HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06071994 - H.5 H. 5
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on June 7, 1994 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, and Bishop
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Powers
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT Hearing On Rezoning Application 2845-RZ, Woldemar and
Associates, applicant, and Kris Tamaki/Starker El
Sobrante Land, Inc. , owner, El Sobrante Area.
This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors for hearing on the recommendation of the
Contra Costa County Planning commission on the request by Michael
Woldemar and Associates (applicant) and Kris Tamaki/Starker El
Sobrante Land, Inc . (owner) (2845-RZ) to rezone a 6 . 85 acre site
from Single Family Residential District (R-10) to Planned Unit
District (P-1) for 20 single family residential units and private
and public roads in the E1 Sobrante area.
Mary Fleming, Community Development Department, presented
the staff report on the proposed rezoning, described the proposed
site location, reported the Planning Commission' s recommendation
for 13 units and she commented on the recommendation that the
Board certify the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report,
close the public hearing, declare the Board' s intent to approve
the rezoning 2845-RZ, declare the intent to adopt the Planning
Commission' s findings, direct staff to have the
mitigation/monitoring program prepared for Board approval, and
direct staff to prepare CEQA findings, and continue this for a
month to allow preparation of the material .
The public hearing was opened and the following persons
presented testimony:
Michael Woldemar, Architect, 12226 San Pablo Avenue,
Richmond, representing Kris Tamaki, owner, spoke in support of
the rezoning, and since the issue seemed to be the number of
lots, he inquired whether the hearing should be continued to
allow Supervisor Powers to participate .
The Board discussed a continuation of the matter to allow
Supervisor Powers to participate.
Ms . Fleming recommended that the Board continue the hearing
two weeks and allow Mr. Powers to participate and comment .
Mr. Woldemar continued his presentation speaking in support
of the proposal and expressed agreement with the staff conditions
recommended in the packet except for Condition 2 which should
read a maximum of 20 single family lots be permitted in this
development .
Kate Burkhart, 1108 Bissell, Richmond, representing West
Contra Costa Unified School District, expressed support for the
proposal .
Bob Sullivan, 6210 Bay View Avenue, San Pablo, representing
El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, spoke
in support of the Planning Commission' s approval of the rezoning.
Frances Davis, 1956 Health Drive, El Sobrante, spoke in
opposition.
Mr. Woldemar reserved his rebuttal for the continued
hearing.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the above
matter is CONTINUED to June 21, 1994 at 2 : 00 p.m. in the Board
chambers .
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Sup;BTCHELOR,
ors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: 7
PHIL Clerk of the Board
of Superviso and County Administrator
o ,Deputy
CC : Community Development Department
County Counsel
K. Tamaki
M. Woldemar and Associates
El Sobrante Planning and Zoning
Advisory Committee
REZONING - 2845-RZ
SILK STONE HILL PROJECT, MICHAEL WOLDEMAR & ASSOCIATES
(Applicants) - Kris Tamaki/Starker El Sobrante Land, Inc. (Owners)
The applicant requests approval to rezone a 6.85 acre property
from Single Family Residential District(R-1 O) to-Planned Unit
District (P-1) for 20 single family residential units and private
and public roads.
The property is located north of Sobrante Avenue and northeasterly
of Heath Drive and Greenbrae Court, .
EL SOBRANTE AREA.
Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
7 June 1994 - 2:00 P.M.
i Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Costa
n. :.
o. _
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON ', ;'� County
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .,' "T .
DATE: May 11, 1994 ��STA couriri ��4°
SUBJECT: Rezoning Application #2845-RZ, Michael Woldemar & Associates
(Applicant) - Kris Tamaki/Starker E1 Sobrante Land, Inc. (Owner),
Requests to Rezoning 6:85 Acres of Land from Single Family Residential
District (R-10) to Planned Unit District (P-1) El Sobrante Area
(S.D.I.)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Certify the adequacy of the project's Environmental Impact
Report as recommended by the Contra Costa County Planning
Commission.
2. Close hearing and declare Board's intent to approve rezoning
File #2845-RZ to rezone thesite from Single Family'
Residential District (R-10) to Planned Unit District (P-1) for
13 lots rather than the 20 requested.
3. Declare intent to approve the Contra Costa County -Planning
-Commission's findings contained in Resolution #19-1994.
4. Direct staff to have a Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared
for Board approval.
5. Direct staff to prepare CEQA findings per requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act. .
6. Continue closed hearing for approximately one month to allow
preparation of above material.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNAT
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMME ON OIV r
COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE .SHOWN.
Contact:Arthur Beresford - 646-2031
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED
cc: Public Works PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
M. Woldemar & Associates AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
K. Tamaki
E1 Sobrante Planning & Zoning Committee BY , DEPUTY
Watson, Hoffe Chass
V
2.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
This development (2845-RZ - Silk Stone Hill) was originally a
proposal for 37 lots covering the entire side of a very steep
hillside over looking E1 Sobrante. The hillside had a large area
that was covered by a coast live oak grove. As a result of staff
concern, an Environmental Impact Report was required. As a result
of that environmental analysis, the proposal was reduced to 20 lots
and most of the oak grove area was left open and undeveloped. The
site access is to be from Sobrante Avenue via an existing east/west
road across the site that then turns north along the westerly side
of the site.
The Draft EIR was completed, reviewed by the County Zoning
Administrator, response document was prepared, and all considered
again by the Zoning Administrator who recommended that the document
be certified as complete and adequate.
The County Planning Commission conducted hearings on 2845-RZ on
March 8, 1994 and March 23, 1994: The Planning Commission after
taking testimony voted 7-0 to recommend that the Board certify that
the EIR was complete and adequate. Further, the County Planning
Commission recommended that the number of lots be reduced to 13,- 9
lots west and north above the access road, and 4 lots below the
road above the existing residences sough of the site.
The Planning Commission recommended the reduced number of lots
because of the steep terrain on the site and the developments
adverse effects on privacy of .existing residents downhill of the
site.
Staff had recommended a two lot reduction to 18 lots.
EIR Review
An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this development.
The report outlined concerns over this development regarding
visibility, adverse effects on an oak grove. on the site, traffic
impacts, drainage and the development's effect on neighbors. The
report determines that significant impacts could be mitigated to an
acceptable level.
After reviewing the EIR, the response to comment document and
related public input, the County Planning Commission recommends
that the Board certify the adequacy of the document.
Local Citizen and Citizen Groups Comments/Concerns
The E1 Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Committee opposed the
proposal at the .20 lots proposed or the 18 lots recommended by
staff. Several neighbors voiced concerns over adverse effects that
this development could have to their privacy, traffic impacts, and
drainage concerns.
Conclusion
Based on the above report, .staff recommends that the Board of
Supervisors certify the EIR for Silk Stone Hill (2845-RZ) as
complete and adequate and that the Board declare their intent to
approve 2845-RZ subject to attached conditions of approval (Exhibit
•A,• attached) . . Further, the Board should direct staff to prepare a
mitigation mnitoring plan for Board approval and have CEQA
findings developed for the Board's approval.
AB/aa
BDI/2845-RZ.AB
P-OTIFICATION LIST - SILK STONE HILL PROJECT (2845-RD -.EL SOBRANTE AREA. PAGE P-1
KRIS TAMAKI/STARKER SWEDE DAVIS DAVID & VIVIEN KEARSLEY-LUKE
EL SOBRANTE LAND COMPANY, INC. 1956 HEATH DRIVE 5186 ARGYLE ROAD .
26 KIRKWOOD WAY EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94820 EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA -94803
SAN CARLOS, CALIFORNIA 94070
MICHAEL WOLDEMAR & ASSOCIATES LORRAINE M. EGGER NIK & DEBORAH MORADI,
12226 SAN PABLO AVENUE MASSOUD BAGHAI
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA 94805 5365 SOBRANTE AVENUE 7 CORTE SAN BENITO
EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803 SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 94903
RICHMOND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ALVIN & VICTORIA GRENGS DOUGLAS & SANDRA HARRIS
1108 BISSELL AVENUE 5500 SOBRANTE AVENUE. 5520 SOBRANTE AVENUE
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA 94802 I EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803 EL SOBRANTE, :CALIFORNIA 94803
EL SOBRANTE PLANNING & ZONING HAZEL SWANSON. DAVID BRAZILL, JR.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE5485 SOBRANTE AVENUE 5529 SOBRANTE AVENUE
HOPE V. SCOTT, CHAIRPERSON EL SOBRANTE,. CALIFORNIA 94803 EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803
P. 0. BOX 871
EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803
EL SOBRANTE PLANNING & ZONING GARY ROBINSON
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MARK & PAULINE CISNEROS
P. 0. BOX 20136 5509 SOBRANTE AVENUE 5519 SOBRANTE AVENUE
EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94820 EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803 EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803
C/O MR. ROBERT SULLIVAN
ENVIRONMENTAL COLLABORATIVE RUDOLPH MARTINEZ OWEN & LYNN YEAGER.
JAMES A. MARTIN, PRINCIPAL 5380 SOBRANTE AVENUE 5451 SOBRANTE AVENUE
127 WESTERN DRIVE EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803 EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803
POINT RICHMOND, . CALIF. 94801
MR. KRIS TAMAKI.- BEN & BETTY BICHLER JAMES MASON
50 TYNDALL STREET #6 5518 CIRCLE DRIVE 5435 SOBRA[VTE AVENUE
LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA 94022 EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803 EL SOBRANTE, .CALIFORNIA 94803
JUDITH ANN COHEN, ATTORNEY DAVID FORD. & LYNNN GLAZIER LELAND & MARILYN BROWN
44 MONTGOMERY. STREET #3300 .875. ISLAND DRIVE 9A-248 5400 SOBRANTE.AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, 'CALIF. 94104 ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA 94501 EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803
HARISH SINHAL GARY & SANDRA WEISBROD
29 KIRKWOOD WAY ELIZABETH MCCALL
5164 ARGYLE ROAD 5406. SOBRANTE AVENUE
SAN CARLOS,. CALIFORNIA 94070 EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803 EL SOBRANTE, .CAL.IFORNIA 9480;
CALIFORNIA OAK FOUNDATION ABELDONALD & BEVERLY RONDEAU
JANET S. COBBJEAN
, PRESIDENT 24 ABELTRICK DRIVE 5418 SOBRANTE AVENUE
1212 BROADWAY, SUITE 810 EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803 EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 9480'
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
NOTIFICATION LIST - SILK STONE HILL PROJECT (2845-RZ) - EL SOBRANTE AREA. (PAGE #2)
SUE BOESCH WILLIAM & DONNA SCHUPP : JOE & GRACE MICHELIS
5412 SOBRANTE AVENUE5489 SOBRANTE AVENUE 5403 SOBRANTE AVENUE
EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803 EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803 EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803
ROY. B ELEANOR MCKINNEY SHIING 8 SHIH CHERN CARLOS 8 ELSY MENJIVAR
139 DUNHAM COURT 8336 KENT COURT 1916 HEATH DRIVE
HERCULES, CALIFORNIA 94547 EL CERRITO, CALIFORNIA 94530 EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803
ELIZABETH MCCALL HAMIDULLA 8 CAROL L. OSMAN WALTER & LILY PANG
5164 ARGYLE ROAD 5421 SOBRANTE AVENUE 1926 HEATH DRIVE
EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803 EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803 EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803
ROBERT S SHERRY LARKIN JAMES SHUTTLESWORTH CLAUDIA PLANT
23 KIRKPATRICK DRIVE 5419 SOBRANTE AVENUE 10 GREENBRAE COURT
EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803 EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803 EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803
WILLIAM KIRKPATRICK MICHAEL COLLINS JOHN BERNARDIN
1710. COUNTRY CLUB BOULEVARD5415 SOBRANTE AVENUE 16 GREENBRAE COURT
STOCKTON., CALIFORNIA 94204 EL SOBRANTE, 'CALIFORNIA 94803 EL SOBRANTE., CALIFORNIA 94803
MARK 8 MERCEDES WILSON WILLIAM MCKINNEY CARLOS 8 PAMELA MORENO
595 ANDREWS WAY 5405 SOBRANTE AVENUE 22 GREENBRAE COURT
EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803 EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803 EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803
BRADLEY PECONOM & ANNA MORKAL- JOSEPH BYWATER A. NORMA DASOVIC
PECONOM 28 GREENBRAE COURT 1944 HEATH-DRIVE
590 ANDREWS WAY EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803 EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803
EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803
EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DIST. . MARJORIE ENGLEHARDT
2130 ADELINE STREET 27 GREENBRAE COURT BRET 8 SHEILA GOULD: . .
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94607 1950 .HEATH DRIVE
EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803 ± EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803
AHMED 8 KATHERINE CALVO DOUGLAS 8 LAUREL GLOFF
580 ANDREWS WAY 121 GREENBRAE COURT FRANCIS 8 DOROTHY DAVIS
EL SOBRANTE CALIFORNIA 94803 0. BOX 20452 . .
EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803 EE SL OBRANTEj CALIFORNIA 94820
LAMB 8 ASSOCIATES MARINUS 8 ANNA ZEELEN BURL & JUANITA WELTON
701 BALRA DRIVE 11 GREENBRAE COURT 1951 HEATH DRIB
EL CERRITO, CALIFORNIA 94530 EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803 EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803
i r
40TIFICATION .LIST - SILK STONE HILL PROJECT (2845-RZ) - EL SOBRANTE AREA - PAGE #3
4ANCY BRINKERHOFF
1939 HEATH DRIVE
=L SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803
KARIO MAININI & LEA LOUISE
20 LUPINE COURT
EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803
OLINTO & VIVIAN SIRI
26 LUPINE COURT
EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803
JUDITH ISAAC & JOSEPH NEVIS
1933 HEATH DRIVE
EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 94803 ; .
WATSON, HOFFE & HASS i
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3700 BARRETT AVENUE
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA 94805
WILLIAM & PENELOPE DROBNY
1962 HEATH DRIVE
EL SOBRANTE., CALIF. 94803
JOHN WOLSEY
1961 HEATH DRIVE .
EL SOBRANTE, CALIF. 94803 `
ERIC & -WANDA.PENE
55499 SOBRANTE AVENUE
EL SOBRANTE, CALIF.. 94803
r
Resolution No. 19-1994
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA
COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RECOMM-
ENDATIONS ON THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN ZONING BY MICHAEL WOLDEMAR
&ASSOCIATES (APPLICANT), KRIS TAMAKIS/STARKER EL SOBRANTE LAND, INC.,
(OWNER), (2845-RZ), IN THE ORDINANCE CODE SECTION PERTAINING TO THE
PRECISE ZONING FOR THE EL SOBRANTE AREA OF SAID COUNTY.
WHEREAS, a request by Collaborative Design Architects (Applicant), Starker EI
Sobrante Land, Inc. (Owner), (2845-RZ), to rezone an 8.1 acre site from Single Family
Residential District (R-10) to Planned Unit District (P-1), for 32 units was received by
the Community Development Department on July 13, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is described as being located north of Sobrante
Avenue and northeasterly of Heath Drive and Greenbrae Court, in the EI Sobrante
area; and
WHEREAS, staff conducted an initial study pursuant to State and County C.E.Q.A.
guidelines. The study concluded that an environmental impact report would be
required for the P-1 rezoning request based on a number of potentially significant
environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, Michael Woldemar&Associates was employed to redesign the project and
became project applicant; and
WHEREAS, the area of the project was reduced to 6.85 acres and the number of
proposed units reduced to 20; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project; and
WHEREAS, after proper public notice, the County Zoning Administrator took
testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Report on March 22, 1993; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report on July 26,
1993, the County Zoning Administrator APPROVED the Final Environmental Impact
Report as being complete and adequate; and
WHEREAS, after proper public notice, the County Planning Commission took
testimony on the P-1 rezoning project (2845-RZ) on March 10, 1994 and March 22,
1994 and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, the County Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and
evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission
Resolution No. 19-1994
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission
recommends to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of
California, that the Final Environmental Impact Report for 2845-RZ be certified and
that the request by Michael Woldemar & Associates (Applicant), Kris Tamaki/Starker
EI Sobrante Land, Inc. (Owner), be APPROVED as to the requested change from R-10
to P-1, as is indicated on the findings map entitled: Page H-6 of the County's 1978
Zoning Map, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this recommendation are:
A. The 13 unit project, as conditioned, is consistent with the County General Plan.
The project site plan and the site as amended by the proposed conditions will
assure aesthetic protection of the hillside areas. Special measures are provided
to safeguard against fire hazards (e.g.,interior sprinklers, fire retardant roofs).
B. The project will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and
stability and will be in harmony with the character of the nearby community.
The project as approved will have lot sizes of approximately 5,200 (plus or
minus) sq. ft., to 60,000 sq. ft. of net area is in character with the general
range of parcel sizes located in the surrounding area. Further, the project is
proposing to set aside approximately 40% of the total gross area of the site
(2.71 acres of land, approximately) within an open space easement. The scenic
easement would prevent the erection or construction of structures within the
upper portion of the site.
C. In accordance with the required findings of the Planned Unit District, the
County finds that the development of a harmonious integrated plan like this pro-
ject as amended by the attached Conditions of Approval, justifies exceptions
from the normal application of the Ordinance Code, including variations in
parcel configuration and design to provide better conformity with the environ-
mental features of this site.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman and Secretary.of this Commission will
sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board
of Supervisors all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California.
The instruction .by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was given by
motion on Tuesday, March 22, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner - Terrell, Accornero, Straus, Wong, Woo, Clark.
NOES: Commissioners - None.
