HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02061996 - D9 Dq � .v , lo
• = Contrc
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �'; � - Costa
O! uu`
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON _� ads COUnt\
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . O
DATE: January 30, 1996
�Os�9`COUI$'f`t'
SUBJECT: TWO APPEALS OF THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
DECISION FILED BY DAME CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (Applicant) - AND SHADOW
CREEK RESIDENTS ' ASSOCIATION CONCERNING APPLICATIONS (FILE #DP953003
& DP953004) TO MODIFY THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR BETTENCOURT RANCH
AND SHADOW CREEK IN THE DANVILLE/TASSAJARA AREA.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Accept the Applicant's proposal for extending the date for conducting a hearing on the
appeals filed by the Applicant and Shadow Creek Residents' Association to February 6, 1996.
2. Accept the adequacy of the environmental documentation adopted by the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission.
3. Deny the Appeal filed by Dame Construction Company.
4. Deny the Appeal filed by Shadow Creek Residents Association.
5. Sustain the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's Approval of File#DP953004
(Bettencourt Ranch modifications) as conditioned with the following addition:
'ior to><ssuanc of a grades prat ur acceptance csf a foal mrap,tepphca shad prouide
payment tc�the bounty of any apjlicatro foes that are due
6. Sustain the Planning Commission's Denial of File#DP953003 (Shadow Creek).
7. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
8. Direct Staff to Post a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _X_ YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECO ON OF1 COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON February 6 , 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X
See the attached Addendum for Board action.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT V 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:Robert Drake 646-2091
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED February 6 , 1996
Cc: CAO PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Public Works AND COUNTYAPMINISTRATOR
Dame Construction
Bettencourt Ranch Residents' Assoc. BY DEPUTY
Shadow Creek Residents ' Assoc.
2
FISCAL RYIPACT:None provided that the Applicant provides payment of any due application fees.
Failure to pay these fees will cause staff time and materials expended in the review of this project to
date to be funded from general revenue. See discussion below.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
These two applications pertain to two adjoining residential projects in the Danville/Tassajara area that
are largely built-out. The projects are bordered by the Blackhawk project and the Town of Danville.
The Bettencourt Ranch project consists of five phases; all but the last phase of the project has been
completed. The last phase consisting of 48 lots pertains to an area on the north side of a ridgeline
that crosses through the middle of the project.
The Bettencourt Ranch project was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1989 with conditions.
The developer of the project has elected to try to modify several conditions of approval from the
1989 County approval as a first step before trying to have the County accept the last phase
subdivision (SUB 7279).
Two applications were filed with the County early last year to try to provide for those modifications.
One application is seeking to modify the Bettencourt Ranch Final Development Plan; the other is
seeking to modify the Shadow Creek Final Development Plan. Both projects are zoned Planned Unit
District(P-1). The modifications originally requested are summarized below:
1. Substitution of a(lower) alignment for a required (upper alignment) hillside road extending
along the eastern boundary of Bettencourt Ranch and extending into Shadow Creek open
space; and
Substitution of an emergency vehicular access (EVA) gate at the Green Meadow Drive
entrance to SUB 7279 for the required card-gated resident gate.
The effect of these requested changes would be to limit access to general access to the 48 lots
of SUB 7279 to Fleetwood Road only.
3. Elimination of the requirement to construct a public/private trail extending through
Bettencourt Ranch.
4. Elimination of a required pedestrian/jogging trail to encircle the detention basin.
5. Relocation of three approved lots within SUB 7279 from a valley floor location to a hillside
site.
Grading of the proposed hillside site had been done to the site pursuant to a grading permit
that had been issued by the County several years back (ref. 10/17/95 and 11/15/95 staff
reports).
6. Relocation of a required(not-built)tot lot and informal turf field from the detention basin area
to a knoll area above the existing project recreation center.
The proposed modifications are described in greater detail in the September 20, 1995 staff report to
the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission.
COMMISSION REVIEW
The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission heard the proposed applications on September
20, October 18,November 15, and December 20, 1996. Background on the projects and analysis
of the particular modifications requested by the Applicant are reviewed in the staff reports for each
of the Commission meetings and a (modified) Chronology of the Fleetwood Road dated 8/24/95.
