Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05071996 - D.14 Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa County FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �' • _ - '� �sr9 ce DATE: May 2, 1996 SUBJECT: Continued May 7, 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 Shadow Creek (County File #DP953003 & DP953004) in the Tassajara area. I SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & 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; 3 . Other modifications which the Board may choose to make pursuant to correspondence received. 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 14, 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 YES SIGNATURE G RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMIT E APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON May 7, 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER x _ See the attached Addendum for Board action and vote . VOTE OF S VISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSE ABSTA. MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Bob Drake (510) 335-1214 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTEDtray 7 , 1996 cc: Dame Construction Company Bettencourt Ranch Assoc . PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Shadow Creek Res . Assoc . THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Public Works Dept . AND COUNTY INISTRATOR County Counsel BY , DEPUTY DISCUSSION A. Annexation Decision by Shadow Creek Staff has been informed by the legal counsel for Shadow Creek Residents Association, Ed Shaffer, that the Association has voted in favor of annexation of Final Map 7279 (Phase V of Bettencourt Ranch) into that association. B. Recommended Modifications to Conditions Clarification of. Need to De-Annex Phase V - The 4/12/96 staff report recommended modification to one of the conditions of approval (reference p.3) pertaining to possible transfer of Subdivision 7279 (phase V of Bettencourt Ranch) to the Shadow Creek Residents' Association. The staff position had presumed a legal requirement to de-annex this section of the Bettencourt Ranch project from the Bettenourt Ranch Association before it could be transferred to the Shadow Creek Residents Association. However, at one of the Board meetings, the applicant testified that there was no legal requirement to de-annex Phase V from Bettencourt before Shadow Creek could annex it . This testimony was not contested by the representative for the Bettencourt Ranch Association. Therefore, it is staff' s recommendation that the condition on pp. 3 - 4 of the 4/12/96 staff report requiring that the applicant offer to de-annex from the Bettencourt Ranch be revised and corresponding changes being made to eliminate the card-gated access at the Green Meadow Drive entrance. Modification to Placement of Required Fleetwood Road Cul-de- Sac - The revised condition in the 4/12/96 staff report provided the applicant with the option of either extending Fleetwood Road :along the original 1989 alignment, or not extending Fleetwood Road and installation of a cul-de-sac bulb at its present terminus . In a meeting with Supervisor Bishop and staff on April 29, 1996 , the applicant agreed to modified language that would require a slight extension of the placement of the required cul-de-sac bulb. The revised language would require the applicant to observe the property lines associated with a 1992 request for lot line adjustment that was approved by the County. The adjustment was intended to convert the cul-de-sac bulb on the final map to a stub-out . The adjustment would have resulted in added area to one of the residential lots, Lot 108 of Final Map 7278 . Following the 1992 approval by the County, the applicant filed a record of survey but failed to consummate the approved lot line adjustment by a timely filed exchange of grant deeds between common area and Lot 108 (now owned by Mulvihill) . Exhibit II shows the 1992 approved lot line adjustment . Exhibit III is a staff study depicting the approximate result of the extended placement of the cul-de-sac bulb. Recommended Modification - The above two modifications are included in the revised condition identified in Exhibit I . C. Recent Correspondence Following the last Board meeting, staff received correspondence from the legal counsel (Miller, Starr & -2- Regalia) for Bettencourt Ranch Association and a Bettencourt resident, Tom Mulvihill . The letter dated April 26, 1996 from the Association included a copy of the private agreement between the Association and the applicant . For purposes of the accuracy of the County' s record, the Association has tried to clarify the terms of the agreement should the Board elect to reflect those terms in its decision on the appeals . The letter from Mulvihill, dated May 1, 1996, is seeking specific terms in an approval of this project relative to the design and timing of completion of the Fleetwood Road cul-de- sac bulb. He is seeking a bulb_ design that observes the approved lot line adjustment property lines and completion of the cul-de-sac prior to this winter. The Board may choose to include or not include these requests in any findings and/or conditions of approval in its decision on this project . C: \wpdoc\draft5 .rpt RD\ -3- ADDENDUM TO ITEMS D.13 & D.14 May 7, 1996 Agenda On April 2, 1996, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date, the 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 (Bettencourt Ranch Residents Association, owners) (County File #3004-95) to modify the Final Development Plan (County File #3034-88) and Vesting Tentative Map 7188 for Bettencourt Ranch, Danville/Tassajara area; and the 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 Bary, Community Development Department, and Mitch Avalon, Public Works Department, presented the staff reports on the issues that the Board requested on April 2, 1996. The Board discussed the matter, and Supervisor Bishop expressed her concern regarding binding arbitration. The following speakers presented testimony on the issues: Bob Jensen, 200 South Ridge Court, Danville; John Baker, President, Bettencourt Homeowners Association, 814 Buckingham Place, Danville; Tom Mulvihill, 4490 Fleetwood Road, Danville; Eric Hasseltine, Dame' Construction Company, 3182 Old Tunnel Road, Ste E, Lafayette; Richard Case, 1159 Cheshire Circle, Danville; Kathleen Carpenter, Morgan, Miller & Blair, Walnut Creek; Nancy Mulvihill, 4490 Fleetwood Road, Danville; Michael Rupprecht, Vice-President & Counsel, Dame Construction Co., San Ramon; Sheila Savage, 4484 Fleetwood Road, Danville; Mary Case, 1159 Cheshire Circle, Danville; All those desiring to speak having been heard, and following Board discussion of the issues, Supervisor Bishop moved the following: 1. That the Board affirm the Planning Commission's adoption or denial, or affirm in part, certain other of their recommendations; 2. Request that Dame' abandon the Fleetwood extension, and pursuant to an agreement, Green Meadow Road would be extended, and permitting that to occur, Dame' Construction Company would abandon its rights under the Vesting Tentative Map to extend Fleetwood Road. 3. That Dame' Construction would be obligated to construct a cul-de-sac bulb at the existing Fleetwood terminal consistent with the realignment shown beyond the last lot on Fleetwood Road; and that it be consistent with the lot line adjustment 63-92; and that the cul-de-sac remain outside the new lot line as shown at 63-92. 