HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05211991 - 2.1 (2) TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
ti
FROM: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel --� f COStCn
By: Diana J. Silver, Deputy County Counsel
y Coup/
DATE: May 21, 1991
County
SUBJECT: San Pablo Pointe Project (Clark Road Project or Wildcat Vista:
Subdivision 6833, City of Richmond)
SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATIONS)i BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. RECOMENDATION:
In connection with the City of Richmond's approved San Pablo
Point project, authorize the Public Works Department, with the
concurrence of the Community Development Department, and the
assistance of the County Counsel's office, to formulate a Road
Improvement Agreement in final form and submit it to the Board
for consideration. To address County department and other
publicly expressed concerns, the Road Improvement Agreement will
include provisions for additional unincorporated area off-site
roadand drainage improvements to meet County standards as well
As project mitigation -measures relating to noise, dust and
traffic . Should the project for any reason (e.g. , litigation,
etc. ) not proceed, the improvement agreement would not be
implemented.
II. REASONS FOR RECO101ENDATION/BACKGROUND.
On September 11, 1990, the Board heard and considered
concerns expressed by citizens regarding proposed offsite road
and drainage improvements as well as noise, dust, and traffic to
be generated by the proposed subject project in unincorporated E1
Sobrante area, including Clark Road, Leisure Lane, and San Pablo
Dam Road. The Board directed involved staff of the Public Works
and Community Development Departments to investigate the impact
of .the project with regard to these issues .
On September 14, 1990, the E1 Sobrante Valley Legal Defense
Fund and the Sierra Club filed a petition for writ of mandate
against the City of Richmond and the developer (Anden Group and
Dennis O'Brien) challenging the approval of the project by the
City and alleging inadequacy of Richmond's General Plan, the
project's inconsistency with Richmond's General Plan, that the
project was to be located on an 'inappropriate development site,
environmental damage, inadequacy of the EIR and CEQA violations in
connection with the project approval. The petition asked the Court
to require a new or supplemental EIR. Finally, the petition
alleged that inadequate findings by the City of Richmond were made
in approving the .project.
- Staff in the Public Works and Community Development
Departments have been meeting with the developer to address what
are perceived to be the County•s concerns about the possible
impacts of the proposed project. In order to facilitate and allow
time for these negotiations, County Counsel's office (on behalf of
the County) entered into a tolling agreement with the City and the
developer on October 16, 1990, extending the time in which the
County may file an action challenging the project for a maximum of
four years (as allowed by statute) or until the City or the
developer provides the County with thirty days advance written
notice of termination of the tolling agreement. To this date, no
such notice has been given by the City or developer.
Based on preliminary plans submitted, staff of the Public
Works Department has reached conceptual agreement with the
developer regarding the proposed offsite road improvements in the
County, the scope of the proposed offsite drainage improvements in
the County and the scope of review of the geotechnical report for
the proposed road improvements in the County. Public Works staff
is prepared to enter into a Road Improvement Agreement with the
developer to formalize their understanding and to provide a means
of monitoring and reviewing the offsite road and drainage
improvements . As part of this agreement, the developer will agree
to post a bond in an amount to be determined upon completion of the
final. plans and cost estimates. In addition, staff of the
Community Development Department has agreed to noise, dust and
traffic mitigation measures proposed by the developer, which in
some instances exceed standards customarily imposed on County
approved development projects .
As a result of these meetings and negotiations, staff of the
Public Works and Community Development Departments have reviewed
and commented upon proposed agreement terms and conditions
concerning road and drainage issues and mitigation measures for
noise, dust and traffic. These provisions include the following:
1 . Proposed offsite road improvements:
a- Leisure Lane will remain in the unincorporated area
and all road improvements will be constructed
according to County public road standards;
b- All improvements to Clark Road, the intersection of
Clark Road and San Pablo Dam Road, the proposed new
intersection on Leisure Lane and San Pablo Dam Road
will be constructed in conformance with . County
standards as set forth in preliminary designs
submitted to staff of the Public Works Department.
When necessary, this should include upgrading of
existing road structural sections or reconstructions
on Clark Road or San Pablo Dam Road;
C- The developer will post a bond in an amount
satisfactory to the Public Works Department prior
to the commencement of any construction or filing
of a subdivision map;
d- The developer will bear the , cost of the traffic
light design system in connection with the road
improvements;
e- No occupancy permits for the project's residential
units oriented towards Clark Road or Leisure Lane
will be issued before the completion of County
approved road improvements to Clark Road, Leisure
Lane and at the intersection of Leisure Lane and San
Pablo Dam Road;
f- Residential neighbors affected by the proposed road
improvements on Clark Road or San Pablo Dam Road
will be contacted by the County and the developer
prior to the commencement of any road improvement
work, advised of the dates work will commence and
the dates work is anticipated to be completed.
Every effort will be made by the developer to
minimize possible disruptive effects of road
improvement construction on existing residences;
g- Construction access forlargeequipment will be only
on Leisure Lane, not on Clark Road;
h- The developer will bear the cost of any eminent
domain proceedings initiated by the County which
may be needed in order to complete such road
improvements.
