HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06111991 - D.2 TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORSs.. ..
Contra
FROM: Victor J. Westman, County CounselCOSta
By: Diana J. Silver, Deputy County Counsel
County
DATE: May 21, 1991 cOs'rq-���KTi�r
SUBJECT: San Pablo Pointe:,Project (Clark Road Project or Wildcat Vista:
Subdivision 6833, City of Richmond)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND,AND JUSTIFICATION
1 . RECOMMENDATION:
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
road and 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. ,
XI. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/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 El 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
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON - June 11. 1991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED XX OTHER
On June 4, 1991, the Board deferred decision on the above recommendations to this date.
The Board this day APPROVED the above recommendation and DIRECTED staff, through the
Growth Management Agency to work directly with the City of Richmond to requ est 'chanoes inn
their general plan, with particular emphasis on the 400-foot elevation standards and
protection of the ridges .and scenic issues.
Supervisor Fanden voted no because it is above the 400-foot elevation and provides no
protection of the ridge lines. She also expressed concern relating to drainaae, traffic.
and visual impact.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: 3.4• 5 & 1 NOES: 2 AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: Growth and Economic Development Agency ATTESTED June 11, 1991
County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Community Development SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
County Administrator
Public Works
BY ,DEPUTY
M382 (10/88) 61
Board of Supervisors -2- May 15, 1991
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 offsiteroad 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;
Board of Supervisors -3- May 15, 1991
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 for large equipment 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 Grading 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 Kaldeveer Associates, and
any recommended corrective measures by the County's
Board of Supervisors -4- May 15, 1991
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 all , 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 IMPACT:
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. CONSEOUENCES 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.
DJS/jh
FB-2:a:\sppointe.f