-2-
I
I
i
i
Resolution No. 19-1994
I, Richard Clark, Chairman of the County Planning Commission of the County of
Contra Costa, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing was duly called
and held in accordance with the law on Tuesday, May 3, 1994, and that this
resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the following vote of the
Commission:
AYES: Commissioners - Terrell, Straus, Gaddis, Woo, Accornero,
Wong, Clark.
NOES: Commissioners - None.
ABSENT: Commissioners - None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None.
v
Chairman of the Planning Commission,
Contra Costa County, State of Calif.
ATTES
S c ry of e I nning Commission,
a Cost Co ty, State of Calif.
-3-
I '
i
Findings Map
E13MUO ,
NU/rEW
y fi -10
(pAN[LNi 4
LINE ( EMEPf
i
^ I N ._
Rezone FromjR•IQ To --V•- �-�� � Area
Chair of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission, Stote of Cal1fornia, do hereby certify =
that this is a true and correct copy of �fl�6C -(ea OF TSE
l Zo�1
i
indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning
Commission in the matter of M—IC $CI:Nc t,. WUt.., 9464 L _ -
I
Chair the Contra Costa County -
Planning Commission,State of California
ATTEST-
j
cr tary o th ontra(Costa County
nning C m ssion, Sfiate of Calif.
I
I
i
FINDING AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR REZONING 2845-RZ
Findings
A. The 13 unit project, as conditioned, is consistent with the County General Plan. The
project site plan and the site as amended by the proposed conditions will assure
aesthetic protection of the hillside areas. Special measures are provided to safe guard
against fire hazards (e.g., interior sprinklers, fire retardant roofs).
B. The project will constitute a residential environmental of sustainable desirability and
stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the nearby community. The
project which proposes lot sizes of approximately 5,200 f square feet to 15,000 f
square of net area is in character with the general range of parcel sizes located in the
surrounding area. Further, the project is proposing to set aside approximately 40% of
the total gross area of the site (2.71 acres of land, approximately) within an open
space scenic easement. The scenic easement would prevent the erection or
construction of structures within the upper portion of the site.
C. In accordance with the required findings of the Planned Unit District, the County finds
that the development of a harmonious integrated plan like this project as amended by
the attached Conditions of Approval, justifies exceptions from the normal application
of the Ordinance Code, including variations in parcel configuration and design to
provide better conformity with the environmental features of this site.
I
2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR REZONING 2845-RZ
I
NOTE: MM - refers to the Mitigation Measures in the project EIR.
1.. Development shall be based)on the following exhibits except as modified by conditions
herein:
A. Revised tentative development plan dated August, 1991.
B. Partial development plan showing cross-sections of proposed Lots 1 through 9
dated March 24, 1993
C. Geotechnical investigation on the site conducted by Alan Kropp & Associates
in 1989 and amended to review the proposed revised plan in 1991.
I
2. A maximum of 13 single family residential lots.shall be permitted with this develop-
ment. There shall be no more than four residential lots south of the east/west road
and nine above the east/west road and east of the north/south road, subject to final
approval of the Final Development Plan and Subdivision for the site.
. 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. Prior to issuance of building(permits on any site,the Zoning Administrator shall review
and approve the final development plans for each residential unit.
5. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits on the site,the applicant should
be aware of the following guidelines having to do with construction on the site. (MM,
Response Document, Page 11-10 and 1-11, 1-15, 1-17)
Comply with the following construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements:
A. Noise generating construction activities, including such things as power
generators, shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M., Monday
through Friday, and! shall.be prohibited on State and Federal holidays. The
restrictions on allowed working days may be modified on prior written approval
by the Zoning Administrator.
B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all
internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall
locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and
concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible.
3
C. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post
the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior
boundary of the project site and residents along Sobrante Avenue between
Valley View and the project entrance notice that construction work will
commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name,title,
phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintain-
ing the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall
consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action
in their area of responsibility. The names of the individual responsible for noise
and litter control shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be
reissued with each phase of major grading activity.
A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community
Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the
names and addresses of the property owners noticed,and a map identifying the
area noticed.
D. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator. Any violation of the approved program or
applicable ordinances shall require an immediate work stoppage. Construction
work shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate
construction bond has been posted.
E. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing
neighborhood traffic flows. Prior to issuance of building permits, the proposed
roads serving this development shall be constructed to provide access to each
lot. This shall include provision for an on-site area in which to park earth
moving equipment. The construction entrance road shall be fenced and gated.
6. Prior to the issuance of building permits,the applicant shall submit a detailed TDM Plan
for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator (unless otherwise required by a
TDM Ordinance). The approved TDM Plan shall be operative prior to final inspection
by the Building Inspection Department.
.7. The developer shall pay a fee of $400.00 per lot toward child care facility needs in the
area as established by the Board of Supervisors.
8. The owner of the property shall participate in the provision of funding to maintain and
augment police services by voting to approve a special tax for the parcels created by
this subdivision approval. The tax shall be the per .parcel annual amount (with
appropriate future CPI adjustment) then established at the time of voting by the Board
of Supervisors. The election to provide for the tax shall be completed prior to the filing
of the Parcel Map. The property owner shall be responsible for paying the cost of
holding the election, payable at the time that the election is requested by the owner.
4
9. The development may be done in a phasing program which may be submitted at the
time of the submittal for the final development plan and subdivision of the site subject
to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
10. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9,the applicant(including the subdivider
or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Cosa
County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or
employees to attack,set aside,void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this
subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such
claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense.
11. Proposed Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be submitted for review with
the Tentative Subdivision Map, and shall be subject to review and approval by the
Zoning Administrator. This document shall provide for establishment, ownership and
maintenance of the common open space and parking, fire protection, fencing, private
streets and drainage maintenance, keeping of pets and establishment of signs.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC & Rs) developed for this project shall
include the following deed restrictions (MM. Response Document, Page 1-11):
A. No recreational vehicle, boat, boat trailer or mobilehome shall be stored on the
site overnight. Exterior materials and colors shall not vary from the palette
approved for the original homes.
12. A suitable road maintenance agreement shall be formed for the maintenance of the
private street and any landscaping along this street subject to the review and approval
of the Public Works Department and the Zoning Administrator. (MM, Response
Document, Page 1-11)
13... A copy of the project's Final Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be submitted
to the Community Development Department prior to filing the Final Map. (MM
Response Document, Page 1-11)
14. The design of each residential unit when submitted for the final development plan shall
include the proper sprinkling of the house to meet the requirements of the Uniform Fire
Code and/or the requirements of the local fire district. This shall include fire sprinklers
for roofs, decks and garages.
15. At least 30 days prior to the request for the issuance of any grading permit on this site
an erosion and dust.control plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
County Zoning Administrator. Erosion control plan shall provide for the following
measures (MM, Response Document, Page 1-11, 1-12, 1-17):
A. All grading, excavation, filling shall be conducted during the dry season, May
1st to October 1st only. All areas of exposed soils shall be replanted to
minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October 1 st only erosion
5
control work shall be allowed by the grading permit. Any modification to the
above schedule shall be subject to review and approval by the Grading Section
of the Building Inspection Department and the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator.
A revegetation plan prepared by a professional plant ecologist (not a landscape
architect) shall be submitted as part of the erosion control plan. The areas to
be replanted shall be planted in California native species indigenous to the local
area.
Means to properly control dust shall be provided on the site during dry periods.
16. When the Final Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map is submitted the oak
wood land areas and the proposed scenic easement that shall be clearly delineated and
displayed on the subdivision map. The application shall include detailed restrictions on
use of the scenic easement area and how tree removal shall be reviewed and
approved. (MM, Response Document, Page 1-12)
17. At least 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or filing of a Final Map, a
grading/tree preservation plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator. The plan shall identify all trees with a trunk circumference of
30 inches or more, 4% feet above the ground. The trunk size, species and approxi-
mate drip line of each qualifying tree shall be identified on the plan, and whether the
tree is proposed to be removed or preserved. The objective of the review in.part shall
be to minimize the removal of existing mature trees. The plan shall be accompanied
by a report from a qualified arborist on the proposed plan recommending measures to
protect trees as appropriate during the construction and post-construction stages. The
recommended measures from the arborist shall be integrated into or -otherwise
attached to the proposed grading plan. Prior to grading the drip line of trees shall be
fenced to help guide and keep construction equipment out of the area under trees to
be saved. (MM, Response Document, Page 1-12 & 1-13)
18. The final development plan and subdivision application shall be accompanied by a
detailed landscaping plan showing the proposed landscaping along the southerly side
of the site and any proposed landscaping to be done on the neighboring properties to
help screen.them from the development of the residences uphill. (MM, Response
Document, Page 1-11, 1-14)
19. When the Final Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map is submitted the
applicant shall indicate the location of trees to be planted on the property near the
west property setbacks so that they will be outside of any widening of the proposed
public street. The applicant shall indicate that they have met and reached agreement
with the neighboring owners regarding the location of these trees. (MM, Response to
Document, page 1-11, 1-14)
6
20. The application for Final Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map shall include
detailed lot by lot design guidelines for all lots in the project. The design guidelines
shall include drawn and written criteria for items such as,but not limited to,horizontal
and vertical envelopes, building form and massing, architectural materials, and
landscaping. Specific attention shall be given to providing architectural variety and
reduction of the continuous mass of structures along the south side of the project.
(MM,`Response to Document, Page 1-10, 1-14)
21. Prior to filing the Tentative Map,the applicant shall indicate that they have contacted
the neighboring owner at the southwesterly corner of the site to determine if they can
work out a lot line adjustment between the properties. If this has been accomplished
prior to filing the Tentative Map, then this shall be so shown on the revised Final
Development Plan and the Tentative Map.
22. When the Tentative Subdivision Map and Final Development Plan are submitted the
house designs shall include proper wiring for the future recharging of electrical
vehicles.
23. The site shall:be served by the East Bay Municipal Utility District for water. Each unit
shall have a separate water connection. The area shall be served by the West Contra
Costa Sanitary District. Each unit shall have a separate sanitary sewer connection.
(MM, Response Document, Page 1-17)
24. The conditions of approval for school services imposed on any subsequently filed final
development plan and/or subdivision shall generally read as follows (MM, Response
Document, Page 1-18):
Applicant will voluntarily contribute $3.45 per square foot of residential development
to the Richmond Unified School District. This contribution shall be made in lieu of any
otherwise applicable school impact fees.
A. The contribution shall be calculated and paid as each new dwelling unit is sold
to an initial purchaser and shall be paid at the close of escrow on each unit.
Each home purchase contract for the initial sale of a project unit shall require
that the escrow instructions for the sale provide for the contribution to be made
to the District at the close of escrow.
B. The District shall be responsible for establishing a Mello-Roos district for the
use of the funds contributed under this condition for the improvement and
enhancement of the schools to be attended by the children of the residents of
this development. The Mello-Roos district so established shall comply with .
Education Code §17705.6 and Government Code §53313.4 and the contribu-
tion made pursuant to this condition shall be considered a special tax for the
purposes of those code sections. The applicant's responsibility for the Mello-
Roos district shall be limited to voting for its establishment. No fees or
assessments shall be imposed ori the project as a result of the Mello-Roos
district other than the contributions specified in this condition.
7
C. The amount of the contribution made to the District shall be reduced if at any
time prior to the sale of the last home,the County approves a project within the
District involving a legislative act with conditions of approval that require a
lesser payment for school-related purposes than is imposed by this condition.
In that event, the contribution made at each close of escrow after the County
has approved such other project shall be an amount equivalent to the amount
to be paid by the other project.
D. In the event that the Board of the School District does not ratify the acceptance
of this condition, applicant shall pay the the currently required amount, payable
prior to issuance of each building permit.
25. The tentative map shall indicate a means to connect the existing residence to the
sanitary sewer system. (MM, Response Document, Page 1-17)
26. The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road,and utility improvements will
require the review and approval of the Public Works Department,and are based on the
"Revised Plan 2845-RZ"dated August, 1991 This development shall comply with the
requirements of Title 8,Division 914 and Division 1006 of the County Ordinance Code.
However, the recommended conditions of approval have been based on the
requirements for a subdivision since it appears that the developers intent is to
subdivide and develop this property. Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically
listed in this conditional approval statement.
A. ON-SITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS:
1) Construct the roadway along the westerly property line as a 28-foot
road within a 40-foot right of way which can be ultimately widened to
a 36-foot road within a-56-foot right of way. Construct curb and 4-foot
6-inch sidewalk(width measured from curb face)along the easterly edge
of the roadway, necessary longitudinal and traversed drainage and
pavement. The curb face shall be located 10-feet from the right of way
line. Construct a temporary turnaround in the vicinity of the northerly
terminus of this road.
2) Construct the road along the southerly portion of this property as a 20-
foot paved private roadway (width measured from curb face) within a
30-foot access easement where parking is not required and as a 28-foot
paved private roadway (width measured from curb face) within a 38-
foot access easement where parking is required. The private road shall
be curbed on both sides and shall be bordered with a 4-foot 6-inch
sidewalk along the north side for pedestrian traffic. The road easement
shall extent 1-foot north of the proposed sidewalk. The building and
garage setbacks to residences may be measured from the face of curb
or back of sidewalk. The private road shall be aligned with the easterly
8
extension of Andrew Way to the west. The north-south public road
shall intersect with the easterly extension of Andrew Way at a right
angle, subject to the review of the,Public Works Department, Engineer-
ing Services Division. Adequate parking bays shall be provided to
minimize the need for on-street parking, subject to the review of the
Public Works Department and the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator
3) Widen street frontages to ultimate half-section widths (MM, DEIR, Page
3-46).
B. OFF-SITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS:
1) Construct the roadway from the easterly portion of the on-site roadway
to the point where it turns south to intersect with Sobrante Avenue as
a 20-foot roadway with a 2-foot gravel shoulders on the south side
within a 40-foot access easement. The roadway shall be curbed with
a 4-foot 6-inch sidewalk along the north side for pedestrian traffic. The
applicant shall be permitted to eliminate the off-site sourtherly curb
provided that he provides a 2-foot gravel shoulder and findings which
support an exception from the Environmental Impact Report mitigation.
2) Construct the proposed private roadway from the point where it turns
south to intersect with Sobrante Avenue to Sobrante Avenue as a 36-
foot road within a 56-foot right of way with curb on both sides, 4-foot
6-inch sidewalk along the westerly side,and necessary longitudinal and
transverse drainage.
3) Extend roadway improvements including travel lanes,gutters, drainage,
sidewalk, and any required utility relocations from the site to Sobrante
Avenue. .(MM, Response Document, page 1-15.)
4) Widen Sobrante Avenue between the site access and the Sobrante
Avenue/Circle Drive westerly intersection to contain,at a minimum,two
10-foot travel lanes and two 2-foot paved shoulders. The applicant shall
repave the roadway in this area if not.done by the County. (MM, DEIR,
page 3-42.)
5) Widen Sobrante Avenue between Circle Drive and Valley View Road to
provide two 10-foot lanes and two 2-foot paved shoulders, subject to
the review and approval of the Public Works Department.
6) The applicant shall be required to design and construct a path between
Valley View Drive and the project-access near the westerly Circle Drive
intersection. If the applicant wants reimbursement from future
development for a portion of the path he shall execute a reimbursement
agreement and submit a study analyzing anticipated development which
would be benefitted by this path; an estimate of the cost o f the
9
proposed work; and a segregation of the costs. The DEIR states that
the applicant should be required to contribute toward provision of a
pathway along one side of Sobrante Avenue between Valley View Drive
and the westerly Circle Drive intersection (MM, DEIR, page 3-42). The
DEIR also requires the applicant to eliminate potential safety hazards to
bicyclists, pedestrians and automobile traffic prior to initiation of any
construction (MM, Response Document, page 1-16). If it is determined
that a 4-foot path is not feasible along Sobrante Avenue, the applicant
shall be required to provide a 2-foot paved shoulder and a 4-foot rock
shoulder on one side of the road for pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
7) Mitigate the cumulative impact of connection of this property to Andrew
Way:
a) Contribute a pro rata share of the following improvements to a
Road Improvement Fee Trust (Fund No. 819200-0800):
*a. Install a "Stop Sign" on the Andrew Way approach to
Rancho Road. (MM, DEIR, page 3-46.)
* Widen and repave (where needed) Andrew Way between
Argyle Road and the north site access to contain, at a
minimum, two 10-foot lanes and two 4-foot paved
shoulders. (MM, DEIR, page 3-46.)
* Install a stop sign on the northbound Andrew Way
approach to the Andrew Way/Argyle Road intersection.
(MM, DEIR, page 3-46.)
* Argyle Road should be widened to provide a second
approach lane (one for left turns and one for right turns)
to the Appian .Way intersection. Other benefitting
projects, including the El Sobrante Christian School,
should contribute toward this roadway improvement
(MM, DEIR, page 3-47).
* Align the future extension of Andrew Way to provide the
maximum amount of clear space between the roadway
and existing residences located northeast of the existing
roadway terminus (MM, DEIR, page 3-47). Andrew Way
should be designed to intersect the proposed public north-
south road on this subdivision at a 90 degree intersection.
The alignment of the public and private roadways in this
subdivision shall be modified to reflect this.
10
C. ROAD DEDICATIONS:
1) Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, 40 feet of right of way
for the planned future road along the westerly property line for the
planned future roadway north of the Andrew Way extension. The
property owner shall also provide easement rights to the adjacent
property owner and succeeding property owner(s) for access to this
roadway and installation of road improvements.
