The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 05141996 - D10 Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa County FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ---------- DATE: _____DATE: May 13 , 1996 SUBJECT: Continued May 14, 1996 Hearing of the Appeals on the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission decision on Applications to Modify the Vesting Tentative Map and the Final Development Plan for Bettencourt Ranch and Final Development Plan for Shadow Creek (County File #DP953003 & DP953004) in the Tassajara area. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS A. Hear testimony, declare the Board' s intent to sustain the Planning Commission' s decision, including: 1 . Modifications identified under the Consensus of Changes to the Project (from the April 12, 1996 staff report) as further modified by Exhibit I associated with this staff report; 2 . Any other modifications chosen by the Board as indicated in the listing of Alternatives from the April 12, 1996 staff report . Direct staff to prepare a Board Order incorporating the Board' s findings, terms and conditions . B. Affirm the Planning Commission' s adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration as the appropriate environmental document for CEQA review purposes . C. If the hearing is closed, continue the matter to May 21, 1996 (or thereafter if the public hearing is not closed) . FISCAL IMPACT None provided recommended application fee payment condition is imposed. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X Yft. SIGNATURE RECONMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMIT EE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON May 149 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER x— SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUM VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: TV; V; TT NOES: T • TTT ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN, Contact: Bob Drake (510) 335-1214 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED CC: Dame Construction Company PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Bettencourt Ranch Assoc . THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Shadow Creek Res . Assoc . AND COUNTY JLDbJINISTRATOR Public Works Dept . County Counsel B DEPUTY D , D . /� BACKGROUND The Board has conducted a hearing on appeals filed by the applicant and the Shadow Creek Residents Association on the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission' s action on the applicant ' s proposal to modify the Vesting Tentative Map/Final Development for the Bettencourt Ranch approved in 1989 and the approved Shadow Creek Final Development Plan. At the Board meeting on April 2 , 1996, the Board directed staff to propose alternative actions and findings for the Board to consider relative to: (1) incorporating agreements between the Bettencourt Ranch Association and the applicant concerning adequacy of landscape improvements within the first four phases of the project as conditions of approval or as recitals in a Board decision; and (2) alternatives relative to denying or granting the applicant ' s appeal to allow the relocation of three lots from valley area to hillside site within the last phase of the project, and possible design restrictions if granted. Reference is made to the April 12, 1996 staff report which presented alternatives for Board consideration, the conditions of approval for the Planning Commission' s approval of the request to modify the Bettencourt Ranch Vesting Tentative Map/Final Development Plan and related Mitigation Monitoring Program. Reference is also made to the May 2, 1996 staff report which contained correspondence from , the legal counsel from the Bettencourt Ranch Association concerning the terms of a private agreement between the applicant and the Association. The report also contained a letter from a Bettencourt resident, Tom Mulvihill, which expressed concern about the design and timing of the completion of a cul-de-sac at the end of Fleetwood Road in the event the applicant elects not to extend that road per the approved Vesting Tentative Map. At the meeting of the Board on May 7, 1996, the applicant testified that