HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04112006 - D.8 O: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS F
Contra
.S
/FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa
County
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR �,:rq,iOW� :/y
DATE: April 11, 2006
SUBJECT: Continued Hearing on an Appeal from the El Sobrante Valley Planning & Zoning
Advisory Committee; and the Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood
Association of a County Planning Commission Decision to Conditionally Approve
a Vesting Tentative Map for a Residential Subdivision (Subdivision 8533; Siavash
Afshar—Applicant & Owner) in the EI Sobrante area (Sup. Dist. 1)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
1. RECOMMENDATION
A. After accepting any public testimony, CLOSE the hearing.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
XUNANIMOUS(ABSENTZ2&0j�)- CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE ATE SHOWN
Contact: Bob Drake [(925)335-1214] ATTESTE
JOHN CU LE CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: Community Development Dept. (orig.) SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Siavash Afshar
EI Sobrante Valley Planning &Zoning
Advisory Committee g ,DEPUTY
Friends of Garrity Creek
Hilltop Neighborhood Association
Public Works Dept.
County Counsel "
r -
At
'1
Continued Hearing on Appeal of CPC Approval of a
Residential Subdivision (SUB 8533,Afshar)
Board of Supervisors
April 11, 2006
Page 2
B. Adopt a motion to:
1. ADOPT the Environmental' Impact Report (EIR) as adequate for
purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) as recommended by the Zoning Administrator in Resolution
No. 11-2006, including cited' minor technical and editorial corrections
which have been included in Exhibit 4, the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
2. DENY, in part, the appeal of the EI Sobrante Valley Planning and
Zoning Advisory Committee, Friends of Garrity Creek, and Hilltop
Neighborhood Association.
. 3. - SUSTAIN the County Planning Commission approval of the subdivision
application as generally approved by that Commission, but modifying
the conditions of approval to include the mitigation measures identified
in the EIR, reducing the number of lots from 40 to a maximum of 34 '
lots, and other conditions that respond to the revised Vesting Tentative
Map dated October 23, 2004.
4. ADOPT.the Mitigation Monitoring'and Reporting Program.
5. ADOPT the Findings contained in Exhibit 2, including Findings
pertaining to compliance with the project's review requirements for
compliance with the CEQA (Exhibit 2-A), and General Findings on the
project (Exhibit 2-13), as the basis for the Board action.
6. DIRECT staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk.
II. FISCAL IMPACT
None. The staff time and material costs of the appeal are borne by the
Applicant.
Ill. BACKGROUND
On June 8, 2004, the County Planning Commission approved Subdivision 8533 in
the El Sobrante area to subdivide ten acres into 40 lots, subject to conditions, and
based on a Mitigated Negative Declaration for purposes of compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act. Following that hearing, the County received an
appeal of that decision by the EI Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning 'Advisory .
Committee, the Friends of Garrity Creek, and the Hilltop Neighborhood Association.
Continued Hearing on Appeal of CPC Approval of a
Residential Subdivision (SUB 8533, Afshar)
Board of Supervisors
April 11, 2006
Page 3
The Board of Supervisors first conducted a hearing on the appeal on July 13, 2004.
After taking testimony, the Board determined that the project may have significant
environmental impacts that would not be mitigated to a less than significant level,
and required that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared. The Board also
overturned the Planning Commission approval of the project.
Following the initial hearing by the Board, the applicant made some minor
modifications to the project and staff'completed an Environmental Impact Report on
the project. After reviewing the report, the Zoning Administrator is recommending
that the Board of Supervisors find the report complete and adequate subject to
several minor technical and editorial corrections.
March 21, 2006 Board Hearing
On March 21, 2006, the Board resumed the hearing on the project. After accepting
public testimony, the Board voted its intent to approve the project subject to a
number of changes, and directed staff to report back with modified conditions and
recommended findings for the Board to consider.
IV. DISCUSSION
The recommended conditions of approval from the last hearing have been modified to
reflect the direction from the Board, and are identified in marked text. The major
changes are summarized below together with reference to the applicable condition of
approval.
• Reduction in the maximum number of allowed lots from 39 to 34. (Ref. COA#1,
2.B., 2.K.)
• Extension of proposed EVA-only road. (COA#2.D.)
• Provision of pedestrian access along the length of Garrity Creek Drive and the
EVA-only road. (COA#2.J.)
• Investigation into the feasibility of providing low intensity recreation facilities
and/or public access within the northern Open Space parcel. (COA#6.C.)
• Investigation into the feasibility of providing left turn channelization improvement
at the Hilltop Drive project entrance. (COA#5)
• Change in the minimum sidewalk width for internal project streets from 5 feet to 4
feet. (COA#58)
The location of the specific lots which were identified by the Board for elimination are
portrayed in a Staff Study of the project site plan contained in Exhibit 5.
Continued Hearing on Appeal of CPC Approval of a
Residential Subdivision (SUB 8533, Afshar)
Board of Supervisors
April 11, 2006
Page 4
Public Input on Possible Recreation Uses of Open Space Parcel
The Board provided direction to staff to modify the project conditions to require an
investigation into the feasibility of providing low-intensity recreation facilities and
activities in a homeowners association-owned and deed-restricted property to be
created in the northwest portion of the site, including potential development of public
access. The Board also directed that public be invited to comment on this proposal.
The idea would be to consider reasonable provisions for recreation improvements and
activities that would not significantly effect biological resources or create public safety
concerns.
Condition #6.C. provides for this review procedure, including referral of plans to the EI
Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council, the City of Richmond, Public Works Department,
Sheriffs Office, West County Unified School District, and the EI Sobrante Valley
Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee. Notice shall also be provided to the owners
of nearby properties.
The modified condition also provides for a noticed public hearing on the matter before
the Zoning Administrator who shall determine the extent of any recreation use of this
portion of the property prior to approval of a Final Map.
Investigation on Feasibility of Hilltop Drive Left Turn Channelization
Condition#5 has been modified to also allow for public input on the study to determine if
a left turn channelization on Hilltop Drive is feasible, though this decision would be
administrative, and not involve a public hearing.
Recommended Project Findings
Findings have been prepared for Board adoption based on the direction provided to staff
at the last hearing.
V. STATE LAW PROVISIONS POTENTIALLY LIMITING PERIOD OF TIME FOR BOARD
ACTION ON PROJECT
Two provisions of State law may potentially limit the period of time in which the Board
has to act on.this appeal and project.
A. Time Limit to Act on Appeal Following Closure of Appeal Hearing (Government
Code § 66452.5 (c) & (d)1
The Board of Supervisors should exercise caution before closing the hearing on
this appeal. State law regulates the period of time that local agencies may take
Continued Hearing on Appeal of CPC Approval of a
Residential Subdivision (SUB 8533,Afshar)
Board of Supervisors
April 11,2006
Page 5
in processing subdivision appeals. Once the Board closes the hearing, it may
have only 10 calendar days in which to declare its findings based upon the
testimony and documents produced before it or before the Planning Commission,
or.Zoning Administrator. The Board may sustain, modify,.reject, or overrule any
recommendations or rulings of the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator
and may make any findings which are consistent with the provisions of the
Subdivision Map Act or Subdivision Ordinance.
If the Board of Supervisors fails to act upon an appeal within the time limit
specified in the Subdivision Map Act, insofar as it complies with applicable"
requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Ordinance, State
law may require that the tentative map be deemed approved as last conditionally
approved by the County Planning Commission, and that it may be the duty of the
Clerk of the Board to certify or state that approval.
B. Time Limit to Act on Proiect After Board Certifies its Adequacy [Government
Code �§ 65950 (a) (1) & 65952.11
..Once the Board certifies the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report for
this project, State law limits the time in which the Board must render either an
approval or denial of the project to one hundred eighty (180) calendar days.
GAcurrent plan ning\currplan\afshar\SD018533BoardAppeal_April 11.doc
RD\
D.8 04-11-06 Afshar Sub 8533 El Sobrante
ADDENDUM
On this date the Board of Supervisors considered the continued hearing on an appeal from the El
Sobrante Valley Planning & Zoning Advisory Committee; and the Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop
Neighborhood Association of a County Planning Commission decision to conditionally approve a
vesting tentative map for a residential subdivision (8533, Siavish Afshar — Applicant and Owner), El
Sobrante area.
Following the staff report,the Chair invited the public to comment. The following people presented
testimony:
Cecily Talbert, counsel on behalf of the applicant;
Jean Stewart, resident of El Sobrante.-
Bob
obrante;Bob Miller, resident of El Sobrante;
Mike Martell, resident of El Sobrante;
Rick Gulledge, resident of El Sobrante;
Barbara A. Pendergrass, Friends of Garrity Creek, Hilltop Neighborhood Association, El
Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee.
The following person did not wish to speak, but left written comments for the Board's consideration:
Karl Saarni, resident of El Sobrante.
Chair Gioia closed the public hearing and returned the matter to the Board for discussion.
Chair Gioia noted that, though many discussions have taken place concerning the property, including the
purchase of the property for dedication as open space, the Board must act upon the land use application
presented and approved by the County Planning Commission, in compliance with the area's current
zoning.
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, noted that under the provisions of County code,
decisions of the Zoning Administrator would be appealable directly to the Board of Supervisors.
Silvano Marchesi, County Counsel, noted that.should the matter be taken before a court, it would not be
possible to predict a ruling.
Chair Gioia further noted that approval of a plan consisting of less than 37 units, as put forth at the
previous hearing on this matter, for which staff has drafted findings, were in accordance with general
plan policies. The final result could be less than the approved number of units, if compliance with the
Conditions of Approval (COA) could not be met on some lots, a future event not able to be determined
definitively at this time.
Staff noted that variances were included in the proposal to address the need foreseen for certain lots. Mr.
Barry recommended a modification of COA#4 to modify the minimum width from 65 feet for no more.
than 5 lots,to be 60 feet for no more that 9 lots to accommodate the proposed changes. .
Mr. Afshar stated for the.record that he will accept the approval of maximum 35 unit project, provided
that the property owner is not sued in relation to the approval.
D.8 04-11-06 Afshar Sub 8533 EI Sobrante
The following additions and changes were made:
COA#4
a) modify section A: Average Lot Width Variance "65 feet (minimum approved for no more than five
lots)"to be "60 feet (minimum approved for no more than 9 lots)'
COA#5
a) insert "pedestrian, motorist, bicyclist, and homeowner safety to the third sentence (paragraph 1) to
read "The purpose of the investigation shall be to determine whether adequate right-of-way is available
and whether a left turn channelization would be safe, to consider pedestrian, motorist, bicyclist, and
homeowner safety."
b) Add to the parties to be noticed (paragraph 3): California Highway Patrol, Sheriff's Department, and
the Hilltop Neighborhood Association,
c) insert after "The decision of the Zoning Administrator" the phrase "appealable to the Board of
Supervisors" (paragraph 4);
COA#6
a) paragraph C, modify "public access" is modified to read;"limited public access",
b) paragraph C, sentence 3, insert "including liability and insurance issues" to read "The investigation
shall take into consideration required hydrological (detention basin) improvements and related
maintenance access, including liability and insurance issues, and the EIR biological resource findings
and mitigation measures.''-
c) paragraph C, (pg 12), modify "reasonable public access" to"limited public access"
d) paragraph C, add a sentence to the end of this condtion to read "The administrative decision of the
Zoning Administrator is appealable to the Board of Supervisors.."
By unanimous vote, with all Supervisors present, the Board adopted the recommendations presented,
(recommendation B.3. to be "..a maximum of 35 lots,...versus 34 as printed)to incorporate the
modifications specified above.
Exhibit 1
Conditions of Approval
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 018533 in the El Sobrante area
(Siavash Afshar—Applicant & Owner)
Modi ications pursuant to direction from the Board of Supervisors action on March 21, 2006
are identified in marked text.
Administrative
1. This approval is based on the exhibits/reports received by the Community
Development Department for a maximum of P34 residential lots on the
10 acre site with plan modifications required by condition of approval#2.
Compliance with this permit and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program may necessitate a further reduction in lots.
The approval is based upon Subdivision 8533 Vesting Tentative Map,
dated October 23, 2004, and received by the Community Development
Department on October 29,2004, consisting of the following 14 sheets:
A. Sheet 1 - Site Plan.
B. Sheet 2 - Grading Plan
C. Sheet 3 - Grading Plan
D. Sheet 4 - Grading.Plan
E. Sheet 5:- Utility Plan
F. Sheet 6 - Utility Plan
G. Sheet 7.= Utility Plan
H. Sheet 8 - Profiles &Details
I. Sheet 9,—Riparian Mitigation Plan
J. Sheet 10 Riparian Mitigation Plan
K. Sheet 11 - Hillside Home Sites
L. Sheet 12 - Open Space
M. Sheet 13 - Sections
N. " Sheet 14 - Detention Basins
The approval is also based upon the following reports:
O. Subdivision 8533 Draft Environmental Impact Report.(8533
DEIR), SCH4.2003.102107
P. Subdivision 8533 Final Environmental Impact Report (8533
-FEIR)
2
Q. Biological Resource—Related Documents
California Department of Fish & Game,: 2002. Agreement
Regarding Proposed Streambed Alteration Notification(received
by CDD on March 6, 2002).
California Department of Fish & Game, March 11, 2002.
Proposed Hilltop Road Area Project, County File#SD018533,
Revised Vesting Tentative Map of Subdivision 8533, Contra
Costa County.
LSA, March 1 l; 2002. Results of Fish and Game Site Visit,
Hillview Project, El Sobrante.
LSA,December 21,200L Biological Resources of the Hillview
Project. Site, El Sobrante, Contra Costa County, California.
LSA Job #AAD130.
Monk.&Associates, September 20,2002. Hillview Subdivision
(SD8533), El Sobrante, California.
Wood; Michael K., 2002. Habitat Assessment for California
Red-legged Frog, Hillview Subdivision. Letter to. Sid Afshar,
Architectural Design &Development, April 22.
Wood,Michael K.,2002.'Wetland Delineation and Preliminaty.
Jurisdictional .Determination for the Hillview Project Site,.
Contra Costa County, prepared for Architectural Design &
Development, March 19 revised June 11.
Wood;Michael K.,July 1,2002. Hillview Subdivision,Biologic
Impacts.and Mitigation Measures.
Wood, Michael K., July 5, 2002. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
for the,Proposed:Hillview Residential Subdivision,El Sobrante.,
Contra Costa County.
Wood; Michael K., July 9, 2002. Amendment to 1603
Notification of Streanibed Alteration, Notification #2001-982,
Hillview Residential Subdivision, El Sobrante.
Wood, Michael K., July 9, 2002. Preconstruction Notification .
for the Placement of Fill in Waters of the U.S. Pursuant to
Nationwide Permits 14 and 33 for the Proposed Hillview
Residential Development, El Sobrante, .Contra Costa County,
California.
Wood, Michael K., July 8, 2002. Application for Section 401
Water Quality Certification for the Proposed Hillview
Residential Development, El Sobrante, Contra Costa County,
California.
Wood,Michael,K., September 26,2002. Hillview Subdivision,
Response to Comments.
Wood, Michael K., 2004. Revised Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan for.,the Proposed Hillview Residential Subdivision, El
Sobrante., Contra Costa County, prepared for Sid Afshar,
5
that all lots comply with the R-7 minimum lot area (7,000 square
feet),lot depth(90-feet);and average lot width standards(70-feet).
Up to five(5)lots are granted a variance to the average lot width R-
7 standard to allow.a reduced minimum of 65-feet as defined by the
ordinance code.
The revised site plan shall be accompanied by a survey of each lot
from a civil engineer or surveyor demonstrating compliance with
these required lot dimensions.
The site plan shall provide for a maximum of 3-9-34 residential lots.
C. Redesign of(Garrity Creek View) Road Next to Northwest Open
Space - The road improvement in the northern part of the project
shall comply with Condition #14 and Mitigation Measure Bio-
3(a),which is illustrated in the Redesign Alternative (i.e. a 20 foot
wide curb-to-curb width of Garrity Creek Drive where it fronts
along Lot A, and a hammerhead turnaround at the north boundary
of the project).
D. EVA Road Extension and Barrier Improvements=The proposed
Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) only Road shall be extended
southward. Bollards or other measures to. control access shall be
installed at the two ends of the extended EVA road: one set at the
northern access point adjacent to Manor. Road; and one set at the
relocated south boundary of the EVA adjacent to Lot 26. This
structure shall be acceptable to the Fire Protection District and
County Public Works Department and shall allow for pedestrian
access, subject to final review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
The turn-around at the north side of the property shall be relocated
to south of the southern EVA gate and shall be designed to comply
with subdivision ordinance standards subject to the review and
approval of the Public Works Department and the Fire Protection
District.
