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Any exceptions tfierefrom must
be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement.
r •Ys,-.
B. The following exceptions to 'Title 9 of the Contra Costa County Ordin-
ance
`
Code are permitted for this subdivision:
1. Section 96-14.002 "Improvement of County Streets" for the ulti.nzto
widening of Vasco Road.
Scction 96-10 "Underg;rounding Utilities" for the Primary service
lines. On-site utilities for each parcel sb:►11 be uncergrot►ndc.,
C. Convoy to the County, by offer of dedication, 21-ft. , of additional
right of way on Vasco Road and appropriate slope easem-cuts as requirc-d
for the planned future. width of 92-ft.
D. Convey to the County, by of.Ccr of dedication, 60-ft. , of right of way
along Mikhead Ranch Road, Eagle lock Road, ranch C.rcck Line, includ-
ing tine future extension to the easterly property line along thr cticr;on
boundary of Lots 32 and 31, and n possible ful-ure rorulwa,.` alojgo the
conuiwn property line of Lots 20 and 21 to serve the .easterly propert} .
L-. Construct 16-ft. , private roadways within 25-ft. , private cnsca-ents
to private road standards along C-myon Lane, Ridrerock .Lanc and itzzsch
` Creek Lane or as approved by Public ttiorks Department.
F. Provide a mi.nimiun of .29-ft. , of pavement Width anJ acicyuatc Iongitu;linal
drainage along; Wnkliead Ranch Road and &iglc Rock Road or as approved
by Public !:arks Department.
G. Dedicate a drainage easement and observe .the structure setbacks pursuant
to the requirements of the Ordinance Cock and the flood Control Vistrict
for tine crocks travcrsiz_g the property. If it is determined by the
Public Works Director that the legal description -for the drainage case-
r►cnt and structural. setbacks will require extensive topographical cur-
veys and creek cross-sections, then the legal descriptions and struct-
urnl setback lines can be Insect upon current and accurntc topographic
maps.
i!:' Construct safety i►►q)rovcments on Pasco Road nt all neu, intersections and
i . Wicre cleared necessary by, the Public Works Departn>cnt.
All public and pri%-nte roads shall be aligned to ttie appropriate roa,l
-: .. .. .
x;r
sta►tdards as defined in the Cotutt4 Sulxtivision Orctinallde With the cx-
ceptiot► of those areas where topographic constraints aktl:r confoI-M-►,ice
infeasible. In these circumstances, modifications .to the alignivrt
criteria shall be coordinated with the Public Works Delxu•tment.
EXHIBIT A
... G ..
l:du tdl i t i dn�' d�1' a1ll+a •.'a t , til. SSt1t1 1';a};c` 2
--
:�. The applicant shall lxay $300.0(1 Ix•r 1l,-arc:cl for park tictucat ion tce.
4. romply with the requirements of the Eastern Contra Costa Fire Protection
Ilistrict.
A. A t:atcr storage systeaaa shall be providcd which can suliply Sf10 C."•1 for
two (2) hours, or.other suitable-altcinativc icceptablc to the lire
District.
r. Fire hydrants of the East Mit- type stkill be providiet! at sites to be
aliprovcdl by the lire Pistrict and Zoning AcbMnistrator. hydrants
'• " shall be of the Last., ray t)l'c, 6" barrel with 211' and 4" outlets.
C. lire Department access shall be provided at three (3) locations to
allow access to the area east of the subdivision. Access easeracnts
shall be indicated on the Final ftp and •include in deeds as Fire
Dcpartancnt rights-of-way.
P. One lot shall be deeded to the Lastern County lire Protection Pistrict
for the development of a fire station. The location and size of the
lot shall be decided by the applicant and the Fire District, sire of
the lot shall -be dependent on health Department requirements fol- septic
tanks.
E. Applicant shall provide the necessary funds, not to exceed Sll,(10+1-00
to equip a 20-person volutteer crew.
S. Prior to filing the Final l•>iap, applicant shall sat i.sft• the health Depirt-
ircnt that hater is available to the subject property from onc, tmll per
plrccl., or a cilailm maty later system, in amounts that meet the requircments
of the Coulty health Departimilt.
G. Prior to filing a Final Rip, tilt` applicant shall obtain the necessa.-i :approval
from the 11calth Dept. , for the utilization of individual sewage disposal o:•.
each parcel.
7. Prior to filing the Final Mil, applicant shall submit a sloj)c analysis anal
of at least I" = 200-ft. , scale. Slope nip shall include c3teeorics of
0-10e, 10-20a, 20-40: and 401V; to aid in determining appropriate home sites
and septic .Link sites.
3. 'mirty days prior to filing for a building permit, the applicant shall pro-
vidc a 200-scale topographical map for the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator. The map shall indicate: - (1) proposed hom.c sites and di•ivc-
vays, (2) proposed home t)l)e, (3) a landscaping plan, (4) areas of cuts and
fills, and (5) vnounts of cut and fill reciui red for the protxoscd rr:ad i n;:.