After completing the hearing on November 15, 1995, the Commission closed the hearing and
3
continued the matter to December 20, 1995. At the hearing on December 20, 1996, on staff s
recommendation,the Commission unanimously voted to approve the Bettencourt Ranch application
(File#DP953004) and to deny the Shadow Creek application(File#DP953003).
Circulation Modifications - The 1989 Bettencourt Ranch subdivision approval provided for two
access points to serve development on the north side of the ridge: one from Green Meadow Drive
and other roads within Shadow Creek, and the other from Fleetwood Road. Further, the access from
Green Meadow Drive was required to provide a card-gated access.
The September 20, 1995 Commission staff report reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of(1)
all access to the 48 lots from Fleetwood Road using the proposed lower road alignment (the
Applicant's proposal); (2)all access to the lots from Green Meadow Drive(Shadow Creek)that is,
no extension of Fleetwood;and(3)retaining both access connections as shown on the 1989 Vesting
Tentative Map. The December 20, 1995 staff report also reviewed the County options in deciding
which alternative to select.
The factors that weighed most heavily in the review of the overall proposal were that:
• Both road alignments of Fleetwood Road would cross two major landslides along the east
side of the which would have to be repaired. The repair of those slides would alter a highly
visible hillside in a manner that would detract from their natural form and adversely affect the
views from Blackhawk and Shadow Creek; as well as Camino Tassajara, a designated scenic
route. Landscape treatment (including that proposed by the Applicant) would not be
sufficient to overcome the marring effect of the landslide repairs.
• The roads within Shadow Creek are built to County-maintenance standards and are generally
wider than the private roads within Bettencourt Ranch.
• While the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District would prefer to have two access routes
to Subdivision 7279, the District has also indicated that access from Green Meadow Drive
alone would meet the District's requirements.
• The Public Works Department has indicated that Fleetwood Drive or Green Meadow Drive
have sufficient design capacity to accommodate the traffic from SUB 7279.
In approving the Bettencourt Ranch application, the Commission followed staffs recommendation
with respect to conditioning the approval to prohibit any extension of Fleetwood Road. In so doing,
the Commission action not only rejected the Applicant's proposal to re-align the road, but also
eliminated the original required (upper alignment) shown on the approved 1989 Vesting Tentative
Map. The effect of the Commission approval is to limit access to the 48 unbuilt lots of SUB 7279
to Green Meadow Drive and other roads within the Shadow Creek project.
Non-Circulation Related Actions
Other actions taken by the Commission are summarized below.
• Trails-The requested change to eliminate the requirement to construct a public/private trail
across the site was granted. At the same time, the Commission also required that the
Applicant construct a private (HOA-maintained) off-road trail system within the first four
phases of the project that was not constructed and should have been constructed as part of
the 1989 approval.
• Requested Relocation of Recreation Facilities Required for the Detention Basin Area-The
Commission denied the Applicant's request to relocate recreation facilities to the knoll area,
and instead specified that those facilities would have to be located in the vicinity of the
detention basin, but on HOA-owned property, not on Flood Control District lands.
• Relocation of Three Lots to Hillside Site- The Commission denied the Applicant's request
to relocate three approved lots within SUB 7279 from the valley floor area to the hillside site.
At the same time,the Commission required that the Applicant modify the grading of the area
rne-ie�zer�om-�naavw-�,reex-is-also-appeaungrour-aspec�s-orme�omrrussion-s-aecis�vn—me-ie«cr
5
is objecting to:
1. The denial of the proposed realignment of Fleetwood Road (ref. C/A#3).
2. The denial of the proposed substitution of an EVA gate at the Green Meadow Drive ingress
for the required card-gated access(ref. C/A#3).
3. Elimination of the requirement (right)to build Fleetwood Road (ref. C/A#3).
4. Adopting a Negative Declaration rather than an EIR to address alleged safety impacts
associated with the elimination of any Fleetwood Road extension.
A summary of the review progression including appeals is contained in Table I.
DISCUSSION
The two appeals share an objection to the elimination of any extension of Fleetwood. Some points
of appeal are not shared. Further,there are aspects of the Commission decision that are not contested
in either appeal (e.g., siting of recreation facilities next to the detention basin. The points of appeal
are reviewed below.