E. Storm Water Basin and Access Design = The Final Map shall
include a "Second Sheet"..that shows the storm water detention
basins, and any drainage structure facilities within the private open
space lots.Evidence shall be provided that the planned location and
access to ..detention basins, including details of their control
structures (e.g., piping from basins to creek channel), are
6
satisfactory to the Public Works Department and the California
Department of Fish &.Game.
F. Capacity of Detention Basin Design-The detention basin capacity
and,its effect on peak flows shall be consistent with the standards
incorporated into the EIR Redesign;Alternative.
G. Storm Water Control Plan Improvements Review - The Vesting
Tentative Map shows grassy swales on Sheets 3 and 4 and it
provides typical sections on Sheet 9.These"clean water"measures
are subject. to review and- approval by the Public Works
Department. The project shall be 3.C. compliant,but may/may not
include grassy swales. Any grassy swales provided may be
relocated or otherwise designed based on Public Works Department
requirements. The required stormwater control plan(C.3) shall be
reviewed in light of the standards and policies that are the accepted
,standard of practice at the time of the filing of the final map.
H. Offer to Dedicate a Private Access and Utility Easement Over
Royal Oaks Drive— The applicant shall be required to-.offer to
dedicate a private access and utility easement over Royal Oaks
Drive between Garrity Creek and Hilltop Drive to the.parcels south
and-west of the subject subdivision identified as"Alexandre'on the
Tentative Map.
1. 1—Quitclaim Accessory Pedestrian Easeme'nt'Conne&ing Site
with Marin Road—The applicant shall provide evidence to
the Community Development Department that he has
recorded a quitclaim on any access rights to an existing
pedestrian easement connecting the site to Marin Road has
to allow any access rights to that ,
easement from this site to become null and void.
J. Relocation of Sidewalk Along Garrity Creek Drive—The sidewalk
provided along the west side of Garrity Creek Drive shall be
relocated to the east side of.the Drive and shall.extend from Garrity
Creek View to the site of the southern EVA bollards required that
is required to be relocated by this permit to the vicinity'of Lot 26.
The improvement plans shall provide for a 4-foot.wide sidewalk
for.this section of sidewalk. Between the Garrity View Drive
sidewalk and the extended EVA-only road requirements, the
permit requirements are intended to provide a continuous
Creek View to Manor Road.
pedestrian access from Garrity
.7
K. Reduction in Size of Project and Reconfiguration of Site Plan—The
following lots shall be eliminated and the site plan reconfigured
subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
1. Within the range of Lots 6— 12 (south side of Garrity Creek
View), one lot shall be eliminated. The remaining lots shall
be reconfigured to provide a maintenance access that is
owned in fee by the Homeowners Association, and to allow
for appropriate lot configuration next to the arch culvert.
2. Within the range of Lots 35 — 40, 1 — 2 lots shall be
eliminated to allow for appropriate design of detention basin,
related maintenance access to the basin, and lot (Lot 40)
configuration adjacent to arch culvert.
3. Lots 29 and 32 shall be eliminated, the majority of the area of
these lots shall be incorporated into Open Space Parcel "A"
described below to provide an expanded wildlife corridor and
. .,an expanded residential setback from nearby wetlands and
seeps.
4. Lots 27 and 28 shall be eliminated, and the area of those lots
added to Open Space Parcel "A" described below.
In aggregate, at least six lots shall be eliminated from the project.
Compliance Report
3. At least 60 days prior to filing a final map or issuance of a grading permit,
the applicant shall submit a report on compliance with.the conditions of
approval with this permit and the final development plan permit for the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Except for those
conditions administered by the Public Works Department,the report shall
list each condition followed by a description of what the applicant has
provided as evidence of compliance with that condition. (A copy of the
conditions of approval may be available on computer disk;to try to obtain,
contact the project planner at 335-1210.) Unless otherwise indicated,the
applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the conditions
of this report prior to filing a final map. The compliance report shall
include an intermediate site/grading plan that shows information required
for tentative subdivision maps, including road improvements, drainage
facilities, grading plan, lot.characteristics (area, average width, average
depth)and identify the potential building sites.. The Zoning Administrator
1 1
8
may reject the report if it is not comprehensive with respect to applicable
requirements for the requested ministerial permit.
The permit compliance review is subject to staff time and material
charges, with an initial deposit of$1,500.00.which shall be paid at time of
submittal of the compliance report. A check is payable to.the County of
Contra Costa...
Variances and Exceptions
4. A. Average Lot Width Variance - Approval is granted. to allow
variances to.. the average lot width standards that meet the
requirements of Section 26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code as
follows:
70 feet,required by zoning ordinance
65 feet(minimum approved for no more than'five lots)
Other requested variances to the average lot width standard are
denied.
B. Denial of Variance to Lot Depth for Lot 13 (End of Cul-de-Sac) —
The requested variance to the minimum lot depth requirement for.
Lot 13 is denied.
C. . Retaining Wall/Fencing for Project Access Roads and Hilltop Drive
Frontage Decorative Soundwall - Approval is granted to allow
variances and exceptions to the Subdivision Ordinance to allow
retaining wall height and wall/fence combinations in required yards
for portions of three.,roads in the project to minimize the footprint of
grading, and possibly allow for noise attenuation along Hilltop Drive
frontage for Lot 1:
Maximum 3 feet tall retaining wall height;,and six-foot tall
wall/fence combination allowed by zoning
ordinance
10 feet retaining wall approved on Royal Oaks Drive
10 feet wall/fence allowed on Garrity Creek Drive
8 feet wall/fence allowed on Adam Court
Up to 8-foot retaining wall/decorative soundwall combination
allowable along Hilltop Drive frontage for Lot 1
D. Reduced Front Yard Requirement - Approval is granted to allow
variances and exceptions to the Subdivision Ordinance to the front
9
yard setback standard of.the Zoning Ordinance to attain a varied
streetscape and to accommodate development of relatively steep lots.
• 20 feet(minimum) required by the R-7 District.
• 15 feet(minimum) allowed,provided that the garage achieves a 20
foot setback and provided that any encroachment in the 20 ft
setback zone be limited to a one story element.
• No more than 20 residences may have a front setback of less than
20 ft in the project; they must be distributed across the site; and
the specific lots shall be identified prior to approval of the final
map.
E. Denial of Requested- Front Yard Variances for Corner Lots 2 — 5
(Royal Oaks Drive) — The request to allow a zero-foot front yard
variance/exception by allowing the driveway areas of Lots 2 -5 along
Royal Oaks Drive'to be included as "legs" in the road right-of-way
design for turnarounds for these lots is denied. The road rights-of-way
shall be reconfigured to exclude the "leg" portions of the two
turnarounds, and to limit use of the. driveways to the respective lot
owners.
F. Variance Granted for Arch Culvert Creek Crossing—A variance and
exception to the Subdivision Ordinance is granted to allow the
proposed arch culvert;cre' ek crossing within the required yards of Lots
5, 6, and 40.
Left Turn Lane (Pocket) on Hilltop Drive to be Built if Feasible
5. The Applicant shall investigate the feasibility of widening existing Hilltop
Drive to provide left turn channelization at the project entrance at Royal
Oaks Drive. If determined to be feasible by the Public Works Department
and the Zoning Administrator, the Applicant shall be responsible to
construct the channelization and for all related costs of riV_ht-of-way
acquisition and construction improvements. The purpose of the
investigation shall be to determine whether adequate right-of-way is
available and whether a left turn channelization would be safe, includin"
the safety of nearby residences. The desigm of the channelization will be
subject to the review of the Public Works Department,and the review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator. Channelization, tapers, and
transition flares 'shall comply with Caltrans Highway Design Manual
standards based on a design speed of 40 miles per hour. These
improvements will include relocation of existing utilities, and pedestrian
10
paths, as well as possible reconstruction of driveways of existing adjacent
homes to adequately-conform to the widened street section.
To accommodate the above improvements,the applicant will.also need to
dedicate additional right of way along Hilltop Drive as well as obtain off-
site offers of dedication from adjacent property owners. Minimum total
right of way shall be 10 feet from the proposed face of curb/edge of travel
way.
Notice On Availability of Channelization Improvement Plans for Public
Review and Comment—At least thirty(30)days prior to a decision by the
Zoning Administrator on whether to require the channelization,the Public
Works Department shall provide public notice that the proposed
improvement plans are available for public review and inspection in the
office of the Public Works Department, and for receipt of comments on
them. The notice shall be,issued to:
• The owners of property fronting on Hilltop Drive within 500 feet
of the Project site Hilltop Drive front prope line;
• The El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council; and
• The EI Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee.
The decision of the Zoning Administrator on whether the channelization
improvement will be required for this project shall be in writing, and
copies provided to the .two El Sobrante . rToups and to responding
correspondents providing a mailing address.
If the applicant, after demonstrating he has made his best,. good-faith
effort, is unsuccessful in obtaining the off-site right of way necessaryto
construct this channelization and related transitions, or the design cannot
meet acceptable public safety conditions, the
Zoning Administrator mayopt to fnedi f er modify or eliminate the
channelization and related dedication requirements. Otherwise,the project
will be required to construct the left turn channelization.
Scenic Easement
6. A. Lots 27 and 28; Tthe "Open Space' portions.ofLots 27, 28,Z9 a�
31, and the majority of the areas of Lots 29 and 32 shall be.formed
into a separate open space parcel,Parcel A: It shall be owned by the
Homeowners Association(PSA). Development rights to Parcel
..A shall be dedicated to the County, utilizing a deed instrument that is
subject to the review and,approval of the Zoning Administrator. The
11
easement instrument shall provide . that no grading, fencing,
development activity, or removal of trees may occur in that area
without the, prior written. approval of the Zoning Administrator.
Perimeter fencing shall be provided and maintained, but its design
shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
B. Parcel A shall be retained as visual open space,wildlife habitat, and
watershed land, and possibly. low-intensity HOA-maintained
recreation facilities. The only improvements allowed within this
area are drainage facilities, EVA-only road, and possibly low-
intensity recreation facilities (e.g., tables, benches, barbeque,
horseshoe court) that comply with Mitigation Measure BIO-5(c),
and a stormwater detention basin. The details of the drainage
improvements and any proposed recreation improvements shall be
re-evaluated during final design of subdivision improvements and
the Biologic Resource MMP updated to fully protect the habitat
values of Parcel A. .
C. Investigation into the Feasibility of Providing Public Access and
Low-Intensity Recreation Facilities within Parcel "A" Open Space,
and Public Review Procedure Dfai3es l to Provide Le
Reer-eation Faeflitieswithin Oi3en Si3aee Par-reel at the North End of
the-Sifte— The applicant shall prepese-investi gate the feasibility o
providing low-intensity recreation facilities including public access
to Parcel"A"Open Space.
nef4hwest pei4ien of the site. The investigation shall take into
consideration required hydrological(detention basin)improvements
and related maintenance access, and the EIR biological resource
findings and mitigation measures. The applicant shall submit twelve
(12) sets of improvement plans to the Community Development
Department for the whole of Parcel A to include improvements such
as The plans shall be aeeeWanied. �y. a wr-Aien analysis of
with existing bielegieal r-ese4ees by a qualified biologist fef t
review and apor- owl-of the Zoning Administrator-. The proposed
plans shall tables, benches, barbecue, horseshoe pit, or
similar improvements, and shall ineluo, a pedestrian path from a
project road to the improvements,and public access, subject to final
review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. Evidence shall be
provided on the plans that they have been designed to comply with
applicablerequirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA).
r 1
12
The plans shall be accompanied by a written analysis of the
compatibilily of the proposed improvements and related activities
with existing biological resources byqualified biologist for the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The applicant
shall also provide evidence that the State and Federal Resource
Agencies (California Department of Fish and Game, San Francisco
Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board,U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers) have had an opportunity to review and comment on
said plans,and any comments from those agencies on the plans have
been provided to the Community Development Department.
The plans shall be reviewed for.
• Provision of reasonable public access and private recreation
facilities;
• Public safety; and
• Compliance with required EIR biological and hydrological
findings and mitigation measures, including protection and
provision of native riparian vegetation.
Minimum 30-Day Public Review and Comment Period on Proposed
Plans - Prior to rendering a decision on the plans, the Community
Development Department shall refer the proposed improvement
plans for comment to the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council,
Public Works Department, West County Unified School District,
City of Richmond Planning Department, Sheriff Office, and El.
Sobrante Valley 'Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee for
comment. 'Concurrently, a notice of the availability of these
improvement plans for public examination in the Community
Development Department and for submittal of public comment on
them, shall be issued to the owners of property within 300 feet of the .
subject'site (including the construction staging_parcels north of the
site) The public review period shall extend a minimum of 30-days.
Public Hearing Before the Zoning Administrator—Prior to rendering
a•decision on the extent of recreation improvements within the Open
Space parcel, a noticed public hearing shall be held on the proposed
improvements before the Zoning Administrator. The hearing and
any appeal of related decisions shall be conducted in accord with the
procedures contained in Chapter 26-2 of the Ordinance Code.
If the Zoning Administrator determines that such facilities are not
compatible with the biological resources reviewed in the EIR; then
13
the facilities will not be required. The subdivider shall be
responsible for installing any approved recreation facilities,offering
any necessary related public access easements, and providing
appropriate description of the allowed activities,responsibilities,and
related restrictions in the project CC&R's, subject to final review
and approval by the Zoning Administrator.
CC&R's
T. Draft Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be submitted for
review with the Final Map,and shall be.subject to review and approval by
the Zoning Administrator. This document shall provide for the
establishment of a Homeowners Association to maintain common facilities
within the project including drainage facilities,roads,and street lights. It
shall also provide for an Architectural Review Board to .review and
approve proposed building and grading projects prior to obtaining permits
from the County. It shall also provide for establishment, ownership and
maintenance of the landscaping along the Hilltop Drive frontage of the site
and maintenance of other common facilities. The Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions (CC&Rs) developed for this project shall include the
following restrictions:
A. Inclusion of Residential Design Measures for the Stormwater Quality
Control Plan — The document shall reference the project Best
Management Practices for the Stormwater Quality Control Plan for
the project pertaining to residential development (e.g., permeable
driveway surface). The document shall provide that construction
plans submitted to the County for residential development for
building permits shall comply with the residential design measures in
that plan.
B. The document shall specifically identify any lots-that are substandard
in average lot width; any proposed development on those lots will be
subject to the public notice and review requirements of the Small Lot
Occupancy Ordinance (Ord. Code § 82-10.002(c))prior to issuance
of a building permit.'
C. The CC&R's for the project shall include specifications for fencing
of residential lots; shall specify that no retaining walls exceeding a 3-
foot height are allowed in the rear yard structure setback zone; and
shall incorporate all provisions of the design guidelines for the
project, including those which pertain to creation of rear yard "use
areas."
14
D. In accordance with the County Child Care Ordinance, the CC&Rs
shall indicate that a child care facility may be located at any
residential unit, or lot,.consistent:with the existing laws.
E. The document shall reference. the Grant Deeds of Development
Rights that is conveyed to the County along the creek portion of the
site,and wetland portion of the site,and shall contain any agreement
entered into with the California Department of Fish & Game..
F. ,Provide a copy.of a fencing.plan that has been approved by the
Zoning:Administrator of the fencing proposed on the perimeter of
the scenic easement (Parcel A), and including the fencing of.deed-
restricted portions of private lots.
G. Required setbacks and off-street parking prescribed by the R-7
zoning.district shall be measured from the edge.of the private road
easement or property line, whichever is more restrictive, except as
modified by this approval.
H. The Design Guidelines approved by the Zoning Administrator(ref.
COA#46—49)
The approved CC&R's shall .be recorded with the Final Map. The
applicant shall deliver a copy of the recorded document to CDD prior to
issuance of the first building permit.
Nesting Birds
8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, commencement of any site
improvement, or any tree removal, the following detailed specifications
shall be followed to avoid inadvertent take of nesting birds. Evidence of
compliance with these specifications shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Zoning Administrator.
A. In order to avoid impacts to nesting birds, the CDFG has required that
vegetation removal be confined to the period of August 16 to February
14, during which time period preconstruction surveys and additional
restrictions are not required. Should earth-moving/grading activity or
construction-related. disturbance be initiated during the raptor and
passerine bird nesting season (February 15 to August 15), a focused,
preconstruction nesting survey shall be conducted by a qualified
ornithologist to determine if this'activity could disturb nesting birds. The
ornithologist must have experience. detecting/ identifying raptor and
passerine bird nesting behavior. Or, if necessary, two biologists shall be
hired: one with experience with raptors and another with experience
15
surveying for nesting passerine birds.