if the Board declared Green Meadow Drive as the exclusive access to SUB 7279, then the applicant will waive all rights associated with the approved 1989 Vesting Tentative Map for extending Fleetwood Road to connect with the roads within that phase of the project . The applicant also indicated that in that instance, they were prepared to stabilize the landslide near the existing end of Fleetwood Road. BOARD REVIEW AT MAY 7, 1996 MEETING After taking testimony, the Board reviewed the matter, and before taking any definitive action, the Board continued the hearing on the appeals to May 14, 1996 . Before continuing the hearing, the Board considered the following matters . Proposed Relocation of Three Lots to Hillside Area Supervisor Bishop moved (seconded by Supervisor Rogers) to deny the applicant ' s appeal to relocate the three lots and to sustain the Planning Commission' s action due to concerns about non-conformity with existing County General Plan hillside protection policies, and that allowing the applicant not to be required to extend Fleetwood Road would already be financially benefitting the applicant by avoiding substantial improvement costs . Supervisor Torlakson indicated that he could support the proposed relocation of the three lots subject to conditions including design SR-2 D. / controls that apply to the proposed relocation of three lots as well as approved hillside lots within Subdivision 7279 . 1 . Alternative 'D' from 4/12/96 Staff Report - Development of Lots 44 - 47 shall be restricted as indicated in Alternative II .C.2 . of the April 12, 1996 staff report (pg. 8) . 2 . Effect Restoration of Original Grassland Appearance - The applicant be required to hydroseed the common area of Final Map 7279 to restore its pre-graded appearance with suitable grasses, and that the work be bonded with the Public Works Department for a reasonable period of time to assure that the work is adequately performed. 3 . Restrict Residential Reflectivity of all Hillside Lots - That development of (previously approved) hillside Lots 37 - 43, 47 and 48 be subject to the exterior materials reflectivity controls identified in Alternative II . B. 3 . of the April 12, 1996 staff report (pg. 7) . 4 . Extended Landscape Screening Reguirement - The applicant would be required to restrict development of (previously approved) hillside Lots 45 - 48 be subject to similar landscape screening requirement as provided for with Lot 44 as indicated in Alternative II . C.2 . in the April 12, 1996 staff report (pg. 8) . The frontage of Lots 45 and 48 shall be planted with trees intended to provide screening of development from off- site views . 5 . CC&R' s coverage of HOA Responsibility for Landscape Improvements intended to Screen Hillside Lots - The applicant would be required to include in the CC&R' s for Final Map 7279 explicit provision that the pertinent HOA preserve and maintain the approved common area landscape screening.' 6 . Review of Common Area Landscape Plans - With regards to C/A #10 .A. , the applicant would be required to allow the Country Club at Blackhawk Improvement Association and the owner of Assessor' s Parcel Number 220-580-012 (200 South Ridge Court, Blackhawk, Jensen) an opportunity to comment on the landscape plans . If the project is to be annexed into the Shadow Creek HOA, then that HOA should be allowed to review and comment on the landscape plans in lieu of the Bettencourt Ranch Association. The relevant HOA' s, off-site Blackhawk property owner, and EBMUD shall be provided at least 15 days to comment on the proposed landscape plans prior to approval by the Zoning Administrator. 7 . Hillside Planning Booklet/Worksh= - The applicant shall be required to fund the County for: A. Review of Hillside Grading Permit Process - A review and revision of the County grading permit process as relates to hillside or special view areas . The purpose of the review shall be to assure that issues associated with recently processed hillside applications can be addressed in a systematic way, and to provide a clear communication process in the future of the obligation of all parties . B. Workshop for Staff Training - Implementation of the revised process and workshops to train all County personnel who are involved in the review of permit project requests associated with hillside planning and viewshed. 