Circulation Issues
The circulation concerns raised in the appeals by Shadow Creek and the Applicant were expressed
to the Commission before the Commission opted for the"no extension of Fleetwood" alternative. The
Commission determined that there is no substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the
approved project would result in a significant impact.
Safety concerns raised by Shadow Creek's representative are contained in a 9/18/95 letter from
Norris &Norris. It should be stated again that the Commission's approval is consistent with the
requirements of the Fire District. That approval does not conflict with the referenced General Plan
policy(#7-62 of the Public Services Element). The response and distance from fire station standards
are goals to "strive" for, but are not mandated.
Prior EIR - It should also be noted that the County prepared and certified as adequate an
Environmental Impact Report(1987 Camino Tassajara) on the Bettencourt Ranch project before the
general plan was amended to accommodate it. The EIR was also prepared before the Shadow Creek
project was built but when the subdivision map had been prepared. Refer to map attached to 9/20/95
staff report. At that time, the project was a conceptual site plan that provided for development on
both sides of the ridgeline but no access across the ridgeline; the 1987 conceptual plan had
approximately the same number of units as are within SUB 7279, and the only access would have
been through Green Meadow Drive and Shadow Creek. In other words,the project and surrounding
environment considered in the previous EIR was very similar to the modified project recently
approved by the Planning Commission with respect to traffic impacts to Shadow Creek. That EIR
did not identify any significant traffic or safety impacts associated with Bettencourt use of Shadow
Creek roads.
It was only later, at time of rezoning and subdivision applications, that the project was modified to
provide a road connection between the two south and north portions of the project, allowing for two
access points to the northern portion of the site.
Justification for Circulation Decision-The Applicant has applied for modifications to the Bettencourt
Ranch Final Development Plan. Some of the requests pertain to the design of the circulation system;
some do not. In approving a modification, the County must be able to make findings that the
modification will be compatible with other uses in the vicinity. In this regard, the County can approve
the request, approve it with conditions, or disapprove the request.
The Commission was willing to approve some of the requested changes (e.g., elimination of
public/private trail, relocation of the playfield and jogging path from the Detention Basin property
owned by the Flood Control District). At the same time, that in order to make required P-1 code
o
3 ° g
a m o
o a o 0
0
aO+ N C
OC O O
p^ Q
O `°o.
O �fi
.r C130O .; C
a
w p y w .o dd a a
Oa, ❑ T o ai �2 w y o: a a
yy O w OD O ° T T
.4 O Co O w O fl O� oy OO
A C
a
"''•'" .'" tti555... Q
a Q V
a p Q
o u °
00 to
° o
a, o
w d c
W o o
a 0 .
d o
0.4
<. od U a
ai a A W C� °
......... Q
...
.........
w
�+ f
Off" C W 41 00
C0-4
" .� ate+ •� y ",04
` ;o� All
ozm
ri
EL
06
0
W
o o w o w
w w
03
w aayi {3g mO �d Q �� tae
Ow
0 0
0 °
a
0
F—W � A 0. p $MD
v ° eyyi c_ c�ww
U 00
�. w [
8 a `'- .
'o> ea° ocd
a��
¢� 3 °
lot
F
C A4 .ti
z
b� q d A" � �" o 3U
wau y a .. w .a
m
R. a H .a
7
findings, the Commission deemed it appropriate to condition approval of those changes to include
modifications to the road design shown on the 1989 approved VTM.
Alternative Actions -Decision alternatives are reviewed in the December 20, 1995 staff report. In
lieu of the Commission action, the Board could approve the Applicant's(lower alignment)request
and adopt related CEQA documentation. Alternatively, if the Board felt there was substantial
evidence that the project might result in a significant impact, a new EIR could be required.
Finally,the Board could deny both applications. The result of such an action would be that the only
way the applicant could develop the 48 lots in SUB 7279 would be to develop in accord with the
1989 VTM approval (upper Fleetwood alignment). Were the Applicant able to file a map and
demonstrate compliance with applicable conditions and ordinances,the County must approve the final
map.
Proposed Relocation of Lots
The Commission received testimony from Blackhawk residents and others opposed to the relocation
of the three lots due to the disturbance of their views. Based on this testimony, the Commission
rejected the proposed relocation of the three lots. The Applicant's letter does not present any new
information concerning these lots than was presented to the Commission. The grading that was
approved for this site is reviewed in the 10/18/95 Commission staff report.