B. If nesting raptors are identified on the project site during the
preconstruction survey,a minimum 500-foot-wide non-disturbance buffer
shall be established around the nest tree. This buffer shall be fenced with
orange construction fencing prior to initiation of grading or vegetation
removal. A qualified raptor biologist shall periodically monitor the nest
site(s)to determine if grading activities occurring outside the buffer zone
disturbs the birds, and if the buffer zone should be increased to prevent
nest abandonment. No disturbance shall occur within the minimum 500-
foot-wide buffer zone until a qualified raptor biologist has determined
that the young have fledged(left the nest), and are flying well enough to
avoid project construction zones,typically by August 1.
C. If nesting passerine birds are identified on the project site during the
preconstruction survey, a 75-foot-wide buffer shall be established around
the nest tree. This buffer shall be fenced with orange construction
fencing prior to initiation of grading or vegetation removal: The non-
disturbance buffer zone shall remain in place until it has been determined
by a qualified ornithologist that the young have fledged and are flying
well enough to avoid project construction.zones, typically by August 1.
D. If active nests of raptors or passerine birds are confirmed during the
preconstruction survey; the biologist shall prepare a plan for fencing of
the buffer area and specifications to control construction activities. This
plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and
approval prior to commencement of any potential disturbance activities.
E. The County shall not issue a grading permit during the raptor and
passerine bird nesting season, (February 15 to August 15) until a
preconstruction nesting survey has been conducted and the non-
disturbance buffers(if necessary)are fenced. If active nests of raptors or
passerine birds are confirmed, a detailed compliance plan addressing
establishment,avoidance,and closure of any required buffer area shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator.
KIR Mitigation Measure BI04(a).
California Red-Legged Frog .
9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, commencement of any site
improvements, or vegetation removal,whichever comes first, the detailed
specifications presented in Table 3 shall be followed to avoid the remote
possibility for inadvertent take of California red-legged frog. Evidence of
16
compliance with these specifications shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Zoning Administrator.
A. The preconstruction survey for California red-legged frog shall be
completed within 48 hours prior to commencement of any earth-moving
activity, construction, or vegetation removal, whichever comes first.
B. The preconstruction survey shall include two nights of nocturnal surveys
along all creek segments and areas of suitable habitat on the site and
adjacent staging area parcels.
C. The biologist performing the preconstruction survey must hold a federal
10(a)(1)(A) permit for California red-legged frog or be considered by
USFWS to be a "service approved" biologist.
D. A letter-report from the "service approved" biologist describing the
results of the preconstruction surveys shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to initiation of any earth-.
moving activity, construction, or vegetation removal on the site and
adjacent staging area parcels,including removal of non-native trees and
shrubs in the riparian corridors proposed as part of the revised
applicant's Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP).
E. If California red-legged frogs are encountered during the surveys, all
work"on the site and adjacent staging area parcels shall be placed on hold
while the findings are reported to the CDFG and USFWS and it is
determined what, if any, further actions must be followed to prevent
possible take of this species. Evidence of consultation with the CDFG
and USFWS shall'be provided for review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator before:issuance of a grading permit, commencement of
any site improvements, or vegetation removal.
EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-1(b).
Resource Agency Permits
10. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, commencement of any site
improvement, or vegetation removal, whichever comes first, submit
evidence of compliance with the requirements of resource agencies.for
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Specifically, submit
documentation that all legally required permits from the CDFG,RWQCB,
Corps, and possibly USFWS (e.g., 1600 series permits, 404 and 401
permits), were obtained-, including incidental take permits and any others
and implement mitigation measures,as required by federal and State law,.
to avoid,minimize, or offset impacts on any species listed under either the
17
State or federal Endangered Species Acts or protected under any other
State or federal law. (Mitigation Measure BIO-1(c))
Landscape and,Vegetation Management Plan
11. Prior to approval of a final map, submit a. detailed Landscape and
Vegetation Management Plan prepared by a qualified landscape architect
in consultation with a plant ecologist experienced with native species. The
Plan shall: a)provide for re-establishment of grassland,riparian, and oak
woodland'cover on graded slopes in open space areas; b) incorporate
mitigation and monitoring requirements identified in the final Biologic
Resource Mitigation Monitoring Plan (BRMMP) to replace and enhance
wetland and riparian habitat and provide for replacement of native trees.
removed as part of the project; c) identify unsuitable species that should
not be used in landscaping; d) identify ways to prevent the establishment
and spread of introduced broom; and e) specify long-term management
provisions to ensure re-establishment of native and ornamental landscape
improvements. The following'detailed specifications shall be incorporated
into the Landscape and Vegetation Management Plan.
A. Graded slopes in open space areas shall be reseeded with a mixture of
compatible native and non-native perennial and annual grassland species
to increase the diversity of the grassland cover. Highly invasive non-
native annuals typically used for erosion control alone should not be used.
B. The final MMP shall be revised to include a major salvage program that
provides for collection of native creeping wildrye (Levmus triticoides)
from the large stand on the site,and emphasizes its use in revegetating the
proposed grassy swales,perimeter of the proposed detention basins, and
open space areas on the site. Sectiori 4.5.4 of the final MMP shall be
modified to include details on salvage, storage, and installation of this
species as part of revegetation efforts.
C. Landscaping and revegetation plans shall emphasize the use of native
plant species along the fringe of proposed developed areas,and plantings
in open space areas should be restricted to.native species consistent with
the MMP. Suitable plant species for use in open space areas include
coast live oak(Quercus agrifolia),valley oak(Quercus lobata),Fremont
cottonwood (Populus frernontii), California .buckeye (Aesculus
californica), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), California rose (Rosa
californica), creeping wildrye (Leymus triticoides), and purple
needlegrass (Nassella pulchra), among other species.
D. To minimize future disturbance to grassland cover and-other vegetation
and unauthorized access to the surrounding undeveloped lands and open
18
space, vehicles and motorcycles shall not be allowed to travel- off
designated roadways.
E. Use of non-native, invasive species that may spread into adjacent
undeveloped open space areas shall be prohibited in-landscaping plans.
Unsuitable species include blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus),
acacia(Acacia spp.),pampus grass(Cortaderia selloana),broom(Cytisus
spp. and Genista motispessulana), gorse (Ulex europaeus), bamboo
(Bambusa spp.),.giant reed.(Arundo donax), periwinkle (Vinca spp.),
English ivy (Hedera..helix), and German ivy (Senecio milanioides),
among others.
F. Graded slopes and areas disturbed as part of the project shall be
monitored to prevent establishment and spread, of introduced broom
species (Cytisus spp and Genista monspessulana). The removal and ,
monitoring program shall include annual late winter removal of any
rooted plants when soils are saturated and cutting back of any remaining
flowering plants in the spring before seed begins to set in late April. -
Such removal may be the responsibility of the project homeowners'
association.
G. Provisions for maintenance of landscaping and revegetation of graded
slopes shall be;specified•as part of the plan, with replacement plantings
and seeding provided as necessary to ensure re-establishment of cover.
Maintenance and monitoring of landscape improvements in open space
.areas shall be provided.for a minimum of 5 years, and shall be the
responsibility of the project homeowners' association.
H..Prior to filing of the Final.Map, evidence shall be submitted for review
and approval of the Zoning Administrator that the project plans are in
compliance with the provisions of the CDFG Streambed Alteration .
Agreement, as prescribed by the final MMP.
(EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-2(a).
Protection/Restoration of Habitat
12. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, commencement of any .site
improvement or vegetation removal,whichever comes first,submit a final
plan for protection 'and restoration of habitat shall be prepared and
implemented to provide for adequate 'replacement of sensitive natural
communities and biological habitat affected by development on the site.
The plan shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator. The following detailed specifications shall be followed to
ensure avoidance of sensitive resources and achieve successful
implementation of the final.Biological Resource MMP.
19
A. Habitat and tree replacement plantings shall be implemented in accord-
ance with the standards and criteria prescribed by the CDFG, and
contained in the final MMP.
B. A Project Restorationist shall be retained at the expense of the applicant
to monitor implementation of the MMP and to oversee maintenance
requirements and monitoring of all mitigation plantings, seeding, and
invasive species eradication. At a-minimum, the Project Restorationist
shall have demonstrated expertise in restoration ecology and at least 3
years of experience in restoration design and implementation, including
experience in wetland restoration. The Project Restorationist shall have
-the authority to stop work or request change orders as necessary. In
addition, the Project Restorationist shall conduct the site inspection and
habitat monitoring programs, and prepare reports documenting the
restoration program for submittal to the.Corps, CDFG, RWQCB, and
County Community Development Department.
C. All grading on the site shall be performed during the summer months and
completed before October 1. Appropriate erosion/sediment control
measures shall be in place by October 15. Eradication of invasive species
shall be accomplished in advance of mitigation plantings during the
summer months. Mitigation planting and seeding shall commence in the
late fall or early winter, with the onset of winter_rains.
D. To prevent indirect and cumulative adverse effects of the development on
water quality of Garrity Creek and its tributary, grassy swales shall be
constructed as described in the MMP. The swales are intended to capture
and slow the movement of urban runoff into the north and east forks of
Garrity Creek. The swales shall be planted and seeded with appropriate
native species and deed-restricted from development or renovation, as
described in the MMP. No direct outfalls into the Garrity Creek channels
shall be constructed. Discharges from the swales would be over ground
stabilized by erosion blankets with rock inter-plated with willows or other
species approved by the Project Restorationist.
E. Habitat restoration and revegetation shall provide for maximum
vegetative cover,conducive to the restoration of the creek corridors,and
provide for vegetative screening between the stream channel and adjacent
roads and dwellings.
F. The plant palette shall be consistent with the requirements of the CDFG
and prescriptions contained in the final MMP.
G. A temporary drip irrigation system shall be provided for all container
plantings installed as part of the final MMP. Irrigation shall be supplied
20
for up to 3 years,with a gradual reduction in volume of water applied in
years 2 and 3. The details of the irrigation system and watering schedule
must be.approved by the Project Restorationist.
H. The applicant shall guarantee an 85-percent survival rate for the plantings
over the 5-year monitoring period. For this purpose,a$40,000 bond(or
equivalent) security shall be deposited with the County to ensure
performance of the final MMP.
EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-2(b).
Central Coast Riparian Scrub
13. Prior to approval of the Final Map and using the following detailed
specifications,revise the VTM, Riparian Mitigation Plan, and Biological
Resource MMP to.ensure adequate avoidance of Central Coast riparian
scrub and mature native trees both within the project site and on the
proposed off-site construction staging area northwest of the site.
A. The off-site creek channel and edge of native willows canopy shall be
mapped by engineered survey to accurately identify their location in
relation to proposed improvements. The canopy line shall be identified as
the boundary of a"No-Disturbance Zone"on the Site Plan,Grading Plan,
and Riparian Mitigation Plan.
B. All construction staging area uses shall be restricted to outside the "No-
Disturbance Zone"to avoid any adverse impacts on this sensitive riparian
habitat.
C. Temporary construction fencing shall be installed along the"No-Disturb
ance-Zone"boundary and shall be maintained in place for the duration of
construction. Any incursion into this zone shall be conducted under the
supervision of a.qualified biologist.
D. The proposed 5-foot-wide trail depicted on the Riparian Mitigation Plan
(see Figure 4.5-4) shall be eliminated due to the potential impacts on
sensitive riparian habitat,or the trail shall be relocated outside the willow
dominated scrub,possibly along the emergency vehicle access road or the
Road 24 alignment where it is devoid of woody vegetation.
E. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, revegetation and irrigation plans.
that comply with the final MMP shall be submitted for review.and
approval of the Zoning Administrator.
(EIR Mitigation Measure 13I0-2(c)).
3
Brilliant Management LLC, July 5, 2002 revised October 12,
2004.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), 2002. File Number
268055. Letter to Mr. Sid Afshar, Architectural Design &
Development, from Edward A. Wylie, Chief-South Section. .
December 11. .
R. Geotechnical and Geologic Reports
AMSO Consulting Engineers, 2001. Geotechnical Investigation,
Hillview Residential Development, 4823 Hilltop Drive, El
Sobrante, California. AMSO Job #3128 (report dated April 30,
2001).
. Alan Kropp & Associates, Inc. 2004, Geotechnical Investigation
Hilltop Drive Subdivision, Subdivision 8533, El Sobrante,
California. October 18.
. Abel R. Soares & Associates, 1998. Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation.forAssessor's Parcel Nos. 426-192-005, -007, and-
008,
nd-008, Marin Road in the El Sobrante District of Contra Costa
County, July.
S. Environmental Geology
• Shaw Environmental, Inc., 2004: Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment Report, Proposed Housing Development, APNs: 436-
210-007, 426-182-017, 426-192-005, and 426-192-008, El
Sobrante, California 94803, September.
T: Water Pollution Control Program
Klemetson Engineering,2002. Water Pollution Control Program,
Subdivision 8533; 4823 Hilltop Drive, El Sobrante Area (APN
.426-210-007, -182-001 and-017, and —192-005 and -008 (dated
February 24, 2002).
U. Archaeology Report
. Pacific Legacy, Inc., 2001. Archaeological Survey for Proposed
Hillview Subdivision, APN 426-192-005, 426-182-017 and 426-
210-00.7,El Sobrante,Contra Costa County(dated April 28,2001).
. Pacific Legacy, Inc., 2004. Archaeologic Survey for Hillcrest
Homes Subdivision (letter dated March 19, 2004, 3 pages).
Revisions to the Plans
4
2. Unless otherwise indicated, the following conditions of approval require
compliance prior to filing the Final Map, and/or issuance of grading,
building or demolition permits.
The project shall be revised as follows. The applicant shall submit a
revised site plan (VTM) for the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator that is consistent with the provisions of the mitigation
measures recommended in the Environmental Impact Report, and that
complies with the following requirements. This approval is also based on
the findings and recommendations of the project reports and documents
listed above, along with the "Staff Study: Concerns of Design
Components"presented in Exhibit 4, and the Final Environmental Impact
Report.
A. Open Space Parcels and Maintenance Access- Open space parcels
shall be created within the project, to be owned by the
Homeowner's Association. No p blie +.ails will be-eensttfuetcc
I .. vitro +fioso par-eels. The northernmost open space parcel, Lot A,
shall, at a minimum, include the area labeled "Open Space on
VTM Sheet 12. It shall also include a storm water detention basin,
along with any required retaining wall on the west side of Garrity
Creek Drive. The southernmost private open space parcel, Lot B,
shall include the area of the Royal Oaks Drive culverted creek
crossing (including reinforced earth/keystone walls on both flanks
of the creek needed-to construct the crossing). Additionally,it shall
include the 50-foot wide reach of channel downstream of the Royal
Oaks Drive, including the southernmost storm. water detention
basin.
All required vehicular access for maintenance to the storm water
detention basins and creeks shall provide for ownership in fee title
by the project Homeowners Association.The development rights of
the maintenance accesses shall be grant deeded to the County. No
access easements benefiting adjoining residential lots shall be
permitted along any required creek or basin maintenance access.
The horizontal and vertical alignment of the maintenance access
driveways to the detention basins shall be acceptable to the Public
Works Department. Development rights to the private open space
parcels shall be grant deeded to Contra Costa County.
B. Reconfiguration of Site Plan Based on Limited Approval of
Variances to Minimum Lot Dimensions,and Reduction in Number
of Lots-Except as specified below,the site plan shall be revised so
22
along the emergency vehicle access road or the Road 24 alignment where
it is devoid of woody vegetation.
B. To alert visitors of its intended use,permanent metal signage stating that
the area.serves as sensitive habitat shall be installed at any pedestrian
entrance or channel crossing within the proposed open space area in the
northwestern portion of the site.
C. A permanent movement corridor shall be provided for wildlife linking the
proposed open space in the northwestern portion of the site with the open
space along the east fork of Garrity Creek. An area with a minimum
width of 25 feet shall be established from the western boundary of the site
at the west side of proposed Lots 31 and 32 within which fencing that
would exclude wildlife would be prohibited and native.vegetation would
be planted and retained as.part of an expanded grassy swale area and
upland area. Some protective. fencing may be necessary for safety
purposes around the proposed detention basin to be sited in this area,but
the fencing and basin design shall balance security and safety issues with
the need to maintain opportunities for wildlife movement along the creek
corridor.
(EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-3(a)).
Control of Invasive Exotic Species
17. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, commencement of any site
improvement or vegetation removal, whichever comes first, submit a .
revised Biological Resource MMP presenting an expanded.program to
control invasive exotic species in proposed open space areas.- Section
4.4.2 of the Biologic Resource MMP shall specify initial methods to
remove and,kill targeted invasive; non-native plant species. This may
include controlled use of herbicides, which must be carefully controlled,
given the intended function as open space and presence of sensitive
aquatic habitat of the creek channels, spring, and seep. The proposed
program shall be subject to review and approval. of the Zoning
Administrator.. (Mitigation Measure BI04(b))
Tree Protection
18. Prior.to approval of the Final Map, an engineering survey for all native
trees with trunk diameters. of 6.5 inches or greater diameter at breast
height(dbh)within 20 feet on either side of the proposed limits of grading
shall:be submitted. An arborist shall classify trees by::species and
condition. Wherever possible, individual native trees at the perimeter of
the proposed limits of grading with trunk diameters exceeding.6.5 inches
shall be preserved through adjustments to the.limits of grading, use of
21
Springs and Seeps
14. Prior to approval of the Final Map and using the following detailed
specifications;revise the VTM, Riparian Mitigation Plan, and Biologic
Resource MMP to ensure adequate avoidance of the active spring and seep
in the proposed open space area in the northwestern portion of the site.