Cut and fill shall be balanced on the site with minina:ll grading. `ilio dedic-i-
'tion oC a scenic c:ascnacnt to the Coulty may be required .7t the time of build-
int*penalit approval.
°: '9. Nati) new crossings of Kellog;; Creek shall be accomplished with a bridge .
rather than by means of a culvert. _
=:10. Prior to the filing of the Final 1•tap, applicant shall Stw it an instrau'•cnt
r-.
indicating, how the private roadways will be maintained by Ilk', property
oumers and ]lot,: any open spaces such as the arcli:acolOgical sites will be ident-
ified and protected.
_.r..�......�x_,.�t=J..���-�.:�,.:.:�....a-.«:w....-X44...:.....:•:'=.:.. _ ._. ...._
Colutitions or A�nrtin;tt , :+tf13.��+"tiS :tgc 1� .
11. l:xrciIL for tots 164 acid AhS, :nii 11.11-CO" %hall have access fl'or+ the 1ntCrlor
roadway system with no access oCl' vasco Roaa.
ti .
1:. lane developer and/or his representatives sha11 notify the IX.-p-,irtncnt of Fish
and Came, 1'.0: Box 47, Yotultville, Califonlia 9AS99, of oil%, prc%po:�cd or ea-
�; isting construction-project within the 'sul-riivision thtt tna}• affect the
. streams in accordance with Section 1601 and 1602 of the fish and flu:+e Co I .
13« Creeks shall be preserved in their natural state. f .
'.
14, Archaeological sites as identified in the document entitled "A Cultural
Resotirces.Survey of the Bankhead Ranch Property - Subdivision *5805, Contra
Costa County, California" and dated October 9, 1980, shall be preserved as
omen space. Property fencing and identification as reco+tarcnded in tzl: re-
port may be required if deemed necessary for adcgtktte site Protection.
15. If archaeologic materials are uncovered during grading, trenching or othor
on-site excavation, carthwork within 30-titetcrs of these materials sh;+11 he
i stopped imtil a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society
for California Archzcolory (SCA) and/or the Society of l'rnCessio al Arch-
acology (SOPA) has had all opportlulity to evaivate the significance of the
find and sug-est appropriate mitigation measures, if they are :,ectacit Fret css;tn .
16. L•xotic landscapint; should be limited to a small area arntaid cavil ho+�sc + i;it
Alantin:.;s iii the it+nnediate vicinity of the hemp to be fire rctar,'.ant plains
and with the outer perimeter to be drot+ght -resistant plantings.
`•. 17. Prior to fi l in., of the Final Nklp', .ill plans sl
:il 1 lie 7'cvie::ed by
f to assure compatibility with Ocir existing facilities.
_ 18« At least 60 days prior to the filing, of a Final tf+p, a dct;tiled ^_cotrciinical
f investigation shall be provided for the review. and appro-:+i of the Cotultr
Geologist. The scope of stnch an invest!gatiOil should include: detailed
rapping of the bedrock .fault that passes throtlgli the propeety; tdcntii'Jcatioil
of a feasible building, envelopes, including an appropriate 'septic field, on
' all lots; rccom+ncndations to guide the scope of further sureties as needed;
- evaluation of the movenient and seismic risk of the on-site bedrock fault
in regard to homes on Lots 157, 163, 164 and 165. - -
19. Building sites s iot+ld be located away from drainage s+sales and landslitile
areas.
20. Run-off from developed areas should not be discharged in a concctltrated
,rrJnncr.
21. An,
-erosion control plan shall be required prier to issuance of the i,ridino,
pr mits. The plan should be implemented to reduce drainnge prol)lcros n,hit-3,
. could ;trisc from sedimentation. The applicant should workittiith tl!c Co+uity
Public Works Dept. to 4csi n appropriate on-site drairtsz elacilities inclu'l-
�':' i; Ing a flood plain approacit (i.e. , wide drainage casemcnts) 4o mitigate the
cinnulative impact on do+tviistream flooding. },..: ..,
22. To reduce the of fect on't he rarer S;in Joaquin kit fox, deed restriction si oul d
be imposed ,to prohibit poison bait rise on the site and to restrict roatriii::;
dogs. Prior to filing tate Final Subdivision Mp, further biotocical stt0V
' (-+ndi ti ons ofnn P-190
:. .
A royal t;19c 14
Should be donein awperation with the DVIMrtmcnt of Fish ruulin an
Attempt, to: (1) idcnri fp nLm6crs of rare and endimi,c.'red aninG�ls .(l;i t fo:;
AlamcJa striped racer) and pants which h�ould tie affected by.the
wit, (2) assess specific i �levcln;,-
Inhacts and rcconmc11(I&l appropriate. �aitiFltion
wasures. =a
41
23;,:-All inforneition required prior to the filing of the Fina
sul'unitted at least 60-days prior to filing the Final lbp. ,•shall be
All::1s<<s:jyl
• 3/11/S1 -
3/13/81
3/17/81
3/24/81 - revisions.
r