Alternative Action-The original mitigation measures prepared by staff provided for design measures
(see marked text under the heading of Aesthetics in the Mitigation Monitoring Program)that would
reduce the visibility of the residential development on the site. The Commission determined that
those measures would not be sufficient to mitigate the visual impact and disapproved the proposed
relocation. Should the Board nonetheless find merit in the proposed site for residential development,
then for purposes of compliance with CEQA, the Board should adopt those mitigations.
Camino Tassajara Fence
Before Dame Construction Company acquired this project, it was owned by Braddock and Logan
who was responsible for obtaining the entitlements from the County. The original design package
referenced in the conditions of approval,provided for a wrought-iron fence along Camino Tassajara.
The 1989 condition indicated a decorative open fence would be required. However, it had always
been the intent to allow for a wrought-iron fence, or a fence that strongly resembled a wrought-iron
fence without quite meeting the precise definition of one. The modified language in C/A#11.A. more
accurately reflects the original intent of the recommendation on fence design that led to the 1989
project approval.
Alternative Action - The Board could delete the condition approved by the Commission. The
Applicant has indicated that were the County to make this modification, it would be his intent to
construct an open rail wood fence. If there is a modification of the condition, it would be best to
specify exactly what design of fence is approved.
Upgrade of Landscaping within the Developed Portion of Bettencourt
The condition of landscape and irrigation improvements has been a major issue between Bettencourt
residents and the Applicant. Residents have indicated that they are prepared to arrange for
submission of a report from landscape professionals attesting to alleged defiencies in landscaping
installed to date and suitable corrective measures. After repeated complaints from Bettencourt
residents, C/A#14 was imposed by the Commission on stars recommendation.
EXTENSION OF THE TIME FOR INITIATING THE HEARING ON THE TWO APPEALS
The Subdivision Map Act requires that an Applicant's Appeal of a decision on a subdivision
application must ordinarily be scheduled for hearing within 30 days of the date that the Applicant's
appeal was filed.
Prior to expiration of the 30-day time limit, the Applicant indicated to staff that they were agreeable
8
to extending the period for scheduling a hearing on their appeal to February 6, 1996. In order to
avoid a possible automatic approval pursuant to the State Map Act of the applications as approved
by the Planning Commission, the Board should accept the extension offered by the Applicant.
PAYMENT OF APPLICATION FEES DUE
The application fees for this project include the initial filing fee plus cost and materials. Based on the
review to date, the application fees that are due exceed the fee payment that was made at time of
initial filing of the application.
In order to avoid any misunderstanding of the Applicant's obligation to pay the fees due, staff has
recommended that the Board apply an additional condition. Failure of the applicant to pay the fees
due may result in additional costs born by the general revenue fund.
ADDENDUM TO ITEMS D.9 and D.10
Agenda February 6, 1996
This is the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the
appeals by Dame' Construction Company (Appellant and Applicant) and Shadow Creek
Residents Association (Appellant), from the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission on the application to (Bettencourt Ranch Residents Association,
owners) to modify the Final Development Plan (County File #3034-88) and Vesting Tentative
Map 7188 for Bettencourt Ranch. (1) The proposal would provide for realignment of the
approved extension of Fleetwood Road; (2) to require an emergency vehicle access at the
Green Meadow Drive access to Final Map 7279; (3) elimination of a public/private trail
system extending from Camino Tassajara to the ridgeline within the project; (4) eliminate and
relocate other required recreation facilities from the Flood Control Detention Basin area-to the
Nottingham Drive area; and (5) relocate three lots in the last phase (approved but not
recorded or built) of the project (Final Map 7279) to hillside sites.(County File #3004-95), in
the Danville/Tassajara area; and
Hearing on the appeals by Dame' Construction Company (Appellant and Applicant)
and Shadow Creek Residents Association (Appellants and Owners), from the decision of the
San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on the application to modify the Final
Development Plan (County File #3010-86) for the Shadow Creek project to allow for the
realignment of an approved road alignment (Fleetwood Road) through Parcel A of Final Map
7041.(County File #3003-95), in the Danville/Tassajara area.
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, advised that the two appeals
were being heard together since they were related.