A. The boundaries of the seep and.spring shall be mapped by engineered
survey to accurately identify their location in relation to proposed
improvements.
B. A common driveway/private road with a curb-to-curb width of 20 feet
shall be used to provide any required access to the vicinity of Lots 26,
27, and-28, and the-emergency vehicle access north of the site. This
refinement of the' road width would provide a setback of
approximately 20 feet between the road and the spring/seep complex.
It would reduce the extent of grading, and presumably eliminate the
need for a retaining wall immediately adjacent to this feature.
C. Grading, roadway, drainage and any other development
improvements shall be restricted.a minimum of 20 feet from the edge
of.the spring to ensure an adequate setback from construction and to
prevent indirect impacts of subsurface groundwater and surface
drainage.
(EIR Mitigation Measure BI0-3(a)).
SWPPP
15. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, submit a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan using Best Management Practices to control both
construction-related erosion and sedimentation and project-related non-
point discharge into waters on the site. '(Mitigation Measure BI0-3(b))
Wildlife Movement Corridors
16. Prior to approval of the Final Map and using the following detailed
specifications, revise the VTM, Riparian Mitigation Plan, and Biologic
Resource MMP to further address loss of wildlife habitat, maintain
opportunities for wildlife movement across the site, and minimize
disturbance to open space areas.
A. The proposed alignment a 5-foot-wide pedestrian trail depicted on
the Riparian Mitigation Plan (see Figure 4.5-4 of the EIR) shall be
eliminated due to the potential impacts on sensitive riparian habitat, or
the trail shall be relocated outside the willow dominated scrub,possibly
23
short over-steepened slopes, and. other acceptable methods. Where
possible, non-native trees at the perimeter of the proposed limits of
grading with .trunk diameters exceeding '12 inches shall be preserved
where the trees do not detract from proposed habitat enhancement efforts.
Protection of individual native trees shall take precedence over
maintaining the full .width of the proposed grassy swale that would
separate the east fork of Garrity Creek from the rear yard of Lots 6, 7, 9,
10, 1.1, and 36; as long as the function of the Swale is not compromised.
The number of trees protected through further refinement of project plans
shall be quantified, and an updated report summarizing final estimates for
tree removal and preservation shall be submitted. to the Zoning
Administrator for review 'and approval prior to issuance of the Grading
Permit. (Mitigation Measure BIO-5(a))
Tree Replacement
19. The final Biologic Resource MMP shall be revised to include an expanded
goal of providing for the replacement of non-native trees to be removed by
proposed development and details.on their replacement with native tree
species. as part of the open space plantings. Non-native trees to be
removed shall be replaced according to the following replacement ratios:
trees with trunk diameters of from 6.5 to 12 inches dbh to be replaced at a
1:1 ratio; over 12 inches to 24 inches at a 2:1 ratio; and over 24 inches dbh
at a 3:1 ratio (number of replacement treesmumber of trees removed).
Section 3.0 of the final MMP shall be revised to specify the total number
of non-native trees to be removed and the number of native replacement
trees. Revisions to the.,final MMP incorporating specifications for
replacement plantings of non-native trees shall be completed before
approval of the Final Map. (Mitigation Measures BIO-5(b) and
AESTHETICS-1(c))
Eucalyptus
20: Prior to approval of the Final Map, submit a revised drainage plan which
relocates the 12-inch drainage line originating from the cul-de-sac at the
north end of Garrity Creek Drive to avoid the potential adverse impacts on
mature eucalyptus and other desirable vegetation in the grove. This
drainage line should preferably be relocated south of the spring/seep
complex as part of the cul-de-sac relocation identified in COA #14 and
Mitigation Measure BIO-3(a). (Mitigation Measure BIO-5(c))
Trees to be Preserved
24
21. Adequate measures shall be implemented to ensure protection of trees
designated for preservation and to provide adequate mitigation if trees are
inadvertently damaged during construction. This shall be accomplished
through implementation of the following detailed specifications.
A. At least 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or approval of the
Final Map, the applicant shall provide two copies of a report from the
Project Restorationist for review and approval by the Zoning
Administrator. The report shall indicate that the Restorationist has
reviewed'the recommendations of the geotechnical report filed with the
final map. The report of the Restorationist shall recommend appropriate
measures to prevent any significant damage to trees in the project.area
that are not proposed for removal,including trees on neighboring parcels
that adjoin areas proposed for grading. The recommendations of the
approved report shall be implemented by the applicant.
B. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 816-6.1204 of the Tree Protection
and Preservation Ordinance and to address the possibility that
construction activity damages trees not approved for removal, the
applicant shall provide the County with a security (e.g., bond, cash
deposit) to allow for replacement of trees.intended to be preserved that
are significantly damaged by construction activity. The security shall be
retained by the County up to 5 years following the completion of the tree
alteration improvements. In the event that the Zoning Administrator
determines that trees intended to be protected have been damaged by
development activity 'and the Zoning Administrator determines that the
applicant has not been`diligent in'providing reasonable restitution of the
damaged trees, the Zoning Administrator may require that all or part of
the security be used to provide for mitigation of the damaged trees.
C. The trees identified for removal on the approved Vesting Tentative Map
shall be approved for removal and all other trees shall be protected. All .
grading,improvement plans and construction plans prepared for building
permits during initial. project build-out shall clearly indicate trees
proposed to be removed,. altered; or otherwise affected by development
construction. The tree information on grading and development plans
shall indicate the number, size, species, assigned tree number and
location of the dripline of all trees.on the property that are to be
retained/preserved.
D. Tree protection measures shall be printed on all subdivision grading and
improvement plans.
(EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-5(d))
i
25
Geotechnical
22. A. At least 30 days,prior to issuance of a.grading permit or installation
of improvements or utilities, applicant shall submit a final geology,
soil, and foundation report meeting the requirements of Subdivision
Ordinance.Section 94-4.420 for review and approval of the County
Peer Review. Geologist. The report shall evaluate soils conditions
and provide specific criteria and standards to guide site grading,
drainage and foundation. design, including drainage facilities and
private roads. This report,shall include evaluation of the potential
b
for slope failure, seismic settlement, lateral deformation of fill
slopes, differential fill thickness, cut/fill transition lots, and
expansive soils by recognized methods appropriate to soil conditions
discovered during subsurface investigation. It shall include slope
stability analysis, design criteria for the proposed retaining walls, a
remediation plan, and an assessment of the effect of project
implementation on stability of adjacent lots.
B. To mitigate against future landsliding,the two confirmed landslides
shall be entirely removed down to the slide plane. The area of the
landslide shall be regraded with engineered fill following the
construction of a keyway, benches, and subsurface drainage. If
deemed necessary to achieve long-term stability of planned
improvements,the correction grading of the Adams Court landslide
may require a grading easement to remove off-site portions of the
slide. .
The toe of the landslide in Lot 5 extends into the creek bank,and this
area of removal must be regraded with structural supports for the
creek bank and arch culvert across Garrity Creek. All necessary
permits for such earthwork shall be obtained from the California
Department of Fish and Game(for work within the creek bank) and
other applicable agencies. (Mitigation Measure GEO-2(a))
C. During grading operations, all keyways and cut slopes shall be
logged by an engineering,geologist.. In areas of highly sheared or
deeply weathered rock, the applicant's geologist shall provide
supplemental recommendations, such as drainage facilities, over
excavation of the slope, and replacement with engineered fill or
reinforced earth. (Mitigation-Measure GEO-2(c))
D. The.project geotechnical engineer shall review Improvement Plans
for Garrity Creek Drive and provide specific standards and criteria to
protect the spring from damage during the construction period.
26
Throughout the construction period, an impervious fence shall be
installed a minimum of 6 feet from the springbox to prevent damage
associated with grading and wall construction.. (Mitigation
Measure GEO-2(d))
E. The Grading,Completion Report shall include an original geologic
map that shows the details of observed features and conditions for
cut slopes, keyways, and areas of continuous benching. The
geologic mapping should be accompanied by a discussion of the .
significance of the exposed features and'how design was adapted to
address exposed conditions. The Grading Completion Report shall
also include.a map based on field surveys or GPS measurements that
show the location and depth of subdrains,as well as adequate ASTM
compaction test data. During construction of improvements,
evidence of geotechnical monitoring of foundation laying for
buildings and retaining walls, along with other details,-.shall be
provided (e.g., backfilling of utility trenches). (Mitigation
Measure GEO-2(e))
F. A representative of the project geotechnical engineer shall be on site
full time.during foundation work (observing a1T pier drilling and
preparation work for all slabs) to verify compliance of construction
practices and exposed conditions with the provisions of the approved
geotechnical.
G. The Grading Completion Report -shall include an as-graded map
showing the location of fill, keyways and subdrains, as well as as-
graded topography.
Graded Slopes
23. A. Prior to approval of the Final Map or issuance of a grading permit,
whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit an updated
Grading Plan, along with a Corrective Grading Plan, for review and
approval by the.Zoning Administrator: The gradients of cut slopes
and fill slopes in the project shall not exceed 2.5:1 (horizontal to
vertical). Where steeper slopes are required, special engineering
solutions shall be provided (e.g., reinforced earth with associated
slope stability analysis). (Mitigation Measure GEO-2(b))
B. Engineered slopes on the perimeter of the graded. area shall be
contour-rounded to mimic natural terrain features.
Building Permits
27
24. A. A letter-report update shall be required for issuance of building
permits for individual lots. The intent,of this update is to have the
geotechnical engineer review foundation, drainage (and any
associated grading) plans, verifying that they comply with
recommendations and the intent of the approved final geotechnical
reports. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall carry out
the recommendations of the approved report.:
B. The recommendation of the project and geotechnical investigation
shall be followed to mitigate the impacts of expansive soils and soil
creep. (Mitigation Measure GEO-3)
C. Following rough site grading, but before the installation of
improvements, chemical testing of representative building site soil
shall be submitted to determine the level of corrosive protection
required for steel and concrete materials to be used during
construction. The following measures shall be implemented where
appropriate to protect against corrosion: use of sulfate-resistant
concrete and use of protective linings to encase steel piping buried in
native soils. (Mitigation Measure GEO-5)
D. The recommendations of the project geotechnical report shall be
followed for new building foundations,"roadways,and.on-site swales
and detention basins. (Mitigation Measure GEO-1(b))
Seismic Design and Earthquake
25. A. Slope stability analysis shall be provided for major slopes in the
project. The standard for the project shall be safety factors of 1.5 for
static conditions and .1.1 for pseudostatic conditions, and a seismic
coefficient of 0.15.
B. All new project residences shall be designed to meet the
requirements of the most recent update of the Uniform Building
Code (UBC) Seismic Zone Factor 4 standards, and constructed in
accordance with all applicable building codes and regulations.
(Mitigation Measure GEO=1(a))
C. Following an.earthquake that triggers.:gfound failure in the.West
County area, an inspection program should be implemented by the
Geologic Hazards Abatement District (CHAD) or Homeowners
Association (HOA) 'to determine if features characteristic of
incipient ground failure are present. If so, the inspection shall
28
evaluate the extent of cracking of the cover soil materials,and assess
any damage to clean water features and on-site detention.basins.
(Mitigation Measure GEO-1(c))
Deed Disclosure
26. Applicant shall record a statement to run with deeds to property ac-
knowledging the approved report by title, author(firm); and date, calling
attention to approved recommendations, and noting that the report is
available from the seller.
Geologic Hazard Abatement.District
27. A. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project shall be
incorporated-into the established Hillcrest Heights Geologic Hazard
Abatement District(GHAD) or equivalent. The Plan of Control for
the GHAD shall include maintenance responsibility for drainage
facilities within the scenic easement.
B. The Plan of Control and financial aspects of joining the.GHAD,
along with review of grading plans and field observations of the
earthwork, shall be performed by an engineering geologist retained
by the County. The applicant shall be responsible for funding these
technical reviews.
Erosion Control
28. At least 30 days prior to requesting the issuance of a grading permit, an
Erosion Control Plan shall.be submitted for the review and approval of the
Grading Section of the:Building Inspection Department. The Erosion
Control Plan shall provide.for the following measures:
A. The Erosion Control Plan shall encompass the applicable provision
of the Freshwater Marsh Riparian Vegetation and Trees Mitigation
Measure.
-B. Grading activities shall be restricted to the summer construction
season (April 15 through'October 1). Any earthwork done after
October 1 shall be limited to activities directly•related to`erosion
:control. The following interim control measures shall be employed
based on site-specific needs in the project areas: a). grading to
minimize areas of exposed erodible material adjacent to Garrity
Creek, and.b) avoidance of over-concentration of rapidly flowing
29
runoff in unprotected, erodible areas. (Mitigation Measure GEO-
4(b))
C. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, submit an Erosion Control
Plan for review and approval of the Building Inspection Department.
That plan shall incorporate BMPs,including such measures as water
bars, temporary. culverts and swales, mulch, erosion control
mats/blankets on exposed slopes; hydroseeding;. silt fences, and
sediment traps/basins. Because the biggest problem with effective
sediment control is lack of maintenance, the Erosion Control Plan
must have a comprehensive program for inspection and maintenance
during the winter rainy season,including provisions for documenting
maintenance activities. (Mitigation Measure GEO-4(a))
D. The Erosion Control Plan shall include effective measures to control
erosion and sedimentation over the life of the project, including one
or more of the following measures. (Mitigation Measure GEO-
4(c))
■ Downspout collection,systems that outfall to splatter plates for
individual structures;
• Use of track-walked,salvaged topsoil on all engineered slopes with
gradients of 2:5 (H:V) or flatter that are 15 feet or more in height;
and
■ Avoidance of concentrated runoff over cut or fill slopes.
Construction Period Restrictions
29. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction,
noise, litter,and traffic control requirements. These requirements shall be
printed in the General Notes portion of the grading and subdivision
improvement plans:
A. Contractor and/or developer shall,comply with the following
construction noise, dust, litter, and traffic control requirements:
All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on
State and federal holidays on the calendar dates that these holidays
are observed by the state or federal government as listed below:
New Year's Day (State and Federal)
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal)
Washington's Birthday.(Federal)
30
Lincoln's Birthday (State)
President's Day (State)
Cesar Chavez Day (State)
Memorial Day (State and Federal)
Independence Day (State and Federal)
Labor Day (State and Federal)
Columbus Day (State and Federal)
Veterans Day (State and Federal)
Thanks Giving Day(State and Federal)
Day after Thanksgiving (State)
Christmas Day(State and Federal)
For specific details on the actual day the state and federal holidays
occur, please visit the following web sites: .
Federal`Holidays: http://www.opm.gov/fedhol/2006.asp
California Holidays: http://www.edd.ca.gov/eddsthol.htm
B. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, commencement of any site
improvement or vegetation removal,whichever comes first,submit a
plan to ensure that all 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 pumpersas far away. from
,existing residences as possible.
C. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, commencement of any site.
improvement or vegetation removal,whichever comes first,submit a
draft of a notice and.mailing list for review and approval.of the
Zoning Administrator. The notice shall include a list of contact
persons with name, title, phone number and, area of responsibility.
The person responsible for maintaining 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 individuals responsible for
noise and litter control,tree protection,construction traffic and vehi-
cles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number, shall be
expressly identified in the notice. 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 notice,that construction work will commence. The
notice shall be re-issued with each phase of major grading and con-
struction activity.
31'.
A copy of each notice that is mailed 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. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference
with existing neighborhood traffic flows. Construction-related
vehicle access to the site shall be limited to Royal Oaks Drive, and
the emergency vehicle access. No construction-related vehicles are
allowed to park on neighborhood streets.
E. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to week
days between the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM. and prohibited on
Federal and State holidays.
F. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the
cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be
removed from the site.
G. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide
documentation to the Community Development Department of the
proposed approach to achieve full compliance with COA #29
requirements by all contractors and subcontractors within this project
(i.e., reference "general notes" in the grading plan, provisions in
building and grading contracts or other equally effective measures).
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
30. The Grading Plan for the project shall identify the licensed environmental
professional who will monitor earthmoving operation in the area of the
former shed(proposed Lot#16-17). The"General Notes" on the Grading
Plan shall specify the following:
Grading in the immediate vicinity of the former shed shall be
monitored by ... (identify the environmental firm providing this
monitoring service in the General Note). If any contaminated soil
is detected, the Zoning Administrator shall be notified.within 48
hours. Appropriate cleanup shall be performed immediately and
appropriate agencies shall be contacted prior to any building.
construction.