'Also note Condition #11.B. of the conditions of approval from the Planning Commission action. SR-3 D, / C. user' s Guide/Booklet —Develop a Users' Guide/Booklet for hillside/viewshed areas, including a series of workshops for developers, the community and staff . Supervisor DeSaulnier also indicated that he was inclined to support the proposed relocation of the three lots to hillside area. Insofar as Supervisor Smith had left the meeting before the item was concluded, resolution of this matter was deferred to the next Board meeting. Other Project Matters It was the unanimous consensus of the Board members present that other project issues be resolved as summarized in Exhibit I . e SR-4 ADDENDUM TO ITEMS D.10 and D. 11 May 14, 1996 Agenda On May 7,1996, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date the hearing on: (a) The Appeals of 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 (3004-95) (Bettencourt Ranch Residents Association, owners) to modify the Final Development Plan (3034- 88) and Vesting Tentative Map 7188 for Bettencourt Ranch, Danville/Tassajara area; (b) And hearing on the appeals of Dame' Construction (Appellant and Applicant) and Shadow Creek Residents Association (Appellants and Owners), from the decision of the San Ramon Valey Regional Planning Commission the application to modify the Final Development Plan (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, Danville/Tassajara Area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staffs recommendations. The following speakers commented: Julia Durmis, Bettencourt Homeowner's Association, 807 Buckingham Place, Danville; Linda Crowe, South Eagle's Nest Homeowners, 214 So. Ridge Court, Danville; and Nancy Mulvihill, 4490 Fleetwood Road, Danville. All persons desiring to speak having been heard, the Board considered the issues presented. After discussion by the Board, Supervisor Bishop moved that the Board: 1. ACCEPT the staffs recommendations; 2. SUSTAIN the Planning Commission's decision, and DENY the applicant's appeal to relocate the three lots that are inconsistent with the General Plan; 3. ACCEPT the attached Exhibit I with certain modifications; 4. MODIFY Number 5, Exhibit I, in reference to the landscape agreement, to include binding arbitration; 5. CLARIFY that Number 6 of Exhibit I, with respect to the tot lot and wrought iron fence, be consistent with the conditions of approval; 6. DETERMINE that Dame Construction Company freely chose the Greenmeadow access route of their own volition; 7. DELETE Number 7 of Exhibit I; 8. APPROVE Numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Exhibit I, as conditions for the hillside lots that are currently approved; 1 D . /o 9. ACCEPT Items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the attached Exhibit 2, titled "Clarification of Supervisor Torlakson's Position On The Proposed Relocation of Three Lots As Understood By Staff From The May 7, 1996, Board of Supervisors Hearing." Supervisor Rogers seconded the motion. The Board further discussed the matter. Supervisor Torlakson moved a substitute motion that the Board: 1. APPROVE the three hillside lots; 2. ACCEPT Numbers 1 through 7 of attached Exhibit I; 3. MODIFY Number 5 of Exhibit 1, to include a $3,000 CC&R maintenance fund for-trees planted as screening; 4. ACCEPT items 1 through 7 in the attached Exhibit 2, titled "Clarification of Supervisor Torlakson's Position On The Proposed Relocation of Three Lots As Understood By Staff From The May 7, 1996, Board of Supervisors Hearing." 5. REQUESTED that staff come back with full findings and definitive language at a future Board meeting; (May 21, 1996, at 3:30 p.m.). 6. CLOSE the Hearing. Supervisor DeSaulnier seconded the motion. The vote on the substitute motion was as follows: AYES :Supervisor DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Smith NOES :Supervisors Rogers and Bishop ABSENT/ABSTAIN:None After further comments from Board members, Supervisor Bishop suggested that taking the position of accepting the hillside lots is contrary to the Board's policy with respect to hillside development. 