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 area and the repair of any landslides. 1 4. That the easement for the cul-de-sac shall extend 3 feet beyond the edge of the pavement or the face of the curb, and the construction of the improvements shall be completed prior to the approval of the final map, or recordation of the final map. 5. That the completion of the cul-de-sac improvements be assured by bonding both the original bulb and the new lot line. Completion of the lot line adjustment shall take place when an agreement is reached between the Bettencourt Residents Association and the Mulvihills; and work will begin before October 1, and be completed before the end of the year; and that work will be done at the same time as the 48 lots in Phase 5 are being excavated or graded. Supervisor Rogers suggested amending Paragraph 5 of the motion, so that within 120 days of notification of an agreement between the Bettencourt Residents Association and the Mulvihills, construction of the cul-de-sac would begin. Supervisor Smith commented that there were additional issues to be considered and he would not be participating in the motion. Supervisor Bishop suggested further additions to the motion: 6. That the Board eliminate the card-gated access on Green Meadow Drive, with the understanding that Phase 5 will be annexed into the Shadow Creek Homeowners Association with appropriate findings; 7. That the developers would be responsible for their share of the costs of the traffic signal at Camino Tassajara and Mansfield Drive, and that the costs are consistent with approval of Final Map 72-79, Condition of Approval Number 4; 9. That payment of$107,000 be made to the Bettencourt Residents Association at such time as the Zoning Administrator is satisfied, for the purposes of constructing a public/private trail; 10. That landscaping conditions that are unsatisfactory in Phases 1 through 4 be addressed through binding arbitration and agreement between the Bettencourt Residents Association and Dame' Construction Company; 11.That improvements of the tot lot and the wrought iron fence, totaling $37,500, be paid to the Bettencourt Residents Association, with a portion to the Bettencourt Residents Association's Board of Directors, for them to determine how to apportion those funds. The motion failed for the lack of a second. Victor Westman, County Counsel, advised that the Bettencourt Residents Association should indicate to the County that the County has clear land rights in the undisputed areas to build the cul-de-sac, regardless of whether or not a settlement is reached with the Mulvihills. Supervisor Bishop recommended that the County confirm that it has clear land rights to build the cul-de-sac in that area. Supervisor Rogers seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop, Torlakson and DeSaulnier NOES: None ABSENT/ABSTAIN: None 2 Supervisor Bishop moved to affirm the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's denial of the applicant's appeal, barring the relocation of the three lots on the hillside. Supervisor Rogers seconded the motion and explained that his support was in response to Measure C. Supervisor Toriakson suggested that the following be included as amendments to the motion: 1. That a condition be included that Public Works would bond the graded areas where it was anticipated the lots would be relocated, and that area should be hydrated and restored in terms of making it green. 2. That Lots 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 should have extra trees planted and the reflectivity condition be applied to them. The reflectivity condition should also apply to Lots 37 through 43 for the structures to reduce impacts on other lots, and redwood trees should be planted and maintained. 3. The maintenance of the redwood trees and the condition of screening material should be included in the CC & Rs of the homeowners association. 4. That a landscape architect landscape plan referred to in the Conditions on Page 8 of the April 12, 1996, report shall be submitted for review and input to the Bettencourt Residents Association, the Shadow Creek Homeowners Association, the Blackhawk Homeowners Association, and the owner of Parcel #22058012 (Mr. Jensen, 200 South Ridge Court). 5. That the applicant reimburse and/or help fund the County to review and revise the grading permit process relative to hillside or special view areas. 6. That the applicant reimburse and/or contribute to the production of a County users guide, or booklet, for hillside view planning that would be available to the building community, homeowners, or environmental groups regarding issues such as those in this project in a systematic and clear process. Supervisor Rogers proposed that Supervisor Torlakson's comments be included in the motion made by Supervisor Bishop, except the part about relocation of the three homes, which would not be included. Supervisor Todakson noted that he would like to see the extra conditions in reference to the hydra-seeding and the screening no matter which way the Board chose, but he could not support the motion as proposed. The Board considered continuing the issue of relocating the three lots to another meeting. Victor Westman advised that a vote on one segment of the two issues could only be an indication of a tentative decision, not a final vote, since the portions cannot be determined on separate Board dates. Supervisor Bishop moved that the public hearing remain open and the hearing on the matter be continued to May 14, 1996, at 2:00 p.m. Supervisor Rogers seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was as follows: 3 AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop, Torlakson and DeSaulnier NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Smith ABSTAIN: None IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the above matter is CONTINUED to May 14, 1996, at 2:00 p.m. in the Boards' chambers. 4