(Mitigation Measure HAZ-1)
32
31. A. Prior to issuance of a:demolition permit for the residence of 4823
Hilltop Drive or a grading permit for the project, submit the results
of an asbestos or lead-based paint survey for review and approval of
the Zoning Administrator. If any asbestos is identified, appropriate
procedures shall be undertaken to comply with all applicable.
regulations and a plan for demolition shall be approved by the
County Building Department prior to the issuance of a demolition
permit. Consultation with staff of the BAAQMD Enforcement
Division shall occur prior to demolition of any structure containing
asbestos, and such demolition shall be subject to District Regulation
11; Rule 2. (Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 and AIR-2)
B. If lead-based paint is .identified, federal and State construction
worker health and safety .regulations shall be followed during
demolition activities. Any loose or peeling lead-based paint shall
be removed by a qualified:lead abatement contractor and disposed.
of in accordance, with existing hazardous waste regulations.
Further, if lead-based paint is identified on the building structure,.
near-surface soil samples shall be collected around the structure to
determine the potential for residual soil lead contamination, and
appropriate remediation shall be completed prior to new residential .
construction. (Mitigation Measure HAZ-2)
Aesthetics
32. Prior to approval of the Final Map,documentation of compliance with the
following measures shall be submitted for review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator.
A. All graded slopes shall be hydroseeded immediately for those areas that
.would not be paved with new roadways. Also, refer to mitigation
measures in Section 4.5, Biological Resources.
B. New roads shall be planted with trees in 15-gallon containers on both
sides of the road,within the edge of the sidewalk area. These trees shall
be planted approximately 25 feet on center to provide a shaded,
pedestrian-scale environment with a continuous tree canopy and to screen
roads and homes from uphill locations. Root barriers shall be included,
as necessary. Street trees shall be of a species approved by the Contra
Costa County Public Works Department. Irrigation shall be provided as
needed and identified in planting specifications that shall be included
with the Final Map submittal. Any damaged or dead trees within the first
two years of construction shall be replaced by the applicant. (Also refer
to COA#40 (Mitigation Measure UTILITIES-1.).
33
C. Rooftops of all new residential units shall be of a dark material to blend
into the surrounding landscape when viewed from uphill residences. Red
tile rooftops should not be allowed:due to the sharp color contrast with
the surroundings and vegetation.
D. Fence material. in the vicinity of both the east fork and north fork of
Garrity. Creek should be open wire fencing to minimize the sense of
"enclosure" in the vicinity of the creeks and to allow views into the
vegetated creek corridors.
EIR Mitigation Measure AESTHETICS-1(a).
Lot 38 Oak
33. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, submit a detailed site plan for
proposed Lot #38 that analyzes the feasibility of preserving the 12-inch
diameter Coast Live Oak. Measures to be considered include: a) use of
retaining walls at the dripline, b) custom design of residence, and c)
reduced front and side yard setback. The detailed site plan shall be subject
to,review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Should the Zoning
Administrator determine that preservation of the tree is impractical, tree
replantings shall be required (two coast live oaks, each in 15-gallon
containers). (Mitigation Measure AESTHETICS-1(b))
Lighting .
34. Prior to approval of Improvement Plans, submit evidence that any street
lighting fixtures are shielded so that the light is cast downward to the
streets and sidewalks, and the.bulbs are not highly visible or subject to
breakage and designed to minimize light and glare for their surroundings.
(Mitigation Measure AESTHETICS-2)
Cultural
35. A. `. If any indicators of the presence of cultural resources are discovered
during the construction.of the project,earth-disturbing work shall be
halted in an area within a radius of 10 feet around the suspected
deposits,and an archaeologist or cultural resource specialist shall be
consulted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The
County's Community Development Department shall be notified
within 24 hours. If deemed appropriate under CEQA, data and
artifact recovery shall be conducted during the period when
construction work is halted. Significant cultural materials include,
but are.not limited to, chipped stone, groundstone, shell and bone
34
artifacts, concentrations.of fire cracked rock, ash, charcoal, shell,
bone, and historic features such as privies or building foundations.
Appropriate mitigation may include monitoring of further
construction and/or systematic excavation of the resources.. Any
artifacts or samples collected as part of the initial discovery,
monitoring, 'or mitigation phases shall be properly conserved,
catalogued, analyzed, evaluated, and'curated along with associated
documentation in a professional manner consistent with current
archaeological standards. (Mitigation Measure CULT-1)
B. If human remains are discovered during the construction of the
project,an appropriate representative of Native American groups and
the County Coroner shall be informed and consulted, as required by
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. No.further
excavation or disturbance of the site of the "find" or any nearby area
shall be undertaken until authorized by the County Coroner.
Mitigation Measure CULT-1 shall also apply in such a situation.
(Mitigation Measure CULT-2)
Noise
36. Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit,provide a plan for implementation
of the following detailed specifications:
A. Site planning of Lot 1' should take noise control considerations into
account. With proper site planning at Lot 1, acoustical shielding to the
backyard can be provided by a combination of the residence structure and
solidly constructed fencing: The final site plan for Lot 1 should be
reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to construction to
ensure regulatory compliance.
B. The residence on Lot 1 should be provided with the incorporation of a
forced-air mechanical ventilation system, suitable to the local County
official,to allow occupants the option of closed windows to control noise.
EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-1.
37. Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit, submit a program to implement
the following detailed noise suppression. This program shall be subject to
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
A. Limit construction to daytime working hours, as specified by the County
Noise Element, to. provide relative quiet during the more sensitive
evening and early morning periods;
35 .
B. Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers that
are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment;
C. Utilize "quiet" models of air compressors and other stationary noise
sources wherq,technology exists; .
D. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines;
E. Locate all stationary noise-generating construction equipment,such as air
compressors and portable power generators, as far as practical from
existing noise-sensitive receptors;
F. Notify residents adjacent to the project site of the construction schedule
in writing; and
G. Designate a "noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible
for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The
disturbance coordinator ' would determine the cause of the noise
complaints (e.g., starting too early,.bad muffler, etc.) and institute
reasonable measures warranted to correcf the problem. Conspicuously
post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the
construction site.
EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-2.
Air Quality
38. Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit, submit a program to implement
the following.detailed specifications to protect air quality-during the
construction period. This program shall be subject to review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator.
A. Basic Control Measures: 1) water all active construction areas at least
twice daily; 2) cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose
materials; 3)..pave, apply water.three times'daily, or apply non-toxic soil
stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,parking areas,and staging areas at
construction sites; 3)sweep daily(with water sweepers)all paved access
roads, parking areas and staging areas.
B. Enhanced, Control Measures: 1) hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil
stabilizers to inactive construction areas(previously graded areas inactive
for ten days or more);,2) enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-
toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); 3) limit traffic
speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour;4)install sandbags or other
erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; 5)
replant vegetation in disturbed areas as.quickly as possible;6) install
.36
wheel washers for all existing trucks, or wash.off tires or tracks.of all
trucks and equipment leaving the site; 7)suspend excavation and grading
activity when.winds exceed 25 miles per hour; 8) properly maintain
construction equipment and avoid unnecessary idling near residences; 9),
designate a disturbance coordinator who would respond to complaints
regarding construction-related air quality issues and post the coordinator's
phone number at the construction site; and 10) at least once per month,
submit a report by the contractor to the County to ensure that construction
mitigation measures are in place.
(EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-1)
Recreation
39. The on-site open:.space resources.shall be protected by the following
means. Prior to,approval--of the Final Map, provide documentation of
compliance with the following detailed specifications. The documents
provided shall` be subject to review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
A. All on-site open space shall be deed-restricted and dedicated to an on-site
homeowner's association (HOA) that would be responsible for ongoing
maintenance and operation. This dedication(and appropriate documen-
tation) shall occur prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map.
B. The HOA shall establish an appropriate fee structure for project residents
that would help to offset ongoing maintenance and operation costs.
C. An Operations'and Maintenance Plan shall be established for the on-site
open space'by the HOA to ensure that'water quality and vegetation
management provisions are addressed. This Plan shall be approved by
the County's Public Works Department and the California Department of
Fish and Game prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the site.
D. Adequate signage shall be posted at the site to identify times of use and
appropriate controls such as avoidance of garbage in the creek, cleaning
up after animals; etc.
E. The Covenants, Conditions'and Restrictions(CC&Rs)of the HOA shall
provide for holding owners ofprivate lots financiallyresponsible for any
debris cleanup required as a result of illegal dumping in the creek
structure setback zone.
EIR Mitigation Measure REC-1.
Utilities
37
40. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for a residence, provide a
landscape program for front yards. For each,south-facing residence, the
program shall include at least one deciduous tree to encourage the use of
solar equipment and passive solar design. The proposed landscape
program shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator to assure compliance with mitigation measure. (Mitigation
Measure UTILITIES-1)
Street Name
41. At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map,proposed street names shall
be submitted for review and approval by,the Community Development
Department,Graphics Section(Phone 4335-1270). Alternate street names
should be submitted. The Final Map cannot be approved by the Commu-
nity Development Department without the approved street name.
Election for Establishment of a Police Service District to Augment Police Services
42. 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 Final
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..
Landscape Plan and Security for Street Tree/Hilltop Drive Landscape Improvements
43. A. The plans for the Hilltop Drive frontage will include provision for a
six-foot tall decorative masonry wall. Proposed trees shall be a
minimum 15-gallons in size;proposed shrubs shall be a minimum 5-
gallons in size. Plans shall include a color spot. At the same time,
the plans shall make clear that the plant selection at maturity
complies with the Sight Distance at Intersection Ordinance. The
plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and shall be
certified to bein compliance with the County Water Conservation
Ordinance 82-26.
38
B. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall provide the
County with a security that is acceptable to the Zoning Administrator
for.125 percent of the estimated cost offthe landscape improvements.
The purpose of.the security shall be to..ensure timely completion of
the required landscape improvements,and shall be retained until the
required landscape improvements have been completed and accepted
by the Zoning Administrator. If compliance is not achieved within
one year of the completion of the subdivision improvements, then
the County may contract for the completion of the landscaping and
irrigation improvement using the landscape security.
Traffic Calming and Hardscape Entry Design Measures for Royal Oaks Drive
44. Improvement plans for Royal Oaks Drive shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department for the review and approval of the .
Zoning Administrator, following opportunity to comment by the Public
Works Department. The plans shall provide for:
A. The'installation of at least two speed bumps intended to slow traffic
along this road.
B. A hardscape design treatment for the road entry to the project.
Recycling of Construction Materials
45. A. At least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits, the
subdivision developer shall submit two (2) copies of a Debris
Recovery Plan demonstrating how they intend to recycle,reuse, or
salvage building materials and other debris generated from the
construction of new buildings for the review and approval of the .
Zoning Administrator, following.an opportunity for review and
comment by the Resource Recovery Specialist in the Community
Development Department (Loma.Thomson, (92 5) 335-1321). .
B. At•least 30 days prior to requesting a final inspection on the first
residential building permit,the subdivision developer shall submit a
completed Debris Recovery' Project documenting actual debris
recovery efforts (including quantities of recovered and land filled
materials) that occurred throughout the project's duration.
Design Guidelines: General
46 . A. Prior to approval of the Grading Plan or Final Map,.the applicant
shall submit for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator'
39
design guidelines. The design guidelines shall be listed in the
CC&R's.
B.. An internal Architectural Review Board shall be created to review
and approve plans in accordance with the residential design
guidelines prior to submittal.of plans to Community Development
and Building Inspection Departments. The Architectural Review
Board shall become active when at least 60% of the residences are
owner-occupied.
The following County review process will be in effect regardless of
the status of the Architectural Review Board. All residential designs
for permits shall be submitted with a design guideline checklist to
determine compliance with the design guidelines for the review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator. The County shall retain
architectural and landscape peer review, and costs of the review
shall be borne by the applicant.
C. . The criteria listed in Exhibit "4-H" Staff Study Design Guidelines
shall—at a minimum—be included in the applicant design guideline
submittal.
Design Guidelines: Setbacks
47. A. Required setbacks and off-street parking prescribed by the R-7
zoning district shall be measured from the edge of the private road
easement or property line, whichever is more restrictive.
B. Lot setback exceptions. 15 feet (minimum) allowed,provided that
the garage achieves a 20 foot setback and provided that any
encroachment in the 20 ft setback zone be limited to a one story
element.
Design Guidelines: Preliminary Design Submittal
48. Prior to approval of a revised grading plan or final map, applicant shall
submit for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator architectural
plans and elevations that are sensitive to the site topography. The designs
shall incorporate the criteria,listed in the project design guidelines. The
Preliminary Design Submittal shall include the following:
A. Conceptual Site Plans.for a cross-slope lot, a down-slope lot and an
up-slope lot that show:
40
1. Proposed grades if different from revised grading plan ,
2. Property lines with applicable setbacks shown
3. All proposed easements on the property '
4. Existing trees—noted as to saved or to be removed
5. Lot drainage
6. Fence types and locations with heights noted
7. Retaining walls including heights, type, color and finish
8. Conceptual landscape and lot development activities
9. Amount of cut and fill required for design (beyond quantities
noted on revised grading plan)
B. Conceptual Exterior Elevation of House that Identify:
1. Exterior finishes
2. Sample of roofing material and color (manufacturers' brochure
OK)
3. Color chart detailing exterior colors (manufacturers' brochure
OK)
C. Conceptual Floor Plans
1. Identification of rooms
2. Proposed square footage of home, garage and other structures
Design;Guidelines: Grading Conditions
49. Prior to approval of a grading plan or final map, applicant shall submit for
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator a revised grading/tree
preservation plan. The revised grading plan shall:
A. Be designed on a current topographical survey with two-foot .
contours.
B. Show the grading for the detention basins, the lot layout to
accommodate the basins and access to maintain the basins.
C. Reflect the proposed house grading at the back of the downhill lots
to minimize site grading and sliver fills requiring additional keyways
at house construction stage.
D. Include the arch culvert crossing detail,to be submitted to the Public
Works and Community Development.Departments for review.and
41
approval. The plans shall note proposed.wall material and finish,
fencing and guardrail detail and include structural sections.
E. Depict storm drainage improvements including "clean water"
features intended to comply with C.3 requirement and piping as
well as easements on lots for utilities and private open spaces.
F. The revised grading plan shall clearly label all retaining walls,note
wall heights, and the type,-color and finish:of walls. No retaining
wall structural elements for the project access roadways or project
shall be on private lots without an easement. The walls supporting
the project access roadways shall be maintained by the HOA. All
private roadway structural"elements shall be on easement or via
separate open space lot, and maintained by the HOA.
G. Identify all trees with a trunk circumference of 6.5 inches or greater
with trunks within .twenty feet of areas proposed for grading.
Reasonable efforts shall be made to minimize the loss of or potential
damage to .existing trees. The plans shall identify the trunk
circumference, approximate canopy area, species, and whether the
tree is to be preserved or removed. The plan shall be prepared with
the assistance of a-licensed arborist. The plan shall provide suitable
measures to assure protection of trees during the construction period.
The grading/tree preservation plan shall provide delineation of the
perimeter of areas and trees to be,preserved by use of taping and
stakes, or other appropriate barriers.: The survey of trees shall
provide for a tally of the number and trunk circumference of trees to
be removed. The aggregate trunk circumferences,of trees proposed
for removal.shall be totaled. No trees shall be removed from any of
the property prior to approval of the grading/tree preservation plan
without the prior approval of the Zoning Administrator.
H. Depicts grading to accommodate the conceptual designs required in
compliance with the.provisions of Conditions of,Approval 46-48.
I. Earthwork quantities (cut and fill) shall be noted on the revised
grading plan. Should the site not balance,the applicant shall provide.
details of the proposed import/export. Include information on
location(s) of proposed fill import/export site, type of trucks, haul
route, haul hours, trucks/day and duration of operation, proposed
safety measures (flag.men, strut sweeping, dust control). Any
import/export plan shall be subject to review and approval of the
Public Works Department.
42
J. After the rough grading operation,minimal grading shall be allowed
on the site to accommodate residential construction.
Indemnification of County
50. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474:9, the applicant(including
the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall.defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless. the Contra Costa County Planning Agency and its agents,
officers,and employers 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
fords Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider
of any such claim, action; or proceeding and cooperate fully in the
defense.
Applicant Responsible for Fees to Cover Mitigation Monitoring Costs
51 . The subdivider shall be responsible for staff time and material costs in
monitoring the project for..compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program. The monitoring program will include provision for
periodic inspection of the project site from the commencement. of
demolition and construction activity through the end of the required
survival period for maintaining required landscape mitigation
improvements. Prior to issuance of any permit or approval of a final map,
the applicant shall make an initial cash deposit of$10,000 towards this
expense to the Community Development Department.