2 EXHIBIT I SUMMARY OF CONSENSUS CHANGES FROM 5/7/96 BOARD HEARING Appeals of San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Decision on County Files #DP953003 (Shadow Creek) and #DP953004 (Bettencourt Ranch) 1. Substitute recommended condition pertaining to extension/no extension of Fleetwood Road and offers to transfer Phase V area within Bettencourt Ranch (Sub 7279)to the Shadow Creek Residents Association. (Ref. pp. 3 - 4 of 4/12/96 staff report pertaining to revision of C/A#3). In lieu of extending Fleetwood Road pursuant to the 1989 vesting tentative map, the applicant may-eie�ct ::: ::::�.cuss.:::.frxt�:<.; ezz: lccc > rz:xx :<:::: xx ::::>not to extend Fleetwood Road beyond its existing eastern terminus subject to satisfying the following conditions prior to acceptance of Final Map 7279: A) Construct Cul-de-Sac Bulb at Existing Fleetwood Terminus - F-leetwood Rom; 'he improvement plans for the cul-de- sac shall be reviewed and approved prior to the filing of the final map for subdivision 7279. The cul-de-sac shall be located beyond the last lot on Fleetwood Road (Lot 108 of Final Map 7278) so as not to encroach on that property as it has been approved for adjustment by Lot Line Adjustment 63-92. The cul-de-sac shall remain outside the `new lot line" of Lot 108 as shown on LL 63-92 (102 LSM 16) . The design shall also address the existing drainage problem at the end of Fleetwood Road and the plan shall be signed by a geotechnical engineer certifying that the design complies with their recommendations for constructing structures in the project areaand rey :::::: The - cry> tdaa shall ........ ...... 'er: :ausma:trza :. z : : ? »>: :»>tda shall be submitted witha the pian aata;.>:::.:::.>:>:<.:<.:._:.:;tt•:::;;::;:t:'•;:•:a•::tt;;•:;•:;:.;:•::::;::::::: The constiuction jO Exhibit I Summary of Consensus Changes From 517196 Board of Supervisors Meeting of - - ':': I shall .................. :...:...:...:..:...:...:..........:......:.. : be , or c:ontzact ............... c � c� �f � dz:r :<;: ::;»::>:te.>:.::.: e4 :0ix ::e :>::::e :::: : e >:«: ::>:: cd:.".::::`:.>.,:; ::::..::::::.:: ':::::::::..:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. �I.::::::::::::::.:. ::.::::::::::::::::: ::_.::: .. fi:. ::::::::::....:......:::i::....:::ii:Fif.:::::::i:i.....:...iii:.:::.i::iiiiiiiiii}iiii::4::iiiiii'.ii::'.i:.i:.::.iiiiiiiiiiiiiii"•:i:i•:4:v:+':v:{:::v•iiiiiii:..... i}}}i::'.iiY:::.}}iiiiiii:' ................... ;�iJt'++:i.i4:: :}''].:li i... iii::.::ii. ..: :::C ::li'.:::::i.:::{n�'r,i::ii..:..:.t::[.:l:..i.i::.. :::!:i:/ ••. ..ii::,'�M�:..;:(,::i:::: :::i. ..:..:JF....,{.r.. .:... ... Y:` Y.Y!:hY: ::i::is�:��:::i :W:::i:::: S:I.W.ii:::�f+. :yl�,;: ::i::i:::TY.!! :::i:::4✓:!!:i::: :�f!< :W:�f': tV�'V*::5:: f:�. v::::::::. ::::::::::::.�:.�: ::w::::::::::::::::::.�:::::...:..::..:::::::::,.W,.!: .?t! :::::f:::::::i:::'ii:''::::i:::'::i:::::::::i:::iiiiiiiiiii:!''::::: i::::i::::iii:ilii:Y,,i::::::::::i::::i::::i$:::isiiiii?::::i::::i::::i::::i?:i::.:r.i:.::"Jii"i:Jii:vi: "v'i<biii i......•iii:?'•i riiiiii:i•'iti:i::i::i�i .::;....::. s a Vie:::>: e .... >: ;s::::::::::.::..:::.: m. ........................................ ........................ ...::::xee1e .;:::;< <>:::; vtea :>::>:::>::>:::>::>::>;:>::;:.i:.i:.i.....:.i::.i:.i:.i:.;..i:..;::.;:.i.::. ::::::::::: ::::.::::::::.::::.::::.:.: .:::::........... .::.:.:. .._.:_:i:.i:............... . �. '.i: .i' : '.ii::.. . .:::..;.. :::.;.:.:.;::.:i..:: i:.;.:::::.;.:.;::..;...;.::.;.::;.i:.;.::::.::.::...:..::::::::::::::: :::.:::. :::: . ::::::::::.::::::::.:::::is".>;:: .i:.i:.i:.:.:<.:.: ....'.i:.i:.i:......i:.i:.: >i:.::i:.:: i ii:.:9.::i .i:::::::::: :.::: : i::.Ishii:.ie .i:: f.i:: ' . . wr .. a .::: al3:.i>; jib `::ii:::::i:;:Yii::'�'Y`i :?:::::':::''ii:i:i'ii: ....i:::.:i:is ir:.' • 'ii:is:i:Y ......................... IT 2_;::.::::;::i..:.:... ;:.::;:::......:..::. :.; .:;.i':;. i':::;.;.:.;....i:.i:.i.:.i'�::.;'.i.:::.;..;.:::.::::::ii:.:i:;.;:.;:.;:.i:. ':.i:.ii:.; e<armee;:t;>;«::> ra:d xz :::::;.:.i...::::;.i i'::i;:::::..::.:.::.:.i;::::<<.:.:>:<>..: ::. . p :::.::::::::.:: :...:�>:::.:::::::.:::::::::::::: '::. rx, : .::.i:.i:.i:<: ' e.i.i :.i:: .i:.ieuz :::.cr.ii:<e ..: i...,i .,..:.,............................ ..........y ......>. ..;.. .. ...;.. ,i.. ..,i....:..i.::.... ..... :.;•.;•.i;: "'Siii:':.i'.:i::.:i':.:i::i:>' .......... i:....... ............;:.i:.;:. .:.i:.;:.;:.i:.i:.;:::.::::::.:::::..::::::::::::::::.:.::....:.......:::::::::::::..:::::::::...::::..::::. :.:::::.:.::.;:::.;:.i:.i:.i:.i:::.....:...:..... ...::. ..: '.::::;.::::i::i:::i.::::: :::i:i...::::.;::::;::fit: :....:::>:>:;::: >::::>::;.:::<...;...fr::;i:: .i i::i i::::::':.: :xcrti:: :;zxz�:i::i�r��: rxriiil.�:t.iiia.��:>ii>=:�af<:::i : ::ii::�::�:�::i::i�t �}�}� �.......p.......:::''::::::::::::::::::. i:.:::::::::::::...... .:::::::::::::::::::::.::. .........i:.i:.i:.;'.i:.:.:.:..:.; ::::::::::::::::::::::.:.::::::::.:::::.:: el:. s + x .:on:.i:.is .i:.:; ac .i:.i:. 13: .i:.i:eu3i:.ii ....i:.: ::.....:.....:.i:::':i:>::: : :::i::>:>:i:>:::>::>::;:i:>:::>: i:i::;::::<:i:' i:::i::: :<::.. ':.;'.i::'.i:. i:.i. " >::<::.i:<:i:::ii>::i::i:>i::i::::;:::.:: :............................. ft e : a :.:.i:>::::»:: e arse i:::;:::. :i';:::.:::_:>::<.>::.:;::;. <: i:.i:.::..<:.:.<::.::: :::.::::.>:::;'.:::.:::.>: i'.:::>:<:: is :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: . izii:;.Ise.iixrp:.::::::.: ` e::. x. n.i:.i:e :::::.i'::::::::..: :: i:.i:.i:.i:.i:.i:.i:::.i..; ::::.:::. ;«:::::ii::i::i.i:::i':..iiiiii:... :.i:::<::':i:.i:.i:.i:.iiiii.............. . ........... . . . c . .::: �. .::::::: :::::a.: r ::: :. .:::::::::::: ::: :::::::::.::::::::..::::::.::..:.:::::::::::::::...::.... ..............:::: igiff ua�:��'::.iizea .::: .:. .:::f : n...:::: f:.i:.i *:.i::fzna . ::::::::: ::::::::::.::.:.::. .:...::.:.:. .:::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::t. ::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::........... ".i':'.ii:.i:.i '.;:.;:.i:.i.:..::.:.:..i... . ::..:i::::.:.:i::i:> :.::i':i:;:::::i::::i':.i::.i;.:;. i::;.;.:.i:.;:.:.:.;.:.i:';.i.....i'.i:.i:.:..:;.:.i':.>:::.: > as<l aG`7 ; '>i::; `::ii:'i' 'j` ;<:%2;` `;>?is?<,?::::?:.:„„,;..,..::,..�:.,.,,.:., >i::.:; ' 's°°":"iiiy': °';'i ;``;:<:;"```:i::: :::::::::::...�:.:.::.:i:.i:::::. at .ii ..i.ieunp . .ii + ne: + er ............:::;::::;::<; Ai ::::: i:<:i::i::i:::::i':ii':i::«:i::i::':i:>':.:: ><i::.><:::.... :.i:.i:.....i:.i:;.:>:;.;:.;:.iii:.;.::.;:.i.:.is.i:.i:.i...i.:.iii':.;:'.i:.;:. ii:.i:.>:.i:. ii::>::: . i...:...:..:..:....i...:.... :.i....:.:.....::. :..:...:...;:. ...::.:.......:�: :::::::>::: zxx::::>:r ier : xn::::<:: t i3:e::>::::x:s:s:uazx:c *>:::Q :::>: u: : ::d �x#{�>::::.i .:.::. ..:.::#:.. ::..; .........................................:.::::: :::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::......::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::'.'J'.. „�.t,. .; ,�,,.,.Lga�lr.:a:,: ......................................... B) Offer to Annex Final Man 7279 to Shadow Creek - The applicant shall offer to the Shadow Creek Residents Association that the permitted development of Final Map 7279 be annexed to the Shadow Creek Residents Association. The offer shall be in writing with —a copy provided to the Community Development Department at the time of issuance of the offer; C) Elimination of Card-Gated Access - If the applicant elects not to extend Fleetwood Road to connect with roads within Final Map 7279, then the requirement to design and construct a card-gated access at the Green Meadow Drive entrance associated with the approved 1989 Bettencourt Vesting Tentative Map shall be null and void. Finding The Board of Supervisors understands that the applicant has entered into a private agreement with the Shadow Creek Residents Association (SORA) which provides for the payment of $5, 000 per lot within Subdivision 7279 to be paid to the SCRA when escrow closes for each residential lot sold if the area of Subdivision 7279 is E-2 Exhibit I Summary of Consensus Changes From 517196 Board of Supervisors Meeting annexed into the SCRA. In the alternative, if no annexation takes place, $3, 000 per lot will be paid by the applicant to SCRA at close of escrow for each residential lot sold. 2. Board Action to Direct that Green Meadow Drive be Exclusive Access to Final Map 7279 -Pursuant to an apparent substitute agreement between the applicant and the Shadow Creek Residents Association, the applicant would not be forced to extend Fleetwood Road. Instead, the County would find that road connection to Final Map 7279 preferably consist exclusively of the Green Meadow Drive connection, and that the applicant abandon any rights to extend Fleetwood Road to connect to Final Map 7279. 