D. STREET LIGHTS:
1) Install street lights along the frontage of the proposed public roadway
along the westerly boundary of this property and annex the property to
County Service Area L-100 for maintenance of the street lights. The
final number and location of the lights shall be determined by the Public
Works Department, Road Engineering Division.
2) Application for annexation to County Service Area L-100 Lighting
District shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits or filing
of the Final Map.
E. REPAIR OF CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC DAMAGE TO ROADS:
1) Develop a pavement monitoring program in conjunction with the Public
Works Department (use before and after video evidence of pavement
condition). .In particular analyze the three intersections at the Appian
Way/Sobrante Avenue/Valley View Road triangle(unless these roadways
have been recently improved by a recent County project) to determine
if the stop/start load impact of project construction traffic results in
damage to the pavement. Replace all damaged pavement per County
design standards. The applicant should post a bond to ensure the
proper repair of any damage to pavement (MM, Response Document,
page 1-15). The monitoring program shall include the portion of
Sobrante Avenue between the project's access and Valley View Drive.
The pavement evaluation study shall be conducted with the County.
The applicant shall be required to post bonds to ensure proper repair of
damage to the pavement.
2) Restrict construction traffic to using Sobrante Avenue for access to the
site. Restrict delivery of heavy equipment and construction materials to
outside the peak hour periods. Contractors responsibility (MM,
Response Document, page 1-15). The applicant shall ensure that the
contractor responsibility implement this condition.
11
F. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
1) Submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer,
payment of review and inspection fees, and security for all improve-
ments required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions of approval for
this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage
and stripping plans for review by the Public Works Department, Road
Engineering Division. The improvement plans shall be signed by a
geotechnical engineer.
2) 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.
3) Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services
Division, that legal access to the property is available from Sobrante
Avenue.
4) Prevent storm drainage originating on the property and conveyed in a
concentrated manner, from draining across the sidewalks and drive-
ways.
5) Provide for adequate sight distance at this project's access to Sobrante
Avenue,and at the intersection of this project's private road intersection
with the proposed public road which connects with Sobrante Avenue in
accordance with CALTRANS standards for a 35 mile per hour design
speed.
6) Garages shall be setback:
a. On the private road, at least 22-feet from the back of sidewalk
or 22-feet from the curb face, whichever is greater. If the
garages are set back less than 20-feet from the road easement
line, the applicant shall install vertical rise garage doors with
automatic garage door openers.
b. On public road, at least 17-feet from the fright of way line. If
the garages are set back less than 20-feet from the fight of way
line, the applicant shall install vertical rise garage doors with
automatic garage door openers.
7) On all public roads with longitudinal slopes less than 8%, all public
pedestrian access ways shall be designed in accordance with Title 24
(Handicap access). This shall include all driveway depressions as well
as handicap ramps.
12
8) Install "No Parking" signs along project roadways to prevent on-street
parking, where parking is to be prohibited. (MM, DEIR, page 3-42.)
9) Provide deed notification and signing to inform prospective property
owners that the following roads may be extended in the future: The
proposed road along the westerly property line may be extended to the
north in the future and may be extended westerly to connect with
Andrew. Way.
10) Maintenance responsibilities should be clearly defined as part of the
project (MM, Response Document, page 1-11). Develop and enter into
a maintenance agreement that will insure that the proposed private road
will be maintained and that each property owner in this development
that uses the proposed private road will share in its maintenance.
11) Pay an off-site per unit traffic mitigation fee (MM, DEIR, page 3-46).
_The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the
Bridge/ThoroughMre Fee Ordinance for the EI Sobrante Area of Benefit
as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
12) Contact all area residents along Sobrante Avenue between Valley View
Road and the project access prior to advent of heavy construction truck
usage of Sobrante Avenue. (MM, Response Document, page 1-15.)
13) Prior to initiation of any construction,the applicant's representative shall
discuss with Public Work's staff possible improvements to Sobrante
Avenue needed to eliminate potential safety hazards to bicyclists,
pedestrians, and automobile traffic resulting from project construction
traffic. Specific insurance provisions should be provided by the
applicant which hold the County harmless in the vent of incidents
involving project construction traffic. (MM, Response Document, page
1-16.)
G. UTILITIES/UNDERGROUNDING:
1) Underground all utility distribution services along the proposed public
road. This shall include existing distribution facilities, if any, along the
frontage of that road.
H. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS:
1) This development shall conform to the requirements of Division 914
(Drainage) of the Subdivision Ordinance (MM, DEIR, page 3-51).
Conformance with Division 9814 includes the following requirements:
13
a. Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the
subject property,without diversion and within an adequate storm
drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed
and banks or to an existing adequate public storm drainage
facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural water-
course.
b. Designing and constructing storm drainage facilities required by
Division 914 in accordance with specifications outlined in
Division 914 and in compliance with design_ standards of the
Public Works Department.
C. The Ordinance prohibits the discharging of concentrated storm
waters into roadside ditches.
2) Install, within a dedicated drainage easement, any portion of the
drainage system which conveys run-off from a public street.
3) Improve the inlet to the 21-inch pipe which conveys run-off from the
site across Greenbrae Court to Heath Drive. (MM, DEIR, page 3-52.)
4) Replace the 12-inch pipe under Sobrante Avenue near the proposed
eastern access to the site with an i 8-inch diameter pipe. (MM, DEIR,
page 3-52.)
5) Provide a detailed drainage study, prepared by a qualified hydrologic
engineering firm verifying the capacity of existing drainage facilities from
5418 to 5360 Sobrante Avenue. If the existing drainage facilities are
inadequate, and if stormwater from this proposed project will enter it,
specific improvements should be designed and implemented prior to
creation of impervious surface on the site. (MM, Response Document,
page 1-16.)
`6) The applicant shall construct creek capacity improvements as called out
in the "San Pablo Creek Watershed Study" and as directed by the Public
Works Department, Flood control Division.
OR, AT THE APPLICANT'S OPTION
Contribute $0.25/square foot of additional impervious surface area to
the San Pablo Creek watershed mitigation fund, to be used for creek
capacity improvements to Appian Creek within the San Pablo Creek
Drainage Area. (MM, Response Document, page 1-16.)
The DEIR requires that the applicant pay the drainage improvement fees
to fund on-going improvements to local storm drainage facilities within
Drainage Area 73. (MM, DEIR, page 3-52.)
14
ADVISORY NOTES
PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUT
ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL,ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED
FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OS ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE
REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT.
A. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of fish & Game.
It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish & Game, P.O. Box
47,Yountville,California 94599,of any proposed construction within this development
that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish & Game Code.
B. This project may also be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers.
The applicant should notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to
determine if a permit is required and if it can be obtained.
C. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal, construc-
tion and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources
Control Board,or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay-
Region 11 or Central Valley-Region V). The DEIR requires that the applicant obtain the
necessary NPDES stormwater discharge permit from tha SFRWQCB. (MM, DEIR, page
3-52. and Response Document, Page 1-17).
D. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the
Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the EI Sobrante Area of Benefit as adopted by
the Board of Supervisors.
E. The applicant will be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for
Drainage Area 73 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The DEIR requires that the
applicant contribute drainage fees to help fund planned improvements in the project
vicinity, as established for Drainage Assessment Area 73 and the San Pablo Creek
drainage. (MM, DEIR, page 3-51.)
NOTE: "MM" refers to the Mitigation Measures in the Project Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) and Response Document.
AB/aa
RZXIX/2845-RZC.AB
2/24%94
3/14/94
5/3/94
Agenda Item #
Community Development Contra Costa County
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 1994 - 7:30 P.M.
I. INTRODUCTION
SILK STONE HILL PROJECT, MICHAEL WOLDEMAR &ASSOCIATES (Applicant) -KRIS
TAMAKI/STARKER EL SOBRANTE LAND, INC. (Owner), County File #2845-RZ: The
applicant requests approval to rezone a 6.85 acre site from the Single Family
Residential District (R-10) to the Planned Unit District (P-1) for 20 single family
residential units and private and public roads. Subject property is a 6.85 acre piece
of land located north of Sobrante Avenue and north-easterly of Heath Drive and
Greenbrae Court, in the EI Sobrante area. ((R-10) (ZA: H-6) (CT 3602) (Parcel #430-
200-008, -011 , -012).
:.:.
ate::Co.uatVi.?lann n. ;.. :.o..:mm.s.s::On,fiM ... a::rd:;this;': :A.pf Ca.ti.4.n::`.on:Ma.r, h.8:x:;:7,9:9:4.
.. ... .... :;:.:; .:..::
#ti t: time:.>:the..Commi.ssion::'.6. nue.d:: he.>he.arii to::::Mar::ch::::;>22 :>i J,94<:.at.7
9 , ::::::.:..:.::''�...:
lWte S ecei ed�# the March.$ . 994 hearing are attached Th:e con dit�orevis�;pnS
ecornrner d.ed by the Publ c Works:Department. ;a;re includes in. the;;x.:ecommen:ded.
::;:::>.:;:: ::; :...;.. .. ...:..
.00s....am. .are sf :aded :or J. out::
.......................................................................................................
II. RECOMMENDATION
A. Review and consider the adequacy of the information contained in the Final EIR.
B. Adopt a motion directing staff to prepare a resolution for Commission adoption
recommending that the Board of Supervisors:
1 . Certify the Final EIR as adequate and complete.
2. Approve the rezoning for a maximum of 18 units subject to attached
conditions of approval.
III. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. General Plan: Most of the site is designated Single Family Residential-Medium
Density (3 to 4.9 dwelling units per net acre) on the 1990 County General Plan
compatible zoning districts include P-1 , R-10, R-12 and R-15. A very small part
of the northeast corner of the site is designated open space.
Property to the south and west of the site is designated Single Family-High
Density. Property to the east of the site is designated Single Family Residential-
Medium Density. Land to the north and east is shown as open space. Land
further north is designated Single Family Residential-Low Density.
2
B. Zoning: -The site is zoned Single Family Residential (R-10). Surrounding
properties are zoned R-10 except that the areas to the south and west are
zoned Single Family Residential R-7.
C. CEQA Status: A Final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for
2845-RZ. The Zoning Administrator has taken public testimony, reviewed the
draft EIR and Response to Comments Document and approved the EIR as being
complete and adequate on July 12, 1993 along with Mitigation Measures
outlined in the Response to Comments Document.
D. Surrounding Land Use: Land to the south of the site has been subdivided into
lots used for single family residential purposes. Most of the area was
developed under SUB 3043 (Heath Heights). The lot sizes range from about
6,300 sq. ft. to 9,000 sq. ft. The houses on the site were generally built in the
early to mid-1970s. This area is designated Single Family Residential-High
Density on the County General Plan and is zoned R-7.
The 4-acre parcel to the west of the site is designated a mix of Single Family
Residential-High and Medium Density and Open Space on the General Plan. The
property is zoned R-10. There is a 50' wide strip dedicated to the County for
roadway purposes across the site. The 2-acre site owned by East Bay
Municipal Utility District northwesterly of the application site is designated open
space. There is a reservoir on that site.
Property to the north of the site is designated open space. There is one parcel
with a residence on it. The 3-acre parcel is owned by East Bay Municipal Utility
District and there is a reservoir on the site. This area is zoned R-10.
Land to the east of the site is zoned R-10 and mostly designated open space
on the General Plan. The southwesterly portion of that property is designated
Single Family Residential-Medium Density.
IV. AGENCY COMMENTS
A. City of Richmond: No comments on this application. Site is in Sphere of
Influence of the City of Richmond.
B. Building Inspection Department: Future development will require a grading
permit and soils report.
C. Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division: No comments on
this application.
D. California Archaeological Inventory: There is a low probability of cultural
resources. Further study is not recommended.
3
E. East Bay Municipal Utility District: Lots 1 through 16 can be served from the
Argyle Pressure zone which has existing mains on Sobrante Avenue. Lots 17
to 20 can be served from the circular regular pressure zone which has existing
mains on Circle Drive. Two parallel mains would be required to serve the entire
development. The applicant should initiate a water service estimate with
EBMUD's business office to determine conditions of service.
F. West Contra Costa Sanitary District: Sanitary facilities are available for the
proposed development subject to the following conditions:
1 . Property must be annexed to Sanitary District.
2. Plot Plan requires District approval.
3. Tentative Map must be submitted for Board approval. Upon submission,
a sewer capacity study will be conducted to determine project's impact
upon system (fee = $150.00).
4. Improvement plans require District approval.
5. Sewer mains and appurtenances must be constructed to nearest
available existing District facility. (Cost born by developer.)
6. Appropriate permit and connection fees to be paid prior to connection
to main. (Fee estimate prepared upon submission.)
7. Easements required. (See comments below.)
8. District approval is required prior to finalizing permit or prior to granting
certificate of occupancy.
9. A minimum 10' easement with paved access to all manholes shall be
granted to the District along all public sewer main, even in public or
private roadways.
10. Geotechnical review will be required if the developer wants to dedicate
the sewer main to the District.
11 . Off-site improvements are required for this new development to flow to
the District sewer mains. This includes increasing the capacity of
approximately 1 ,454 linear feet of 6-inch diameter gravity sewer main.
The developers shall remove and replace 300 feet of existing 6-inch line
with new 10-inch diameter line on Appian Way. Additionally, the
developer shall contribute to the District Flow Zone on Sobrante Avenue
to fund capacity improvements on that line.
G. Comments of County Geologist:
1 . Geology and Soils: A geology and soils report by Alan Kropp &
Associates with geologic study by Darwin Myers Associates, has been
submitted with the application to rezone to P-1 , Planned Unit Develop-
ment. The report is titled "Geotechnical Investigation, Sobrante Avenue
Development., EI Sobrante, California", and dated June 13, 1989. The
report contains geologic review and reconnaissance information,
geologic and soils exploration data including test pit and test hole logs,
laboratory soil test data, and conclusions and recommendations
appropriate for site planning, design and construction, including grading
and foundation construction.
2. Report Review Comments: The report provides satisfactory information
for all development stages.
The site consists of shale and siltstone of the Monterey group, overlain
by a soil veneer and locally by artificial fill. Fill areas are identified along
Harish Way (where they are nearly 20 feet thick) and south and
southwest of the two existing residential structures. Another fill area
is not identified by the report, and lies on slopes west of the western
residence, and along the residence driveway. The leach field for the
existing residences probably lies below or downslope from the fill west
of the western residence.
Bedrock is identified from traditional Monterey group stratigraphy as
Tice and Claremont shales. However, more accurate local characteriza-
tion of the Monterey group is by Dr. J. Ross Wagner's doctoral thesis.
Site rocks are identified on Wagner's map as diatomite of the intermedi-
ate facies, and possibly sandstone of the intermediate facies near the
hilltop. Diatomite is a very lightweight, porous rock composed
principally of diatoms-spherical, hollow silicified shells of one-celled
marine and freshwater algae.
The diatomaceous rock has such low density and dry unit weight that
the laboratory test results are difficult to interpret. Moisture content
above 25 to 30 percent, for example, usually is a flag which signals
problem soil or rock. That is not the case at this site although moisture
contents in the 40 to 65 percent range are reported. The rock's very
high porosity (the County Geologist estimates it to be roughly 50
percent) enables it to absorb a tremendous amount of water while not
exceeding its inherent strength.
The geologic report found rock attitudes which are nearly parallel to the
southerly site slope. Bedding planes parallel to slope often lead to
instability when such slopes are undercut during grading. This potential
is present at this site, but appears to be low. Nevertheless, retaining
walls should be used for support of most cut slopes at this project, and
for all south-facing cut slopes greater than 5 feet in height.
5
V. ROAD AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
The attached Conditions of Approval include road and drainage requirements. The
applicant should be fully aware of the requirements of County Subdivision Ordinance
as they pertain to subdivisions, the Division 914(Drainage) requirements of the County
Subdivision Ordinance Code and Division 1006 (Road Dedication and Setbacks)
requirements of the County Ordinance Code as they pertain to this development.
VI. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SITE
The project, as mentioned above, is located in the EI Sobrante area in West Contra
Costa County. The site is located between Interstate 1-80, San Pablo Dam Road, and
is about 1 ,800 feet east of Appian Way.
The vehicle access to the site is provided off of EI Sobrante Avenue approximately 200
feet east of the Sobrante Avenue first intersection with Circle Drive. A wide paved
common driveway extends for a distance of approximately 100 feet from Sobrante
Avenue with access to the site continuing west through a 44 foot wide right of way
along a largely unpaved or narrowly paved roadway. The roadway continues along the
southern and western boundaries of the site and eventually joins with a paved access
road. The existing residence above the site and the East Bay Municipal Utility District
reservoirs gain access across this site.
The project site includes approximately 6.85 acres. The property forms the south and
west facing slopes of a prominent knoll with the elevations on site ranging from 275
to 445 feet above sea level. The site is currently undeveloped.
Vegetation: Vegetation on the site is primarily oak wood lands interspersed with areas
of annual grasslands, scrubs and planted landscaping. The oak wood land is composed
entirely of Coast Liveoak. Under story vegetation in this area is sparse and consists
primarily of introduced annual grasses and a few areas of iceplant. There are a total
of 206 trees mapped on the site with trunk diameter of 6-inches or greater measured
approximately 4'/2-feet above grade. Not all trees have been mapped on the site. The
primary emphases on reviewing the trees on the location of the site was to determined
those that may have to be removed as a result of the proposed development.
Scrub vegetation on the site consists primarily of native Coyote Brush and introduced
French Broom. The scrub forms a dense thicket on the lower elevation of the site
primarily along the existing road across the site.
The landscape vegetation has generally been planted along the southerly side of the
site. Landscaping includes monterey pines, young blue gum eucalyptus and ground
cover such as iceplant.