Application Processing Fees
52 . This application is subject to a deposit of$12,831.00 which was paid with
the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application
review expenses exceed 100 percent of the initial fee. Any additional fee
due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective'date or prior to use
of the permit whichever. occurs first. .The fees include costs through
permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant
may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. if the
applicant owes additional fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly
after permit issuance.
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 8533
43
COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO
APPROVAL"PPROV A r OF THE FINAL MAP
General Requirements:
53. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this
subdivision shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision
Ordinance(Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed
in this conditional approval statement. The drainage, road and utility
improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the
Public Works Department and are based on the revised Tentative Map
dated October 29, 2004.
54. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be.
submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services
Division, along with review and inspection fees, and security for all
improvements required by the Ordinance Code for the conditions of
approval of this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary
traffic signage and striping plans for review by the Transportation
Engineering Division. .
Roadway Improvements-Hilltop Drive:
55. -• Applicant shall construct curb and 5-foot wide sidewalk(width measured
from curb.face) along the project's frontage on Hilltop Drive. The face of
curb shall conform to the alignment of the existing AC berm and be
subject to the review of Public Works.The new intersection at Royal Oaks
Drive . should not conflict with planned future bicycle facilities.
(Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-3)
56. Dedicate additional right of way.as necessary to accommodate the above
required sidewalk and appurtenant improvements and utilities. Minimum
total right of way shall be 10 feet from the proposed face of curb.
Also refer to COA #5 regarding the construction of a Left-Turn Lane on
Hilltop Drive, if determined to be feasible.
57. Applicant shall install safety related improvements including traffic signs
and striping,.as necessary and as approved by Public Works.
Roadway Improvements—On Site .
58. Applicant shall construct curb, a-54-foot sidewalk(width measured from
curb face), where feasible given the site's geographic constraints
44
(Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-3)necessary longitudinal and transverse
drainage and street lighting within the project as shown on the tentative
map. Pavement and right of way widths shall conform to those shown on
the tentative map as well.
59. Although the streets are to remain private, they shall be constructed to
County public road standards as to horizontal and vertical alignment
(using a 30 mile per hour design speed)as well as the pavement structural
section. Turn-arounds shall be subject to the review and approval of
Public Works and Fire Protection District.
60. Relocate the proposed driveway serving Lot 1 to the north- side of the
proposed building footprint to provide more distance from the Royal Oaks
Drive/Hilltop Drive intersection.
61. Offer to dedicate a private access and utility easement over Royal Oaks
Drive between Garrity Creek and Hilltop Drive to the adjacent parcel to
the west.
Emergency Vehicle Access
62. The proposed EVA between Garrity Creek Drive'and,Manor Road shall
comply with design requirements of the County Public Works Department
and Fire Protection District.The applicant shall obtain an offer to dedicate
a permanent easement over said EVA from the underlying property owner
to the County on behalf of the Public. (Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-2)
63. Pedestrian access shall be provided at the.gate's of the proposed emergency
vehicle access. (Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-3)
Access to Adjoining Property:
Proof of Access
64. Applicant shall furnish necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits
and/or easements for the construction of off-site.,temporary or permanent,
public and private road and drainage improvements.
65. Encroachment permits from the County are required for all construction
activity within existing County right of way. Off-site street or drainage.
improvements within the City of Richmond will require the appropriate
permits from the City.
Construction Related Project Access
45
66 The applicant,shall prepare a Construction Management Plan for approval
by the County Public Works Department prior to the initiation of
construction. The plan shall identify routes to be used by construction.
traffic and the type and number of trucks expected. While most work
would be completed on the site without much disruption to existing
roadways, any work on the proposed Royal Oaks Drive and EVA that
affects traffic flows on Hilltop Drive or Manor Road should be completed
outside of peak hours and not during school drop-off and pick-up times.
(Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-5)
Parking:
.67. "No Parking signs and pavement markings shall be installed along all
..streets subject to the review and approval of Public Works.Parking will be
allowed on one side of the.street where the curb-to-curb width is at least
28.feet. Parking shall be prohibited altogether along roads with a curb-to-
curb width less than 28 feet. The Homeowners Association shall maintain
signage and the painted curbs over the life of the project. (Mitigation
Measure TRAFFIC-4)
Sight Distance:
68. Provide sight distance at all internal intersections for a through traffic
design speed of 30 mph and a through traffic design speed at the
intersection of Hilltop.Drive and Royal Oaks Drive of 40 mph. Sight
distance easements shall be dedicated on the final map in accordance with
the currant Caltrans intersection"Stopping Sight Distance"requirements
or Chapter 82-18, of the County Ordinance Code, whichever is greater.
Structures greater than 30 inches above top of curb grade will be
prohibited within these sight.distance easements. (Mitigation Measure
TRAFFIC-1)
Utilities/Undergrounding:
69. All new and existing utility distribution' facilities shall be installed
underground.
Maintenance of Facilities:
70. Property Owner shall create a Homeowners Association to maintain the
private roadway, street lights,.drainage and stormwater management
facilities. A copy.of the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions for the
46
subdivision or a separate deed notification shall be submitted to Public
Works for review to verify conformance with this requirement
Roadway Landscaping:
71. Applicant shall convey the entry landscaping/ hardscape area at the project
entrance along Hilltop Drive to the Homeowners Association, or other
acceptable entity other than'the County. A maintenance plan of operation
shall be submitted for Public Works and Community Development review,
but the County will not accept this property for-maintenance.
Pedestrian Facilities:
72. All public and private pedestrian facilities and access ways shall be
designed in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap access) and the
Americans with Disabilities Act. This shall include all sidewalks,paths,
trails, driveway depressions, as well as handicap ramps.
73. A public pedestrian access easement shall be dedicated over the sidewalks
to be.constructed within the project.
Drainage Improvements:
Collect and Convey
74. Division 914 of the Ordinance Code requires that all storm waters entering
or originating within the subject property shall be conveyed, 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 that conveys the storm waters to a natural
watercourse.
Exception
In light of the study of the downstream drainage facilities in the"Hilltop
Green" project and the deficiencies noted therein, the applicant shall
construct the proposed on-site detention .basins .to reduce the peak
stormwater runoff rate from the 10-year design storm specified in.the
.County Ordinance Code to or below pre-project levels.
75. Storm drainage facilities required by Division 914 shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with specifications outlined in Division 914 and
in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department.
47
Storm Water Management and Maintenance:
76. The design of Detention Basins "A" and "B" should either be based on
Contra Costa County-Flood Control District criteria for regional basins,or
the applicant should provide an engineered design acceptable to the
County Public Works Department. The current 2.5:1 slope gradients do
not conform to the 4:1 maximum slope allowed by County regulations.
This change would potentially affect the useable area of upgradient lots
and the lot layout may require reconfiguration or reduction in lot yield.
The drainage design and modeling data were based on the applicant's
grading plans of October'14,2004. If the grading plans change due to lot
reconfiguration, the effect of'those changes will necessitate further
hydrologic modeling and associated stormwater management design to be
submitted to The County Public Works Department for review and
approval.. (Mitigation Measure HYDROLOGY-1)
77. A Maintenance Plan and entity responsible for funding and implementing
maintenance of the detention basins and other stormwater management
infrastructure in perpetuity shall be established prior to filing the final
map. An Operations and.Maintenance Manual(OMM)for these facilities
shall be completed by the applicant and approved by the County prior to
issuance of a grading permit, The OMM shall specify that detention
basins will be operated to ensure that design storage capacity of the basin
is maintained and that accumulated residual sediment and other material
deposited will becleaned out, following detention basin inspections.
Debris removal shall occur as needed. The drainage facilities shall be
inspected at least once per year'in the fall, before the onset of a new rainy
season. (Mitigation Measure HYDROLOGY-2),
78. The grassy swales downslope of Lots 32, 33, and 34 shall be removal
based on their limited effectiveness to control and direct surface water
flow due to the relatively steep grades of these lots. (Mitigation Measure
HYDROLOGY-2)
79. Appropriate easements,' access, and security for use of the needed
equipment to clean out.the detention basins shall be provided. The basins
shall be sited within separate parcels without any residential use
component. Development'rights over these separate parcels shall be
conveyed to the County by grant deed. Ownership of the lots shall be
conveyed to the Homeowners Association or subsequent maintenance
entity to be approved by the County Public Works Department.
(Mitigation Measure HYDROLOGY-2)
48
Miscellaneous Drainage Improvements:
80. Storm drainage originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated
.mariner shall be prevented from draining across the sidewalk(s)and drive-
way(s):
81. The applicant shall dedicate a public drainage easement over the drainage
system that conveys storm water run-off from public streets, if applicable.
82. . In the absence of public drainage easements,the applicant shall create private
drainage easements over portions of the drainage system that convey stone
water run-off from more than a single lot or parcel.
83. Private on-site storm drain easements, if necessary, shall have a minimum
width of 10 feet.
Creek Structure Setback
84. Applicant shall relinquish "developmentrights" over that portion of the
site that is withiri.the setback area of Garrity Creek. The structure setback
shall be determined using'ithe criteria outlined in Chapter 914-14,"'Rights
of Way and Setbacks'..'of the Subdivision Ordinance. Development rights
shall be conveyed;to the County by grant deed.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Requirements:
85. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and
procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)for municipal construction and industrial activities promulgated
by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its .
Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay—Region II)
86. Although the new"C.3"requirements being phased in from 2004 through
2006 post-date the applicant's submission, a C.3-conforming drainage
plan shall be required for this project. The applicant's current design in-
eludes components necessary to meet the objectives of the"C.3" require-
ments.. (Mitigation Measure HYDROLOGY-1)
87. Prior to issuance of a.grading permit, the applicant must complete a
stormwater control plan(SWOP)acceptable to the County Watershed Pro-
tection Program reviewers. This must include a detailed description of
construction phase Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) as
well as post construction BMPs to be implemented. (Mitigation Measure
HYDROLOGY-1)
49
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 OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH-DEVELOPMENT.
A. The Building Inspection Department will require three sets of building plans which must be
stamped by the Community Development Department:and by the West County Wastewater
District.
B. Additional requirements may be imposed by the Fire District,the Health Department and
the Building Inspection Department. It is advisable to check with these departments prior
to requesting a building permit or proceeding with the project.
C. Vesting Tentative Map Rim. The approval of this vesting tentative map confers a vested
right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with ordinances,policies,and
standards in effect as-of November 28,2004,the date the vesting tentative map application
was accepted as complete by the Community Development Department. The vested rights
also apply to development fees which the County has adopted by ordinance. These fees are
in addition to'any other development fees which may be specified in the conditions of
approval.
The fees include but are not limited to the following:
Park Dedication $2,000.00 per residence.
Child Care $400.00 per residence.
An estimate of the fee charges for each approved lot may be obtained by contacting the
Building Inspection Department at 335-1192.
D. Expiration of Vested Rights., Pursuant to Section 66452.6(8) of the Subdivision Map act,
the rights conferred by the vesting tentative map as provided by Chapter 4.5 of the
Subdivision Map act shall last for an initial period of two(2)years following the recording
date of the final/parcel map. These rights pertain to development fees and regulations.
Where several final maps are recorded on various phases of a project covered by a single
vesting tentative map,the initial time period.shall begin for each phase when the final map
for that phase is recorded.
At anytime prior to the expiration of the initial time period,the subdivider may apply for a
one-year extension. The application shall be accompanied by the applicable filing fee. if
the extension is denied by an advisory agency,the subdivider may appeal that denial to the
50
Board of Supervisors by filing a letter of.appeal with the appropriate filing fee with the
.Clerk of the Board within 15 calendar days.
The initial time.period may also be subject to automatic extension pursuant to other
provisions of Section 66452.6(g)relating to processing of related development applications
by the County.
At the expiration of the vesting time period, remaining development (i.e., new building
permits) within the subdivision shall be subject to development fees and regulations in
effect at that time.
E. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules,regulations,and procedures of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal, construction .
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).
F. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department.of Fish and Game. It is
the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and 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 and Game Code.
G. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the
applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to
determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained.
H. Police Services District Costs and Necessary Processing Time. The applicant is advised
that the tax for the police services district is currently set by the Board of Supervisors at
$20.0 per parcel annually (with appropriate future Consumer. Price Index (CPI)
adjustments). The annual fee is subject to modification by the Board of Supervisors in the
future. The current fee for holding the election is $800 and is also subject to modification
in the future. The applicable tax and fee amounts will be those established by the Board at
the time of voting. The applicant is advised that the election process takes from 3 to 4
months and must be completed prior to approval of the Final Map.
I. Requirement of Special Districts and School District. Comply with the requirements of the
`East Bay Municipal Utility District and West County Wastewater District. Comply with
the requirements of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. At time of issuance
of building permits, comply with the fee payment requirements of the Richmond Unified
School District.
J. The applicant has paid the County-an environmental fee of California Department of Fish
and Game fee_of$850 to the County.
0
51
K. Comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements for the Richmond/El
Sobrante and West Contra Costa Regional Areas of Benefit as adopted by the Board of
Supervisors. These fees must be paid prior to issuance of building permits.
'L. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS,
RESERVATIONS,OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL
OF THIS PERMIT.
This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section
66000,et. seq, the applicant.has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications,reservations,
and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is.
limited to.a ninety-day (90) period after the project is approved.
The 90-day period in which'you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any
dedication,reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit,begins on the
date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development
Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit.
GACurtent Planning\curr-plan\gta e s fshaf\SD018533COAs_bos-c
Rev.4-5-2006
Exhibit 2
Findings
Exhibit 2-A CEQA Findings
Exhibit 2-B Project Findings
EXHIBIT 2-A
CEQA FINDINGS RELATED TO APPROVAL OF
EL SOBRANTE SUBDIVISION 8533
BY THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
I. INTRODUCTION
1. These CEQA findings are adopted by the County of Contra Costa Board
of Supervisors ("County") as lead agency for the El Sobrante Subdivision 8533.("Project").
These findings pertain to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for that Project, SCH
#2003102107 ("EIR").
2. These CEQA findings are attached as Exhibit 2=A incorporated by
reference into each approval document, Subdivision 8533, approving the Project. The approval
documents also includes an Exhibit 4, which contains the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program ("MMRP"),and which references impacts, mitigation measures, levels of significance
before mitigation, and resulting levels of significance after mitigation. Also attached is an
Exhibit 1 that contains the Conditions of Approval, as revised and amended by the Board of
Supervisors ("Board"), and an Exhibit 2-B that contains findings regarding other matters,
including compliance with.the County Code and General Plan consistency.
II. THE PROJECT
3. The Project is a proposed 40-lot residential subdivision on approximately
10 acres located at 4823 Hilltop Drive in the unincorporated community of El Sobrante in
Western Contra Costa County, and can be further identified as Assessors Parcel Numbers
(APNs) 426-210-007; 426-182-001 and -017; and 426-192-005 and -008. The Project site is
bounded by Hilltop Drive to the south, residential development to the east, residential
development (adjoining Manor Road) to the north, and residential development that is part of the
Hilltop Green Homeowners Association (City of Richmond)to the west. It is situated about 1
mile north of downtown El Sobrante. Access to the site is provided via Hilltop Drive,just west
of Renfrew Road. A new project access road, called Royal Oaks Drive, is planned to provide
internal access to the site and to connect with Hilltop Drive at the south end of the site. The City
of Richmond city limits form the western boundary of the Project site and Interstate Highway 80
is located about one-half mile to the west of the site.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE PROJECT
4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code section 21000 et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14,
sections 15,000 er seq..(collectively, "CEQA'),the County determined that an EIR would
be prepared. The County issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP''), which was circulated
to responsible agencies and interested groups and individuals for review and comment. A
public scoping meeting was held on Monday, November 8, 2004 at the County Library in El
Sobrante to receive'comments on the appropriate scope for the EIR to be prepared.
Exhibit 2-A
CEQA Findings for
Subdivision 8533
5. A Draft EIR was prepared for the Project to analyze its environmental
effects. The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period, from August 15, 2005 to
October 3, 2005.
6. The County received written and oral comments on the Draft EIR. The
Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on September 12, 2005 to provide an opportunity for
oral testimony on the Draft EIR. The County prepared responses to comments on environmental
issues, and made changes to the Draft EIR. The responses to comments, changes to the Draft EIR
and additional information were published in the Final EIR in February 2006. The Draft EIR, the
Final EIR, and all the appendices comprise the "EIR" referenced in these findings.