3. Funding of Traffic Signal Improvements - The applicant shall be required to fully fund one-half of the costs of the traffic signal at Camino Tassajara and Mansfield Drive intersection prior to filing Final Map 7279 (ref. C/A#4 of the Planning Commission approval). 4. Payment of In-Lieu Trail Improvement Contribution Directly to BRA-Pursuant to an agreement between the applicant and the Bettencourt Ranch Association, C/A O.A. of the Planning Commission approval shall be modified. The applicant shall be required to provide evidence that the applicant has contributed $107,000 directly to the HOA in lieu of previously required public/private trail improvements. The Commission action had provided for interim holding of this contribution by the County. 5. As Recitals Only, Landscape Settlement Agreement for Area of First Four Project Phases - In lieu of C/A#13 from the Planning Commission's approval, the final Board action shall provide findings as recitation only that the applicant and the Bettencourt Ranch Association have entered into a settlement agreement to resolve alleged landscaping deficiency issues for the first four phases of the Bettencourt Ranch project. 6. As Recitals Only, In-Lieu Contributions for Amenities in First Four Phases of the Project - In lieu of tot lot, wrought-iron fence improvements at the Buckingham Drive entrance, and the Cheshire Circle/Mansfield Drive trail described on page 6 of the 4/12/96 staff report, the final Board action shall provide findings as recitation only that the applicant and the Bettencourt Ranch Association have entered into a settlement agreement to allow payment of$37,500 to the Association within 60 days of the recording of the final map for Final Map 7279, as described in the April 26, 1996 letter from Miller Starr& Regalia, legal counsel for the Bettencourt Ranch Association. E-3 D , / 0 Exhibit I Summary of Consensus Changes From 5/7/96 Board of Supervisors Meeting 7. As Recitals Only, Reference Resolution Settlement between Applicant and BRA of Cash Contribution - The final Board action shall find that the applicant and the Bettencourt Ranch Association have agreed to submit a dispute concerning payment of$62,500 from the applicant to the Association for resolution by motion under Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 or under any other applicable staturory provision conferring jurisdiction on the court, including but not limited to, Code of Civil Procedure Section 638 as described in the April 26, 1996 letter from Miller Starr&Regalia, legal counsel for the Bettencourt Ranch Association. CA"doc\draftbet RD\ E-4 L; W.0 INA A-AL.All Ru vim C7 As imell l 06 PW rlw.m I NO ol m fflfl Lw ow wa m ft Mir WOW MW VOW ij w i Id 101097 �t 2� to 13 112 11 t0 '4"0 Na. E �(1t4'p epU 9i►1 w 1 a }�P 31 30 27 26 23 3x 24 23 a et 113y f � 3a 33 �8 0 18 /T 16 $. R3�r 3S ,�•K W o t . iIA 19 5 AID' ID20 VAL z19 gpuRHE 9 �rA •'�8 gt ! n 4 7 iw 4' Z X02 O 48 n VS q,b DPS q PARe to CELS 4.7 evv easE I - - 67 r PI 70 Cfee Is * x Opel. SP�`G O ,,�. �♦�. � � r.��- oxen �.� y, W Com' ,Py, r� �, A�'F.,L'.+ X• MAY 13'96 16:59 FR MILLER 6TARR REGALIA 510 465 1202 TO 6481206 P.06 1'IFli�1J� 3O 1�•lYJ 1L.11x wny�.. c.++-vt .� .v..� .e,• .�.J+1"."'