6
Wild Life: Wild life species which occur on or frequent the project are associated with
woodland, grassland and suburban habitats. Birds which may be found in the area are
several of the Towhee species, California Quail, Scrub Jay, and Anna Hummingbird
among others. Mammals and reptiles found on the site are animals such as the
California Vole, Pocket Gopher, Gopher Snake, Western Fence Lizard, among others.
Several species of raptors may occasionally forage for smaller mammals in the open
areas of the site.
The project, and project vicinity, does provide some foraging habitat for several larger
species of mammals such as Black Tail Deer, Red and Gray Fox, Raccoon, Striped
Skunk and Opossum. This site forms only a portion of the range that these animals
might use to some extent because of the absence of surface drinking water and the
proximity of existing development the habitat value is of limited value for many
species. The site was surveyed to try to determine if there were any special status
species on the site. There were no special status taxa observed on the site during
survey in June, 1990.
Slopes: As mentioned above, the slopes on much of this site is very steep. A good
portion of this site has slopes greater than 26% (most notably, the upper area of the
westerly facing slope, as well as most of the southerly facing slope, other than the
area along the existing road). The areas with lowest slopes generally are located along
the westerly side of the site as well as some of the areas immediately adjacent to the
existing residences to the south.
VII. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Previously Proposed Proiect - The original proposal for this project was a 32
unit development covering the entire site. This included development across
much of the steepest portion of the hillside and into the oak woodlands area of
the site. An administrative draft EIR for the original development was
completed for County staff review and it identified numerous. significant and
adverse impacts on the project. This included extensive grading over the entire
site, removal of a number of mature trees within the woodland area, and it
would have been in conflict with a number of policies on the County General
Plan in effect at that time and it would have a much greater effect than the
present proposal on the visual character of the site and vicinity.
In recognition of the magnitude of the potential impacts associated with the
development and after discussion with staff, the applicant choose to redesign
the project and retain Michael Woldamar & Associates to prepare and revise
development plan which is presently being considered.
B. Presently Proposed Project - The presently proposed project is a request to
rezone the site from Single Family Residential, R-10, to the P-1 zoning district.
The proposal is to eventually develop 20 single family residential lots on the
6.85 acre site. The lots are to be located east of the Andrew Way extension
and east of a proposed public street running along the westerly side of the site.
Four larger lots are proposed above (north of) the Andrew Road extension and
7
nine lots south of the Andrew Road extension. The Andrew Road extension is
to be a private street. The road along the westerly side of the site is to be a
public street. The applicant has received their subdivision number, l#7706.
That application has not yet been mapped. The subdivision and final develop-
ment are to be filed after the Board has made a decision on 2845-RZ.
The woodland area would remain largely undisturbed under the present
proposal. The existing residence at the very top of the hill, just below the
Argyle Reservoir, would be served by the roads of this development but is not
part of the development.
C. Proposed Project Access and Roadway Improvements - Vehicle access to the
site would initially be provided by the existing right of way off of Sobrante
Avenue. The roadway is to be a private street across the lower slopes of the
site which will intersect with the proposed public street along the westerly side
of the site. The street along the westerly side of the site is to become a public
street and would provide through vehicle access to Andrew Way when the
adjacent property to the west is developed.
The private street would have a roadway width of 20-feet, with a sidewalk
along the north side of the street, which is the upslope side of the street.
Parking bays with a depth of 8-feet will be provided intermittently along the
south side of the private street. Curbs and gutters will be provided along the
entire roadway length.
The public street would have a roadway width of 28-feet. When the adjacent
property to the west is developed, the roadway would most likely be expanded
to a standard width of 36-feet. The developer proposes a sidewalk along the
easterly side of this street. Parking would be permitted along the easterly side
of the street but no parking would be permitted along the westerly side of the
street.
Each residence on the site would have a two-car garage and would have a two
car driveway apron space for each lot. As mentioned above, the parking bays
along the private street, which number approximately 14, would provide for
guest parking. There would be approximately 12 parking spaces along the east
side of the proposed public street. There would be an estimated 106 parking
spaces provided within the development. This allows for a ratio of approxi-
mately 5.3 cars per residential unit.
D. Proposed Density and Lot Layout of the Site - The overall density of this
development is 2.92 dwelling units per gross acre. The net density after
removing the areas for the roads is approximately 3.7 dwelling units per net
acre. The proposed density is at the lower mid-level of the density allowed
under Single Family Residential-Medium Density which allows 3 to 4.9 dwelling
units per net acre.
8
There are three types of lots proposed for this development. Lots 1 through 9
are located south of the proposed private road and are downsloped, lots. Lots
14 through 20 would be slight upslope lots located east of the proposed public
street. Lots 10 through 13 would be larger steep upslope lots above the
proposed private street. The developer has submitted a cross section showing
the relationship of the lots and roadways and adjacent property lines, scenic
easement and landscaping improvements.
The Tentative Map indicates a maximum building envelope area for each lot.
The developer proposes custom building plans for each residence and that
residential development would be restricted within the proposed envelope
areas. The general setback for the various lots are as follows: ,
Lots. 1 through 9 - setback 20-feet from street at driveway, 12-feet from
parking bay. Sideyards - 10-feet and . 10-feet (20 foot aggregate, except
greater where necessary to protect trees - Lots 2, 3 and 4). Rearyards - Lots
1 through 9 - 15-foot minimum - 20-foot average.
Lots 10 through 13 - proposed 15-foot setback from street. Sideyards of 5-
feet and 10-feet (15 foot aggregate). Rearyard - 10-feet to scenic easement
line. These lots should have their garages setback at least 17.5 feet with
automatic verticle rise garage doors.
Lots 14 through 20 - 20-foot setback from back of sidewalks (14.5 feet from
property line). Sideyard minimum 5-feet with a total of 15-feet. Rearyards -
10-feet to scenic easement line.
Development is to be confined to building envelopes shown on the plan.
All roadways, utilities, and street landscaping improvements are to be installed
at one time. Lots are to be sold and houses designed and constructed on a
individual basis. Storm drainage for the project would be provided by gutters
and catch basins along the public and private streets, and a concrete ditch
along the southern property line. The sanitary sewer and water line would be
installed and connected to existing lines in Sobrante Avenue. Other utilities
such as gas, electric, telephone, and cable television would be installed
underground to connections from Sobrante Avenue. Driveway-improvements
to the steep uphill lots (Lots 10 through 13) would be designed and constructed
as part of the individual residences due to the steep slopes and need to
incorporate the driveway and garage into the overall approach to construction
on each of these four lots.
The developer does not propose a homeowner association and instead is
proposing that a road maintenance agreement be developed which would
provide for maintenance of the private street on a pro-rata basis. There would
also be specific restrictions related to the scenic easements to identify
9
maintenance responsibilities for landscaping installed by the applicant during
initial construction. There would be a requirement that a design review
committee review all new construction.
Proposed lots areas in this development range in size from approximately 6,082
square feet to 63,922 square feet. The net land area of lots range from 5,022
square feet to 15,516 square feet. The net land area is the area of the lot
minus any access easements and minus any of the area within the proposed
scenic easement.
The R-10 zoning district is the highest density zoning district that is compatible
with the General Plan designation of Single Family Residential-Medium Density.
Lot sizes range from approximately 50% of the minimum to over 630% of the
minimum for the R-10 zoning district. Within the environmental impact report,
a table reviews the sizes of the various lots. That table is attached to this staff
report within an additional column indicating the percentage that each lot has
as it relates to the minimum allowed for the R-10 zoning district. It should also
be noted that several of the lots due to the constraints of terrain and the
proposed layout of the project do not meet the minimums for the R-10 zoning
district in regards to either lot depth in the case of Lots #4 to 8 and lot width
in the case of Lot #15 to 19. Lots 11 and 15 have less than standard average
widths due to their particular shape (narrow at back of lot). The area where
residences could be built are at or over the minimum width called for in the R-
10 zoning district (100').
The intent of the planned unit development is to allow some flexibility in
applying the more rigid minimums allowed for in a standard residential zone,
such as R-6, R-7 or R-10, etc. The proposed layout is a result of work with the
developer in trying to allow for a reasonable amount of development on the site
and at the same time trying to preserve an oak woodland and reduce the
amount of grading for the proposed residential development.
PROJECT STATISTICAL SUMMARY
AREAS ARE IN SQ. FT.
Net Land
Lot Gross Private Net % of R-10 Scenic Minus
Number Land Street Land Minimum Easement Scenic
Easement
1 6,668 1 ,004 5,664 -57 0 5,664
2 8,998 641 8,357 -84 0 8,357
3 7,924 837 7,087 -71 0 7,087
4 8,386 1 ,604 6,682 -67 0 6,682
10
5 6,319 1 ,297 5,022 -50 0 5,022
6 6,947 1 ,172 5,775 -58 0 5,775
7 6,628 1 ,140 5,486 -55 0 5,486
8 6,082 890 5,273 -53 0 5,273
9 6,919 711 6,208 -62 0 6,208
10 63,922 3,640 60,282 -603 44,766 15,516
11 25,398 .1 ,512 23,886 -239 13,573 10,313
12 22,569 1 ,498 21 ,071 -211 11 ,132 9,939
13 18,752 1 ,754 16,998 -170 7,268 9,730
14 17,216 882 16,334 -163 8,440 7,894
15 12,395 0 12,395 -124 7,352 5,043
16 11 ,528 0 11,528 -115 6,529 4,999
17 10,723 0 10,723 -107 5,524 5,199
18 10,646 0 10,646 -106 5,678 4,968
19 9,368 0 9,368 -94 4,590 4,778
20 9,019 0 9,019 -90 3,041 5,978
SUBTOTAL 276,305
Public 22,216
Street
GRAND 298,521 18,501 257,804 117,892 139,912
TOTALS-SF
-AC 6.85 0.42 5.92 2.71 3.21
Gross Density 2.92 houses per acre
Net Density 3.70 houses per acre
E. Scenic Easement, Tree Removal and Landscaping - A scenic easement is
proposed for the upper elevations of Lots 10 through 20. The intention of the
easement would be to preserve and protect mature trees and the woodland
character of the site. The. scenic easement would encompass approximately
40% of the total site area. Deed restrictions would be included in lots
encompassed by the scenic easement defining specific restrictions on further
development, tree removal, fencing and other modifications. The developer is
11 _
also proposing a wider side area between Lots 10 to 13 to preserve the views
of the woodland from lower elevations of the site (generally 15 feet). The
scenic easement would extend down near the private street between Lots 10
and 11, and Lots 13 and 14. The tentative plan listed trees below the 410 foot
contour. There are, of course, trees above the 410 foot contour that were not
mapped, however, these trees are in areas where no development is proposed.
Of the 206 trees mapped below the elevation of 410 feet, a total 23 an
estimate 36 proposed for removal, representing 18% of the mapped trees. The
trees to be removed include 9 live oak trees, 12 eucalyptus trees, and 5 pine
trees. The size of the oak trees range from 6" to 14" diameter.
The developer is proposing a landscape plan which includes a street tree
program, a buffer plan along the south side of the site to help separate the
proposed residences from the existing residences to the south. A revegetation
program is proposed for the grated slopes within the scenic easement. The
developer is proposing that approximately 43 evergreen trees in 15-gallon
containers be planted within a 15-foot setback area of Lots 2 to 9, and
approximately 80 street trees be planted along the public and private streets.
Planting with native tree species is proposed as part of the revegetation
program where hillside grading would intrude into the scenic easement in the
vicinity of proposed Lots 13 and 14..
F. Proposed Grading: The proposed private roadway will follow the alignment of
the existing roadway across the site. The roadway will be widened on the
downslope side away from most of the mature woodland trees. Fill used in the
roadway widening would be obtained by recontouring portions of proposed Lots
13 and 14 where trees are absent. Proposed grading would be balanced on site
with an estimated volume of approximately 9,100 cubic yards material being
moved.
A geologic consultant report for the site has been prepared for the applicant by
Alan Kropp & Associates. The report contains a geologic review and
reconnaissance information, geologic soils exploration data including test bits
and test bore logs, laboratory soil test data, and conclusions and recommenda-
tions appropriate for site planning, design and construction. The original report
concludes that the original development, which covered the entire site, was
feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. As mentioned above, the
report was subsequently reviewed by the Senior Planning Geologist who
concluded that the report provided satisfactory information for all development
stages.
The original report has since been updated to address the revised development
plan. Based on the review of the plan, the applicant's geotechnical engineer
continues to believe that the 1989 geological investigation is still applicable to
the site. The proposed fill indicated along Lots 4 through 9 would have to be
keyed and benched into the hillside and would require compaction necessary
to obtain proper stability.
12
G. Proposed Residences - The applicant has submitted cross-section as well as
other plans showing tentatively proposed residences on the site. The
residences would generally be 2-story structures. Some would be 3-story
structures. The residences would generally have a setback minimum of 15 to
20 feet. The residences that would most effect the immediate neighbors to the
south are those on Lots 2 through 9. The applicant has submitted cross-
sections for the various proposed residences showing how they would be
setback from neighboring properties. The rearyard setback would range from
15-feet to approximately 28-feet.
As mentioned above, the applicant has indicated that they propose to plant a
number of evergreen trees along the back property lines of the various proposed
residences along the south side of the site to help screen the development from
neighboring property owners. Staff finds this commendable but also recom-
mends, in cases where neighbors are agreeable, that additional trees should be
planted along the backyard areas of neighboring property owners to help further
screen the development. This will also give the neighboring property owners
control over some of the screening trees. Also, there are some existing trees
that have been planted most notably on Lots 2 and 3 by neighboring owners.
If the applicant and/or neighboring owners can reach agreement, staff would
have no objections to a lot line adjustment being accommodated to include
some of those trees within the neighboring property.
VIII. STAFF ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT AND RECOMMENDED
REVISIONS
Staff has evaluated the proposed project and finds it much improved over the original
proposal. However, staff does have certain concerns regarding the intensity of the
development, especially along the area immediately above the residences to the south.
Because of this, staff recommends the elimination of one lot, Lot 5 in this case, and
the widening of the proposed Lots 2 to 9 within the area. Further, staff recommends
that sideyard minimums be a minimum of 10-feet with a total aggregate sideyard of
20-feet to help increase the separation between the residences. This is the standard
for the R-10 zoning district. Thirdly, staff recommends that the residences in these
areas have a minimum rearyard of 15-feet for the first floor but that this be increased
by at least five additional feet for any subsequent stories above the first floor. The
residences should also be designed so that upper floor decks facing south are avoided.
Staff also recommends that the developer try and work with neighboring property
owners, so that additional trees can be planted along the neighbors back property line.
The additional trees should be of a suitable nature to help screen the existing
residences from the new residences. Staff also recommends that the residential lots
along the private roadway, Lots 1 through 9 (now 1 to 8), be allowed to have a
setback of as little as 8-feet from the proposed parking bays. This would help further
move the houses slightly away from the neighboring properties to the south. Garages
should have a minimum setback of 17.5 feet with automatic roll up garage doors.
13
Staff also has concerns over the development of the steep slopes of the site above the
private road (Lots 10 to 13). The General Plan states that steeper slopes should be
protected as much as possible. Because of this staff recommends a compromise from
the development proposed in that Lots 11 , 12 and 13, should be combined into a total
of two larger lots. Staff further recommends that residences located in this area be
kept as low as possible and generally be developed as 2-story maximum height
residences with an overall height limit of approximately 30-feet.
Staff is agreeable to the idea of a scenic easement covering the uphill portions of
proposed Lots 10 through 20 as shown on the tentative map. Fencing within the
scenic easement area should be limited to 3-strand wire fences with metal poles to
help reduce the visual impacts of the fences.
The neighboring property to the west of the proposed public street should be
landscaped, subject to the agreement of the neighboring owner, with a row of trees
to help screen that site from the proposed residential development. The trees, of
course, will have to be located at proper setback from the edge of the proposed public
street which someday may be widened. It should be noted that the property to the
west does have potential for further development and, if some day the owner does
choose to further subdivide the property, they would no doubt be required to widen
the proposed public street as well as connect it to Andrew Way. The proposed trees
should be on approximately 30-foot centers and should be planted along the westerly
property to the west of the site with a proper setback for the future full width public
street. The neighboring property owner would have to be agreeable to this.
The site is approximately 1 Y2 miles from the nearest fire station which is located on
Appian Way. Because of this distance, staff recommends that the houses built on this
site be properly sprinkled to help reduce fire danger for the residences in this area.
The Zoning Administrator should review and approve the exterior finish of the
proposed residences on this site. Finishes for the residences should be, as much as
possible, in a proper hue and color to reduce overall reflectivity and reduce the impact
of residences located on a hillside to the view from other residences downhill from the
site. While one cannot hide a residence, except by placing it underground, one can
reduce the overall visual impact with proper finish and proper choice of colors for the
exterior finish of the residences and by helping the residence as low as possible.
Staff recommends that the west side of the proposed public street be fenced with a
6-foot tall cyclone fence with slats to help screen the site from neighboring property
owners. In staff's opinion, this type of fence is superior to a wood fence being placed
in this area and that it is more amenable to limiting damage if brushed by a vehicle.
Properly installed cyclone fences also have longer life then wood fences. Staff
recommends that the perimeter of the site behind proposed Lots 1 through 9 be fenced
with a suitable solid wood fence. If neighboring property owners are agreeable, a 6-
foot tall cyclone fence with plastic or wood screening strips could be substituted.
14
IX. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The Final EIR has been determined to be adequate by the County Zoning Administrator.