7. The Zoning Administrator held a closed public hearing on the Final EIR
on February 27, 2006. At this meeting, the Zoning Administrator took action to approve the
Project by recommending that the Board certify the Final EIR as complete and adequate as
reported in Exhibit 3, Zoning Administrator Resolution No. 11-2006. The Board of Supervisors
subsequently adopted the Zoning Administrator's recommendations. The agenda for the Zoning
Administrator meeting was posted as required by County Code and State law, however no other
public notice of the closed public hearing was required by law including the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State and County CEQA Guidelines,or County Ordinance.
8. At all public hearings, the County staff and its engineering and
environmental consultants provided information about the Project, the potential environmental
impacts, and the CEQA review process.'At each meeting/hearing, members of the public had the
opportunity to ask questions and express their concerns and interests for the Project.
9. CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate
an EIR for further review and comment when significant new information is added to the EIR
after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR but before certification. New
information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives
the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental
effect of the projector a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project
proponent declines to implement. The Guidelines provide examples of significant new
information under this standard. Recirculation is not required where the new information added
to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.
The Board of Supervisors finds that the Final EIR does not contain significant new information
as defined in the Guidelines and that recirculation of the Draft EIR therefore is not required.
IV. THE RECORD
10. The record upon which all findings and determinations related to the
Project are based includes the following:
a. The EIR, and all documents referenced in or relied upon by the
EIR.
A-2 ;
Exhibit 2-A
CEQA Findings for
Subdivision 8533
b. All information (including written evidence and testimony)
provided by County staff to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors relating to
the EIR, the proposed approvals and entitlements, the Project or its alternatives.
C. All information (including written evidence and testimony)
presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors by the environmental
consultant and subconsultants who prepared the EIR, or incorporated into reports presented to
the Commission and the Board of Supervisors.. .
d. All information (including written evidence and testimony)
presented to the County from other public agencies relating to the Project or the.EIR.
e. All applications, letters, testimony and presentations presented by
the Project Sponsor and its consultants to the County in connection with the Project.
f. 'All information.(including written evidence and testimony)
presented at any public hearing•or workshop related to the Project and the EIR.
g. For documentary and information purposes, all locally-adopted
land use plans and ordinances, including, without limitation, general plans, specific plans and
ordinances, together with environmental review documents, findings, mitigation monitoring
programs and other documentation relevant to planned growth in the area.
h. The MMRP for the Project.
i. All other documents comprising the record pursuant to Public
Resources Code section 21167.6(e).
11. The custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the
record of proceedings upon which the Council's decision is based is Dennis M. Barry,
Community Development Director, County of Contra Costa, or designee. Such"documents and
other materials are generally located at 651 Pine Street, 4`h Floor- North Wing, Martinez,
California 94553.
12.. These findings are based.upon substantial evidence in the entire record
before the Board of Supervisors. The references to certain pages or sections of the EIR set forth
in these findings are for ease of reference only and are not intended to provide an exhaustive list
of the evidence relied upon for these findings.
V.' CERTIFICATION OF THE.EIR
13. In accordance with CEQA, the Board of Supervisors, as lead agency,
certifies that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. The Board of Supervisors .
A-3
Exhibit 2=A
CEQA Findings for
Subdivision 8533
further certifies that it has reviewed and considered the information in the EIR prior to approving
the Project. Similarly, the Board of Supervisors finds that it has reviewed the record and the EIR
prior to approving the Project. By these findings,.the Board of Supervisors confirms; ratifies and
adopts the findings and conclusions of the EIR, as supplemented and modified by these findings.
The EIR and these findings represent the independent judgment and analysis of the County and
the Board of Supervisors.
14. The Board of Supervisors certifies that the EIR is adequate to support the
approval of the Project, each alternative in the EIR, and variations within the range of
alternatives described and.evaluated in the EIR. The EIR is adequate for each entitlement or
approval required for construction or operation of the Project.
VI. MITIGATION MEASURES, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL,AND MMRP
15. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section
15097 require the County to adopt a monitoring or,reporting program to ensure that the
mitigation measures and revisions to the Project identified in the EIR are implemented. The.
MMRP is included in Exhibit 4, and is adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The MMRP
satisfies CEQA's requirements.
16. The mitigation measures recommended by the EIR and incorporated into
the Project are specific and enforceable. As appropriate, some mitigation measures define
performance standards to ensure no significant environmental impacts. The MMRP adequately
describes conditions, implementation, verification;a compliance schedule and reporting
requirements to ensure the Project complies with the adopted mitigation measures. The MMRP
ensures that the mitigation measures are in place, as appropriate, throughout the life of the
Project. The mitigation measures described in Exhibit 4 and the.corresponding conditions of
approval in.Exhibit 1 are incorporated into these findings as conditions of each of the approvals
required for the Project.
17.. The mitigation measures set forth in Exhibit 4 and corresponding .
conditions of approval in Exhibit 1 are derived from the mitigation in set forth in the EIR.
The County has modified the language of some of the mitigation measures and corresponding
conditions for purposes of clarification and consistency, to enhance enforceability, to defer more
to the expertise of other agencies with jurisdiction over the affected resources,,to summarize or
strengthen their provisions, and/or to make the mitigation measures more precise and effective;.
all without making any substantive changes to the mitigation measures.
VII. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS
18. In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA
Guidelines sections 15091.and 15092, the Board of Supervisors adopts the findings and
conclusions regarding impacts and mitigation measures that are set forth in the EIR, and.
summarized in Exhibit B. These findings do-not repeat the full discussions of environmental
A=4
Exhibit 2-A
CEQA Findings for
Subdivision 8533
impacts contained in the EIR. The Board of Supervisors ratifies, adopts and incorporates the
analysis,.explanation, findings, responses to comments and conclusions of the EIR. The Board of
Supervisors adopts the reasoning of the EIR, and of staff reports and staff presentation.
19. The Board of Supervisors has, by its review of the evidence and analysis
presented in the EIR and in the record, acquired abetter understanding of the full scope of the
environmental issues presented by the Project. In turn, this understanding has enabled the Board
of Supervisors to make fully informed, thoroughly considered decisions.on these important
issues. These findings.are based on a full appraisal of the EIR and the'record, as well as other
relevant information in the record of proceedings for the Project.
20. Under Public Resources Code section 21081 (a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines
section 15091 (a)(2) and 15092(b)(2)(A), the Board of Supervisors recognizes that some
mitigation measures require action by, or cooperation from, other agencies. Similarly, mitigation
measures requiring the Project Sponsor to contribute towards improvements planned by other
agencies will require the relevant agencies to receive the funds and spend them appropriately.
The Board of Supervisors also recognizes that some cumulative impacts will be feasibly
mitigated when other agencies build the relevant improvements, which also requires action by
these other agencies. For each mitigation measure that requires the cooperation or action of.
another agency, the Board of Supervisors finds that adoption and/or implementation of each of
those mitigation measures is within the.responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency,
and that the measures can and should be adopted and/or implemented by that other agency.
GACurrent Planning\cur•-plantafshar\CEQA Findings'
It D\
4-5-2006
A-5
EXHIBIT 2-B
GENERAL FINDINGS RELATED TO APPROVAL OF
VARIANCES AND MAP FOR EL SOBRANTE SUBDIVISION 8533
BY THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
I. INTRODUCTION
1. These general findings are adopted by the Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors("Board") for the El Sobrante Subdivision 8533 (the "Project").
These findings refer to the EIR prepared for that project, SCH#2003102107 ("EIR"), and
are based upon that EIR. These findings are also based upon the staff reports presented
to the Planning Commission and the Board, all materials contained in the record of
proceedings including public.testimony, and as identified in the CEQA Findings for the
Project (Exhibit 2-A). Some findings are based especially upon specific reports, or upon
specific pages of the EIR, as noted below. However, all findings are based upon the
entire record. References to specific reports and specific pages of documents are for ease
of reference only, and are not intended to identify those sources as the exclusive basis for
the finding.
2. These general findings are attached as Exhibit 2-B and
incorporated by reference into the following approval documents pertaining to the
Project:
• Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 1); and
• . Vesting Tentative Map dated: 10/23/2004,.-
For ease of reference; all the relevant findings under the Planning and
Zoning Law, the County Code, and other applicable policies or regulations are included
in this one document.
3. Attached to these same approval documents is an Exhibit 2-A that
contains CEQA Findings. Also attached is an Exhibit 4 that references impacts,
Mitigation measures, and resulting levels of significance, and sets forth the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP"). All Exhibits are incorporated by
reference into each other, and into the approval documents.
4. These findings use capitalized'terms as they are used in the EIR.
References to title, chapter and to code sections are references to the County Code unless
the context clearly indicates otherwise. .References to Exhibits are references to the
exhibits attached to the approval documents to which this Exhibit 2-B is attached.
II. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY.
5. The Project is governed.by-the Contra Costa County General Plan
and any decision by the County affecting ]arid use and development must be consistent
with the General Plan. This Board adopts the conclusions, analysis and explanations
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
contained in the EIR, staff reports and these findings regarding the consistency of the
Project with-the General Plan.
6. The Project Sponsor has proposed the development of a 40-lot
residential subdivision located on approximately 10 acres designated Single-Family
Residential-High Density by the General Plan. This Board approves variances and a
subdivision that will allow a maximum of 34 residential lots, subject to certain review
criteria listed in Conditions of Approval number::.
#2 General Site Plan Alterations;
#8 — 14, 18, & 20. Review for Impacts to Biologic Resources;
#23 Graded Slope Restrictions
##46—49 Design Review
#59 Road Design
#74 -.87 Hydrology
7. The following reference to "Project'. is defined as the.project that .
has been approved by the Board of Supervisors including any Conditions of Approval.
General Plan policies that are pertinent to the development of this site
include those identified in Table 4.1-1 on pages 4.1-5 through 4.1-10 of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for.this project. Among the pertinent-General Plan policies
-are the following:
Land Use Element
3-202 "Upgrade the community's drainage system to eliminate
problems caused by local inundation, ponding and sheet
overflow during storms, ...."
Conservation Element
8-3 "Watersheds, natural waterways, and areas important for
the maintenance of natural vegetation and wildlife
populations shall be preserved and enhanced."
8-10 "Any development located or proposed within significant
ecological resource areas shall ensure that the resource is
protected.''
8-14 , "Development,on hillsides shall be limited to maintain
valuable naturl. vegetation especially forests and open
grasslands, and to control erosion. Development on open
B-2
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
hillsides and significant ridgelines throughout the County
shall be restricted, and hillsides with a grade of 26 percent
or greater shall be protected through implementing zoning
measures and other.appropriate actions."
Safety Element
9-11 "Proposed extensions of urban or suburban land uses into
areas characterized by.slopes over 15 percent and/or
generally unstable land shall be evaluated with regard to
safety hazard prior to the issuance of any discretionary
approvals. Development on open hillsides and significant
ridgelines shall be restricted, and hillsides with a grade of
26 percent or greater throughout the County shall be
protected through implementing zoning measures and other
appropriate actions."
9-12 "Generally, residential density shall decrease as slope
increases,.especially above a 15 percent slope."
8. The General Plan defines the densities of its residential
designations in terms of housing units per net acre as described in Chapter 4.1 of the
Draft Environmental Impact Report ( Draft EIR) (Land Use and Planning), including
modifications to this chapter described on Pages 228-229 of.the Final Environmental
Impact Report (Final EIR). The General Plan designates the site Single Family
Residential—High Density, 5.0—7.2 dwelling units per net acre. Net acreage includes
all land area used exclusively for residential purposes, and excludes street, highways and
all other public rights-of-way. Under the General Plan,.net acreage is assumed to
constitute 75 percent of gross acreage for single family residential uses, including the
Single-Family Residential-High Density land use designation. (Land Use Element 3-13,
Table 3-4). The Project site's gross acreage is 10 acres, which results in 7.5 net acres.
Applied to this site, the General Plan density range of 5.0 to 7.2 units per net acre would
normally be 37 to 54 units. However, Page 3-13 of the Land Use Element of the General
Plan also provides that the allowable density range may be reduced under,the following
circumstances:
When calculating the allowed density of a parcel, readers should keep in
mind that unique environmental characteristics may justify a reduced
number of units or intensity of use than is normally allowed under the
General Plan designation.
9. This Board finds that the Project site contains unique
environmental characteristics that would justify a reduced number of units than is
normally allowable under the General Plan designation. Those unique environmental
characteristics include:
The creekbeds of two tributaries of Garrity Creek which run
B-3
Exhibit 2-B
Genera!Findings for
Subdivision 8533
alongside the west and south boundaries of the site, and
wetlands on a nearby hillside; the creekbeds and wetlands
contain unique environmental resources that are not adequately
protected by the Project as proposed. Also, greater separation
of residential development from a nearby seep on the hillside is
warranted;
• Steep slopes that warrant protection. Eighty-four(84)percent
of the Project site contains slopes with a grade of 15% or
greater. Sixteen (16) percent of the Project site (including
much of the northern area of the site occupied by Lots 27 and
28) contain slopes that have grades of 26% or greater. These
slopes warrant protection by restriction on development;) and
• The shape and configuration of the Project site, including a
relatively narrow stem component that connects the main
portion of the site to its entrance on Hilltop Drive.
10. This Board finds that in consideration of these unique Project site
characteristics and related general plan policies, that to allow for a finding of Project
consistency with the General Plan it is necessary to reduce the number of residential lots
from 40 lots to a maximum of 3.4 lots as required by the Conditions of Approval. Some
of the area of the eliminated and modified residential lots shall be placed within a-deed-
restricted Open Space parcel in the northwest corner of the property to be owned and
maintained by a project homeowners association with possible provision for public
access. Moreover, additional reductions in the Project unit count may also be required
prior to approval of a Final Map as a'result of the Project's obligation to comply with
other Conditions of Approval pertaining to:
• Hydrology;
Geotechnical;
• Biological;
• Compliance with specified zoning ordinance parameters; and
• Design Review.
This Board finds that the reduction in units necessary to comply
with the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit 1 are consistent with the General
Plan goals and policies, including the land usedesignation for the Project site.
Accordingly, this Board finds that the Project is consistent with the General Plan.
11. This Board finds that the Project is compatible with, and conforms
'
Ref.-Figure 3-6(Slope Map)on pg. 3-11 of the Draft EIR:
B-4 .
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
to, the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan.
The Project furthers the objectives and policies of the General Plan and does not obstruct
their attainment. The Project, as conditioned through Conditions of Approval set forth in
Exhibit 1, is compatible with, and in harmony with,•General Plan goals.and policies.
Specifically, implementation of the Project will result in the fulfillment of several
important General Plan policies including reinforcement of the suburban character of the
area by continuing the single-family-residential pattern, discouraging sprawl, maintaining
a compact urban form, compliance with the 65/35 urban limit line, as amended,
protection of terrain with slopes exceeding a 15% grade, and preservation and
enhancement of natural waterways and open space, all by promoting infill development
in an existing residential,neighborhood.
12.1 . This Board finds that the Project is in harmony with surrounding
neighborhoods, and the site is physically suitable for the type of development and
reduced density of development as required by the Conditions of Approval. The
surrounding area is primarily developed with single-family residential homes on lots
ranging from 5,000 to 40,000 square feet in area. The.Project allows development on lots
that must equal or,exceed 7000 square feet in area: The Project is not likely to cause
serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantial and avoidable
injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat.
13. In support of the proposed Project, the attorney for the Applicant
cited a provision of State Planning Law that is relevant to a local agency's review of a
residential subdivision project such as this project is Section 65589.5 0) of the
Government Code relative to determining appropriate unit yield for a project. This law
reads in part:.
When a proposed housing development project complies with
-applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and
criteria (emphasis added), including.design review standards, in
effect at the time that the housing development project's
application is determined to.be complete, but the local agency
proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the
condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local
agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing
development project upon written findings supported by
substantial evidence on the record that both of the following,
conditions exist:.... "
This Board finds that the requirement of this provision of the law
for a local agency to base its decision regarding the•proposed project upon specified
written findings does not apply to this project insofar as the Project as proposed does not
comply with:
The zoning,standards and criteria that were.in effect on
November 28, 2004,.the date when the modified Vesting
B-5
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
Tentative Map Application was accepted as complete. As
reviewed in the March 21, 2006 staff report.to the Board of.
Supervisors,-the proposed Project does not comply with
the average lot width and lot depth standards, or yard .
standards (retaining wall/fence, arch culvert, residence) of
the Single Family Residential R-7 zoning district (Chapter
84-6 of Title 8 of the Ordinance Code);
• The applicable, objective general plan standards and.
criteria. Eighty-four percent of the site has.a grade of 15%
or greater. Safety Element 10-28 provides that"Generally,
residential density shall decrease as slope'increases,
especially above a 15 percent slope." Further, the Land
Use Element provides that"unique environmental
characteristics may justify a reduced number of units or
intensity of use than is normally allowed under the General
Plan designation. This Board finds that the Project site has
unique'steep slope characteristics (and-other characteristics
identified above) that justify a reduced number of units
than is normally allowed under the General Plan
designation,.and that this conclusion is based on the
aforementioned applicable and objective general plan
standards and'criteria for development on a grade of 151/0
or greater.
