HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04041989 - 2.6 � (
To: ,40ARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: ,�' Harvey E. Bragdon, Contra
Director of Community Development CJ )JLa
DATE: April 4, 1989 1. oufty
SUBJECT: proposed Sea Breeze Project
(Garrett. Development, Inc. /William Sinclair)
West Pittsburg Area
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
1. Accept the environmental documentation prepared for this
project as being adequate.
2. Adopt File #2812-RZ rezoning the subject 37-acre site from
General Agricultural (A-2) to Planned Unit District (P-1) as
shown on the attached Findings Map and recommended by the
East County Regional Planning Commission.
3 . Introduce the ordinance giving effect to the aforesaid
rezoning, waive reading and set-forth April 11, 1989 for
adoption of same.
4. Approve Final Development Plan #3032-88 and Tentative. Map
7152 subject to the attached conditions contained in Exhibit
A as directed by the Board of Supervisors.
5. Adopt Resolution 89/147 attached as Exhibit C approving
property tax exchange for the Sea Breeze Boundary Reorgani-
zation (LAFC 88-51) .
6 . Adopt findings as set forth in Exhibit B as the basis for
the Board action on this proposal.
BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED ACTION
This project was heard by the Board of Supervisors on March 7 and
21, 1989 at which time the Board voted to declare its intent to
approve the project subject to revised conditions. Accordingly,
the Board continued the matter to April 4, 1989 and directed
staff to prepare revised conditions of approval and appropriate
findings for Board adoption.
The attached revised conditions and findings have been prepared in
I
ccord with the March 21, 1989 direction of the Board.
An initial environmental study was prepared which resulted in the
issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration which was posted on
December 2, 1988.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: /Z e
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON — April 4, 1929 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I.=HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I J, 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.
cc.. Community Development Dept. ATTESTED April 4, 1989
Garrett Development, Inc.
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
LAFCO SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Public Works-Tom Dudziak
Oakley .Fire Protection Dist.
BY DEPUTY
M382%'7-83 --
r
r
Findings Map -
CONTRA
+ CQ '-'1 �-� _
"4 4 ! CA NAC y -
.� • ,�
P-11 s„=. :11 m
t ; i
r -
vex
;y.
HWY.;;;�e�
Rezone From ,d_2 To P•1 Area
I, MELISSA, f1,4aelsay ,Chairman of the East County
Regional Planning Commission,Contra Costa County,State of California,
do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of P444ES 49--Ile, _
F=EZ OE 771E COGINTY S 1f fl ZyAI1,va A14,-
indicating
4Findicating thereon the decision of the East County Regional Planning -
Commission in the matter of 448Mr T>E1/ELD,pME�VT 1NC. _
2,81?-Ky
t
Ch man of the East County Regional = j
Planning Commission,State of California - f
ATTE - E
Se et of e s County Regional -
Pla g Commissi n,State of California
- t
EXHIBIT A
- ` r 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3032-88, REZONING 2812-RZ AND SUB-
DIVISION 7152:
1. :Subdivision application 7152 is approved generally as shown on the vesting
tentative map dated October 5, 1988, as received by the Community Develop-
'ment Department, and- subject to the conditions listed below. Applicant
shall comply with all Conditions of Approval for Rezoning 2812-RZ and Final
'Development Plan 3032-88, prior to filing a Final Map.
Ia. This portion of the site lying west of Mota Drive shall not be developed.
This property (known now as "Hill 428") shall become permanent open space
and shall be disturbed to the minimum extent feasible by construction as-
sociated with the Seabreeze development, allowing for the installation of
water lines and a water tank necessary to serve the project site. The open
`space shall be deeded over to a public agency subject to review and ap-
`proval of the County Zoning Administrator. Applicant shall berm and land-
jscape existing water tank to conceal to the maximum extent feasible. The
applicant shall conceal the future water tank to the greatest extent or
bury if necessary. Applicant shall have created and installed (subject to
.Zoning Administrator review and approval ) a historic marker to be perma-
nently placed on "Hill 428" commemorating both the Spanish and Native
American populations.
2. The number of Single Family Residential units shall not exceed 138.
3. ''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 for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or 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.
4. ;Applicant shall submit full size elevations for review and approval of the
,Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building permits.
5. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit sam-
ples of colors and exterior materials for review and approval of the Zoning
;Administrator. The residences shall be of neutral color and complementary.
6. Illuminated house numbers visible from a public or private roadway are re-
Auired for each residence.
7. ;Applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the acoustical study
'!prepared for this project by the Charles M. Salter Group, dated June 15,
J988, including any future revisions to those recommendations.
8. liOn the provision of police service, the applicant agrees to vote their
property into a "special tax area" for police service at an initial level
of $100 per parcel annually. This amount shall be adjusted yearly accord-
ing to the Bay Area CPI. Furthermore, the Board of Supervisors shall re-
;view the assessment amount and adjustlit to a higher level as conditions
`warrant it. Review shall be made. of lthe initial assessment amount after
i
I
n
j
2
';budget hearings and after the pending elections of the general community on
the question of additional police services.
9. T rovision of a Child Care Facility or program is required for the develop-
ment. The program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
!Zoning Administrator prior to the filing of the Final Map.
is
10. At least 60 days prior to recording a Final Map, issuance of a grading
permit, or construction of improvements, submit an engineering geology re-
!port meeting the requirements of the County Planning Geologist for review
!and approval .
;Concurrently with recordation of the final map, record a statement to run
,with deeds to the property acknowledging the approved report which is ex-
pected, and earlier reports by Purcell , Rhoades & Associates and Allstate
:Geotechnical Services, by title, author (firm) , and date, calling attention
to report recommendations, and noting that the reports are on file for
public ;}review in the Community Development Department of Contra Costa
;County._
Prior to issuance of Building Permits on parcels of this subdivision, sub-
mit an as-graded report of the engineering geologist and geotechnical en-
gineer with a map showing Tithologic and engineering geology units, rock
stratification and discontinuities, measured during grading; final plan and
rgrades for subsurface drainage, subdrain disposal and pickup points, and
cleanouts; any buttress fill or shear key with its keyway location; re-
taining walls; and other rock and soil improvements installed during grad-
A ng, as surveyed by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer.
11. The preliminary landscape plans, together with text discussion of land-
scaping in applicant's project description is approved as presented. Prior
to issuance of building permits, applicant shall submit final landscape
'plans for street setbacks, disturbed slopes, common and open space areas
`and a typical frontyard, prepared in accordance with the County's Water
"Conservation policies. Suitable drought tolerant California native species
shall be used as much as possible for landscaping. Landscaping of common
°area between project. and Delta Glen site to east shall mitigate impact of
project onexisting homes. All the above .shall be subject to review and
''approval of the Zoning. Administrator.
12. iAll landscaping shall be constructed prior to occupancy, and shall be
maintained by the applicant until occupancy. Applicant shall develop a
!'landscape and lighting district or other assessment mechanism to guarantee
maintenance and fire control of all common areas and open space.
13. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicants shall submit a
detailed TSM Plan for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator (un
less otherwise required by a TSM Ordinance) . The approved TSM plans shall
Pe operative prior to final inspection by the Building Inspection Depart-
ment.
14. 'Provide $15,000 in funds to the Pittsburg/West Pittsburg area clean up
,fund.
L. -
3
15. (;Provide $50,000 in funds for the West Pittsburg homeless.
16. ,;Applicant shall lower project grade to the greatest extent feasible in or-
der to enhance the view of the Delta and Suisun Bay from eastbound State
Highway 4, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
17. Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic. and utility requirements as
follows:
A. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code, this
subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision
Ordinance (Title 9) . Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically
listed in this conditional approval statement. Requirements of the
Ordinance include the following:
1. Constructing road improvements along the frontage of Evora Road.
2. Undergrounding of all utility distribution facilities.
3. Installing street lights and applying for annexation to County
Service Area L-100 for maintenance of the street lights. The .
final number and location of the lights will be determined by the
County Traffic Engineer.
4. Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the
subject property to a natural watercourse having definable bed
and banks or to an existing adequate storm drainage facility.
Since this property is located in two separate drainage areas,
this will require conveying stormwater runoff arriving at and
originating on this property to respective existing adequate
drainage facilities in each.
5. Prohibiting the discharging of storm waters to roadside ditches.
6. Submitting a Final Map prepared by a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor.
7. Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil en-
- gineer, payment of review and inspection fees, and security for
all improvements required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions
of approval for this subdivision. These plans shall include any
necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the
County Traffic Engineer.
8. Installing, within a dedicated drainage easement, any portion of
the drainage system which. conveys run-off from public streets.
9. Prohibits discharging storm waters into the Contra Costa Canal or
any other water conveyance or impounding facility for domestic
water consumption.
B. Convey to the County, by Offer of- Dedication, , 16 feet of additional
right of way on Evora Road as required for the planned future width of
4
92 feet. The additional right of way shall include the additional
length of the Evora Road left turn lane needed due to the steep grade
on Evora Road.
ii
C. Construct curb, 4-foot 6-inch sidewalk (width measured from curb
face) , necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and necessary
pavement widening and transitions on Evora Road. The face of curb
shall be located 10 feet from the widened right of way line. The road
improvements shall include left turn channelization at Mota Drive.
The design shall consider the steep .grade on Evora Road.
D. Relinquish abutter's rights of access along Evora Road, including curb
returns. Access shall be permitted at the Mota Drive and St.Topez
Drive access points only.
E. Construct an all weather trail between San Remo Court and the trail
located east of this property in the Delta Glen Subdivision.
F. Construct intersection improvements at the Evora Road-Pomo , Street in-
tersection up to a maximum of $50,000.
G. Provide $50,000 for master traffic plan study to determine the feasi-
bility of widening and realigning Evora Road to County arterial stan-
dards. Applicant shall not be required to perform or construct any
improvements in connection with this study.
H. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a
concentrated manner, from draining across the sidewalks and driveways.
-I. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services
Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits
and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or per-
manent, road and drainage improvements.
J. Mitigate potential sight distance problems at the curves in Rapallo
Way and at the Beaulieu Drive-St. Raphael Drive and Beaulieu
Drive-Rapallo Way intersections in a manner acceptable to the Public
I' `Works Department, Road Engineering Division, subject to the review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator- The applicant shall submit a
r sight. distance analysis to the County subject to their review and ap-
�i
K. Install a traffic signal facility at the Evora Road-Mota Drive inter-
section.
L. Install conduit for a traffic signal interconnect system.
M. The road configuration for St.Topez Drive shall be modified to provide
20 feet for the northbound lane and 28 feet for the southbound left
and right turn lanes. The curb radii at the Evora Road-St. Topez
Drive intersection shall be increased to 30 feet..
N. The road configuration for Mota Drive shall be modified to provide a
20 foot northbound lane .and. 28 feet for southbound left and right
5
turn lanes and necessary transitions. The curb radii at the Evora
Road-Mota Drive intersection shall be increased to 30 feet.
0. Extend St.Raphael Drive westerly to connect with Mota Drive as an
emergency access. The access shall be blocked with a breakaway bar-
rier and shall be paved with paver blocks which will provide .for es-
tablishment of a low groundcover which shall be passable by emergency
vehicles in all types of weather.
P. Install sidewalk, pavement widening, bike lane, from eastern property
line to Delta Glen west property line. The County will assist in ob-
taining all necessary rights-of-way.
Q. The following improvements shall be credited against the West
Pittsburg Area of Benefit fees or any other source of County funds
deemed appropriate by the Zoning Administrator or reimbursed to ap-
plicant, within 3 years of the filing of final map, pursuant to a re-
imbursement agreement entered into between County and applicant sub-
ject_ to the review of the Public Works Department, Road Engineering
Division, and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator:
I. Up to $110,000 of the cost of the installation of the Evora
Road-Mota Drive intersection traffic signal facility and the
conduit for a traffic signal interconnect facility.
2. The cost of pavement widening along this property's Evora Road
frontage up to $73,000.
3. The full cost of intersection improvements at the Evora Road-Pomo
Street intersection. Total cost of intersection improvements not
to exceed $50,000.
4. The full cost of the Evora Road arterial road alignment study,
with the total amount expended by applicant not to exceed
$50,000, as specified in Condition of Approval No. 17.G.
5. The cost of improvements to the road configuration of Mota Drive
and the Mota Drive/Evora Road intersection, as specified in Con
ii
di,tion of Approval No. 17.N.
6. The provision of $50,000 in funds for homeless in the West
t Pittsburg area.
7. The full cost of pavement widening, bike lanes and sidewalk from
the subject eastern property line to the western .property line of
the Delta Glen Subdivision.
INFORMATIONAL NOTES
1. ;Applicant shall comply with the Park Dedication Ordinance through payment
,of fees.
i;
r .
u r
U 6
2, 4 Comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for
the West Pittsburg Area of Benefit and the East/Central County Travel Cor-
ridor Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
The area of benefit fees will be fixed at the current rate of $1254 per
unit and $380 per unit respectively.
3. ?` Comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage Area 48B and 48C as
adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
{ The Drainage Area 48B fees are currently $950 per unit for single family
residential with 4000 to 4999 square feet of land per unit to $1425 per
is unit for single family residential. with 14,000 to 19,999 square feet. of
land per unit. The Drainage Area ,48C fees are currently $1210 per unit for
single family residential with 4000 to 4999 square feet of land per unit to
$1810 per unit for single family residential with 14,000 to 19,999 square
feet of land per unit.
4. Unless otherwise specifically noted, all fees shall be required to be paid
' at the date of final inspection or the date of issuance of occupancy,
whichever occurs first.
}
JE:v'pl
R29/7152.coa JE/df
RZ13:7152.coa
revised 4/4/89 B of S
. h
i
EXHIBIT B
RESOLUTIONS TO FINDINGS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
INCORPORATING APPROVALS FOR REZONING APPLICATION
2812-RZ , PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN 3032-88, AND VESTING TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP 7152 ,
FOR THE SEA BREEZE PROJECT IN THE WEST PITTSBURG AREA
WHEREAS, Garrett Development Company ( "Applicant" ) in
August 1988 submitted the following applications with respect to
approximately 36 . 5 acres located on the north side of Evora Road,
west of the intersection of Willow Pass Road, Evora Road, and
Port Chicago Highway in the West Pittsburg area of Contra Costa
County, California (the "Project Site" ) : ( 1) a request for a
rezoning from General Agriculture (A-2) to Planned Unit District
(P-1) (Rezoning 2812-RZ ) ; (2) a request for approval of a
preliminary and final development plan providing for the
development of 138 single-family detached dwelling units on the
Project Site (Final Development Plan 3032-88) ; and ( 3 ) a request
for approval of a vesting tentative subdivision map to subdivide
the Project Site into 138 lots (Subdivision 7152 ) . The rezoning,
final development plan and subdivision applications are
collectively referred to herein as the "Project" ;
WHEREAS, on March 17 , 1987 , this Board of Supervisors
(the "Board" ) adopted, by Resolution No. 87/143, a general plan
amendment for the Project Site, which redesignated the Project
Site from Light Industrial/Office/General Open Space to Multiple
Family residential (Medium Density) /Public and
Semi-Public/General Open Space;
i
ATHEREAS , for purposes of compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act , and the State and Contra
Costa County CEQA Guidelines ( "CEQA" ) , an Initial Study of
Environmental Significance, including a Supplemental
Information attachment (the " Initial Study'' ) was prepared by
the Contra Costa County Community Development Department staff
on November 29 , 1988 , which determined that the Project as it
:gad been modified would not have any significant environmental
impacts which had not been mitigated to a level of
insignificance by modifications to the Project , including the
conditions of approval agreed to by the Applicant;
WHEREAS, based upon the data, evidence, and analysis
set forth in the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance (the "Mitigated
Negative Declaration" ) regarding the Applicant ' s proposed
Project was prepared pursuant to Pub. Res . Code § 21080(c) (2) ,
and properly posted on December 2, 1988 through December 12 ,
1988;
WHEREAS, on Monday, December 12 , 1988 , at 7 : 30 p.m. in
the Antioch City Council Chambers in Antioch, California, the
East County Regional Planning Commission (the ''Commission" )
held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project;
WHEREAS , at such hearing, upon review and
consideration of the Project , and after having considered all
2
of the evidence and testimony in the public record made
available to the Commission including but not limited to : the
1982 West Pittsburg Area General Plan; the Contra Costa County
Code; the Initial Study; the Mitigated Negative Declaration;
the 1986 Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Pacific
National (Dynasty) General Plan Amendment (the "EIR" ) ; the 1986
staff report for he Dynasty General Plan Amendment; the
Dynasty General Plan Amendment as adopted by the Board of
Supervisors in Resolution No . 87/143 ; Contra Costa County
Planning Commission Resolution No. 58-1986 , recommending
approval of the Dynasty General Plan Amendment and EIR and
making findings with respect to the same; the Community
Development Department staff reports for the Project dated
November 14 , 1988 , and December 12, 1988; David A. Gold' s
testimony to this Commission on December 12 , 1988 regarding
Project consistency with the County General Plan; the Project
Description for the Project submitted by Applicant to the
Community Development Department, including photomontages of
the Project Site prepared by Chun Ishimara, together with other
visual drawings of the Project, the West Pittsburg
Redevelopment Project Area Committee letter to the County, the
West Pittsburg Alliance support letters , the legal opinion
letter from David A. Gold of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen
dated June 7 , 1988 , the traffic report prepared by Goodrich
3
Traffic Group dated May 1988 , the letter from Smith, Gray &
Company dated June 8 , 1988 regarding impacts of BART and
Highway 4 expansion, the acoustics report prepared by
Charles M. Salter Associates , Inc . dated June 15 , 1988 , the
public facilities and services impact report prepared by
William R. Zion dated June 1988 , the consumption and
expenditures report prepared by MacIver Associates dated
June 8 , 1988 , and the child care impact report prepared by Lynn
Sedway and Associates dated June 21 , 1988; the landscape design
and analysis report prepared by Rose and Associates dated June
1988 ; the soils studies prepared by Purcell , Rhoades and
Associates dated October 19 , 1988 , and Allstate Geotechnical
Services dated December 1985; the line of sight map prepared by
Stedman and Associates dated December 1988; the letter from the
Applicant dated December 12 , 1988 , affirming Applicant ' s
agreement to the Conditions of Approval for the Project; the
memorandum from Todd A. Nelson, County Planning Geologist,
dated November 10 , 1988 regarding geological impacts of the
Project; the letter from the City of Pittsburg Community
Development Department dated June 24 , 1988 , regarding City of
Pittsburg planning policies pertaining to the Project Site; the
legal opinion letter from County Counsel Victor Westman dated
December 12 , 1988 , and various will-serve letters pertaining to
the Project Site, the Commission voted to adopt the Mitigated
F
4
Negative Declaration as being in compliance with CEQA and as
the appropriate CEQA review for the Project , and voted, on a
five-to-four vote, to recommend approval of the Project to this
Board subject to the adoption of findings for the Project,
directed County staff to prepare said findings for adoption at
the Commission meeting of January 9 , 1989 , and closed the
public hearing on this item;
WHEREAS , the Community Development Department received
several letters requesting that the Commission reconsider its
decision on the Project ;
WHEREAS , on Monday, January 9 , 1989 at 7 : 30 p.m. the
Commission held a duly noticed public meeting in the Antioch
� City Council Chambers in Antioch, California, to consider the
request for reconsideration for the Project;
WHEREAS , at such meeting, after having considered all
�sof the evidence in the public record made available to the
Commission with respect to the Project , including, but not
limited to, those documents and evidence previously referenced
, and incorporated herein, the reconsideration letters submitted
to the County pursuant to Contra Costa County Code § 26-2 - 2408,
, the staff report dated January 9 , 1989 , and the letter from
David A. Gold of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, Applicant ' s
legal counsel , dated January 6 , 1989 , the commission voted, on
' a six-to-one vote, to deny the request for reconsideration and
f
voted unanimously to consider and adopt findings for the
Project at the next regular Commission meeting on January 23,
1989 ;
WHEREAS, on Monday, January 23 , 1989 , the Commission
held a duly noticed public meeting to consider and adopt
findings for the Project;
WHEREAS, at such meeting, after having considered
all of the evidence and testimony in the public record made
available to the Commission, including, but not limited to,
those documents and evidence previously referenced and
incorporated herein, the Commission voted to adopt the
findings set forth in the Commission's Resolution No. 3-1989;
WHEREAS, at 2 :00 p.m. on March 7, 1989, this Board
held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project in the
Board of Supervisors chambers in Martinez, California;
WHEREAS, at such hearing, the Board1heard public
testimony with respect to the Project, and then moved to
continue the public hearing to March 21, 1989;
WHEREAS, at 2 :00 p.m. on March 21, 1989 , this Board
held a continued public hearing on the Project in the Board
of Supervisors chambers in Martinez, California;
6
WHEREAS, at such hearing, after having considered
all of the evidence and testimony made available to this
Board with respect to the Project, including, but not limited
to, those documents and evidence previously referenced and
incorporated herein, as well as the staff reports dated
March 7 and March 21, 1989, this Board voted unanimously to
declare its intent to accept the environmental documentation
prepared for the Project as adequate, and unanimously vote
their intent to approve Rezoning Application 2812-RZ ,
Preliminary and Final Development Plan 3032-88 , and
Subdivision 7152, as recommended by the East County Regional
Planning Commission, subject to the revised Conditions of
Approval attached hereto as Exhibit A, and to the preparation
of findings by County staff, and scheduled the adoption date
for such findings as April 4, 1989;
WHEREAS, on April 4, 1989, this Board adopted a
resolution approving the property tax exchange agreement for
the Project, in the Board of Supervisors chambers in
Martinez, California;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT after having
considered all of the evidence and testimony in the record
made available to this Board with respect to the Project,
including, but not limited to, those documents and evidence
a
7
o
previously referenced and incorporated herein, as well as the
staff reports dated March 7 and March 21, 1989, this Board
hereby 'accepts the environmental documentation prepared for
the Project as adequate and in compliance with CEQA,
introduced the Rezoning Ordinance 89-19, approves
Preliminary and Final Development Plan 3032-88 providing for
the development of 138 single-family detached dwelling units
on the Project Site, and approves Subdivision 7152 to
subdivide the Project Site into 138 lots, as recommended by
the East County Regional Planning Commission, subject to the
revised Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit A.