2. Offsite Drainage:
a- the County shall have the right to review and
approve all plans for offsite .drainage facilities
prior to final approval by the City of Richmond in
order to protect the County's downstream drainage
system;
b- All drainage facility designs must . be approved by
the County even where such facilities may be located
in a portion of the project subject to the City of
Richmond's jurisdiction as such drainage facilities
may affect the County's downstream drainage system;
c- The developer will agree to the formation of a
maintenance district whereby the City of Richmond
will administer the maintenance of drainage basins
and the County will have the right to review and
approve .such drainage basins when installed and
during routine maintenance. The County may advise
the City of Richmond if the drainage basins are not
being properly maintained in accordance with County
standards and all necessary corrections will be made
at no cost to the County;
3 . Noise, Dust and Traffic Generated by Gradina and
During Construction:
a- The developer will adhere to specified standards
specified in the agreement which meet or exceed
those established by the County for County projects,
in order to mitigate and minimize the effects of
noise, dust and traffic generated by grading in
sensitive areas of the project;
b- The developer will adhere to the City of Richmond's
operating standards with regard to construction of
the project.
4 . Soil Stability:
a- The County will be permitted, at its option, to
conduct its own peer review process, in addition to
peer review performed by Raldeveer Associates, and
any recommended corrective measures by the County's
peer review consultant will be adopted and carried
out by the developer at the developer's sole cost
and expense;
Although the proposed agreement will be between the
County and the developer, it will be expressly consented to by the
City of Richmond. As part of the agreement, the County will agree
not to sue the developer regarding the City approved project. The
terms of the agreement may be affected by the outcome of the
pending litigation (E1 Sobrante Valley Legal Defense Fund, Sierra
Club, et al . v. City of Richmond, et al. , Contra Costa Superior
Court No. C90-04032) . Accordingly, the agreement should provide
for amendment, modification, termination or other necessary changes
as a result of the outcome of the pending litigation. It should
be noted that this agreement is not intended to be an expression
of support for the project, but is intended only to provide for
mitigation measures in County areas if the project should proceed.
This recommendation was prepared in consultation with the
Public Works and Community Development Departments, who join in
requesting Board approval of it.
III . FISCAL D4PACT:
As the agreement will include the developer's promise to pay
for or compensate the County for all improvements as well as any
eminent domain proceedings, it is anticipated that there will be
no cost to the County.
IV. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
If the preliminary conceptual agreement reached by staff on
the issues discussed above is not memorialized by a formal Board
approved written agreement, the County will have no means to
enforce County standards for the proposed additional road and
drainage improvements or to mandate mitigation measures for control
of dust, traffic and noise other than by possible costly
litigation.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: -YES SIGNATURE:
-RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
__APPROVE OTHER
*Cn0k 001Dor�D May 21, 1991 APPROM At M O"m XX
County Counsel reviewed the above report. Board members briefly
discussed the matter.
The following persons appeared to express their opinion with
respect to the project and. the report:
Dennis O'Brien, 2001 Winward Way, Suite 200, San Mateo,
representing the developer, advised that the list of mitigations,
contained in the staff report, which is before the Board today, are
satisfactory to the developer.
Eugene Caughey, 5006 San Pablo Dam Road, E1 Sobrante owner of
property adjacent to the proposed project, advised he had not been
contacted by the developer with respect to mitigations, and that he
felt that the project needs to be investigated further.
Bob Sullivan 6210 Bay View Avenue, San Pablo, owner of a
business on the San Pablo Dam Road, expressed concern about
improvements to San Pablo Dam Road at both Clark Road and Leisure
Lane, and urged rejection of the staff report and urged requiring a
final agreement, not a conceptual agreement.
Allen La Pointe, 5880 Park Avenue, Richmond, representing Friends
of Wildcat Canyon and the El Sobrante Council, opposed the project
because of its location.
Bill Helsel, 4750 Upland Drive, Richmond, representing the
Greenridge Heights Homeowners Association, urged rejection of staff
recommendations and urged the Board not to give up its right to sue.
Eli Wilson, 3980 Clark Road, E1 Sobrante, advised that he is
concerned about dust.
Keith Terry, 3819 Linden Lane, E1 Sobrante, appeared on behalf of
the Canyon Bond Neighborhood Association, and expressed concern with
respect to drainage, dust and the impact on the school district.
Amy Dunn, 3864, Valley Lane, E1 Sobrante, urged the Board not to
give up its right to sue later since no one knows what is going to
happen as a result of the development of the proposed project.
Stephen Hooker, 380 Cardona Circle, San Ramon, Administrator and
one of the owners of Live Oak Living Center, Greenridge Heights
Convalescent Hospital, which is surrounded by the proposed project,
advised that there had been no consensus on mitigation. He expressed
concern with respect to the effect on residents of the convalescent
hospital having heart and lung problems because of the dust and wind,
and concern with the danger of landslides and the traffic problems.
Dennis O'Brien appeared in rebuttal.
The Chair announced that the Board had received and reviewed
cards from 7 residents of E1 Sobrante who have expressed concern about
the development, but did not wish to speak today.
Chairman Powers advised that he would like an opportunity to
review the questions submitted by Bob Sullivan. He suggested
deferring decision to June 4, 1991.
Supervisor Fanden expressed her concern that the Richmond General
Plan needs updating. She also advised that she favored joining with
other agencies in negotiating resolution of the road and traffic
problems.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that decision is DEFERRED to the
June A, 1991 determination calendar.
VM DF*UftW DOM
1 NWAWT C On"TART TM 8 A TM
- W ' ACO COWCT COPY OF M ACTION TAM
AM: NOq AM 1M1tRSD ON THE 11MWM OF THE DOMM)
AMIM: - ANITAft a DUPE ffl0 M ON TW DAR W m m
em County Counsel MAY 21, 1991
GMED
PHIL DATCMELOR.CLERK OF TME DOMIO OF
Community Development SUPERVWM AW COWrtr nowlWs WOR
IPublic works