['-" ■..ur�y.i. ..t+v "RY-13->l996 15;55 CMM costA-CDD sxs w 2mi r:e%,w 1).) b - 41 RECEIVED- L r 1 MAY f 41996 $ 1T I 8 cosiPEo Des SUMMUY OF CON MKM SBS IWM S"M DOAW$LAME fpr of bra mos Y�fowl p �ea Cho 0q=0 ft"UM(WWW frees t>dd��lea�ee�art raj i. lubrgiaKa r000 oaia�baa peeWiraip��ae>�iaerm atwoad PAW se oto t,m*,PbwV ae= *mowt ftxh(dub 7279)to tie �doa►t �tasids�c �.3.4 r►f4/� ips�'src purine to a�CfA*3) -m Kett of , mtrmdioy Flestwma Road n+tot too v"Upff twtk"—IMAPPtba lta�t Flab bpd to a 4ma so C torw subject to satinfa;lvol ins oandWou- prior to aoowtmm of final Map 7.2119; 1L] mm"Olu tid rm plane fog the cvI-db+ *&a xb&U Ete;z�;VO-dlsqd marred ��.tour to Us ftl;UW of this; laLaal tow aabdtv3a3o�a �9+9. l'he Qat-de-�ta+R 1 Irllatt ba loastaa kayaad the laet lot an FleatrrAd Road k C4*t Yob' of 71W !pp 7?76) 60 re jot to dnawcb an ; Q, eat 6S- . The Cal-de-roe I rma � �\ L vacs3Qat the '#ter 2ec 2tne' of La 8 J `� t t Joe as abom on LL 63 02 (I02 Lm•tm26) rho desfda uiatl alp addcisrr tW OW#C W bra •- �J SD" as at the =a of sl+e tW od load add t ill v fie► a on" by a o�ilarat ar tooar a �t*"V that (57the dei dao with tbafrIrecommuNtatiWa far � \ ieomar.:�t a aamaa sa ttse*fewivje� ID Mal C M i.ilG C - - RECEIVED _ 7J./0 MAY 1 419 Contra Costa County. Community Development Department CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. CLARIFICATION OF SUPERVISOR TORLAKSON POSITION ON THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF THREE LOTS AS UNDERSTOOD BY STAFF FROM THE MAY 79 1996 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARING (Reference 5/13/96 Staff Report to the Board). MAY 14, 1996 APPEALS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO BETTENCOURT RANCH AND SHADOW CREEK FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS (File#DP953003 & #DP953004). ai '. Supervisor Torlakson indicated that he could support the proposed relocation of the three lots subject to conditions including design controls that apply to the proposed relocation of three lots as well as approved hillside lots within 'Subdivision 7279 . 1 . Alternative ID' from 4/12/96 Staff Report - Development of Lots 44 - 47 shall be restricted as indicated in Alternative II .C.2 . of the April 12, 1996 staff report (pg. 8) . - 2 Effect Restoration of Original Grassland Appearance - The applicant be required to hydroseed the common area of Final Map 7279 to restore its pre-graded appearance with suitable grasses, and that the work be bonded with the Public Works Department for a reasonable period of time to assure that the work is adequately performed. 3 . Restrict Residential Reflectivity of all Hillside Lo - That development of (previously approved) hillside Lots 37 - 43 , 47 and 48 be subject to the exterior materials reflectivity controls identified in Alternative II . B.3 . of the April 12, 1996 staff report (pg. 7) . 4 . Extended Landscape Screening_eguirement - The applicant would be required to restrict development of (previously approved) hillside Lots 45 - 48 be subject to similar landscape screening requirement as provided for with Lot 44 as indicated in Alternative II . C.2 . in the April 12, 1996 staff report (pg. 8) . The frontage of Lots 45 and 48 shall be planted with trees intended to provide .screening of development from off-site views . FRECEIVED M AY 1 4 1996 CLER OARD OF CONTRA OVA Co.SORS 200 South Ridge Court Danville, CA 94526 May 13, 1996 Tom Torlakson Board of Supervisors District V Contra Costa County 300 E. Leland Avenue, Suite 100 Pittsburg, CA 94565 Dear Supervisor Torlakson: After the last meeting, it has become clear that the possibility of compromise is in the wings. I commend Supervisor Bishop and Rogers on their stand to deny Dame's relocation of the hillside lots. Supervisor Bishop felt relocation of the three lots should be denied because they do not follow the current general plan. Since.the grading is not consistent with the general plan, she felt it would be sending the wrong message to Dame and other developers who try to circumvent the process. Her statement "why mitigate when the grading process was inconsistent with the tentative map", says it all. In summary, she felt that Dame should not be allowed to profit by ending up with three custom view lots when he started with three small tract lots. Supervisor Rogers felt that the developer still wins, even if the lots are denied, as he will still have the ability to build three homes on the original lots following the approved tentative plan. He felt that the Blackhawk homeowners should not lose the view of the only hillside that they have left. He felt that the original site plan was a good one and that Dame should be restricted to it. Supervisor To+Xon felt that the appearance of the existing hillside was appalling. He could not believe Dame could have stripped the hillside and then left it for all Blackhawk homeowners to view for the past five years. His suggestion is to replant the existing hillside to make it pleasant for all to see. If there is a compromise in the wings based on Supervisor Smith's vote, I would like to refer to Supervisor's Torlaxon's recommendations. • 4 1: Replant and revegetate the total hillside to blend with the existing non stripped areas. b - 16 2. Lower lot 44 to the elevation that is line with the other lots on the hillside. 