Robert Drake, Community Development Department, gave the staff report on this
matter.
Supervisor Bishop requested clarification from the Community Development
Department as to why a permit allowed the three lots (subject to this appeal) to be graded.
Mr. Drake advised a grading permit represented the three lots in the subject location,
but it did not mean that there was approval of the three lots.
Supervisor Bishop questioned whether the Community Development Department staff
had prepared findings that would permit the Board to impose a condition that Dame'
Construction Company's staff, Community Development Department's staff, and Bettencourt
Homeowner Association's members could be directed to meet and discuss upgrading the
existing landscape improvements.
Supervisor DeSaulnier asked Victor Westman, County Counsel, if approval of the
upper Fleetwood Road alignment in the Vesting Tentative Map could now be changed.
Mr. Westman advised that Dame' Construction Company had the right to proceed with
the approved application under the Vesting Tentative Map. However, the Board could deny
Dame' that right by making a finding that to go forward with the upper road alignment would
create a dangerous condition. The Board would have to offer evidence to support such a
finding, and make a decision that complies with the Subdivision Map Act.
Supervisor DeSaulnier questioned why the staff changed their recommendations on the
road alignment.
1
Dennis Barry noted that the extension of Fleetwood Road was approved during the
hearing process, and during the modification process, safety aspects were considered along
with visual and aesthetic affects.
Supervisor Torlakson inquired as to how the Fire Department viewed the two road
access versus the current one road plan.
Mr. Barry responded that the Fire Department was advised of the one road proposal,
and they favored having an alternate route, but indicated that the newest proposal was
acceptable. However, if the Fire Department could have two accesses that would be their
preferred choice.
The public hearing was opened and the following people commented on the issues:
Bob Jensen, Homeowner's Group of Blackhawk on South Ridge and South Eagles
Nest, 200 South Ridge Court, Danville;
Michael Rupprecht, Appellant, Dame' Construction Company, 2070 San
Ramon Valley Blvd., San Ramon;
Edward Shaffer, Appellant, Shadow Creek, Norris & Norris, 3360 Blume
Drive, 9200, Richmond;
Dr. John Baker, Board of Directors, Bettencourt Ranch HOA , 814 Buckingham
Place, Danville;
Brad Baker, Shadow Creek Residents Assoc., 904 Spring Water St., Danville;
Tom Mulvihill, 4490 Fleetwood Road, Danville;
Bob Hora, Shadow Creek Residents Assoc., 80 Spring Water Court, Danville;
Steven Wagman, Shadow Creek Residents Assoc., 7853 Sweet Water Drive, Danville;
Servando De la Torre, 4484 Fleetwood Road, Danville;
Gary Medwid, 4333 Mansfield Drive, Danville;
Philip Kinzli, 1027 Cheshire Circle, Danville;
Sherry Perussina, 8425 Buckingham Place, Danville;
Christine McComas, 434 Snowdon Place, Danville;
Bruce Holt, 4430 Fleetwood Road, Danville;
Sheila Savage, 4484 Fleetwood Road, Danville;
Jim Ingle, Bettencourt Ranch, 4016 Westminster Place, Danville;
Cathy McWilliams, 811 Buckingham Place, Danville;
Lisa Walters, Bettencourt Ranch HOA, 806 Buckingham Place, Danville;
Richard Case, Bettencourt Ranch HOA, 1159 Cheshire Circle, Danville;
Joe McNeil, Bettencourt Ranch HOA, 3 Halton Court, Danville;
Steven Gregory, King Neptune Landscaping for Bettencourt Ranch HOA,
6375 N. Clark, Ste.104, Dublin;
Rex Gregory, King Neptune Landscaping for Bettencourt Ranch HOA,
6375 N. Clark, Ste. 104, Dublin;
Julia Durmis, Board Member, Bettencourt Ranch HOA, 807 Buckingham
Place, Danville;
Bob Perussina, Committee Person Bettencourt Ranch HOA, 842
Buckingham Place, Danville;
Paul Weirather, Community Associations Consulting for Bettencourt Ranch HOA,
6375 N. Clark, Ste 104, Dublin;
Lucy McMillion, 326 Deepereek Court, Danville;
Diane Boykin, Bettencourt Ranch HOA, 715 Trent Court, Danville;
Ed Yee, 3837 Sheffield Circle, Danville;
Stephanie McFarland, 411 Creekpoint Court, Danville;
Nancy Mulvihill, 4490 Fleetwood Road, Danville;
John Compaglia, Bryan & Murphy, 5000 Executive Parkway, #125, San
Ramon;
Rich Gorman, Bryan & Murphy, 5000 Executive Parkway, San Ramon;
2
Edward Shaffer, Appellant, Shadow Creek, Norris & Norris, 3360 Blume
Drive, #200, Richmond;
Michael Rupprecht, Appellant, Dame', 2070 San Ramon Valley Blvd., San
Ramon;
All those desiring to speak having been heard, Supervisor Bishop moved to close the
public hearing.