This Board also hereby adopts the following findings with
respect to Rezoning Application 2812-RZ, Preliminary and Final
Development Plan 3032-88, and Subdivision 7152 :
A. Findings Required Under Section 26-2 . 1806 Of
The Contra Costa County Code (Rezoning) .
1 . Pro=tect consistency with the general plan.
This Board finds that the rezoning from General
Agriculture (A-2 ) to Planned Unit District (P-1) and the
Project as a whole substantially complies and is consistent
with the Contra Costa County General Plan, as set forth in the
1982 West Pittsburg Area General Plan (the "West Pittsburg
Plan" ) and the 1987 Dynasty General Plan Amendment (the "1987
8
Amendment" ) . In making this determination, this Board has
relied upon evidence in the record including, but not limited
to : the West Pittsburg Plan, 1986 staff report for the 1987
Amendment , Contra Costa County Planning Commission Resolution
No . 58-1986 , the 1987 Amendment as adopted by this Board in
Resolution 87/183 , the staff reports for the Project dated
November 14 , 1988 , December 12 , 1988 and March 21 , 1989 , the
nitial Study, the Project Description and all the documents ,
studies , and exhibits incorporated therein, the legal opinion
letter by David A. Gold of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen
dated June 7 , 1988 , and the testimony by David A. Gold at the
December 12 , 1988 Commission hearing on the Project .
a . P-1 District consistency with the
general plan
This Board finds that the P-1 zoning designation
complies with the General Plan designation for the Project Site
of Multiple-Family (Medium Density)/Public and
Semi-Public/General Open Space . By definition, a Planned Unit
district is "intended to allow diversification in the f
relationship of various uses, buildings , structures , lot sizes ,
and open spaces while insuring substantial compliance with the
general plan in requiring adequate standards necessary to
satisfy the requirements of the public health, safety, and
general welfare'' (emphasis added) . Contra Costa County Code
§ 84-66 . 204 . Compliance of the P-1 district with the goals and
policies of the West Pittsburg Plan will therefore be ensured
9
by the manner in which the Project , together with the
Conditions of Approval imposed thereon, satisfy the
requirements for the public health, safety and general
welfare.
In addition, the 1987 Amendment clearly states that
the Project Site was intended to be developed under a Planned
Unit zoning designation:
The final number of units to be allowed on
the site will be determined upon a . . .
review for conformance with the concerns
outlined by the Planned Unit Area [ in the
West Pittsburg Area General Plan] which is
quoted in full below:
"Planned Unit Area to assure adequate
review and timely recognition of development
concerns , properties in this area shall be
reviewed and developed under the P-1 zoning
district
� This Board finds that this language further indicates that the
, P-1 zoning designation is consistent with the general plan
� designation for the Project Site.
b . Consistency with the land use element .
This Board finds that the single-family Project is
also consistent with the general plan multiple family medium
�' density land use designation for the Project Site. Neither the
1987 Amendment nor the West Pittsburg Plan contain language
precluding a reduced density single-family project , and in
10
-act , each specifically permits lesser density land uses under
higher density designations .
The text of the West Pittsburg Plan indicates that the
County may consider reducing development densities under
various land use designations provided that this reduction is
within the scope of the appropriate zoning ordinance . The West
Pittsburg Plan states : "Ordinarily, the General Plan land use
designation defines the maximum development potential in any
area, to be modified by environmental constraints , circulation
and facility needs , and other uses permitted under the
conforming zoning ordinance . " (West Pittsburg Plan, page 5)
Thus, although the Project Site has a development potential of
between 12-21 dwelling units per acre, the Commission finds
that the actual amount of development permitted on the site has
in part been modified to address constraints of the area . The
staff report for the 1987 Amendment states that : "Development
at the intensity suggested by the [ 1987 ] Amendment would
modify the existing landscape and replace it with a view of
intensely developed apartments , If one is to build this type
of product , there is little that can be done to minimize this
impact . " (Staff report , page 9 . ) Other concerns over the
previously proposed apartment applications which have been
raised by the County and in the EIR for the 1987 Amendment
included compatibility of a multiple family project with
11
adjacent land uses , provision of adequate open space buffering,
and traffic impacts . This Board finds that these earlier
concerns have been adequately addressed and mitigated by the
design and Conditions of Approval for this reduced density
single-family Project .
In addition to the permissive language contained in
the West Pittsburg Plan, the 1987 Amendment clearly states that
lower density development is permissible under the multiple
family land use designation. The November 14 , 1988 staff
report for the Project indicates that although the land use map
of the 1987 Amendment provides for a range of 12-21 dwelling
units per net acre, which would result in 278-487 units on the
entire Project Site, the "language in text of the 1987
Amendment provides clear authority for the Commission to reduce
development densities at the Project approval stage . '' (Staff
report, page 3 . ) The staff report further states that "the
Special Considerations section of the 1987 Amendment provides
the Commission with the necessary flexibility to approve a
reduction in density substantially outside the scope of [the
multiple family land use designation. ] The text of the 1987
; Amendment states as follows :
The area designated as the multiple family
residential - medium density is outlined for
? the purpose of determining the range of
units which can be considered on the site
(278-487 units) . The actual development
plan boundaries are to be determined
12
flexibly; however , it is probable that
through the project approval process , the
number of units to be allowed on the site
may decline below 278 , potentially
substantially, and that the areas to be
preserved as open spaces may also increase
proportionately. The final number of units
to be allowed at the site will be determined
upon careful review of the development
applications on the site and a review for
conformance with the concerns outlined by
the Planned Unit Area [ in the West Pittsburg
General Plan] . (Emphasis added. ) " (Staff
report , pages 2-3)
_n reducing residential density below 12 units per acre and
incorporating 15 . 2 acres of open space and substantial
landscaping into the Project design, the Project furthers the
objectives of the Special Considerations section of the 1987
Amendment, and of the Planned Unit Area of the West Pittsburg
Plan, as discussed above .
The Project also is compatible with the West Pittsburg
r
Plan goals and policies , as follows : "retain the predominantly
single-family residential character of the Planning Area, "
(West Pittsburg Plan, page 7) ''reduce excessive residential
densities to ensure development of a quality living environment
11 (West Pittsburg Plan, page 7) , "although there will be
a range of densities, virtually all of the [ anticipated
residential ] projects are designed for single-family
residences . This is consistent with the existing residential
pattern which is almost exclusively single-family residential
" (West Pittsburg Plan, page 4 ) , and "usually the
13
t
[multiple family! designations result in conventional , common
walled structures , but occasionally they may provide for the
single .family housing type within the prescribed density
range . " (Emphasis added. ) (West Pittsburg Plan, page 14 . )
The West Pittsburg Plan goes on to say that : ''Many areas
designated for multiple family residential uses on the Plan Map
were originally designed and are presently used for less
intensive uses . These areas have property characteristics that
; would interfere with a successful conversion to higher
intensity uses . " (West Pittsburg Plan, page 14 )
The Project Site is designated as a Planned Unit Area
i
overlay in the West Pittsburg Plan, which by definition is
"characterized by difficult terrain, cons icuous location, and
varied land use designations . " (West Pittsburg Plan, page 18,
emphasis added) and requires review of soil conditions , grading
plans , compatibility with nearby uses , and review for provision
of adequate buffers , maintenance or enhancement of scenic
qualities, and availability of adequate water and sewer
; facilities . This Board finds that, consistent with the goals
and policies of the West Pittsburg Plan articulated above, and
, the fact that the Project Site is in hilly terrain located
adjacent to single-family residential developments and the
scenic corridor of Evora Road and Highway 4 , the Project Site
has characteristics compatible with single-family uses . This
i'
14
Board further finds that the Project substantially furthers the
goals and policies of the Planned Unit Area of the West
Pittsburg Plan because the Project design, landscaping, and
Conditions of Approval have incorporated review of soil
conditions, grading plans, land use compatibility, scenic
qualities , landscape buffers and water and sewer facilities , as
evidenced by all of the evidence in the record referenced and
incorporated herein.