3. Require that each hillside lot be shielded with redwood tress and other plantings to make it attractive from any hillside advantage point. 4. Require in the CC&R's that the maintenance of the plantings and trees be part of the Shadowcreek homeowners responsibility. 5. Make sure that all landscape plans are signed off by Shadowcreek homeowners as well as the Blackhawk homeowners which Bob Jensen represents. 6. Require Dame to develop a booklet that will be available to all developers concerning proper hillside planning and developing. Again, I am hopeful that Supervisor Roger's last suggestion is approved. Deny the relocation of the three lots while making all of the necessary changes that Supervisor Torkaleson recommended . In this way, the hillside will be restored after five years of visual blight and Dame will be required to follow the original tentative map. Again, thanks to each of you for all time and dedication that you have shown in this long and drawn out process. The fact that you have spent the time and viewed the hillside from our perspective assures me that the final vote will be something we all can be proud of. Sincerely, Robert T. Jensen T D - 014- res, i Country Club at Blackhawk improvement Association, Inc. _ 4125 Blackhawk Plaza Circle,Suite 230,Danville,California 94506 ,,,,.� Telephone:(510)736-6440;Fax(510)736.0428 ECt Fran Tillis,President, Rolf Henze,PCAM,Community Manager �pnC CLERK BOARD OFSUPERVI3Q};jg March 29,.1996 co rtin Co co Copy Also Faxed to 820.6627 Supervisor Gayle,Bishop, District 3 County Board of'Supervisors, County of Contra Costa 18 Crow Canyon Court#120 San Ramon, CA 94583 Subject: County File#DP953003 and 953004 Dame Construction,Shadowcreek& Bettencourt Ranch Dear Supervisor Bishop: Some six months ago, we addressed our concerns to Senior Planner Bob Drake about the unsightly, unsatisfactory and haphazard appearance of the north-facing hillsides in the planned Dame development:This unfinished hillside area has been a bone of contention since it has been so very visible to such a large number of our homeowners for more than four years. It has been barren and devoid of appropriate vegetation and it has been a source of significant erosion almost every winter. Last year, it was re-graded into an even more unsightly condition, moving at least one of the lots to higher, more visible location and we are told that its planned development density has increased and that will make it even more unsightly. It is our understanding that the future of this long-scarred hillside may finally be resq,Ned during your next scheduled meeting of the Board of Supervisors on April 2, 1996. It is not the intent of ur Association to take a philosophical position on development in neighboring communities, especially the='question of where the connector street ought to be, but we would like to insist, nevertheless, that the present unsightly condition and the ultimately desired appearance of these hillsides be given a very high priority in your delibetabons. The several hundred Blackhawk residents have had to live with this visual blight for far too long. Their interests must be heard and they must be represented. We ask that the Board of Supervisors find in favor of our homeowners by condemning the deleterious effect on the hillsides by the allegedly unapproved grading by Dame Construction and that the Board make it possible for them to finally have an unblighted view restored by insisting on the original extent of the development. While we know that you support this point of view it was thought that we should re-address the matter, nevertheless.We thank you for your support. Tran ruly youillis,President Board of Directors E_1LETrERS1N11 i C+nc 10r