A summary of the impacts and mitigation measures are listed below. Reference to lot
numbers in the impacts and EIR mitigation section refer to the original project as
analyzed in the EIR.
The staff comment section describes how the mitigation measures have been
addressed by the revised site plan and the proposed conditions of approval. Any
mitigation measures which would not be fully implemented are further identified by an
asterisk
A. Land Use and Planning Policy
1 . Impact: Land Use Incompatibility - Potential for incompatibility with
adjacent uses could be mitigated to a level of less than significant
through design review and possibly eliminating one lot along southern
boundary of site.
EIR Mitigation:
a. To ensure compliance with the provisions of County design
guidelines and compatibility with adjacent land use,the Tentative
Map for the project and proposed building plans for individual
residences should be reviewed by the County Zoning Administra-
tor after receiving input from the EI Sobrante Valley Planning and
Zoning Committee. Future review should focus on the design
and setback adherence of lots along the southern boundary of
the site, to ensure architectural variation in the rear elevations of
the houses, sideyard setbacks and landscaping to break up the
continuous mass of structures, and adequate landscape screen-
ing to protect the privacy of downslope residents.
b. The aggregate sideyard setbacks of lots along the south bound-
ary of the site should be increased to break up the continuous
mass of structures in views from Heath Drive. If necessary,
consideration should be given to eliminating one of the proposed
lots to provide greater flexibility in siting residences and to
increase the aggregate sideyard setbacks.
Staff Comments: Development proposals in the EI Sobrante area are
sent to the EI Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Committee for
review and comment. Condition #2 reduces lots on the site and
Condition #20 requires detailed elevations for residences on the site.
2. Impact: Project-Generated Noise - Potential for disruptive noise levels
could be mitigated to a level of less than significant by limiting construc-
tion hours.
15
EIR Mitigation: Construction activities on the site should be restricted
to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. (Monday through Friday) to
minimize the impact of the surrounding neighborhood, particularly
excessive noise levels. The construction entry road should be fenced
and gated, and access to the site monitored by a construction supervi-
sor. Violations and complaints should be logged and reported weekly to
the County and applicant. Persistent violations may result in the
issuance of a stop work order or further restrictions on construction
hours.
Staff Response: These measures have been included within the
Conditions of Approval (refer to COA #5).
3. Impact: Project-Generated Dust - Potential for excessive dust could be
mitigated to a level of less than significant by routinely watering graded
slopes.
EIR Mitigation: The Erosion Control Plan recommended in the Hydrology
and Drainage section of this report should include provisions to routinely
water graded slopes to control dust during dry periods until the roadway
is surfaced and slopes revegetated. The frequency of watering should
reflect site-specific conditions, with applications repeated as necessary
to suppress project-generated dust.
Staff Response: These measures have been included within the
Conditions of Approval (refer to COA #5 and #15).
4. Impact: Loss of Privacy - Potential loss of privacy of adjacent residents
could be mitigated to a level of less than significant through provisions
for landscape screening.
EIR Mitigation: Landscape screening should be provided along the
southern boundary of the site as necessary to protect the privacy of
downslope residences. Consideration should be given to creating a
landscape easement along a 15-foot setback from the southern property
line which would prohibit removal of landscape improvements.
Staff Response: These measures are included within the Conditions of
Approval (refer to COA #18 and #19). It should be further noted that
staff is recommending subject to agreement of neighboring property
owners to the south as well as to the west that the applicant be
required to put in proper amount of screening trees to help screen this
development on this site from neighboring properties.
5. Impact: Long-term Maintenance - Potential for poor maintenance and
adverse impacts to scenic easement area could be mitigated to a level
of less than significant through formation of homeowners association or
deed restrictions.
16
EIR Impact: To ensure adequate maintenance of private roadways,
landscape improvements, and common open space or scenic easement
areas, maintenance responsibilities should be clearly defined as part of
the project, either through deed restrictions as currently proposed or
through formation of a homeowners association.
Staff Response: These measures are included in the Conditions of
Approval (refer to COA #11 , #12, #13). It should be noted that staff
is agreeable to the development of a road maintenance agreement to
include, of course, maintenance of any street tree landscaping inasmuch
as there is no private or semi-public open space proposed on this
project. . As an alternative a homeowners association can be set,up.
B. Biotic Resources
6. Impact: Loss of Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat - Potential loss of
woodland vegetation and wildlife cover could be mitigated to a level of
less than significant through-adherence to restrictions on modifications
within proposed scenic easement and implementation of Vegetation
Management Plan to provide for revegetation with native species and
control of undesirable species.
EIR Mitigation:
a. Detailed restrictions should be prepared by the applicant's
architect which prohibits future development within the proposed
scenic easement and prevents disturbance to the woodland
habitat. The restrictions should be incorporated into the deed to
lots containing the scenic easement area. At minimum the
restrictions should prohibit:
■ future development within the scenic easement area,
including grading, additions to residences, construction of
ancillary structures, and landscaping;
■ tree removal;
■ fencing of lot lines to ensure wildlife access it not imped-
ed; and
■ keeping of livestock within the scenic easement area.
b. A detailed Landscaping and Vegetation Management Plan should
be prepared for the project which meets with the approval of the
County. The plan should:
■ incorporate detailed scenic easement restrictions to
prevent disturbance to woodland vegetation;
17
■ provide for the revegetation of graded slopes;
■ emphasize the use of native, drought-tolerant plant
species;
■ define areas where landscape restrictions are necessary
to protect mature native trees and provide for adequate
landscape screening along the southern property line;
■ identify maintenance responsibilities for street trees and
other landscape improvements; and `
■ include a program to eradicate French Broom from the
site.
C. Graded slopes within the proposed scenic easement in the
vicinity of Lots 13 and 14 should be revegetated using native
plant species', providing a mosaic of groundcover, shrub, and tree
plantings. Native species suitable for revegetation in the
easement area include: live oak (Quercus agrifolla), California
buckeye (Aesculus californica), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolis),
oso berry (Osmaronia cerasifornis), California wild rose (Rosa
californica), black sage (Salvia mellifera), purple sage (Salvia
leucophylia), California fuchsia (Zauschneiria californica),
California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and purpose
needle grass (Stipa pulchera).
Staff Response: These measures have been included within the
Conditions of Approval (Refer to COA #1 5, #16 and #17).
7. Impact: Tree Removal - Potential adverse impacts to most native trees
could be mitigated to a level of less than significance through adherence
to preservation guidelines.
EIR Mitigation: A qualified arborist should be retained by the applicant
to evaluate the condition of individual trees considered for preservation
within 50 feet of proposed building envelopes and roadways, both with
regard to their long-term health and desirability of preservation, and the
possible hazard posed to future residents of the site. Specific guidelines
should be developed to protect the canopy, trunk, and root zone of trees
to be retained. The guidelines should be completed and, where
appropriate, implemented prior to any construction on the site. The
guidelines should:
■ identify acceptable grading and excavation procedure,minimizing
grade changes and prohibiting trenching within the tree dripline;
18
■ require fencing along the outermost edge of the dripline ofeach
tree or group of trees to be retained within 20 feet of proposed
grading;
■ specify contractor responsibility to protect and repair damage to
individual trees;
■ establish limits of impervious surfaces, structures, and other
hardscape improvements within the dripline of individual trees;
and
■ provide necessary landscape restrictions, primarily to control
over-watering and changes to the tree root zone.
Staff Response: This measure has been included within the Conditions
of Approval (refer to COA #18).
C. Visual Quality and Aesthetics
7. Impact: Loss of Privacy - Provisions for landscape screening would
mitigate potential loss of privacy of adjacent residents to a level of less
than significant.
EIR Mitigation: Landscape screening should be provided along the
southern boundary of the site to protect the privacy of adjacent
downslope residents and to soften the visual impact of structures in
views from the south. A minimum 15-foot setback should be provided
along the southern property boundary, and a landscape easement
created to protect vegetation planted to serve as screening. Existing
trees should be retained to the extent feasible, particularly in the
southwestern corner of the site, with supplemental plantings provided
along the landscape corridor to protect the privacy of residents of
downslope properties.
Staff Response: These measures have been included within the
Conditions of Approval (refer to COA #18 and #19). Staff is further
recommending that subject to the agreement of neighboring property
owners to the south as well as to the west that additional screening
type trees be planted to help further screen the site from neighboring
property owners. These trees can be planted on neighboring properties.
8. Impact: Visual Character and Continuity - Potential for adverse visual
impacts could be mitigated to a level of less than significant through
detailed design review and possibly eliminating one lot along southern
boundary of site.
19
EIR Mitigation:
a. To ensure visual continuity between the project and adjacent
residences, the Tentative Map and proposed building and
landscaping plans for individual residences should be reviewed by
the County Zoning Administrator after receiving input from the
EI Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Committee. Future
review should focus on methods to provide adequate sideyard
setbacks and architectural variation in the rear elevations of lots
along the southern boundary of the site, including use of one and
two-story building elements.
b. The sideyard setbacks of lots along the southern boundary of the
site should be increased to break up the continuous mass of
structures in views from Heath Drive. If necessary, consider-
ation should be given to eliminating one of the proposed lots to
provide greater flexibility in siting residences and to increase the
aggregate sideyard setbacks.
Staff Response: These measures have been included within the
Conditions of Approval (refer to COA #2 and #20). Also, the EI
Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Committee receives copies of
development plans filed in the EI Sobrante area for review and com-
ments.
D. Traffic and Circulation
9. Impact: Project Access - Potential hazard created by additional project-
generated traffic could be mitigated to a level of less than significant
through improvements to proposed and existing access off Sobrante
Avenue.
EIR Mitigation:
a. Sobrante Avenue should be widened between the site access
and the Sobrante/Circle Drive westerly intersection to contain, at
a minimum, two 10-foot travel lanes and two 2-foot paved
shoulders. The roadway should be repaved in this area if not
done by the County.
b. The applicant should be required to contribute toward provision
of a pathway along one side of Sobrante Avenue between Valley
View Drive and the western Circle Drive intersection.
C. As directed by County Public Works staff, "no parking" signs
should be provided along project roadways to prevent on-street
parking where parking is to be prohibited.
20
d. Roadway improvements along the proposed private street,
including travel lanes, gutters, drainage system, sidewalk, and
any required utility relocation should be extended from the site
to Sobrante Avenue.
Staff Response: These measures have been included within the
Conditions of Approval (refer to COA #26).
10. Construction Equipment: Potential damage to roadways due to
construction vehicles and equipment could be mitigated to level of less
than significance through repair.
EIR Mitigation:
a. The applicant should be responsible for repairing any damage to
roadway surfaces attributable to construction vehicles and
equipment. The applicant should develop, in conjunction with
Public Works staff, a pavement monitoring program with before
and after video evidence of pavement conditions. In particular,
video evidence of pavement conditions for the three intersections
at the Appian Way/Sobrante Avenue/Valley View Road triangle
should be used to determine if the stop/start load impact of
project construction traffic results in damage to the pavement at
these intersections. All damaged pavement should be replaced
in accordance with County pavement design requirements. The
applicant should post a bond to ensure the proper repair of any
damage to pavement.
b. All project construction traffic should be restricted to using
Sobrante Avenue for access to the site. Delivery of heavy
equipment and construction materials should be made outside
the peak hour periods.
C. All area residents along Sobrante Avenue between Valley View
Road and the project access should be given prior warning on the
advent of heavy construction truck usage of Sobrante Avenue.
d. Prior to initiation of any construction, the applicant's representa-
tives should discuss with Public Works staff possible improve-
ments to Sobrante Avenue needed to eliminate potential hazards
to pedestrians, bicycles, and automobile traffic resulting from
project construction traffic. Specific insurance provisions should
be provided by the applicant which holds the County harmless in
the event of incidents involving project construction traffic.
Staff Response: These measures have been included within the
Conditions of Approval (refer to COA #5 and #26).
21
E. Hydrology and Drainage
11. Impact: Drainage Control - Potential for down gradient drainage
capacity problems could be mitigated to a level of less than significant
through drainage improvements and fee assessment.
EIR Mitigation:
To minimize the potential for flooding and adhere to County standards,
the following physical improvements,compliance requirements,and fees
are necessary:
■ improve the inlet to the 21-inch pipe which conveys run-off from
the site across Greenbrae Court to Heath Drive. This work
should be sufficient to enable the culvert to safely convey the
design storm peak flows.
■ replace the 12-inch pipe under Sobrante Avenue near the
proposed eastern access to the site with an 18-inch diameter
pipe. This would ensure adequate capacity and would comply
with the minimum standard adopted by the County Flood Control
District.
■ the project must comply with Division 914 of Title 9 of the
County Ordinance, and all drainage improvements would be
subject to approval during the improvement plan review.
■ a detailed drainage study should be conducted by a qualified
hydrologic engineer verifying the capacity of existing drainage
facilities from 5418 to 5360 Sobrante Avenue. If the existing
drainage facilities are inadequate, specific improvements should
be designed and implemented prior to creation of impervious
surfaces on the site.
■ the applicant should contribute drainage fees to help fund
planned improvements in the project vicinity, as established for
Drainage Assessment Area 73 and the San Pablo Creek drainage.
■ in addition to the Drainage Area 73 fees, the applicant should
contribute drainage fees to help fund improvements to Appian
Creek. The assessment would be based on 40.25 per square
foot of impervious surface area created by the development.
Staff Response: These measures have been included within the
Conditions of Approval (refer to COA 1#26).
' .
'
.
. .
22
12. Impact: Erosion and Sedimentation ' Potential for erosion and sedimen-
tation could be mitigated to a level of |naa than significant through
control of run-off, revegetation of graded slopes, and implementation of
Erosion-Control Plan.
A detailed Erosion Control Plan should be prepared for
the project prior to issuance of a grading permit. The plan should
include use ofsedimentation catch basins, provide detailed measures to
control erosion of stockpiled earth and exposed unU' and include
information on a monitoring program of the plan's effectiveness.
Aspects of the plan should include: `
�
Conditions that any sediment that may accumulate off-site be
removed, and additional silt fences or hay ba/ns placed to
intercept sediment generate during construction.
�
Concentrated run-off or sheet f|nvv should not be oUovv8d to
move over cut cvfill slopes, with drainage features incorporated
into the plan to protect these and other areas of disturbance
from erosion.
� Cut slopes should be stabilized using hydronnu|uhing or an
alterative but equally effective method and revogatated' prefera-
bly with native species common to the area.
Response:Staff 'These nnaosunao have been included within the
Conditions VfApproval (refer toCOA #5and #15). The County Grading
Ordinance also covers this area.
13. : Water Quality Degradation Although degradation Of water
quality isconsidered less than significant, a stOrnnvvaterdischarge permit
must be obtained bythe applicant.
'
EIR Mitigation:
Although the project contribution to water quality
degradation would not be significant, when combined with run-off from
other urban areas, the net result iadegraded receiving vvotana. The
applicant must obtain the necessary National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System stormwater discharge permit from the San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Staff Response: These rneaaunam have been included within the
Conditions of Approval (refer to Advisory Note C.).
F. Sanitary Sewer Service
14. Impact ' Service Provisions ' Annaxeton to the Sanitary District and
expansion ofexisting improvements would hnnecessary toservice the
23
EIR Mitigation:
a. Provision of sanitary sewer service to the proposed project would
require review and necessary annexation approvals by the Local
Agency Formation Commission and the West Contra Costa
County Sanitary District.
b. Requirements specified by the West Contra Costa County
Sanitary District, including off-site improvements and fee
contributions, must be met by the applicant to receive sanitary
sewer service.
Staff Response: These measures have been included within the
Conditions of Approval (refer to COA #23 & #25).
G. School Services
15. Impact - School Capacity - Project impacts on existing school capacity
could be mitigated to al level of less than significance through payment
of statutory fees.
EIR Mitigation - All residences constructed as part of the project would
be subject to the applicable school facilities development fees, or
alternatively the applicant may pay separate fees negotiated with the
District to mitigate impacts on school facilities.
Staff Response: These measures have been included within the
Conditions of Approval (refer to COA #24). It should be noted that the
applicant has agreed to Conditions of Approval in regards to schools
similar to that recently imposed on the Hillcrest development off of
Hillcrest Avenue.
X. CONCLUSION
The revised site plan as amended by the proposed Conditions of Approval will provide
a project which is sensitive to the project's environment, contains adequate protection
for hillside areas, and is consistent with the County General Plan. The project will
concentrate most of the development along the lower elevation portions of the site and
the more level portions of the site leaving the woodlands area and much of the steeper
part of the site in open space and within a scenic easement. The proposed Conditions
of Approval which include a scenic easement requirement, additional residential and
building standards, the reduction of at least two lots from the proposed development
as well as measures to handle the maintenance of the private road and the landscaping
on the site, and measures to plant additional landscaping on-site as well as, if
I
I
24
agreeable by neighboring property owners, on neighboring properties results in a
project which has achieved the proper balance between environmental constraints and
development opportunities of the site. Accordingly, the project application as
conditioned should be approved.
AB/aa
RZXII/2845-RZ.AB
2/24/94
3/14/94
i
FINDING AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR REZONING 2845-RZ
Findinas
A. The 18 unit project, as conditioned, is consistent with the County General Plan. The
project site plan and the site as amended by the proposed conditions will assure
aesthetic protection of the hillside areas. Special measures are provided to safe guard
against fire hazards (e.g., interior sprinklers, fire retardant roofs).
B. The project will constitute a residential environmental of sustainable desirability and
stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the nearby community. The
project which proposes lot sizes of approximately 5,200 t square feet to 15,000 t
square of net area is in character with the general range of parceh sizes located in the
surrounding area. Further, the project is proposing to set aside approximately 40% of
the total gross area of the site (2.71 acres of land, approximately) within an open
space scenic easement. The scenic easement would prevent the erection or
construction of structures within the upper portion of the site.