C . Consistency with other general plan
elements , goals and objectives .
This Board finds that the Project also substantially
furthers the other relevant goals and objectives of the West
Pittsburg Plan and 1987 Amendment, particularly the Scenic
Routes Element of the West Pittsburg Plan.
( 1) The 1987 Amendment lists three
"concepts" to be "taken into account for applications submitted
for [the] amendment area" : (a) careful application of the
Scenic Routes Element of the West Pittsburg Plan,
(b) preservation of Hill 310 , and (c) consultation with the
City of Pittsburg with respect to its planning policies and
hillside development ordinance. This Board finds that the
concept of the preservation of Hill 310 was incorporated into
the 1987 Amendment to mitigate the adverse visual impacts of a
multiple family project consisting of two and three story
15
apartment structures . The staff report for the Project dated
November 14 , 1988 , states that : "a single-family project would
have less impact on the scenic and visual qualities of the site
due to reducing building intensity and density. Staff has
reviewed photo montages which show that the grading of Hill 310
would open up scenic panoramas of the Sacramento Delta and the
Sierra Nevada Mountain Range as viewed from southbound
Highway 4 . When considered in conjunction with the substantial
landscaping and open space hydroseeding included in this
proposal , staff feels that the final product will enhance the
Highway 4 scenic corridor . " (Staff report, page 3) . The
Project site plan has also been designed to give maximum
C transitional views of the Delta waterway.
To address the concept of the 1987 Amendment favoring
planning coordination with the City of Pittsburg, the City was
consulted with respect to its planning policies and hillside
development ordinance . The City has determined that Hill 310
is not designated a major or minor ridge to be preserved, and
that the Project Site would be designated Residential Low
Density (3 . 1 - 5 . 0 dwelling units per gross acre) if the site
were within the City ' s sphere of influence. The proposed
Project density is 3 . 8 dwelling units per acre, which is
consistent with this designation.
16
In addition, Leis Board finds that the grading of
Hill 310 will be conducted in an environmentally sensitive
manner , subject to County grading regulations and the
Conditions of Approval recommended by the County Planning
Geologist ( see the staff report dated December 12 , 1988) .
Grading quantities will be balanced on site, and all graded
i
slopes will be 2-1 or flatter . This Board also finds that this
Project will substantially maintain and enhance the scenic
qualities of the Project Site and further the concept in the
1987 Amendment regarding application of the Scenic Routes
Element of the general plan, as discussed below.
Finally, this Board finds that the 8-acre area to the
West of Mata Drive known as "Hill 428" which shall be a
permanent open space area, and which shall only be disturbed to
the minimum extent feasible by Project construction ( allowing
only for the installation of water lines and a water tank
necessary to serve the Project Site) , the deeding of this area
to a public agency subject to the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator , and the installation of a historic marker
to be permanently located on Hill 428 commemorating Spanish and
Native American peoples , more than offsets any impacts of the
Project on Hill 310 .
(2) This Board finds that the Project
is consistent with and furthers the relevant goals and
, objectives of the Scenic Routes and Conservation Elements of
17
"conserve,
.qe West Pittsburg Plan, which are as follows :
enhance, and protect scenic views observable from scenic routes
where practicable, " (West Pittsburg Plan, page 9 ) ''preserve the
scenic quality of road corridors designated as Scenic Routes
through the design review process , giving special attention to
setbacks , viewsheds , appropriate landscaping, and the
preservation of native vegetation'' (West Pittsburg Plan,
page 9) , ''projects should be evaluated as to whether their
development will enhance or detract from the existing scenery,
(West Pittsburg Plan, page 21) and "project review should
assure the long-term protection of the environment and
compatibility with other nearby land uses . " (West Pittsburg
Plan, page 21 ) .
The Applicant has designed this Project to be
compatible with the existing environment , The Project design
includes 15 . 2 acres of open space and substantial native
landscaping . The staff report for the Project dated
November 14 , 1988 states that "the (Applicant] will provide
each home with frontyard landscaping and irrigation systems.- as
well as perimeter yard fencing . . . The project landscaping
has been designed with plant materials that are
drought-resistant . . . and are aesthetically pleasing . . .
The disturbed slopes and open spaces will be hydroseeded with
native natural flowers and
18
grasses Trees and shrubs have been carefully chosen for
all open space areas , project entries and Evora Road right of
way. The Evora Road right of way and 6-foot barrier sound wall
landscaping will be densely planted with vines , shrubs and
trees . " All landscaping will be in place and maintained by
Applicant prior to occupancy. (See Condition of Approval
No . 12) . Also, all common and open space areas will be
maintained by a lighting and landscaping district or similar
assessment mechanism. (See Condition of Approval No . 12)
Applicant is required to landscape the common area between the
Project and the Delta Glen site to the east to mitigate the
impact of the Project on existing homes . (Condition of
Approval No . 11) The Applicant is also required to submit full
size elevations and samples of neutral and complementary colors
i' and exterior materials for the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of building
� permits . (See Conditions of Approval Nos . 4 and 5) . In
addition, the Applicant must submit final landscape plans for
Istreet setbacks, disturbed slopes , common and open space areas
and a typical front yard, prepared in accordance with the
County' s Water Conservation Policies and utilizing
� drought-tolerant native California species as much as
! possible. (See Condition of Approval No. 11 ) .
19
Finally, as discussed in Section A(2) herein, the
Project will be compatible with adjacent land uses and has been
designed to open up significant unobstructed panoramic views of
the Delta waterways and Sierra Nevada mountain range . The
Applicant will also analyze the feasibility of lowering Project
grade to the greatest extent possible in order to further
enhance the view of the Delta and Suisun Bay from eastbound
State Highway 4 , subject to the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator . (See Condition of Approval No . 16 . )
This Board finds that the Project will therefore substantially
enhance the Evora Road and Highway 4 scenic corridor and the
visual qualities of the Project Site, and that the design,
landscaping and Conditions of Approval incorporated into the
Project will ensure long-term protection of the environment .
(3 ) This Board finds that the Project
is consistent with the Noise Element of the County General
Plan. Condition of Approval No . 7 requires the Applicant to
comply with the recommendations of the acoustical study
prepared for the Project by the Charles M. Salter Group dated
June 15 , 1988 , to ensure that outdoor noise levels are
mitigated to a CINTEL of less than 70 db, and that interior noise
levels are mitigated to a CNEL of 45 dB, as required by the
General Plan, as hereinafter more fully described and set forth
in Section D(3) , herein.
20
( 4 ) This Board finds that the Project
complies with the Circulation Element of the West Pittsburg
Plan, and that the Project roadways comply with the Circulation
Plan Map. The numerous Conditions of Approval imposed on the
Project to mitigate potential cumulative traffic impacts of the
Project will ensure Project consistency with the goals and
objectives of the Circulation Element of the West Pittsburg
Plan, as hereinafter more fully described and set forth in
Section D( 1 ) , herein . Tn particular , development of the
Project will not interfere with the planned extension of the
BART Concord line or interfere with the acquisition of
necessary rights of way (See West Pittsburg Plan, page 20) , as
indicated by the letter from Smith, Gray and Company dated
June 8 , 1988 .
( 5) This Board finds , based in part on
the data, evidence and analysis set forth in the Augmented Plan
for Services ( as revised) submitted by William E. and
Crowell F. Sinclair to the Contra Costa County Local Agency
iFormation Commission as part of the application for annexation
of the Project Site to the Contra Costa Water District and
( Contra Costa County Sanitation District No . 7-A, attached
Ihereto as Exhibit B, that the Project is consistent with the
goals and objectives of the Community Facilities and Recreation
lElements of the West Pittsburg Plan of : ( 1) maintaining and
21
upgrading existing public facilities and services as needed to
adequately serve new developments , (West Pittsburg Plan,
page 11 ) , (2) assessing the approval of developments in light
of the capacity of community facilities (West Pittsburg Plan,
page 11) , and (3) developing sufficient community and local
parks to meet the present and future needs of the community
residents (West Pittsburg Plan, page 10 ) . The Augmented Plan
for Services and the Staff Reports dated November 14 , 1988 and
"larch 21 , 1989 , indicate that the implementation of the many
Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures for the Project,
and payment of all fees levied on the Project , will ensure that
i any needs for existing public facilities and services created
by the Project will be more than offset by the Project ' s
contributions to these public facilities and services .
( 6) This Board finds that the Project
complies with the goals and objectives of the Open Space
I Element of the West Pittsburg Plan of preserving common open
space in residential areas and preserving and protecting open
space areas . The Project includes 15 . 2 acres of natural common
open space areas , to be hydroseeded with native,
drought-resistant flowers and grasses and which will also be
maintained by a "Lighting and landscaping district or similar
assessment mechanism. In addition, eight acres of the open
space areas of the Project Site will be included as permanent
22
open space to be used as a scenic outlook. Landscape berming
will be used to conceal the water tanks . A lighting and
i landscaping district or other assessment mechanism will be
developed by the Applicant to guarantee maintenance of this
area. (See Condition of Approval No . 12 . ) Finally, Applicant
will construct an all-weather trail connection between the San
Remo/Beaulieu Court and the trail located east of the Project
Site, within the Delta Glen Subdivision (See Condition of
Approval No . 17(E) . ) These Conditions of Approval will ensure
that the Project furthers the goals and objectives of the Open
Space Element .