Supervisor DeSaulnier seconded the motion.
Following Board discussion, and on the advice of Victor Westman, County Counsel,
that a Board decision would have to be made within 10 days of closing the public hearing,
Supervisor Bishop withdrew her motion, and the hearing remained open.
Supervisor Bishop contended that the applicant had strayed widely from the original
conditions of approval including the landscaping and fencing.
Supervisor Bishop moved to affirm the decision by the Planning Commission, which
was to accept the adequacy of the environmental documentation adopted by the San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission; deny the appeal of Dame' Construction Company;
deny the appeal filed by Shadow Creek Residents Association; and sustain the San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission's approval of County File #DP 95-3004 as conditioned
with the following addition: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or acceptance of a final
map, the applicant shall provide payment to the County of any application fees that are due.
Supervisor Bishop also advised that the tot lot is not being appealed by Dame' Construction
Company.
Following further Board discussion of the matter, Supervisor Smith moved that the
Board seek further clarification from County Counsel in closed session on the issues involved,
and also moved that the hearing remain open and the matters be continued to February 27,
1996, at 2:00 p.m.
Supervisor DeSaulnier seconded the motion.
IT IS BY THE Board ordered that the hearing on the above matters is CONTINUED
to February 27, 1996, at 2:00 p.m.in the Board's chambers.
3
�xXJi✓�e�
FEB.*-C 2='95 (FRI) 12 :05 NORRI S & NORRI S TEL: 1 510 934 3665 P. 002
NORRIS :r NORRIS
RICHARD C. NORRIS 16a6 N. CALIFORNIA BLVD-SUITE 650 +B�6C BLUME DFIVE,3U1`aoc
DOUGLAS C. 5TRAUS
CY RICEEXOND,CAL11Kt1LNIA Glta06-10el
FPSTEIN WALNUT CREEA,CALIF01�1V11►9'l•�1�Q
COI !N J. COPT?EY
JOSHUA G• GEN$ER TELEPHONE(510)934-QI6I
7L•L:M10)@;:2 8100
SHARON M. 1VCRS£Nr*Ax:c, Ip1 ar.eooa
EOWARLI L. SHAFFER FAC51MILE :$Ipl gaa•3ses
CA Vic
S. SMITH
JUSTIN D. SCHWARTZ
NOEL M. CAUGHMAN
J, EnICK DIMALANTA
GEORGE A. HARRIS 11[ February 2, 1996
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
c/o Clerk of the Board
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
RE: County File Nos. 3003-95 & 3004-95
Appeal of Planning Commission Actions
February 6 Agenda Items D.9 & D.10
Honorable Members of the Board:
The Shadow Creek Residents Association appealed decisions of
the San Ramon valley Regional. Planning Commission, and the Board
has scheduled a hearing on February 6, 1996. You will receive
the full record, including my several letters to the Commission
on behalf of Shadow Creek (see letters dated September 18,
October 16, and November 2, 1995) and testimony on behalf of
Shadow Creek. The purpose of this letter is to summarize our key
points underlying this appeal.
SUMMARY
1. Fleetwood Road cannot be eliminated entirely.
2 . This is a matter of safety, not merely traffic.
3 . . ' Eliminating Fleetwood violates County safety policies.
4. The Fare District strongly recommends Fleetwood Road.
5. The Negative declaration cannot be approved.
6. Phase 5 is part of Bettencourt, not Shadow Creek.
7 . The new route for Fleetwood is preferable.