C. In accordance with the required findings of the Planned Unit District, the County finds
that the development of a harmonious integrated plan like this project as amended by
the attached Conditions of Approval, justifies exceptions from the normal application
of the Ordinance Code, including variations in parcel configuration and design to
provide better conformity with the environmental features of this site.
2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR REZONING 2845-RZ
NOTE: MM - refers to the Mitigation Measures in the project EIR.
1. Development shall be based on the following exhibits except as modified by conditions
herein:
A. Revised tentative development plan dated August, 1991 .
B. Partial development plan showing cross-sections of proposed Lots 1 through 9
dated March 24, 1993
C. Geotechnical investigation on the site conducted by Alan Kropp & Associates
in 1989 and amended to review the proposed revised plan in 1991 .
2. A maximum of 18 single family residential lots shall be permitted with this develop-
ment. Proposed Lot 5 shall be eliminated and one lot between proposed Lots 10 and
14 shall be eliminated, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
(MM Response Document, page 1-10, page 1-14)
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. Prior to issuance of building permits on any site, the Zoning Administrator shall review
and approve the final development plans for each residential unit.
5. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits on the site, the applicant should
be aware of the following guidelines having to do with construction on the site. (MM,
Response Document, Page 1-10 and 1-11, 1-15, 1-17)
Comply with the following construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements:
A. Noise generating construction activities, including such things as power
generators, shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M., Monday
through Friday, and shall be prohibited on State and Federal holidays. The
restrictions on allowed working days may be modified on prior written approval
by the Zoning Administrator.
B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all
internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall
locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and
concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible.
.
. ^
. . �
~
.. ` .
3
C. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post
the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior
boundary of the project site and residents along Sobrante Avenue he1vvean
Valley View and the project entrance notice that construction work will
commence. The notice shall include.alist Pfcontact persons with name, title,
phone number and area ofresponsibility. The person responsible for maintain-
ing thg |ist shall baincluded. The list shall be kept current atall times and shall
consist of persons with authority tmindicate and innp|ennon1 corrective action
intheir area mfresponsibility. The names Ofthe individual responsible for noise
and litter control shall beexpressly identified inthe notice. The notice shall be
reissued with each phase 0fmajor grading activity. '' ~
A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the Cmrnrnmni1y
Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by m list of the
names and addresses ofthe property owners noticed,and amap identifying the
area noticed.
D. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator. Any violation of the approved program or
applicable ordinances shall require animmediate work stoppage. Construction
work shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate
construction bond has been posted.
E. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing
neighborhood traffic flows. Prior toissuance ofbuilding permits, the proposed
roads serving this development shall bgconstructed toprovide access to each
lot. This shall include provision for an on-site area in which to pork earth
moving equipment. The construction entrance road shall befenced and gated.
6. Prior to the issuance of building permits,the applicant shall submit a detailed TOM Plan
for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator (unless otherwise required by a
` T/]K4 Ordinance). The approved TDM Plan shall be operative prior tofinal inspection
by the Building Inspection Department.
7' The developer shall pay a fee of $400.00 per lot toward child care facility needs in the
area amestablished by the Board of Supervisors.
B. The owner of the property shall participate in the provision of funding to maintain and
augment police services byvoting tmapprove aspecial tax for the parcels created by
this subdivision approval. The tax ahoU be the per parcel annual amount (with
appropriate future CPI od'ua1rnont) then established otthe time of voting by the Board
of Supervisors. The election toprovide for the tax shall be completed prior tothe filing
of the Parcel Map. The property owner shall be responsible for paying the cost of
holding the election, payable at the time that the election is requested by the owner.
'
4
9. The development may be done in a phasing program which may be submitted at the
time of the submittal for the final development plan and subdivision of the site subject
to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
10. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9,the applicant(including the subdivider
or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Cosa
County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
action, or proceeding against the .Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this
subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such
claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense.
11. Proposed Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be submitted for review with
the Tentative Subdivision Map, and shall be subject to review and approval by the
Zoning Administrator. This document shall provide for establishment, ownership and
maintenance of the common open space and parking, fire protection, fencing, private
streets and drainage maintenance, keeping of pets and establishment of signs.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC & Rs) developed for this project shall
include the following deed restrictions (MM. Response Document, Page 1-11):
A. No recreational vehicle, boat, boat trailer or mobilehome shall be stored on the
site overnight. Exterior materials and colors shall not vary from the palette
approved for the original homes.
12. A suitable road maintenance agreement shall be formed for the maintenance of the
private street and any landscaping along this street subject to the review and approval
of the Public Works Department and the Zoning Administrator. (MM, Response
Document, Page 1-11)
13. A copy of the project's Final Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be submitted
to the Community Development Department prior to filing the Final Map. (MM
Response Document, Page 1-11)
14. The design of each residential unit when submitted for the final development plan shall
include the proper sprinkling of the house to meet the requirements of the Uniform Fire
Code and/or the requirements of the local fire district.
15. At least 30 days prior to the request for the issuance of any grading permit on this site
an erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
County Zoning Administrator. Erosion control plan shall provide for the following
measures (MM, Response Document, Page 1-11 , 1-12, 1-17):
A. All grading, excavation, filling shall be conducted during the dry season, May
1st to October 1st only. All areas of exposed soils shall be replanted to
minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October 1 st only erosion
control work shall be allowed by the grading permit. Any modification to the
,
. .
. .
^
, .
5
above schedule shall be subject to review and approval by the Grading Section
of the Building Inspection Department and the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator.
A revegetation plan prepared by a professional plant ecologist (not a landscape
architect) shall be submitted as port of the erosion control plan. The areas to
be replanted shall be planted in California native species indigenous to the local
area.
Means to properly control dust shall be provided on the site during dry periods.
16' When the Final Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map imsubmitted the oak
wood land areas and the proposed scenic easement that shall be clearly delineated and
displayed onthe subdivision map. The application shall include detailed restrictions on
use of -the scenic easement area and how tree removal shall be reviewed and
approved. (K4K4, gespomae Document, PuQa 1-12)
17' At least 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or filing of a Final Map, a
grading/tree preservation plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator. The plan shall identify all trees with 8 trunk circumference of
30 inches or more, 4!6 feet above the ground' The trunk size' species and approxi-
mate drip. line of each qualifying tree shall be identified on the plan, and whether the
tree is proposed to be removed or preserved. The objective of the review in part shall
betominimize the removal of existing mature trees. The plan shall be accompanied
by a report from a qualified arborist on the proposed plan recommending measures to
protect trees as appropriate during the construction and post-construction stages. The
recommended measures from the arborist shall be integrated into o, otherwise
attached to the proposed grading plan. Prior to grading the drip line oftrees shall be
fenced to help guide and keep construction equipment out of the area under trees to
be saved. (K4K4' Response Document, Page 1-12 fk 1-13)
18' The final development plan and subdivision application shall be accompanied by a
detailed landscaping plan showing the proposed landscaping along the southerly miUa
of the site and any proposed landscaping to be done on the neighboring properties to
help screen 1harn from the development of the residences uphill. (MM, Response
Document, Page 1-1 1 ' 1'14)
19' When the Final Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map is submitted the
applicant shall indicate the location oftrees 10 be planted on the property near the
west property setbacks so that they will be outside of any widening of the proposed
public street. The applicant shall indicate that they have met and reached agreement
with the neighboring Vvvngro regarding the location ofthese trees. (W1K4' Response to
Document, page 1-11. 1'14)
�
.^
20. The application for Final Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map shall include
detailed elevations of lots to be located to the south of the private street and detailed
elevations of the residences proposed for the lots above the private street. Typical
elevations may be submitted for the lots that will front on the proposed public street.
(K4K8' Response to Document, Page 1-10' 1-14)
21. Prior to filing the Tentative Map, the applicant shall indicate that they have contacted
the neighboring owner at the southwesterly corner of the site to determine if they can
work out olot line adjustment between the properties. !fthis has been accomplished
prior tofiling the Tentative Map, then this shall be mo shown on the revised Final
C>av8|oprnant Plan and the Tentative Map.
22. When the Tentative Subdivision Map and Final Development Plan are submitted the
hnuoedeaigna shall include proper wiring for the future recharging of electrical
vehicles.
23. The site shall be served by the East Bay Municipal Utility District for water. Each unit
shall have oseparate water connection. The area shall be served bythe West Contra
Costa Sanitary District. Each unit shall have a separate sanitary sewer connection.
(MK8' Response Document, Page 1'17)
24. The conditions of approval for school services imposed on any subsequently filed final
development plan and/or subdivision shall generally read as follows <K4M' Response
Document, Page ?-18>:
Applicant will voluntarily contribute $3.45 per square foot of residential development
tothe Richmond Unified School District. This contribution shall bemade inlieu ofany
otherwise applicable school impact fees.
A. The contribution shall becalculated and paid aaeach new dwelling unit is sold
tnaninitial purchaser and ohoU be paid at the close of escrow on each unit.
_
Each home purchase contract for the initial sale of o project unit shall require
that the escrow instructions for the sale provide for the contribution tnbgmade
to the District at the close of escrow.
B. The District shall be responsible for establishing a Mello-Roos district for the
use of the funds contributed under this condition for the improvement and
enhancement of the schools to be attended by the children of the residents of
this development. The Mello-Roos district so established ahuU oorno|y with
Education Code §177O5.Gand Government Code §53313.4and the contribu-
tion made pursuant to this condition shall be considered e special tax for the
purposes of those code sections. The applicant's responsibility for the Mello-
Roos district shall be limited to voting for its establishment. No fags or
assessments ohuU be imposed on the project as a result of the Mello-Roos
district other than the contributions specified in this condition.
C. The amount ofthe contribution made t0the District shall be reduced ifatany
time prior tothe sale Ofthe last home, the County approves a project within the
.
. ^
` .
^ `
7
District involving a legislative act with conditions of approval that require a
lesser pmynlamt for school-related purposes than is imposed by this omndition^
in that event, the contribution made at each o|Ooe of ma000vv after the County
has approved such other project shall be on amount equivalent to the amount
to be poid.bythe other project.
D. |nthe event that the Board ofthe School District does not ratify the acceptance
ofthis condition, |i ntsha8 pay the otherwise applicable fee of $2.85 per
square foot or payable prior tuissuance of each
building permit.
` ..
25' The tentative map shaUindicote a means to connect the existing residence to the
sanitary sewer system. (MM, Response Document, Page 1-17)
26' The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road, and utility improvements will
require the review and approval of the Public Works Department, and are based on the
"Revised Plan 2845-RZ" dated August, 1991 . This development shall comply with the
.requirements ofTitle 8'Division 9l4and Division lC}06mfthe County Ordinance Code.
WovveVec' the recommended conditions of approval have been basad on the
requirements for m subdivision since it appears that the developers intent is to
subdivide and develop this property' Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically
listed in this conditional approval statement.
A.
ON-SITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS:
1> Construct the roadway along the westerly property line as 28-foot
road within a 40'foot right of way which can be ultimately widened to
a 36-foot road within e 5G-footright ofway. Construct curb and 4-foot
6-inch sidewalk(width measured from curb face)along the easterly edge
of the roadway, necessary longitudinal and traversed drainage and
pavement. The curb face shall be located 1O-feet from the right of way
line. Construct a temporary turnaround in the vicinity of the northerly
`
terminus ofthis road.
2> Construct the rued along the southerly portion of this property as 20'
foot paved private roadway (width measured from curb face) within a
30'funtaccess easement where parking isnot required and aae28'font
paved private roadway (width measured from curb face) within a 38-
footaccess easement where parking iarequired. The private road shall
be curbed on both sides and shall be bordered with a 4-foot 6-inch
sidewalk along the north side for pedestrian traffic. The road easement
shall extent 1-foot north Ofthe proposed sidewalk. The private road
shall be aligned with the easterly extension of Andrew Way tothe vveSt'
The north-south public road shall intersect with the easterly extension
of Andrew Way at a right angle, subject to the review of the Public
Works Department, Engineering Services Division. Adequate parking
8
bays shall be provided to minimize the need for on-street parking,
subject to the review of the Public Works Department and the review
and approval of the Zoning Administrator
3) Widen street frontages to ultimate half-section widths (MM, DEIR, Page
3-46).
B. OFF-SITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS:
1) Construct the roadway from the easterly portion of the on-site roadway
to the point where it turns south to intersect with-Sobrante Avenue as
a 20-foot roadway with 2-foot gravel shoulders
..........'t# ett `id
within a 40-foot access easement. The roadway shall be curbed en
beth a 4-foot 6-inch sidewalk along the north side for
pedestrian traffic.
2) Construct the proposed private roadway from the point where it turns
south to intersect with Sobrante Avenue to Sobrante Avenue as a 36-
foot road within a 56-foot right of way with curb on both sides, 4-foot
6-inch sidewalk along the westerly side, and necessary longitudinal and
transverse drainage.
3) Extend roadway improvements including travel lanes, gutters, drainage,
sidewalk, and any required utility relocations from the site to Sobrante
Avenue. (MM, Response Document, page 1-15.)
DEIR, page 3 42.)
5) Widen Sobrante Avenue between the site access and the Sobrante
Avenue/Circle Drive westerly intersection to contain, at a minimum, two
10-foot travel lanes and two 2-foot paved shoulders. The applicant shall
repave the roadway in this area if not done by the County. (MM, DEIR,
page 3-42.)
6) Widen Sobrante Avenue between Circle Drive and Valley View Road to
provide two 10-foot lanes and two 2-foot paved shoulders, subject to
the review and approval of the Public Works Department.
7) The applicant shall be required to design and construct a path between
Valley View Drive and the project access near the westerly Circle Drive
intersection. If the applicant wants reimbursement from future
development for a portion of the path he shall execute a reimbursement
agreement and submit a study analyzing anticipated development which
would be benefitted by this path; an estimate of the cost o f the
proposed work; and a segregation of the costs. The DEIR states that
9
the applicant should be required to contribute toward provision of a
pathway along one side of Sobrante Avenue between Valley View Drive
and the westerly Circle Drive intersection (MM, DEIR, page 3-42). The
DEIR also requires the applicant to eliminate potential safety hazards to
bicyclists, pedestrians and automobile traffic prior to initiation of any
construction (MM, Response Document, page 1-16). If it is determined
that a 4-foot path is not feasible along Sobrante Avenue, the applicant
shall be required to provide a 2-foot paved shoulder and a 4-foot rock
shoulder on one side of the road for pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
8) Mitigate the cumulative impact of connection of this property to Andrew
Way:
: >> » rtt bate 8 pry ret8 there of the fllt�wing impraverryer#S.,tp.,
...........
(Fund »o. 819.200 O.80t�):
(1) Install a "Stop Sign" on the Andrew Way approach to Rancho
Road. (MM, DEIR, page 3-46.)
(2) Widen and repave (where needed) Andrew Way between Argyle
Road and the north site access to contain, at a minimum, two
10-foot lanes and two 4-foot paved shoulders. (MM, DEIR, page
3-46.)
(3) Install a stop sign on the northbound Andrew Way approach to
the Andrew Way/Argyle Road intersection. (MM, DEIR, page 3-
46.)
(4) Argyle Road should be widened to provide a second approach
lane (one for left turns and one for right turns) to the Appian
Way intersection. Other benefitting projects, including the EI
Sobrante Christian School, should contribute toward this
roadway improvement (MM, DEIR, page 3-47). The applicant
shall be required to construct these improvements at this time.
If the applicant wants reimbursement for a portion of these
improvements, he shall execute a reimbursement agreement with
the County and submit a study analyzing anticipated develop-
ment which would be benefitted by these improvements; an
estimate of the cost of the proposed work; and a segregation of
the costs.
(5) Align the future extension of Andrew Way to provide the
maximum amount of clear space between the roadway and
existing residences located northeast of the existing roadway
terminus (MM, DEIR, page 3-47). Andrew Way should be
designed to intersect the proposed public north-south road on
�
'
' ^
10
this subdivision at 80 deOnag intersection. The alignment of
the public and private rmodxvuya in this subdivision shall be
modified to reflect this.
C. ROAD DEDICATIONS:
1) Convey tothe County, by Offer of Dedication, 40 feet of right of way
for the planned future road along the westerly property line for the
planned future roadway north of the Andrew Way extension. The
property owner shall also provide easement rights to the adjacent
property owner and succeeding property ovvnedslfor access tothis
roadway and installation ofroad improvements.
D. STREET LIGHTS:
l) Install street lights along the frontage of the proposed public roadway
along the westerly boundary ofthis property and annex the property to
County Service Area L-100 for maintenance of the street lights. The
final number and location ofthe lights shall bedetermined bythe Public
Works Department, Road Engineering Division.
2) Application for annexation to County Service Area L'100 Lighting
District shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits or filing
of the Final Map.
E. REPAIR OF CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC DAMAGE TO ROADS:
1> Oovg|Vp a pavement monitoring program in conjunction with the Public
Works Department (use before and after video evidence of pavement
condition[ In particular analyze the three intersections at the Appian
Way/Sobrante Avenue/Valley View Road triangle(unless these roadways
have been recently improved by a recent County project) to determine
if the stop/start load impact of project construction traffic results in
damage tnthe pavement. Replace all docnogad pavement per County
design standards. The applicant should post a bond to ensure the
proper repair mfany damage to pavement (MM, Response Ooounnant'
`
page 1'16). The monitoring program shall include the portion of
Subranta Avenue between the project's access and Valley View Drive.