2 . Com patibility _of P-1 District uses .
This Board finds that the single-family residential
uses authorized and proposed in the P-1 District are both
compatible within the district and with uses authorized in
adjacent districts . The circulation pattern within the Project
Site, the substantial native landscaping, 15 . 2 acres of open
space areas and open space buffer zones along the western,
northern, and eastern property lines , varied lot sizes (with an
average lot size of 5580 square feet) , and residential
community attributes of the Project will ensure that the
residential uses are compatible within the P-1 zoning district .
This single-family Project will be compatible with the
i.
single-family residential districts located to the north and
least of the Project Site. Testimony before this Board by
23
neighbors of adjacent developments has generally favored this
Project as being extremely compatible with the existing
single-family community. open space buffer zones on the
northern and eastern perimeters of the Project Site, the
substantial Project landscaping, including landscaping of the
common area between the Project and the Delta Glen site located
:o the east to mitigate the impact of the Project on existing
homes , the 6-foot noise barrier along the eastern edge of the
Project Site, the relatively low density of the Project , and
the excellent architectural design of the Project, will further
ensure compatibility between these land uses . Also , the 6-foot
noise barrier required along the southern edge of the Project
Site will ensure compatibility between the Project and possible
future industrial or other uses . Finally, the open space
buffer zone on the western and northern edges of the Project
Site and inclusion of the eight-acre Hill 428 as a permanent
open space area will provide the necessary transition to ensure
compatibility between the Project and the adjacent agricultural
and open space uses . Finally, the Applicant will contribute
$15 , 000 in funds to the Pittsburg/West Pittsburg area clean-up
fund. (See Condition of Approval No . 14 . )
3 . Community need for housing.
This Board finds that community need has been
demonstrated for the use proposed. The public facilities and
i.
24
services impact report prepared for the Project by William
Zion, dated June 1988 , indicates that the job growth in the
Concord/West Pittsburg sub-regions has created a significant
housing demand which will be partially offset by construction
of this residential Project .
B . Findings Required Under Section 84-66 . 1406 of the
Contra Costa County code (Final Development Plan) .
This Board hereby finds that :
1 . Commencement of construction.
The Applicant proposes to commence construction within
two and one-half years from the effective date of the zoning
change and final development plan approval .
2 . General Plan consistency.
The proposed final development plan and planned unit
development is consistent with the County General Plan, as set
forth in the 1982 West Pittsburg Area General Plan and the 1987
Dynasty General Plan Amendment, as evidenced in Section A( I) ,
herein.
3 . Finding of sustained desirability and
stability.
This Project will constitute a residential environment
of sustained desirability and stability because community need
has been demonstrated for the Project , due to the significant
25
- ob growth which has occurred in the Concord/West Pittsburg
sub-regions (See the public facilities and services impact
report prepared by William R. Zion dated June 1988 ) , and
because the Project is located on a infill parcel adjacent to
existing residential development of the same type, with
excellent access to major thoroughfares , community services and
facilities , and commercial and job centers . See the Project
Description section of the EIR, and the Augmented Plan for
Services attached hereto as Exhibit B.
The Project will also be in harmony with the character
of the surrounding neighborhood and community, more fully set
forth in Section A(2) , herein.
4 . Proper use of P-1 District .
The development of this plan justifies exceptions from
the normal application of the Contra Costa County Code . The
Project as currently designed and proposed could only be
developed under a Planned Unit District, which allows
, exceptions from the Contra Costa County Code in the form of
� diversification in the relationship of land uses , buildings ,
; lot sizes and open spaces, while insuring substantial
('. compliance with the County General Plan and the intent of the
( County Code by requiring adequate standards necessary to
protect the public health, safety, and general welfare . The
( Project has been carefully designed and modified and Conditions
26
of Approval developed to address the requirements of the
Planned Unit District and to create a harmonious and integrated
f.
plan which will be internally compatible and compatible with
adjacent land uses .
C. Findings Required Under The Contra Costa County
Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9 , Contra Costa
County Code) And The Subdivision Map Act
(Government Code § 66410 et seg. ) .
This Board hereby finds that :
1 . Compliance with subdivision requirements .
The proposed Subdivision 7152 , together with its
provisions for design and improvement, meets and performs all
of the requirements and conditions imposed by the Subdivision
1 Map Act and Title 9 of the Contra Costa County Code, as more
fully set forth in the findings incorporated herein and as
i:
If mandated by Condition of Approval No . 17(A) requiring
compliance with the provisions of the Contra Costa County
Subdivision Ordinance.
2 . Consistency with the General Plan.
The proposed Subdivision 7152 , together with its
provisions for design and improvement , is consistent with the
Contra Costa County General Plan, as set forth in the 1982 West
Pittsburg Plan and the 1987 Dynasty General Plan Amendment, as
more fully discussed in Section A( l) , herein. There are no
applicable specific plans governing the Project Site.
27
3 . Regional housing needs finding.
The effect of this action pursuant to § 66412 . 3 of the
Subdivision Map Act on the housing needs of the region has been
considered by this Board. In doing so , this Board has
attempted to balance the regional housing needs against the
public service needs of West Pittsburg area residents , as well
as against the available fiscal and environmental resources ,
and has concluded, after consulting with the City of Pittsburg,
that because the Project will serve the needs of West Pittsburg
and the surrounding communities by providing a high-quality,
desired, and needed single-family housing development in the
area, and because the Project Site is suitable for a
low-density development , adequate infrastructure exists to
serve a low-density development , the Project is compatible with
adjacent residential development and the surrounding area, the
Project is capable of furthering Contra Costa County policies
directed towards preservation of the scenic qualities of the
Evora Road and Highway 4 scenic corridor , and the Project is
consistent with the County General Plan, the Project as
proposed properly balances these competing needs .
4 . Passive heating and cooling finding.
The design of Subdivision 7152 provides , to the extent
Feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision.
28
5 . No basis for map denial .
No subszantial evidence has been presented to this
Board which would require denial of Subdivision 7152 .
a . Subdivision 7152 , together with its
provisions for design and improvement , is consistent with the
County General Plan, as discussed in detail in Section A( l) ,
herein . There are also no applicable specific plans governing
-,.--he Project Site .
b . The Project Site is suitable for the
type and proposed density of development . The Project is
consistent with the County General Plan land use designation
and the City of Pittsburg' s land use goals for the Project Site
if it were within Pittsburg' s sphere of influence . The Project
will be located on an infill parcel adjacent to existing
residential developments of similar type and density, and the
Project will provide adequate landscape buffers and open space
along the northern, eastern and western perimeters of the
Project Site and include the eight-acre "Hill 428" area located
to the west of Mota Drive as permanent open space . In
addition, no portion of the Project Site is designated a major
or minor ridge by the City of Pittsburg hillside ordinance (see
letter from the City of Pittsburg Community Development
Department dated June 24 , 1988) , and the Project Site does not
contain any rare, endangered, or unique plant or animal species
T
29
or any significant agricultural operations . The Project also
will not result -n disruptions , displacements , compaction, or
overcovering of soil on the Project Site, significant changes
in the topography of the Project site, or destruction or
modification of any unique geologic or other physical features
of the Project Site. (See the EIR page 95 and the Initial
Study. )
Finally, aspects of the Project Site relating to
geology and soils and hydrology and drainage which were
identified as potentially significant in the Initial Study have
been mitigated to a level of insignificance by the Conditions
of Approval incorporated into the Project , further ensuring
that the Project Site will be physically suitable for the type
and density of development proposed, as more fully set forth in
Sections D( 1 ) and (2 ) , herein.
C . The design of Subdivision 7152 and type
of improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife
and their habitat . The Project will not result in the
reduction in the numbers or diversity of any species of plants
or animals , including rare and endangered species , introduction
of new species of plants or animals into the area, or
deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat , because the
; Project Site is currently being used to graze cattle and is
4
j
30
Therefore not sicrnificant as a wildlife habitat . In addition,
the Project design incorporates 15 , 2 acres of natural open
snace which will be hydroseeded with native flowers and
grasses . Project design also incorporates substantial native
drought-resistant landscaping in developed areas . (See staff
reports dated November 14 , 1988 and March 21 , 1989 and Project
Conditions of Approval . ) The Project will also not result in
changes in deposition or erosion which may modify the channel
of a river or stream bed, changes in the course of water
movements , chances in the amount of surface water in any water
body, discharges into surface waters , or alteration of surface
water quality. (See the EIR page 95 and the Initial Study. )
d. The design of Subdivision 7152 and the
type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public
health problems . The Project will not result in changes to the
quality or quantity of water available for public water
supplies, substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient
air quality, involve risk of explosion or the release of
hazardous substances in the event of an accident , or create any
potential health hazard or expose people to potential health
hazards . (See the EIR page 120 and the Initial Study. )
e . The design of Subdivision 7152 and the
type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired
by the public at large for access through or use of property
31
witrhin the proposed subdivision, because the Applicant is
required to dedicate all necessary easements and public
rights-of-way and incorporate these into the Project design and
i
construction. (See Conditions of Approval Nos . 17(A) ( 8) ,
17(B) , 17(D) ,( ) , 17( I ) and 17(0) . )
D . Findings For The California Environmental Quality
Act (Public Resources Code 21000 et seg. ) .
Pursuant to Pub . Res . Code § 21080(c) , and CEQA
Guidelines § 15070(b) , this Board has determined to adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration as the CEQA review for the
Project , based upon the data, evidence, and analysis in the
Initial Study that while several potentially significant
environmental impacts might have occurred as a result of the
Project as originally proposed, the Applicant has accepted
County-imposed conditions of approval and has modified the
Project so as to reduce these impacts to a level of
insignificance. The following findings set forth the basis for
and analysis supporting this Board ' s determination to adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project :
1 . Potential impact : geology and soils .