8. Fleetwood cannot be built as a more EVA.
9. The Phase 5 link to Shadow Creek must be EVA only.
\DOC\6p129001\128639
FEB. '-U 95 (FRI ) 12:03 NORRIS R NORRIS TELA 510 934 3665 P. 003
Board of Supervisors
February 2, 1996
Page 2
1. FLEETWOOD ROAD CANNOT BE ELIMINATED ENTIRELY. Damd has
a vested right to extend Fleetwood Road to serve Phase 5 of
Bettencourt Ranch (see 11/30/95 memo from Vic Westman to Harvey
Bragdon) . This vested right was not waived simply because Dame
applied to modify the route for Fleetwood, especially since the
new route is environmentally superiorl Staff ignored the County
Counsel' s opinion and gave the Commission incorrect legal advice.
2 . THIS IS A MATTER OF SAFETY, NOT MERELY TRAFFIC. Shadow
Creek residents are frightened about their isolation after a
major fire or earthquake. As the attached map shows, building
Phase 5 without Fleetwood Road will. leave 155 homes with only one
access road. If the bridge across Alamo Creek fails, 107 homes
will be cut off with no escape route or emergency vehicle access.
These hills are covered with thick grass, and vulnerable to fast-
moving wildfires.
3. ELIMINATING FLEETWOOD VIOLATES COUNTY SAFETY POLICIES.
Without Fleetwood, the distance from the nearest firestation to
Phase 5 will increase 25% to 3-1/3 miles. This exceeds General
Plan maximum distances of 1-1/2 miles and 3 minutes running time.
For residents escaping a fire, the distance to Camino Tassajara
and safety may exceed 1-1/2 miles. Deleting Fleetwood makes the
project further out of compliance with the General Plan policy.
4. FIRE DISTRICT RECOW(ENDS FLEETWOOD ROAD. In a July 26 ,
1995 letter to Robert Drake, Fire Marshall Hartsfield declared:
"I cannot emphasize strongly enough" that eliminating Fleetwood
and relying solely on Shadow Creek access for Phase 5 "is not our
preference for access to this area! " In his opinion, Fleetwood
Road would be the "most advantageous" response route for fire
apparatus and "the most logical and desirable access" to Phase 5 .
S. THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION CANNOT HE APPROVED. The
initial study concludes that eliminating Fleetwood entirely will
have no potential for significant impacts. We submitted
extensive information showing that serious safety and other
problems would result. Conversely, there is no evidence in the
record to support the staff claim of no impact. our reasonable
and well-document assertions of impact have been ignored. CEQA
demands good faith evaluation and response.
The staff report dismisses any potential for a safety impact
by simply stating that the situation meets fire district minimum
access requirements. This is not adequate under CEQA. Mere
compliance with regulations does not qualify as automatic
mitigation of an impact -- the objective facts must be evaluated.
\DOCNS0129001\120639
FEB. -02' 95 (FRI) 12 :06 NORRIS & NORRIS TEL: 1 510 934 3665 P, 004
Board of Supervisors
February 21 1996
Page 3
6. PHASE 5 IS PART OF BETTENCOURT, NOT SHADOW CREEK. The
goal of Bettencourt Ranch residents is to farce all Phase 5
traffic to use only Shadow Creek streets. This would impose an
unreasonable burden on Shadow Creek, and is unfair to future
residents of Phase 5 ., The initial study claims that Phase 5
adults and children will drive or walk up to 2-112 stiles each way
from their hones on hilly streets through Shadow geek, along
Camino Tassajara and finally up into Bettencourt to reach the
pool and other recreation facilities for which they will be
paying HOA dues. This conclusion is not reasonable, and such a
scenario would not be safe for children. It is more likely that
they will stop along the way and use Shadow Creek' s facilities.
This situation would impose burdens on Shadow Creek' s common
facilities, even though all Phase 5 dues will be paid to
Bettencourt. in addition, the added traffic from 48 more homes
should not be borne by Shadow Creek. The attached map shows that
even with all Phase 5 traffic routed through Bettencourt, 3, 394
daily trips will use Shadow Creek Drive, compared with only 2 ,310
entering and exiting Mansfield Drive into Bettencourt Ranch.