The pavement evaluation study shall be conducted with the County.
The applicant shall berequired topost bonds tnensure proper repair Of
damage tothe pavement.
2) Restrict construction treffiCtuusing 80branteAvenue for access t0the
site. Restrict delivery ofheavy equipment and construction materials to
outside the peak hour periods. Contractors responsibility (MM,
Response Duounl8nt' page 1'15). The applicant shall ensure that the
contractor responsibility implement this condition.
\ °
. . .
F. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
1> Submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer,
payment of review and inspection fees, and security for all improve-
ments required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions of approval for
nmprove'rnemtaraquiredbytheOrdinanoeCodoorthmconditimnaofapprovalfor
this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage
and stripping plans for review by the Public Works Department, Road
Engineering Division. The improvement plans ohoU be signed by a
geotechnical engineer.
2) Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services
Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits
and/#r easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or
pernmanent' road and drainage improvements.
3) Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services
Division, that |eQo} access to the property is available from Sobrante
Avenue.
4) Prevent storm drainage originating on the property and conveyed in a
concentrated manner, from draining across the sidewalks and drive-
ways.
5} Provide for adequate sight distance at this project's access to Sobrante
Avenue, and otthe intersection Vfthis project's p/ivateroadintersgction
with the proposed public road which connects with SobranteAvenue in
`
accordance with CALTRANSstandards for a 35 mile per hour design
speed.
6) Garages shall be setback:
o. On private road, at least 20'faet from the bock of sidewalk or
' 22-feetfrom the curb face, whichever is greater. If the garages
are set back less than 20-feet from the road easement line, the
.
applicant shall install vertical rima garage doors with automatic
garage door openers.
b. On public road, at least 17-fagt from the fright of way Ung. If
the garages are set back less than 20'feat from the fight of way
|ine, the applicant shall install vertical rise garage doors with
automatic garage door openers.
7) On all public roads with longitudinal slopes \eao than 896, all public
pedestrian access ways shall be designed in accordance with Title 24
(Handicap access). This shall include all driveway depressions as well
ashandicap ramps.
~
^ .
' .
12
8> |nu1aU "No Parking" signs along project roadways to prevent on-street
parking, where parking is to he prohibited. (K8KA' DE|R. page 3'42')
9} Provide deed notification and signing to inform prospective property
owners that the fd|ovvnQ roads may be extended in the future: The
proposed road along the westerly property line may be extended to the
north in the future and may be extended westerly to connect with
`
Andrew Way.
10) Maintenance responsibilities should be clearly defined as part of the
project (K4K4, Response Document, pa0e"1-1 1),. Develop and anter into
omaintenance agreement that will insure that the proposed private road
'will be maintained and that each property owner in this development
that uses the proposed private road will share in its maintenance.
1 1} Pay on off-site per unit traffic mitigation fee (MM, [}E|R' page 3-46)'
The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the
Bridge/Thoroughfare Fag Ordinance for the B Sobrante Area of Benefit
as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
12> Contact all area residents along Sobrante Avenue between Valley View
Road and the project aocesopriortoadvantofhaavyoonatruotiontruok
usage of Sobrente Avenue. (MM' Response Document, page 1-15')
13) Prior toinitiation ofany construction,the applicant's representative shall
discuss with Public Work's staff possible improvements to Sobrante
Avenue needed to eliminate potential safety hazards to bicyclists,
pedestrians, and automobile traffic resulting from project construction
traffic. Specific insurance provisions should be provided by the
applicant which hold the County harmless in the vont of incidents
involving project construction traffic. (MM, Response Document, page
1-16.)
G.
1) Underground all utility distribution services along the proposed public
road. This shall include existing distribution facilities, if any, along the
frontage ofthat road.
H. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS:
1) This development ah8U COnf0rnn to the requirements Of Division 914
(Drainage) of the Subdivision Ordinance (MM, DE|R' page 3-51 ).
CnOfOnnanC8 with Division 9814includes the following requirements:
"
. .^
13
a. Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the
subject property, without diversion and within onadequate storm
drainage facility, toonatural watercourse having definable bed
and banks or to an existing adequate public storm drainage
.
facility vvhiob conveys the storm waters to a natural water-
course.
b. Designing and constructing a1orrn drainage facilities required by
Division 914 in accordance with specifications outlined in
Division 914 and in compliance with design standards of the
Public Works Department. ` ~
C. The Ordinance prohibits the discharging of concentrated storm
'
waters into roadside ditches.
2) Install, within a dedicated drainage easement, any portion of the
drainage system which conveys run-off from a public street'
-
3) Improve the inlet to the 314nch pipe which conveys run-off from the
site across Grg8nbra8 Court to Heath Drive' (K4W1, DBR' page 3-52^)
4) Replace the 12-inch pipe under Sobrente Avenue near the proposed
eastern access tVthe site with an 18'imoh diameter pipe. (K8K4, DE|R'
page 3-52.)
5) Provide adgtai|ed drainage study, prepared by a qualified hydrologic
engineering Mverifying the capaoityofexisting drainage faoiU1ioafr0nn
5418 to 5360 8ob,ante Avenue If the existing drainage facilities
specific improvements should be designed and implemented prior to
creation ofimpervious surface on the site. (N4K4' Response Document,
page 1'16.)
0) The applicant shall construct creek capacity improvements aacalled out
' inthe "San Pablo Creek Watershed Study" and asdirected bythe Public
VVovhm Department, Flood control Division.
OR, ATTHE APPLICANT'S OPTION
Contribute $0.25/square foot of additional impervious surface area to
the San Pablo Creek watershed mitigation fund' to be used for creek
capacity improvements to Appian Creek within the San Pablo Creek
Drainage Area. (K4K8' Response Dnournont' page |'1G.)
The C>BRrequires that the applicant pay the drainage improvement fees
tofund on-going improvements tOlocal storm drainage facilities within
Drainage Area 73. (MM, DE|R' page 3'52.)
14
ADVISORY NOTES
PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUT
ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED
FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OS ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE
REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT.
A. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of fish & Game.
It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish & Game, P.O. Box
47,Yountville, California 94599,of any proposed construction within this development
that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish & Game Code.
B. This project may also be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers.
The applicant should notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to
determine if a permit is required and if it can be obtained.
C. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal, construc-
tion and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources
Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay-
Region II or Central Valley - Region V). The DEIR requires that the applicant obtain the
necessary NPDES stormwater discharge permit from the SFRWQCB. (MM, DEIR, page
3-52. and Response Document, Page 1-17).
D. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the
Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the EI Sobrante Area of Benefit as adopted by
the Board of Supervisors.
E. The applicant will be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for
Drainage Area 73 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The DEIR requires that the
applicant contribute drainage fees to help fund planned improvements in the project
vicinity, as established for Drainage Assessment Area 73 and the San Pablo Creek
drainage. (MM, DEIR, page 3-51 .)
NOTE: "MM" refers to the Mitigation Measures in the Project Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) and Response Document.
AB/aa
RZXIX/2845-RZC.AB
2/24/94
3/14/94
. ('01" RA COSTA ENVIRONMENTAL COLLABORATIVE
9%J
JUL 23 pM 2; 3 NSULTATION • DOCUMENTATION • RESTORATION
7 Western Drive • Pt Richmond,CA 94801 • (510)236-2361
DEVELOpp,9EHT DEP
16 July 1993 j
Mr. Art Beresford
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 94553-0095
SUBJECT: Response to Letter Correspondence from Bob Sullivan
of.the EI Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee
Regarding the Response to Comment Document for the Final EIR
on the Silk Stone Hill Project
Dear Art:
As you know, Bob Sullivan of the EI Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee submitted
written comments on the Response to Comment Document of the Final Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) on the Silk Stone Hill project. The two letters, dated 2 July and 11 July 1993, request further
evaluation of the conformance of the proposed project and R-10 Alternative discussed in the Response
to Comment document to policies of the County General Plan and relevant Zoning Ordinances, and
questioned the adequacy of the EIR without a detailed lot by lot analysis. While I believe the Draft EIR
and Response to Comment document together provide a thorough evaluation of the issues raised by Mr.
Sullivan (including the responses to Comments A-2 through A-9), the following discussion should serve
to clarify information regarding conformance to the County General Plan.
The Land Use section of the Draft EIR provides a detailed discussion of the conformance of the project
to policies in the County General Plan and the minimum development requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. Policies of relevance to the project are listed on pages 3-5 through 3-8, and a discussion of
conformance is provided on pages 3-8 and 3-9 of the Draft EIR. Of particular concern to Mr. Sullivan is
the relationship of the proposed project and R-10 Alternative to Policies 8-6 and 8-14 of the Conservation
Element, and Policy 9-11 of the Open Space Element, which call for limiting development on hillsides to
maintain valuable natural vegetation and control erosion. The policies state that hillsides with a slope of
26 percent or greater °shall be protected' through implementation of zoning measures and other
appropriate actions. Figures 11 and 14 on pages 3-10 and 3-16 of the Draft EIR, respectively, were
prepared to show the existing slopes and extent of woodland canopy in the vicinity of proposed
improvements.
As concluded on page 3-9 of the Draft EIR, the proposed scenic easement would serve to protect most
of the woodland vegetation on the site, consistent with Policies 8-6, 8-12, 8-28, 9-12, 9-19, and 9-20 of
the General Plan. As discussed in the response to Comment A-7 on page 3-4 of the Response to
Comment document, substantial removal of woodland vegetation could result under the R-10 Alternative
unless building envelope restriction in excess of those specified in the minimum development
requirements were imposed on many of the lots, particularly on the upper elevations of the lots above
the public and private street. To avoid areas of dense woodland, building envelopes would generally
have to conform with the upper elevational limits shown on the lots for the project as proposed. With
these additional restrictions, only one or possibly two lots would require additional removal of woodland
vegetation to accommodate building sites under the R-10 alternative, as indicated by the extent of canopy
Mr. Art Beresford
16 July 1993
Page 2
in Figure 27 when compared with Figure 14; specifically the second lot upslope from the private street
when entering the site off Sobrante Avenue and possibly the fourth lot upslope from the private street.
As -indicated in Figure 11, the existing slope on most of the site exceeds 26 percent, and development
has been generally restricted to the southern and western edges of the property where slopes are gentler.
The building sites on Lots 10-13 of the proposed project occur on steep slopes exceeding 26 percent,
while varying portions of the nine lots(Lots 1-9)downslope from the private road also have lots exceeding
26 percent. Most of the building sites on lots along the public street (Lots 1420) oqpur on slopes of less
than 26 percent. It should be noted that the size of Lots 10-13 are intentionally larger in consideration
of the steeper slopes and need to prepare individual building plans for each of these lots. The net area
of Lots 10-13 averages 30,600 if, over three times the minimum lot size for the current R-10 zoning of
the site. Preservation of most of the woodland vegetation on the site, the larger lot sizes proposed as
part of the project on steeper lots, and implementation of measures in the Draft EIR to minimize the
potential for severe erosion were considered to provide consistency with the relevant General Plan
policies and adequately mitigate potential adverse impacts of the project.
Under the R-10 Alternative'depicted in Figure 27, two additional lots are Indicated in the area generally
encompassed by proposed Lots 10-14 (the portion of the site where the slope of the entire building
envelope would exceed 26 percent). As stated on page 3-9 of the Draft EIR, under strict interpretation
development on the steeper portions of the site with slopes exceeding 26 percent could be considered
inconsistent with the slope-related policies of the General Plan. However, the relevant policies of concern
simply state that steep slopes"shall be protectedg, not that development shall specifically be prohibited
on slopes of 26 percent or greater. The discussion of the R-10 Aftemative on page 3-4 of the Response
to Comment document notes that the number of residences indicated along the uphill side of the private
road may realistically have to be reduced, but could be accommodated using standard lot dimensions
while still avoiding most of the oak woodland. The County currently does not have a slope-related
ordinance which would provide specific criteria for development on the steeper portions of the site, and
adherence to the relevant General Plan policies is open to interpretation.
I hope this serves to clarify concerns raised by Mr. Sullivan regarding conformance of the project and R-
10 alternative to the County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Please feel free to contact me at
510/236-2361 if you have any questions or would like further explanation of any of the above issues.
Sincerely,
E VIRONMENTAL COLLABORATIVE
Jam A. Martin
Princ* al
A
Sob-ant- Vai --- ey Pianningi Zon:.-.-
AavlsC-,-,l comrl,.ttee-
7-
-Sax
on t
a i-v5 a o,,=, .:i.. 7 j e o--m et e i:.a r t-m
P i n,e S r e e z , F o u r t�h F o!C r Ncr,-', W., nc-
)
z Ca
2
e
r Ar
..._w_ D
n B e r e z- or S: n- ianner
S; �D d I v,.i s i c,- 7 !06 F"Z/
C,;:" "a r--' A v e.ri H e Jim eH r e a - C"o n t a o s a o u
e s p c n s e i0 C;o mr.r;e is 15 o u ie,, n a I EEE,n v i r o n-:e n e n r I
year Art :
'MV �Ler-Zer at -993Z en,
-P.an Pc'-; -" cy in cons".s ze:nces regarding. the cur--renz R- C', 7-on,
Z, 11 e I 'Z�Y t-I I%C a a s
e.*,:-- sz ria R- zonl-ng as an alternative to the proposed 17 or
s e esponse
ry s-an6a.",6 cor.z.4.ae-r;F -.-; or
-ammen ts- Doc,,.zir-en In a d.eq---i z e I y ac c,r e s s e o q--1 e s on ,
C', r e.
aeve- DIDI),ei-- i �a-S,-:-, C-Ules—
art eo w ?:Gr!I., o- r.
es e o,:
c; i(a o n c
e-e�a L, or, el-
e spe—
r e n r) '0:_.-- .. -g. -,
W 0 0 7: C a 0'- w-i c A
p 0- C. es WOu Im d e V- -:D
o f J-i e :egree of -c-- formance
Ne would - .ke a I,--, I o e a I _' �L �.� -
under R-10 zo---na . -=:s a zable migh-_ save a.-d
wou i a i)e acceDta:D-., e as a :-:e-suo-se --o our cues -- on .
.L,q.Ls reaues-- no-- ra--sea to waste -,n.e -+me cf. t"ne Boa-a
Z4: . - -- -- il- -is an f f-o r t c d e r s c o r e ou
pianning st"al. . We n-u-
su
aegree or c c,m m e o n.�a i z n i n a e-n e r 7P I a n a n z 0-L I
0 1 1 cl P-s 1-1 OIL V D"i s ?ace u a s may al-e%- e appr o a c
:C, the a-e v a pm,en o acjacent parcels .
Ou r uoarc< C SI e s essential n o T. .a z I o n to i E QA
c o m o 1, ]lance . -v e
ID
IC,e 1, r a r 0 n U
As UO Cr- a 11 0 :,.ave any ".,A e S I c S 1-e a a a].,-I g
c: r e s o n d-f--n c e E r e e ,D a,-- me at 21 9 6 9 5 .
Robe-. -
EI Sobrante Valley Plannilig and Zoning; Advisory (;ommittec;
Y.U. Isox 20136
Fl Sobrante, CA 94820-0136
Contra Costa Community Development Depsrtmcr►t
651 Pine Street, Fourth Floor -- North Wing
Martinez, CA 9,1553-0095
July 11, 19,43
Attn: Mr Arthur Beresford, Senior Planner
Re: Silk Stone Hill Project-Subdivision 7706 - County File #2845-RZ
Located off Sobrante Avenue) El Sobrante Area, Contra Costa County, CA
Response to Comments Document, FF.1R
Dear Art:
As a follow-up too my letter of July 2,1993, 1 wish to state my concern that
EIR adequacy requires an evaluation not only of development under the existing
zoning (as it may or may not conform to General Plan policies), but also a
comparative evaluation of existing versus proposed zoning.
Development under P-1 zoning should provide greater conformance to all
applicable policies of the County General Plan than could be achieved under
existing (R-10) zoning. Is this the case?
Prior to making a judgement on the adequacy of the EIR, the County should
consider a lot by lot General Plan conformance evaluation under both zoning
designations (existing versus proposed), and determine which might provide the
greater degree of conformance. It is very likely that a development plan under
either zoning designation would not conform to applicable policies. in that case,
it is customary in an EIR to offer a modified development plan that would comply
With the General Plan policies.
We request that modified plans be presented under BOTH existing and
proposed zoning designations epic ing 'Tentative Map lot layouts that would
conform to all applicable General Plan polio, even if this would substantially
reduce the total number of lots, This is the purpose of the planning process: to
examine development proposals and modify them, if necessary, to apcompliyh the
community's planning goals.
As stated in my original response to the DFIR (my letter of April 12, 1993),
Ave believe that 50 to 60 percent of the P-1 proposal violates the County General
Plan Vegetation and Wildlife Policies 8-6, 8-14, and also is inconsistent with Policy
8--28. As stated in my rosponse of July 21 we need to see a lot by lot evaluation of
the degree of conformance of a realistic R-10 _proposal. Without such information,
how can the County decision-makers make an informed judgement on the merits of
the zone change application?
As always, should you have any qucsLions regarding this correspondence feel
free to contact me at 223-9695•
- - - - - - - - - - - ------- ------------- - ---------- - ---- --- -- - - - - - - -- ------ ---- --------------------- -- --- -- --
T U L - i - g h1 C1 f4 -r [ 1 7 1--- L_ SO BRTRQ: P 0i
r. Y Y
A•
Sincerely,
4&fe,&
Robert Sullivan
BI Sobrante Valley Planning
& Zoning Advisory Committee
cc: Carriage Hills North N.C.