The December 12 , 1988 staff report for the Project,
the Initial Study, the EIR on pages 108-112 , and the memorandum
i
from Todd A. Nelson, the County Planning Geologist , dated
November 10 , 1988 , indicate that the Project may have a
32
significant impact on neology and soils , since it could result
in unstable earth conditions or changes to geologic
substructures and expose people or property to geologic hazards
such as earthquakes , mudslides , and ground failure, and that
there is a general lack of geologic information specific to the
Project Site.
a . Facts .
The County Planning Geologist has recommended three
mitigation measures for potential impacts of the Project on
geology and soils , which implement the mitigation measures in
the EIR. The following mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the Condition of Approval No . 10 :
1 . At least 60 days prior to
recording a Final Map, issuance of a grading
permit , or construction of improvements ,
submit an engineering geology report which
meets the requirements of the County
Planning Geologist for review and approval ,
2 . Concurrently with recordation of
the final map, record a statement to run
with deeds to the property acknowledging the
approved report which is expected, and
earlier reports by Purcell , Rhoades &
Associates and Allstate Geotechnical
Services , by title, author ( firm) , and date,
calling attention to report recommendations ,
and noting that the reports are on file for
public review in the Community Development
Department of Contra Costa County.
3 . Prior to issuance of building
permits on parcels of this subdivision,
submit an as-graded report of the
engineering geologist and the geotechnical
33
engineer with a map showing lithologic and
engineering geology units , rock
stratification and discontinuities measured
during grading, final plan and grades for
subsurface drainage, subdrain disposal and
pickup points , and cleanouts , and showing
any buttress fill or shear key with its
keyway location, retaining walls , and other
rock and soil improvements installed during
grading, as surveyed by a licensed land
surveyor or civil engineer .
b . Findings ,
This Board hereby finds that any potentially
significant impacts of the Project on geology and soils have
been mitigated to a level of insignificance by the design of
the Project and Applicant ' s agreement to the Conditions of
Approval imposed on the Project referenced herein.
2 . Potential impact : hydrology and drain
The Initial Study and the EIR on pages 110-112
indicate that the Project may have a significant impact on
hydrology and drainage due to potential increases in wind or
water erosion of soils , changes in drainage absorption rates,
drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface runoff ,
alterations to the course of floodwaters , and exposure of
people or property to water-related hazards such as flooding.
a. Facts .
The County has imposed numerous Conditions of Approval
ion on the Project relating to hydrology and drainage impacts .
34
i
Conditions of ADDroval Nos . 17(A) (4 ) , 17(A) ( 5 ) , 17(A) ( 7) ,
17(A) ( 8) , 17(A) ( 9 ) , 17(C) , 17(H) , 17( I ) and Informational Note
No . 3 require Applicant to :
1 . Convey all storm waters entering
onto or originating within the subject
property to a natural watercourse having
definable bed and banks or to an existing
adequate storm drainage facility. Since
this property is located in two separate
drainage areas , this will require conveying
storm water runoff arriving at and
originating on the property to respective
existing adequate drainage facilities in
each area.
2 . Prohibit the discharging of storm
waters to roadside ditches .
3 . Submit improvement plans prepared
by a registered civil engineer , pay review
and inspection fees and security for all
j improvements required by the Ordinance Code
or the Conditions of Approval of this
subdivision .
4 . Install , within a dedicated
drainage easement , any portion of the
drainage system which conveys run-off from
public streets .
5 . Prohibit discharge of storm waters
into the Contra Costa Canal or any other
water conveyance or impounding facility for
domestic water consumption.
6 . Construct curb, 4-foot 6-inch
sidewalk (width measured from curb face) ,
necessary longitudinal and transverse
drainage, and necessary pavement widening
and transitions on Evora Road. The face of
curb shall be located 10 feet from the
widened right of way line. The road
improvements shall include left turn
channelization at Mota Drive . The design
shall consider the steep grade on Evora Road.
i
35
z z
7 . Prevent storm drainage,
originating on the property and conveyed in
a concentrated manner , from draining across
sidewalks and driveways .
8 . Furnish proof to the Public Works
Department , Engineering Services Division,
of the acquisition of all necessary rights
of entry, permits and/or easements for the
construction of off-site, temporary or
permanent, road and drainage improvements .
9 . Comply with the drainage fee
requirements for Drainage Areas 48B and 48C
as adopted by this Board.
b . Findings .
This Board hereby finds that any potentially
significant impacts of the Project on hydrology and drainage
will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
implementation of the numerous Conditions of Approval imposed
on the Project referenced herein.
3 . Potential impact : noise.
The November 14 , 1988 staff report, the Initial Study,
and the acoustical study prepared for the Project by Charles M.
Salter Associates dated June 15 , 1988 , indicate that the
Project may be subject to a potentially significant noise
impact due to exposure of people to exterior noise levels above
a CNEL of 70 dB, and exposure of people to interior noise
levels above a CNEL of 45 dB, which exceeds the noise standards
�f
specified in the County General Plan. The noise impacts of the
36
Project itself are insignificant . The staff report dated
November 14 , 1988 , indicates that noise levels emanating from
Evora Road are projected to increase less than one decibel due
to Project traffic, and that traffic along Highway 4 will
increase less than one percent due to the Project, with
projected noise increases of only two decibels by the year 2005 .
a . Facts .
Condition of Approval No . 7 requires the Applicant to
comply with all of the recommendations of the acoustical study
prepared for the Project by Charles M. Salter Associates dated
June 15 , 1988 , including any future revisions to these
recommendations . This study recommends : ( 1) erecting a
�, 6-foot noise barrier along the southern and eastern perimeters
of the Project Site, with the base of the barrier located as
� close to the pad elevation of the homes as possible to reduce
! outdoor noise levels of homes closest to the freeway from a
iCNEL of 73 dB to the CNEL of 65 dB, and (2) acoustically rating
Ithe windows and walls of second floor units facing south and
least to reduce interior noise levels to a CNEL of below 45 dB,
as required by the County General Plan. Noise impacts of the
Project on adjacent homes during construction will be mitigated
! by restricting hours of operation of construction equipment to
� normal working hours , and by complying with the County' s
Iconstruction specifications , which include measures for
} reducing construction noise (see the Initial Study) .
37
b Findings
This Board hereby finds that any potentially
significant noise impacts on the Project will be mitigated to a
level of insignificance by the design of the Project and the
implementation of the Conditions of Approval imposed on the
Project referenced herein.
4 . Potential impact : traffic and circulation.
The November 14 , 1988 staff report , the Initial Study,
and the traffic study prepared for the Project by the Goodrich
Traffic Group dated May 1988 indicate that although the Project
will not have any significant site-specific traffic impacts , it
could have significant cumulative traffic impacts due to
veneration of additional vehicular movement, alterations to
present patterns of circulation, and an increase in traffic
hazards . The Project itself will cause no change in service
level designations at the Highway 4/Willow Pass Road
intersection, the Evora Road/Mota Drive intersection, or the
Evora Road/Willow Pass Road intersection .
a . Facts .
The County has imposed numerous Conditions of Approval
on the Project relating to cumulative traffic and circulation
impacts which implement and exceed the mitigation measures
recommended in the traffic study prepared for the Project by
38
the Goodrich Traffic Group dated May 1988 . Conditions of
Approvals Nos . 13 , 17(A) ( 1) , 17(B) , 17(C) , 17(D) , 17(F) , 17(G) ,
17( 1 ) , 17(J) , modified 17M , 17(L) , 17(M) , 17(N) , 17(0) , 17(P)
and Informational Note 2 require Applicant to :
1 . Submit a detailed TSM Plan for
review and approval by the Zoning
Administrator (unless otherwise required by
a TSM Ordinance) prior to the issuance of
building permits . The approved TSM plans
shall be operative prior to final inspection
by the Building Inspection Department .
2 . In accordance with
Section 92-2 . 006 of the County Ordinance
Code, this subdivision shall conform to the
provisions of the County Subdivision
Ordinance (Title 9) . Any exceptions
therefrom must be specifically listed in
this conditional approval statement .
Requirements of the Ordinance include the
following:
a . Constructing road
improvements along the frontage of Evora
Road.
b. Submitting improvement plans
prepared by a registered civil engineer ,
payment of review and inspection fees and
security for all improvements required by
the Ordinance Code or the Conditions of
Approval for this subdivision. These plans
shall include any necessary traffic signage
and striping plans for review by the County
Traffic Engineer .
3 . Convey to the County, by Offer of
Dedication, 16 feet of additional right of
way on Evora Road as required for the
planned future width of 92 feet . The
additional right of way shall include the
additional length of the Evora Road left
turn lane needed due to the steep grade on
Evora Road.
39
I
4 . Construct curb, 4-foot 6-inch
sidewalk (width measured from curb face) ,
necessary longitudinal and transverse
drainage, and necessary pavement widening
and transitions on Evora Road. The face of
curb shall be located 10 feet from the
widened right of way line . The road
improvements shall include left turn
channelization at Mota Drive . The design
shall consider the steep grade on Evora Road.
5 . Relinquish abutter ' s rights of
access along Evora Road, including curb
returns . Access shall be permitted at the
Mota Drive and St . Topez Drive access points
only.
6 . Construct intersection
improvements at the Evora Road/Pomo Street
intersection up to a maximum of $50 , 000 .
7 . Provide up to $50 , 000 in funds for
a master traffic plan study to determine
feasibility of widening and realigning Evora
Road to County arterial road standards .
8 . Furnish proof to the Public Works
Department, Engineering Services Division,
of the acquisition of all necessary rights
of entry, permits, and/or easements for the
construction of off-site, temporary or
permanent , road and drainage improvements .