7. THE NEW ROUTE pOR FLEETWOOD IS PREFERABLE. Given that
Dame' s vested right prevents total elimination of Fleetwood Road,
your task is to decide which alignment is preferred. The
proposed new route crosses the hillside lower, and will require
less grading and smaller retaining walls than the original. it
also will be less visible off-site. If Dame' s application is
denied, the higher route will be built as part of Phase S.
8. FLEETWOOD CANNOT BE BUILT AS A MERE EVA. You may be
urged to compromise by limiting Fleetwood to emergency access
only. This is not reasonable for three reasons: (I) Shadow
Creek residents need a full-sized alternative route to escape the
area while emergency vehicles drive up; (2) construction of even
an LVA road likely will require similar grading and site
disturbance; and (3) the inequity of forcing all Phase 5 traffic
through Shadow Creek will not be cured.
9. THE PHASE 5 LINK TO SHADOW CREEK MUST BE EVA ONLY.
This project includes a request to change the connection between
Phase 5 and Shadow Creek to an EVA-only gate. The original
approval allows a card-control gate for daily use by Phase 5 and
other Bettencourt residents. This shifts some traffic from
Bettencourt to Shadow Creek. it is unfair to allow Bettencourt
residents to use Shadow Creek roads but not vice versa.
\DOC\a0129001\120639
FEB. -02' 95 (FRI) 12:07 NORRIS & NORRIS TEL: 1 510 934 3665 P. 005
Board of Supervisors
February 2 , 1996
Page 4
Shadow Creek residents voted to grant Dam6 an easement
through their open space to build Fleetwood Road along the lower
route. The primary consideration for this grant was Dame s
agreement to restrict the road link to EVA-only. If not for that
protection, together with the right to use Fleetwood Road in an
emergency, the easement would not have been approved. If the
County approves the lower route but not the EVA-only connection,
Damd' s ability to use the easement may be in doubt. The Board
should agree that the environmental benefits of the lower route
justify the EVA restriction.
The staff report to the Board claims that the Commission
"approved" DP953004. This is incorrect: the Commission not only
rejected realignment of Fleetwood Road, it voted to eliminate the
road entirely. That can hardly be called an approval.
Representatives of Shadow Creek will testify at the Board' s
public hearing, and will be available to answer any questions.
Very truly yours,
NORRIS & NORRIS, P.C.
BY EDWARD L. SHAFFER
ELS:slh
encl.
cc: Shadow Creek Residents Association
Robert Drake
(delivered to each Supervisor's office)
\DOC\80129001\128639
1
t x
,J1-0
j Ll
r
lama
tier ( � �,*.�*��.,��,� � a,� "�'" ♦ �,.
Sk
�. x•��.. a�s, �I�t
1
dam! ��f� ti '�,�, {!� , �o�r' �'��,t�,�t►��.
ar
r ;�
e•aa�
510 g5� �86�
�QRR1 S � �yaRR1 S �
tFRti �?•'OB ; ,�
FEB. ��'• �� � , , >
j
4
0 3W f 1
d r
Zol
lb
s
G a
r
I � y+1 r,,,• G 1 7 � � .E
•
sr1��0C.,
S .
.y
�. Q. In
<x= Community Associations Consulting
For Bettencourt Ranch Association .
6375 Clark Avenue, Suite 101
Dublin, CA 94568-3001
Phone (510) 833-0100
Fax (510) 833-1625
February 5, 1996
Hand Deliyery
Clerk, County of Contra Costa RECOVED
Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553 FEB ' 1996
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
Re: County file number 3003-95 and 3004-95 to be heard 2:00 PM, 2/6/96
Dear Sir:
The attached information, in packets for the individual Board members is provided
relative to the above referenced items. A great many individuals will be presenting
their "3 minutes worth", hopefully in sequence to make for a coherent
presentation.Bettencourt Ranch Association shall have a mix of Board Members,
Committee Chairpersons and committee members, paid professional arborists and
other landscape specialists and Management making "official" presentations on
behalf of the Association. Sean Absher, esq. of Miller, Starr & Regalia, legal
counsel for the Association shall also be present to answer any questions which
the Supervisors might ask. Quite a few homeowners shall also provide input in
areas in which the Association may not be able to comment.
Sincerely,
Paul Weirather, MBA, Ph.D.
Agent for Bettencourt Ranch Association
cc: Chron, Agenda
I