Countryside N.C.
Greenbrlar N.C.
may Valley N.C.
Hilltop & Ma2ior N.C.
Sl Sobrante Chamber of Commerce
Michael Woldemar & As3sou.
Swede Davis
Robert Fukuda
Janet Santos Cobb
03/i?7/1V:14 10:57 I/R DIV QR - NEW PROD DEV 4154572573 12710075 PAM
Pax Transmittal Datad.�.�
Fart of worldwkle 1rgww.1.-PW,*d
P.O. Box 193324 From,,, rt:ye415ZC.-
San Francisco,,CA 94119
I
DIVISION ENGINEERING & TECtMOLOGY
2401 Sayshore Blvd= Telephone #: (415) 467-1100
Son Francisco,CA 04134 Fax Number (415) 467-2573
Fax#
Including this ficesheet there should be a total of pageM.
ZM_
03/Vffi'iiV--f4 10:59 I/R D1 V UH - taw PKID DEV 41:>4b• ,=r s IefIkVffra r.161
March 7, 1994
Mr. Art Beresford
County Administration Fuilding -•
651 Fine Street, Room IV
Martinez, CA 94553.4095
RE,: Silk Stone Project- County file #2845RZ
Dear Mr. Beresford:
I am submitting a copy o'the letter sent to you in April of 1993 regarding the
proposed Silk Stone Hill Project. The reasons for opposition to this development and
any change in zoning made in the letter are the same this year as they were last year
and will continue to be the same for any future proposals. The steepness of the
hillside and limited building space make it obvious that this is an ill conceived plan
that does not warrant futare consideration.
Thank you,
Doug & Laurel Gloff
s21 Greensbrae Ct,
El Sobrante, CA
E
1
{
I .
Q3/07/3.994 1059 I/R DIV Gni — NEW PROD DEV 41154672573 12?10075 P.02
t
i
To: Art Beresford ` April 8, 1953
County Administration Bldg.
651 Pine St. Room 147
Martinez, Ca. 94663.0095
From: Doug & Laurel Gloff
21 Greenbrae Ct.,
El Sobrante,Ca.
Subject,, Silk Stone Hill. Project
Our property is adjacent to the proposed Silk Stone Hill Project and we will be directly
impaoted by any changes In the existing hillside, The following issues neecLto be given
careful consideration before any decisions are made regarding the propoied Silk Stone
Hill Development in Si Sob-ante.
1. .
Sobrante Ave, is d ve marrow, two lane street, that has many blind corners. It Is
bordered, at times, on both sided by drainage ditches and already bears a substantial
amount of speeding tra`fic. Making a left turn onto Sobrante from Heath Drive is a
very risky maneuver aid additional traffic will only compound the problem.
2. Wildlifeand =xistinq Growth:
The other day, four deer came into our yard from the proposed project area. They
are part of the residents that include racoons, possums and foxes that now inhabit
the proposed project mea. This development would virtually eliminate their habitat
by removal of existing Aants and trees.
3.
My parents had the ho a built we now own In 1566 which makes us very familiar
with the area, The qua+ty of life in Heath Heights is excellent due to the privacy and
rural surroundings. The;thought of having high rise box homes hanging on the
hillside, staring down Iito the privacy of our backyards is very upsetting and will
have a negative impac on the value of existing residents homes. The traffic nolse
generated by the one a cess road through the proposed densely populated
development would be Intolerable.
The proposed plan calk for very small lots with very tall, box like homes, stuck on
the hillside, that will do'nothing to enhance the area. This development will be
another glaring exampi of the lack of congruous planning that is all too prevalent in
the El Sobrante area.
i
6. Slidgs[p�.igaae: `
The EI Sobrante hills p-opensity for sliding is a well documented fact. Other
hillside developments in our area have been plagued with slides despite assurances
from soil stabilization "experts" that the potential for sliding has been addressed
and It Is safe to build. Several years ago,EBMUD did some major earth moving in
that hillside area "to p4event slides and flooding." The foliowing winter, the soil
"experts" were notices iy absent when sliding occurred and my neighbors were
shovelling mud out of t�elr basement .
i
I
b.5/b'l/1994 11:01 1/R D1V GA - NEW NRUL) Lot--V 41�4b"f�'73 12710075 P.01
I
i
E
Page 2
In view of the concerns _Isted above, we are very strongly opposed to the Silk Stone
Hill Development and aiy changes in the current R10 zoning. Existing property
owners have a right to expeot their quality of life not be totally compromised
because of an III conceived or inappropriate development. Profit margin needs to be
tempered with a sense pf community harmony.
4
s
Sincerely,
I
Doug & Laurel Gloff
j
1
i
i
1
i
i
i
i< <
' t
Michael Woidemar &Associates
Incorporated
Architecture & Planning /Z f �al
12226 San Pablo Avenue
Richmond, California 94805
Fax 510 2321248
Phone 510 2321232
08 March 1994
Contra Costa County Planning Commission
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 945183
Re: Silkstone Mill Project
Michael W ldemar & Associates (Applicant)
Kris'Tamaki/Starker EI Sobrante Land, Inc. (Owner)
County File #2845-RZ
ALTERNATE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Dear Commissioners:
On behalf of my Client, and as part of our presentation to you on Tuesday, 08 March 1994, we
propose the following alternate language for several of the Conditions of Approval in the Staff
Report: (Additions are indicated in bolts lettering.)
2. A maximum of 48 20 single family residential lots shall be permitted with this development.
Deeument, page 1 10, page 1-14)
20. The application for Final Development Pian and Tentative Subdivision Map shall include
detailed lot by lot design guidelines for all lots in the project. The design
guidelines shall include drawn and written criteria for items such as, but not limited
to, horizontal and vertical envelopes, building form and massing, architectural
materials, and landscaping. Specific attention shall be given to providing
architectural variety and reduction of the continuous mass of structures along the
south side of the project.
(MM, Response to Document, Page 1-10, 1-14)
26. A. 2) Construct the road along the southerly portion of this property as a 20-foot
paved private roadway (width measured from curb face) within a 30-foot
access easement where parking is not required and as a.28-foot paved private
roadway (width measured from curb face) within a 38-foot access easement
where parking is required. The private road shall be curbed on both sides and
shall be bordered with a 4-foot 6-inch sidewalk along the north side for
pedestrian traffic. The road easement shall extend 1-foot north of the
proposed sidewalk. The building and garage setbacks to residences may
be measured from the face of curb or back of sidewalk. The private road
shall be aligned with the easterly extension of Andrew Way to the west. The
north-south public road shah intersect with the easterly extension of Andrew
Way at a right angle, subject to the review of the Public Works Department,
Engineering Services Division. Adequate parking bays shall be provided to
minimize the need for on-street parking, subject to the review of the Public
Works Department and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
Page 2
08 March 1994
Contra Costa Planning Commission
Silkstone Hill Project - County File #2845-RZ - Alternate Conditions of Approval
26. B. 1) Construct the roadway from the easterly portion of the on-site roadway to the
point where it turns south to intersect with Sobrante Avenue as a 20-foot
roadway with curb, gutter and a 4-foot 6-Inch
sidewalk along the north side and a 2-foot gravel shoulder on the south
side within a 40-foot access easement. The feadway-11ailobe-euFbed on beih
sides.with a 4 feet 6 ineh sidewalk aleng he Fief4h Si i tFaffle
26. B. 7) The applicant shall be required to pay a pro rata
share of the cost of constructing a pedestrian pathway between Valley
View Drive and the project access near the westerly Circle Drive intersection.
the path he shall emeoute a feimbursement agfeement sod —1-11 a study
analyzing anNeipated deyelopment whieh would be benefitted by this path-,--so
The DEIR states that the applicant should be required to contribute toward
provision of a pathway along one side of Sobrante Avenue between Valley
View Drive and the westerly Circle Drive intersection (MM, DEIR, page 3-42).
The DEIR also requires the applicant to eliminate potential safety hazards to
bicyclists, pedestrians and automobile traffic prior to initiation of any
construction (MM, Response Document, page 1-16). If it is determined that a
4-foot path is not feasible along Sobrante Avenue, the applicant shall be
required to provide a 2-foot paved shoulder and a 4-foot rock shoulder on one
side of the road for pedestrian and bicycle traffic as part of Condition #6
above.
26. B. 8) Mitigate the cumulative impact of connection of this property to Andrew Way:
a. By contributing a pro rata share of cost into a fee trust number
818200-0800 for the following improvements:
e. 1. Install a "Stop Sign" on the Andrew Way approach to Rancho
Road. (MM, DEIR, page 3-46.)
6. 2. Widen and repave (where needed) Andrew Way between Argyle
Road and the north site access to contain, at a minimum, two 10-
foot lanes and two 4-foot paved shoulders. (MM, DEIR, page 3-
46.)
L-T 3. Install a stop sign on the northbound Andrew Way approach to the
Andrew Way/Argyle Road intersection. (MM, DEIR, page 3-46.)
d: 4. Argyle Road should be widened to provide a second approach lane
(one for left turns and one for right turns) to the Appian Way
intersection. Other benefitting projects, including the El Sobrante
Christian School, should contribute toward this roadway
improvement (MM, DEIR, page 3-47). 111"I'lle-appli-ant shall be
,
-f the eest ef the
.
, s
Page 3
08 March 1994
Contra Costa Planning Commission
Silkstone Hill Project • County File #2845-RZ - Alternate Conditions of Approval
e.b. Align the future extension of Andrew Way to provide. the maximum
amount of clear space between the roadway and existing residences
located northeast of the existing roadway terminus (MM, DEIR, page 3-
47). Andrew Way should be designed to Intersect the proposed public
north-south road on this subdivision at a 90 degree intersection. The
alignment of the public and private roadways in this subdivision shall be
modified to reflect this.
We hope that you will support these alternate conditions. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL WOLDEMAR & ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
Michael Woldbmar
Architect
MW:Im
#3590.1
d13590alt.cor
Comments and Concerns From the Neighbors
Regarding the Rezoning Request for the Silk Stone Hill Project.
Contra Costa County File Number 2845-RZ
State Clearinghouse Number 89030130 11 9 'ER'u
%�:l gD
itz MAR 81994
To be presented to the Contra Costa County Planning Commisson GONTRA CO3TA COUNTY
at their meeting Tuesday, March 8, 1994 -7:30 p.m. PLANNING rV" 1.V-10H MIEVING
We chose to live in this neighborhood understanding that at some point the hill may be
developed. The uncertainty of the development of the hill was mitigated by the fact that we felt
comfortable with the rules for its development. The County's rules provide us with some
degree of protection against economic and aesthetic harm. First, the County Policies (see
below) which limit development on hillsides with a grade of 26% or greater would cause less
than maximum R-10 density which allows flexibility and placement of houses in such a way as
to not conflict with neighbors. Secondly, R-10 zoning providing a minimum 10,000 sq. ft. lot
suggests that homes of greater value than those zoned R-7 (the majority of the neighbors) will
be constructed.
We were disappointed with the responses to our comments in the Final Environmental Impact
Report. In particular, the response regarding the impact of maintaining R-10 zoning (pages 3-3
through 3-6) gave us concern. This analysis did not take into account the hillside protection
policies referenced above. This seemed to be a cost effective way for the firm providing the
EIR to attempt to diffuse the argument. It is difficult for us to believe the response because it
suggests that an R-10 and the recommend P-1 would have similar impacts and number of
houses. Obviously this cannot be true as we believe the developer to be a savvy economically
motivated individual who would not have chosen to put himself through the cost of this
rezoning process without a valid reason.
We understand the intent of P-1 zoning is to provide for an enhanced development over
structured zoning (i.e. R-7, R-10). The developer has done his best to answer our concerns.
But,-our difficulty comes from the fact that we have no R-10 plan for comparison; therefore, we
cannot easily see the benefits of the P-1 zoning.
In conclusion, we see the changing of zoning from R-10 to P-1 as analogous to changing the
rules in the middle of a game, but we don't know what game we are playing. The lack of a
realistic R-10 proposal make us skeptical at best, and uncertain at the minimum that this P-1
will be in our or the community's best interest. Without more data to allow us to make an
informed decision we request that you not grant this P-1 rezoning.
County Policies which limit hillside development
Policy 8-14 of the Conservation Element
Policy 9-11 of the open Space Element
Ai 100) '
SIGNATURES ATTACHED TO : Comments and Concerns From the Neighbors
Regarding the Rezoning Request for the Silk Stone Hill Project.
Contra Costa County File Number 2845-RZ
State Clearinghouse Number 89030130
To be presented to the Contra Costa County Planning Commisson
at their meeting Tuesday, March 8, 1994-7:30 p.m.
PRINT NAME PRINT ADDRESS IGNATU
/9s/ 4 a'-ftO3
�r
Q
2.
3. (T
5.
6.
sa�/�A�GI -_Ci9 9/ 70 3
7. 4i!;tz
Z , A 9 y6-03
9. G�u-K. hl� a�2 01'unbra e- Cowes
10. as �jr2� b�c►I; COw�� _ _
SIGNATURES ATTACHED TO : comments and Concerns From the Neighbors
Regarding the Rezoning Request for the Silk Stone Hill Project.
Contra Costa County Rle Number 2845-RZ
State Clearinghouse Number 89030130
To be presented to the Contra Costa County Planning Commisson
at their meeting Tuesday,March 8, 1994-7:30 p.m.
PRINT NAME_ PRINT ADDRESS SIGNATUR
I:L
2. V 'e 4124
V-
3.
1717 7d..& is, /L 5,0,5 q 0 H
C zp
6
v
8.
0
9.
io.� Xa6�)7 -212� :5 /3 Ra -E
(2 -7�—c
SIGNATURES ATTACHED TO : Comments and Concerns From the Neighbors
Regarding the Rezoning Request for the Silk Stone Hill Project.
Contra Costa County File Number 2845-RZ
State Clearinghouse Number 89030130
To be presented to the Contra Costa County Planning Commisson
at their meeting Tuesday, March 8, 1994-7:30 p.m.
PRINT NAME PRINT ADDRESS IG ATURE
-:
�5 0L�&2.
3. Oct OtLA�&
4. L / 0( l'rJ .cn. G Cfe
� uc�
8. i��,5
9. �S
10.
O,
SIGNATURES ATTACHED TO : comments and concerns From the Neighbors
Regarding the Rezoning Request for the Silk Stone Hill Project.
Contra Costa County File Number 2845-RZ
State Clearinghouse Number 89030130
To be presented to the Contra Costa County Planning Commisson
at their meeting Tuesday,March 8, 1994-7:30 p.m.
PRINT NAME PRINT ADDRESS SIGNATUR
o ate
Cx wvs LJ
2. Shoo
41 Le
3.
,26 -5029AN-1i, AA.
4. "R15 6hMZ1Y'/5WQLT1— L -s022aNJ ,. (-A 9 &3 wr Lh&,-
5.
6. o Z-
C,,:
7.
�12
c74 #A-
9.
1-2>
La�1 �
' 1
SIGNATURES ATTACHED TO : Comments and Concerns From the Neighbors
Regarding the Rezoning Request for the Silk Stone Hill Project.
Contra Costa County File Number 2845-RZ
State Clearinghouse Number 89030130
To be presented to the Contra Costa County Planning Commisson
at their meeting Tuesday, March 8, 1994-7:30 p.m.
PRINT NAME PRINT ADDRESS SIGNATURE
DWO
2. �a� t�( z.I� �5�� t �e AIR-
3.
( SokL C 4.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. — ----- -- _ -
9.
10.
March 6, 1994
To: Contra Costa County Planning Comm-' ssion
From: Swede Davis 1956 Heath Drive '_Phone: (510) 223-7831
Mailing Address: =-O - Box 20452 El Sobrante 94820
Regarding: Rezoning of Silk Stone HilL Project - CC(- File# 2845-RZ
I am a neighbor to the South of the project . I air, not against
development, but I do want to protect the value of my home and
neighborhood. Over the past 4 years -- have ridden a roller coaster
of emotions regarding this developmen-: . i have come to realize that
this has been caused by the large uncertainty regarding the final
'
outcome of the project. I am preoccupied with the home; which may or
may not appear in what I currently consider to be my backyard. Even
coming to this meeting I do not know what the impact will be 15 feet
from my property line let alone for my neighborhood. This makes it
difficult for me to feel good about the rezoning.
I don' t know where anything goes. I have a very steep grade behind
my house.-.. Any house put on the project site will tower above me .
The question is " How close will they -e?" In the current drawings not
one but two houses will directly tower above me . The County Staff
has recommended some changes which appear to help my situation, but I
can honestly say I am not sure they ary enough. The increased space
between homes caused by removing a Ic)- will still not allow enough of
an angle to let " Blue Sky" appear bet;.-eer. the 30+ foot high
structures .
When I built my home I thought -he steepness of the grade and the
large required lot size would keep me from this problem. Instead it
has magnified the problem. In a flat area T would have a new
.L
neighbor . In my situation I will have a " Big Brother" .
I want what is best for myself and my neighbors . This causes me to
be particularly concerned about the traffic increases along Sobrante.
Ave . This road can barely handle twc cars passi.ng . I just don' t
understand how the increase in 7-he nur'-ber of trips that this project
creates will keep this a safe road tc --ravel, let alone walk.
Without having a clear understanding ---f that the existing R-10 zoning
allows and not knowing how the ;,I wl - end Up, T L can only ask that
the Planning Commission provide assi-s--ance in defining these issues
before moving forward on a rezoning I invite any of you to
come tour the site to help clarify tha-Se issues .
MAR 8 1994
D
ONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Swede Davis
"Irt,614 MEETING