9 . Mitigate potential sight distance
problems at the curves in Rapallo Way and at
the Beaulieu Drive-St . Raphael Drive and
Beaulieu Drive-Rappallo Way intersections in
a manner acceptable to the Public Works
Department, Road Engineering Division,
subject to the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator . The applicant shall
submit a sight distance analysis to the
County subject to their review and approval .
10 . Install a traffic signal facility
at the Evora Road-Mota Drive intersection .
I
i
t
40
11 . Install a conduit for a traffic
signal interconnect system.
12 . The road configuration for
St . Tonez Drive shall be modified to provide
20 feet for the northbound land and 28 feet
for the southbound left and right turn
lanes . The curb radii at the Evora Road-St .
Topez Drive intersection shall be increased
to 30 feet .
13 . The road configuration for Mota
Drive shall be modified to provide 20 feet
for the northbound lane and 28 feet for the
southbound left and right turn lanes and
necessary transitions . The curb radii at
the Evora Road-Mota Drive intersection shall
be increased to 30 feet .
14 . Extend St . Raphael Drive westerly
to connect with Mota Drive as an emergency
access . The access shall be blocked with a
breakaway barrier and shall be paved with
paver blocks with which will provide for
establishment of a low groundcover which
shall be passable by emergency vehicles in
all types of weather .
15 . Install sidewalk, bike lane and
pavement widening from the eastern edge of
the Project Site to the Delta Glen western
property line .
16 . Comply with the requirements of
the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for
the West Pittsburg Area of Benefit and the
East/Central County Travel Corridor Area of
Benefit as adopted by the Board of
Supervisors .
(Condition of Approval 17(Q) sets forth the conditions under
which Applicant will be reimbursed for some of the above
expenditures . )
I.
41
b Findings .
This Board hereby finds that any potentially
significant cumulative impacts of the Project on traffic and
circulation will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by
the design of the Project, as modified and by the
implementation of the numerous Conditions of Approval imposed
on the Project referenced herein, and that the mitigation
measures recommended in the traffic report for the Project have
been met and in many cases exceeded by the Conditions of
Approval . This 3oard also finds that the Project will provide
needed improvements to Evora Road, St . Topez Drive, and Mota
Drive .
5 . Additional impacts .
a . This Board finds that all other impacts
of the Project not expressly referenced herein have been
identified as insignificant in the Initial Study, and therefore
do not require mitigation. The Supplemental Information
attachment to the Initial Study sets forth the basis for the
� County staff ' s determination that these impacts are
insignificant . This Board hereby adopts this document as the
basis for its determination that these impacts are
linsignificant as well . This Board also hereby incorporates by
reference into this Section D all of the findings set forth in
, Sections A through C herein.
42
I
f
b . This Board finds that the Project will
also not have any growth-inducing impacts , because the Project
I'
is located on an infill parcel adjacent to existing residential
development of similar type and density, and because the
Project will provide for only those public facilities and
services needed to serve the Project Site, as indicated in the
Augmented Plan for Services attached hereto as Exhibit B.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT this Board hereby
i
finds , after having reviewed and considered all of the evidence
and testimony in the public record, including but not limited
to the evidence previously referenced and incorporated herein,
I! that all potentially significant impacts, including cumulative
I
limpacts, have been mitigated to a level of insignificance by
the imposition of Conditions of Approval on the Project, as
i
referenced and discussed in detail herein, and by modifications
to the Project agreed to by the Applicant before the Mitigated
Negative Declaration was released for public review. This
Board also finds that there is no substantial evidence before
this Board that the Project as modified by mitigation measures
may have a significant effect on the environment .
i
43
i
i EXHOT B
AUGMENTED PLAN FOR SERVICES :
SEA BREEZE WEST PITTSBURG PROJECT
I . INTRODUCTION
This Augmented Plan For Services is for a 36 . 5 acre
site in the West Pittsburg area, fronting 2,300 feet along the
north side of Evora Road and located 2, 500 feet west of the
intersection of Willow Pass Road and Port Chicago Highway (the
"Project Site" ) . The Contra Costa County Parcel numbers for
the Project Site are 098-220-011 and 098-220-012 . See Project
Site location map and legal description attached hereto as
Exhibit A. Mr . Bill Sinclair and Crowell F. Sinclair
I
(collectively referred to as the "Applicant" ) is initiating
annexation proceedings pursuant to Government Code § 56700 to
annex the Project Site to the Contra Costa Water District and
f
the Delta-Diablo Sanitation District (Contra Costa County
Sanitation District No . 7-A) . With respect to the proposed
I
annexation to the Contra Costa Water District, the area to be
annexed will also include the western portion of the adjacent
O' Brien/Hicks parcel (Contra Costa County Tract 6484) , located
immediately to the east of the Project Site. See Contra Costa
Water District proposed annexation location map and legal
description attached hereto as Exhibit A-1 . This Augmented
Plan For Services was prepared by the Applicant in partial
satisfaction of the requirements of Govt . Code § 56652 and the
Executive Officer of the Contra Costa County LAFCO.
f
� 1
The. Project Site is the subject of (1) a request to
(rezone the property from General Agricultural District (A-2) to
1
Planned Unit District (P-1) , (2) a request for approval of a
final development plan providing for 138 single family detached
dwellings , and (3) a request for approval of a tentative
subdivision map to §ubdivide the Project Site into 148 lots
(the "Project" ) . The Project consists of 138 single-family
detached dwelling units on lots averaging 5 , 580 square feet
witha total of 19 acres of development, 15 . 2 acres of open
space, and 7 .3 acres of roadways . Vehicular access to the
Project Site will be provided by Evora Road and Mota Drive.
The purpose of this Augmented Plan For Services is to explain
I
how the conditions of approval , mitigation measures, and
development fees for the Project will offset the burdens it
will create on public services, facilities and infrastructure.
II . SITE AND AREA DESCRIPTION
The Project Site is undeveloped, vacant land currently
being used to graze cattle. To the north of the Project Site
is the medium-density Kaufman and Broad single-family
development (California Landing) , which is served by the
Southern California Water Company. To the east of the Project
I
Site lies the medium-density O' Brien/Hicks single-family
development (Delta Glen) , served by the Contra Costa Water
District . To the southeast of the Project Site is a_ small ,
light industrial parcel , and to the immediate south lies Evora
i
2
Road. Lands directly to the north and west of the Project Site
are designated General Open Space.
III . GENERAL .PLAN
On March 17, 1987 the Board of Supervisors of Contra
Costa County, by Resolution No . 87/143 , approved a General Plan
Amendment for the West Pittsburg Area General Plan,
redesignating the Project Site from General Open Space, Light
Industrial , and Office to Multiple Family Residential Medium
Density ( 12-21 du/ac) , with portions of the site designated
Public, Semi-Public, and General Open Space (known as the
(Pacific National/Dynasty General Plan Amendment) , An EIR was
prepared for this amendment and was certified on December 16 ,
1986 . Although the range of dwelling units allowed by the
Dynasty General Plan Amendment is between 278-487, it expressly
provides for a much lower development density as well . The
text of the amendment states :
" . . . it is probable that through the
project approval process the number of units
to be allowed on the site may decline below
278, potentially substantially . . . The
final number of units to be allowed on the
site will be determined upon careful review
of the development applications on the site
and a review for conformance with the
concerns outlined by the Planned Unit
[District] . "
The Contra Costa County staff report prepared for the Project
(dated November 14 , 1988) indicates that the language in the
text is broad enough to encompass the low density 138-unit
Project.
3
• '
. I,
IV. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES .
A. Storm Drainage .
The 1986 EIR prepared for the Dynasty General Plan
Amendment ( "EIR" ) indicates that surface runoff from the
developed portions of the Project Site could cause foundation
L
erosion or groundwater problems if the runoff is not collected
1
by an efficient drainage system which conveys the water to an
adequate storm drainage facility or a natural watercourse. To
i
mitigate this potential impact, the Conditions of Approval for
the Project require the applicant to convey all storm waters
entering into or originating within the Project Site to a
natural watercourse or to an existing adequate storm drainage
J�
facility. The Applicant is also required to comply with the
i
drainage fee requirements for Drainage Areas 48B and 48C as
adopted by the Board of Supervisors (also recommended in the
EIR) , to install any portion of the drainage system which
conveys run-off from public streets within a dedicated drainage
easement, to construct necessary longitudinal and transverse
drainage improvements along Evora Road, and to furnish proof to
the Public Works Department of the acquisition of all necessary
permits and easements for the construction of off-site drainage
improvements . As of 1986, fees for Drainage Area 48B ranged
from $95041425 per single family residential unit, and fees
for Drainage Area 48C ranged from $1210-$1810 per single family
unit, depending on lot size. Implementation of these measures
G
will ensure that both on and off-site drainage facilities will
4
�j
,I
i.
,!be adequate to handle increased surface runoff and drainage
from the Project Site .
B. Sewer Services .
Sewage service will be provided by the Delta-Diablo
Sanitation District (the "District" ) . The District has stated
,that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project (see
will-serve letter dated August 3 , 1988, attached hereto as
Exhibit B) . The District has also indicated. that the Project
Site is within the ultimate service area of the District and
that no other sewering agency can logically serve the site .
The Project Site is within District Zone 1 , the allotted
capacity of which is 1 . 76 million gallons per day ( "mgd" ) .
Committed capacity as of 1986 was 1 . 07 mgd, with . 69 mgd of
capacity remaining. The EIR calculates that the 568-unit
apartment project analyzed in the EIR (with a density of 19-20
du/ac) would generate . 114 mgd, only 16 . 55 of the remaining
capacity. The 148-unit Project (with a density of 4 du/ac) can
be expected to generate significantly less demand on. existing
facilities. In addition, the EIR notes that the Delta-Diablo
Treatment Plant has adequate capacity to treat sewage generated
by a higher density development than the Project . Therefore,
no difficulty in treatment of sewage generated by the Project
is anticipated.
C. Water Services .
Water service will be provided by the Contra Costa
Water District. ( "CCWD" ) . The California Cities water Company
5
Y
';( 'CCWC" ) purchases untreated water from CCWD for treatment and
resale within the CCWD service area. The CCWC will provide
I
water to the Project Site for both domestic and fire fighting
needs . Fire flows will meet the requirements of the Riverview
Fire Protection District (i .e. , 3,000 gal/min. ) The CCWC will
construct a new 500 , 000 gallon reservoir to serve the Project
Site, adjacent to the existing 400 , 000 gallon reservoir
currently located in the northwest corner of the Project Site.
Distribution mains will be installed under all streets in the
new development, which will be financed by the Applicant
pursuant to CCWD Rule 15 . The Applicant is also required to
pay unit or acre fees for construction of the reservoir and
expansion of water treatment facilities . All of these costs
will be refunded to the Applicant over a 40-year period by the
CCWC. Implementation of these measures will ensure that the
water service provided to the Project Site is sufficient to
offset the burden created by construction of the Project .
D. Fire Protection Services .
The Project Site is within the Riverview Fire
Protection District . The nearest station is located one and a
.r.
half miles away at 3000 Willow Pass Road in West Pittsburg.
According to the EIR, response times to the Project Site range
from three to five minutes . Larry Thude, Chief Fire Inspector,
-has indicated that this response time is adequate and that no
f
additional capital improvements would be necessary to serve a
5'68-unit apartment project . Therefore, no capital improvements
r
6
t
j
.!will be necessary for this Project. Also, as discussed above,
the CCWC will provide adequate fire flows of 3,000 gallons per
jminute, as required by the Riverview Fire District . In
addition, the Riverview Fire District requires payment of a fee
per dwelling unit prior to the issuance of building permits,
,which will mitigate-any cumulative impacts of the Project on
. fire facilities. The Applicant will also extend St . Raphael
Drive to connect with Mata Drive in order to provide adequate
'emergency access to the Project Site, which will be passable in
all types of weather . In addition, the Applicant is required
to develop a landscaping and lighting district or other
,assessment mechanism to guarantee maintenance and fire control
,of all common and open space areas and to maintain a 30-foot
!abatement strip between the houses and open space areas which
will be either mowed or disked or maintained as an irrigated
wet belt area . Implementation of these measures will offset
any burden created by the Project on fire facilities .
E. Police Protection Services .
Police services will be provided by the Contra Costa
County Sheriff ' s Department . The Project Site is within
Beats 21 and 23 . Although there are no nearby police
substations, there is a car within one of the Beats twenty-four
hours a day. Average response times range from four minutes
for emergency calls to eight minutes for non-emergency calls .
The EIR states that the basic officer service level is one
'officer per 1 ,000 persons, at a cost of approximately $50,000
7
;per year . The EIR estimates that the 568-unit apartment
i:project would result in an additional 1 ,047 persons and would
ti,require one additional officer . The 138-unit Project will
,bring far fewer people into the West Pittsburg area and will
:not require an additional officer . Nevertheless, the Applicant
ihas agreed to parti6ipate in a special tax area 'for police
I
iservice at a initial level of $100 per parcel per year , which
will be adjusted on an annual basis according to the Bay Area
Consumer Price Index and will be subject to review by the Board
T,
-of Supervisors . This fee will offset any costs incurred by the
Sheriff ' s Department for providing police service to the
I Project Site.
F. School Facilities .
The Project Site is within the Mt . Diablo Unified
School District . The nearest elementary and intermediate
schools are located in West Pittsburg, and the nearest high
school is located north of Highway 4 in Concord. As of 1986,
the Bel Air elementary school was at 87% of capacity, Shore
Acres elementary school was at 81% of capacity, Riverview
T
intermediate school was at 43% capacity, and Mt . Diablo High
School was at 68% capacity. According to the EIR, the
Mt . Diablo School District has no plans to close schools that
I
serve the West Pittsburg area. In addition, school fees will
- be imposed pursuant to Government Code SS 53080 and -65995
et seq. , not to exceed $1 . 50 per square foot (as adjusted
according to the Consumer Price Index) , as provided by law.
8
49
These fees will cover the costs of construction of any new
school facilities which may be required to mitigate any
cumulative impacts of the Project .
G. Traffic and Circulation.
The Applicant will be required, pursuant to the
Conditions of Approval for the Project to; construct all road
improvements along the frontage of Evora Road including
installation of a traffic signal facility at the intersection
of Evora Road and Mota Drive and construction of intersection
(improvements at the Evora Road and Pomo Street intersection up
to a maximum of $50 , 000 ; to provide up to $50 , 000 in funds for
a master traffic plan to determine the feasibility of widening
and realigning Evora Road to meet County arterial standards; to
install a sidewalk and pavement widening from the eastern
Project property line to the edge of the Delta Glen property
line; submit a detailed Transportation Systems Management
,( "TSM" ) Plan for review and approval by the Zoning
Administrator (unless otherwise required by the TSM Ordinance) ;
submit traffic improvement plans prepared by a registered civil
engineer , to include all necessary traffic signage and striping
plans for review by the County Traffic Engineer; pay all review
and inspection fees and security for all improvements required
by the Contra Costa County Code or the Conditions of Approval
_ for the Project; convey to the County by offer of dedication 16
9
i
feet of additional right of way on Evora Road as required for
the planned future width of 92 feet , including the additional
i
I right of way necessary for the left turn lane at Mota Drive;
construct curb and sidewalk improvements and necessary pavement
i
;widenings and transitions on Evora Road, including left turn
channelization at Mota Drive; comply with the requirements of
the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee ordinance for the West Pittsburg
Area of Benefit and East/Central County Travel Corridor Area of
Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors; mitigate
potential sight distance problems at the curves in Rapallo Way
at the Beaulieu Drive/St. Raphael Drive and Beaulieu
Drive/Rapallo Way intersections in a manner acceptable to the
Road Engineering Division of the Public Works Department;
install a conduit for a traffic signal interconnect system;
modify the road configuration for St . Topez Drive and Mota
Drive to provide 20 feet for the northbound lane and 28 feet
for the southbound left and right turn lanes; and increase the
curb radii at the Evora Road/St . Topez drive intersection to 30
feet . The numerous Conditions of Approval for the Project
implement the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR and
are designed to provide adequate roadway capacity on a local ,
regional , site-specific, and cumulative basis, in order to
accommodate increased vehicle trips generated by the Project .
10
t
H. Park and Recreation Facilities .
The Project Site is within the Ambrose Park and
Recreation District . The nearest public park is Pacifica Park,
located one mile northeast of the Project Site. The Applicant
is required to comply with the County Park Dedication
Ordinance, which requires payment of approximately a $400 per
unit fee for residential construction in the West Pittsburg
area. Also, 15 . 2 acres of open space and common areas
hydroseeded with nature drought-resistant plants, will be
included as part of the Project design and maintained by a
Lighting and Landscaping District or other assessment
mechanism. In addition, Applicant will be required to
construct an all-weather trail connection between the Project
site and the trail located within the Delta Glen Subdivision,
subject to the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator . These conditions will offset any impacts of the
Project on existing recreational facilities .
I . Lighting District .
The Applicant will be required to install street
lights and to apply for annexation to Contra Costa County
Service Area L-100 for maintenance of the street lights . The
final number and location of the lights will be determined by
-the County Traffic Engineer .
11
A
� r
J. Other Services .
1 . Solid waste disposal will be provided by the
Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal Company.
2 . Gas and electric service will be provided by
the Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
3 . Telephone service will be provided by
Pacific Bell .
V. CONCLUSION
The implementation of the many Conditions of Approval
and mitigation measures for the Project , and payment of all
flees levied on the Project will ensure that any burdens to
existing public facilities and services created by the Project
will be mitigated and offset by the Project ' s contributions to
these public facilities and services .
12
f.
EXHIBIT C.
'TE WARD AF SUPE MSM M CONTRA COSTA Cot1M, CALIFOFNIA
I
Adopted this Order on April 4. 1989 , .by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Fanden, McPeak, Schroder, Torlakson.
NOES: None.
ABS : Supervisor Pokers.
ABSTAIN: None .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__-_________ ____________________________________________________________________________
SUBJECT: Determination of Property )
Tax Transfer for Garrett-Sea ) RESOLUTION 89/ 147
Breeze Boundary Reorganization)
(LAFC 88-51) }
WHEREAS; Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code provides that a jurisdictional
change resulting from a special district providing one or more services to an area where
such services have not been previously provided shall not become effective if one or more
affected special districts involved in the property tax exchange negotiation fails to
adopt a resolution agreeing to a transfer; and
11 WHEREAS; with the exception of the annexing district, the Board of Supervisors shall
determine the property tax exchange for each affected district that fails to adopt a
resolution agreeing to a property tax transfer; and
WHEREAS;,. the Garrett-Sea Breeze Boundary Reorganization involves annexation of
territory to: Contra Costa County Sanitation District No. 7-A (CCCSD No. 7-A) and Contra
Costa Water District (CCWD); and
WHEREAS;, there is a zero property tax transfer agreement in effect regarding CCCSD
No. 7-A and CCWD has agreed that no property tax be exchanged as a result of this
reorganization.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
HEREBY DETERMINES that no property tax will be transferred to the CCWD as a result of
annexing the territory described in the subject reorganization. This resolution does not
change the property tax revenues accruing to other agencies serving the subject territory
or the affected district's right to collect taxes for existing bonded indebtedness. The
,.property tax exchange agreement discussed above shall apply to affected territory as
submitted or revised by the Local Agency Formation Commission.
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: April 4, 1989
PHIL BATCHE OR, Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
By Deputy
Orig. : County Administrator
Contra Costa Water District
LA.FCO
Auditor-Controller
RMLUTION NO. 89/ 147
C ,