14. The General Plan comprises many goals, objectives;policies,
principles,programs, standards, proposals and action plans, as well as performance
standards. The Board of Supervisors recognizes that certain policies necessarily compete
with each other. Examples of tensions between General Plan policies are found between
those policies that promote managed growth and encourage new residential construction,
and those that provide for protection of open space. This Board has considered all .
applicable General Plan policies and the extent to which the Project conforms to, and
potentially competes with, each of those policies. In balancing the need,to provide
appropriate development separation buffers from creeks and wetland areas, and
protection of areas of the'site with a steeper slope, reduces the area available for
residential development. This Board finds that the measures in the Conditions of
Approval allow for.appropriate protection measures for these unique environmental
characteristics while allowing for the•maximum number of units on the Project site.
15. For the reasons and policies stated in the EIR, in the staff reports,
in these findings,-'and in the CEQA Findings fdr the Project (Exhibit 2-A), this.Board
finds that the balance achieved by the Project among competing General Plan.policies is
acceptable, that the.Project complies with all performance standards in the General Plan.
The Project achieves each applicable policy to some extent, and represents a reasonable
accommodation of all applicable policies in the-General Plan.
B-6
Exhibit 2-B.
Genera!Findings for
Subdivision 8533
16. This Board has fully evaluated the extent to which the Project
achieves each policy in the General Plan, including those pertaining to density, standards
regarding slopes, geology,.and soils, hazardous materials, flood hazards, drainage,
erosion and runoff,protection of water quality, protection of biological resources
including riparian and wildlife.habitat, transportation standards and goals, recreational
and aesthetic interests and protection of visual resources.
17. Following completion of the EIR, the Project Sponsor submitted a
Modified Site Plan dated January 5, 2006 constituting Exhibit 10 of the March 21, 2006
staff report to the Board. This Board finds that the Modified Site Plan does not contain
sufficient information about the site (e.g., topographical information) to allow for
productive analysis of its merits relative to EIR findings or General Plan policies, and
therefore has not based the Board's decision of the Project on that document.
18. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the Growth
Management Element Performance Standards of the General Plan and adopts the
conclusions, analysis.and explanations contained in the EIR and staff reports regarding
the consistency of the Project with these standards.
19. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the traffic
standards and policies of the Growth.Management Element. The EIR traffic study
measured peak hour traffic at key intersections in the site vicinity(along the Hilltop
Drive corridor). The analysis included calculation of existing Level of Service at these
intersections and forecasted the effect of Project-generated traffic on the operation of
these intersections. The traffic study also analyzed.the existing plus project plus
cumulative scenario. Using the threshold of significance adopted by the County in the
Growth Management Element, the study concludes that the project will not have a
significant impact on Hilltop Drive traffic. Evaluation of the internal circulation of the
project identified significant impacts, and mitigation measures are proposed.to reduce
those impacts to less-than-significant. This Board adopts the conclusions, analysis and
explanations contained in the traffic study and in Chapter 4.2 of the Draft EIR.
20. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the flooding
and drainage standards and policies of the Growth Management Element. No portion of
the Project site lies within a special.flood hazard,zone designated by the Federal
Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). The EIR indicates that the existing
Hilltop Green drainage facilities are adequate to carry peak,flows from the 10-year storm
event. The hydrology chapter of the EIR summarizes technical data and engineering
analysis, which evaluated the effect of the project on peak runoff exiting the site. This
Board adopts the conclusions, analysis and explanations contained in this chapter. Based
on hydrologic model runs using methodology acceptable to the Flood Control District,
the Board finds that the two proposed storm water detention basins are capable of
keeping peak flows from the project at or below the pre-development level. Specifically,
for a runoff event with recurrence intervals.of 10 years, peak flows at the Hilltop Green
culvert are decreased from 57 cubic feet per second (cfs) under existing conditions to 55
cfs after buildout of the project. For the 100-year runoff event,'peak- flows are reduced
B-7
Exhibit 2-B
Genera!Findings for
Subdivision 8533
from 85 cfs to 83 cfs. The Project would not exacerbate potential flooding problems
downstream from the Project site and thus would not result in a significant impact. The
EIR states that the engineering details of basin design are not provided, and identifies
basin design and provision for long-term maintenance as a significant impact. .
Performance criteria are provided as mitigation measures to require that engineering
detail to reduce those impacts to less-than-significant levels.
21. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the water and
waste disposal standards and policies,of the Growth Management Element. The Project
site is within the EBMUD and West County.Wastewater District service areas. The
Project applicant is required to comply with the requirements of these service districts.
22: This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the fire
protection standards and policies of the Growth Management Element. The site is within
one mile of the fire station at#4640 Appian Way. Therefore, the project is not required
for purposes of a Project finding of consistency with the General.Plan to equip residences
with interior sprinklers. The EIR proposes that-the "emergency vehicle access" (EVA)
meet performance standards of the County Public Works Department and the Fire
Protection District. The District routinely is involved in the review of Improvement
Plans to ensure that hydrants(location, design); turnarounds and other fire safety-related
construction issues comply with the provisions of the Fire Code.
23. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the public
protection standards and policies of the Growth Management Element. The Growth
Management Element Standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff facility station per.1,000
population.. The project will generate a population estimated at 3.25 persons per unit(an
increase of 127 persons). The size of the-population increase is not significant, and the
Conditions of Approval require the Project applicant to establish a police service district
to augment police services.
24. This Board.finds that the Project is consistent with the parks and
recreation standards and policies of the Growth Management Element. The proposed
subdivision will have a relatively minor cumulative effect on demand for park and
recreation facilities, and is subject to payment of in-lieu park dedication fees in
compliance with the Park Dedication Ordinance at time of issuance of building permits.
The EIR identifies protection of the private open space as a significant impact and
outlines detailed specifications to reduce those.impacts to less-than-significant. Those
mitigation measures have been incorporated into the recommended Conditions of
Approval.
III. CONSISTENCY WITH ZONING .
25. The zoning district for the Project site is R-7 Single-Family
Residential District. The County adopts the conclusions, analysis and explanations
contained.in the EIR and staff-reports' relating to the zoning. The Project will promote
the public health,..safety and welfare by providing a maximum 34-unit residential infill
development in the El Sobrante area, located near transportation corridors, and designed
B=8
Exhibit 2-B
General Fir dings for
Subdivision 8533
in a manner that integrates into the existing natural setting, protects hillsides and slopes,
and is environmentally sensitive. .
26. The Board finds that the Project generally complies with the
Single-Family Residential (R-7) zoning designation, subject to granting of variances to
some of the standards of the R-7 district, as reviewed below, and allowed by provisions
of Chapter 84-6 of the Ordinance Code. The Project advances the purpose of the R-7
district to provide and protect areas for residential development. With the variances
authorized for approval.as discussed below, the Project meets all requirements of the R-7
zoning district. The following also reviews Project variances that are denied.
IV. VARIANCES
27. Average Lot Width. The standard of the R7.7 Single Family
Residential District is that single-family dwellings and structures be placed on lots no less
than 70 feet in average width. While meeting(and in some cases exceeding) the
minimum standard lot area, some of the lots within the Project are substandard in average
width, and would not be allowable without the granting of.v.ariances from the Zoning
Code standards. These.lots exceed the minimum standard lot area, and if they could be
easily redrawn to.reduce lot size by eliminating the triangular extension in the rear
without introducing confusion in ownership and land stewardship concerns,would meet
minimum average lot width. These lots are identified by an asterisk under the column on
the right side of Table 1 entitled "Meets R-7 Dimensional Standards" in the March 21,
2006 staff report to the Board.2 Strict adherence to the R=7 zoning standards would
inevitably result in compromising General Plan goals of protecting slopes and hillsides,
preserving'open space, and providing for.protection of biologically.sensitive features. To
achieve the same privileges enjoyed by properties in the R-7 zone that do not face these
site constraints, variances are necessary. This Board finds that the granting of some
variances.is appropriate due to the irregular shape of the these lots, and the method of lot
width calculation defined by County code, and concludes that approval of the requested
variances does not constitute a grant of special privilege.
28. Because of the special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including the location of the lots at a cul-de-sac bulb, and the irregular shape of
the property, this Board finds that strict application of the respective zoning regulations
will deprive the Project of rights enjoyed by others in the vicinity and the same zoning
district. With variances, the lots have ample area to develop a residence.
29. This Board finds that granting a variance for average lot width is
substantially consistent with the intent of the zoning district. The purpose of the R-7
district is to provide and protect areas for residential development. The substandard
average widths of certain lots are chiefly due to the irregular shape of the property. All .
lots have an obvious building site, and all lots could accommodate residences that comply
with R-7 setback standards.
Other lots are 70 feet wide(or more)at the road frontage,but do not meet the average lot width due to the
lot depth measurement. See discussion that follows below on those lots.
B-9
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
30. In accordance with Section 82-10.002 of the Zoning Code (Small
Lot Occupancy Ordinance), any lot which does not meet minimum average width
requirements will be subject to the small lot review process prior to the issuance of a
building permit. This Board finds that this review process will further ensure that the
final design of the dwellings to be located on such'lots will be consistent with the
standards of the R-7 zoning designation.
31. The Conditions of Approval provide that no minimum lot width
variance shall be granted fora lot less than 65 feet in average lot width, for a maximum
of five lots; all other lots must fully comply with R-7 lot dimension standards including
the average lot width standard of a-minimum 70 feet as defined by the code. The
provision for variances to lot width is to address the situation that certain lots that
otherwise fully comply with R-7 standards are.substandard due to added lot area beyond
the minimum requirements, and the code definition that'has the effect of reducing the lot
to less than70 feet. There ate ten proposed lots that have these characteristics that
among those lots have an average lot'.width variance of 68 feet. However,,instead of
allowing ten lots that are at'variance to lot width with these characteristics, the County
would reduce the number of lots at variance to a maximum of five lots, and allow for an
average lot width of a minimum of 65 feet for those five lots. This Board finds that such
a condition provides sufficient further assurance that the Project as developed will be
substantially consistent with the Zoning Code and will promote its objectives.
32. Retaining Walls. This Board finds that granting variances for the
construction of retaining walls does not constitute a grant of special privilege. The
objective of the project is to develop a residential subdivision in a hillside area while
protecting an existing creek corridor and minimizing grading within biologically sensitive
lands. The retaining walls proposed to be constructed for the Project will assist in
achieving this objective. The retaining wall along Royal Oaks Drive arch culvert will
minimize disturbance to riparian habitat. The location of the creek crossing was selected
by CDFG and the vertical alignment and width project roads are controlled by the
County's private road standards. The retaining wall south of the creek crossing results.
from compliance with those standards. The retaining wall along Garrity Creek Drive will
minimize disturbance to biologically-sensitive lands west of the road alignment. The
retaining wall at the Adam Court cul-'de-sac (and for the EVA)will minimize disturbance
to biologically sensitive'lands to the west.
33. This Board finds that approval of variances for retaining walls is
appropriate due to special circumstances applicable to the property. The variances
requested for retaining walls are all associated with roadways. The County has adopted
private road standards. Retaining walls are commonly required in hillside areas to
comply with the horizontal and vertical alignment of private roads, especially where
grading of the area adjacent to the roadway is to be kept to a practical minimum. The
Board finds that due to the'topograph'y, location, and surroundings of the property, strict
application of the zoning regulations for retaining walls will deprive it of rights enjoyed
by others in the vicinity and within the same zoning district.
B-1()
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
34. This Board finds that approval of variances for retaining walls is
substantially consistent with the intent of the R-7 district. The purpose of.the R-7 district
is to provide and protect areas for residential development. The use of retaining walls is
intended to allow the construction of a subdivision with one primary access road
connection to Hilltop Drive, along with an EVA connection to Manor Road, minirnize
grading, and allow for preservation of the creek corridor.
35. Sound Barrier. Wall. This Board has determined that approving a
variance for a sound barrier:wall to shield a front yard of Lot 1 is not a grant of a special
privilege. The E1R has determined that a sound barrier wall is needed to shield a front
yard of Lot 1 from traffic-related noise along the Hilltop Drive corridor(EIR Mitigation
Measure Noise-1). The Conditions of Approval require that the precise location and
design of the wall be determined prior to issuance of a grading permit.
36. This Board finds that approval of a variance for a sound barrier
wall to shield the rear yard of Lot. 1 is appropriate due to the special circumstance of
marginally acceptable noise levels along Hilltop Drive. Strict application of the zoning
regulations in this situation would deprive the property of rights enjoyed by other
properties in the same zoning designation.
37. This Board finds that approval;of a variance for the construction of
a well-designed sound barrier wall is substantially,consistent with the intent of the R-7
district to provide and protect areas for residential development.
38, Front Yards. This.Board finds that approval of variances from
front yard setback requirements for up to 20 lots is not a grant of special privilege. The
variance granted will allow for a more varied streetscape within the project by allowing
15-feet for approximately half of the lots rather than the normal minimum 20 foot
standard. The portion that is allowed to be placed closer than 20 feet shall not involve the
garage component of the residence and shall be limited to a one story element.
39.. This Board also adopts the recommendation of County staff that
additional variances be granted to reduce front.yard setbacks, to provide for visual
diversity in the frontscapes. This Board finds that the approval of such variances does
not constitute a grant of special privilege as the variances will comply with modern
aesthetic standards that were not applied to existing lots in the R-7 zone, and the
variances will improve the aesthetic quality of the Project by allowing for a more varied
streetscape. The variances will be offset by deeper setbacks on other lots, to achieve the
varied streetscape. The Project could not achieve the varied setbacks in compliance with
the R-7 standards unless excessively deep setbacks were required on these other lots,
which would deprive these other lots of benefits enjoyed by standard lots in the R-7 zone.
Staggered fronts.will achieve, on average, the same approximate building space and
average setbacks as would strict compliance with R-7 zoning standards.
40. This Board finds that approval of variances from the required front
yard setback is appropriate due to the special circumstance of the property's topography
and will allow the homes to more appropriately fit.into the natural slopes of the hillsides.
B-11
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
Strict application of the zoning regulations would deprive the property of rights enjoyed o
by other properties in the vicinity and within the same R-7 zoning district.
41. This Board finds that approval of variances from the required front
yard setback is substantially consistent with the intent of the R-7 district to provide and
protect areas for residential development by providing for a more varied and visually
interesting streetscape.
. 42. Approval of variances from front yard setbacks will also serve to
advance the County's residential design goals;and comply with modern design standards.
In order to ensure that the designs of the homes respect the terrain of the lots, some of the
homes located on steeper lots will have front yards setback of less than 20 feet. The
ability to place homes on lots depending on the site characteristics promotes protection of
the site, adds value and uniqueness to each property while ensuring individuality, and
provides for a varied streetscape.
43. Arch Culvert. This Board finds that approval of variances to allow
an arch culvert with the required yard areas is necessary.to allow reasonable development
of this property which is physically divided by a creek, and must be crossed to allow for
access. This variance is required to accommodate a culvert that will be arched over the
creek, to avoid sensitive habitat. This variance is necessitated by the special
circumstance of the siting of the culvert, the location of the creek, and application of
modern rules encouraging placement-of the culvert outside the banks of the creek, none
of which are faced by typical lots developed earlier in the R-7 zone. The creek forms a
natural boundary for a property line for.the Project, and a variance is necessary to allow a
road supported by a structure to cross the creek.
'44. This Board finds of variances to allow the arch culvert with the
yards of proposed lots is reasonable due to the creek topography and the planned use
density for the site Single Family Residential —High Density(5 — 7.2 units per net acre).
45. This Board finds that approval of these variances to allow the arch .
culvert within the required yards of residential lots meets the intent and'purpose of the
zoning district in that it allows for-reason able•development under density standards of the
R-7 zoning district.
46. The Project; as configured with the preceding described variances,
is consistent with the General Plan. The findings above regarding general plan
consistency, apply to the-determination that the variances are consistent with the General
Plan.
47. Front Yard Variances for Lots 2—5. This Board is unable to f nd.
that the requested variances to the front yard requirements for Lots 2 -5 meets the intent
or purpose of the Ordinance Code, and denies those requested variances.
48. Lot Depth Variance for Lot,13. This Board is unable to find that
the requested variance to the R-7 lot depth requirement (minimum 90 feet)for Lot 13
B-1?
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
meets the intent or purpose of the R-7 district. This variance is denied.
49. Lot Width Variances for Four Lots with Irregular Shape. This
Board finds that in addition to the ten lots identified as being substandard in lot width, but
which otherwise have characteristics that meet the R-7 lot dimensions, there are five
other lots that are 70 feet wide (or more) at the road frontage in addition to the 10 lots
with average lot widths described above, but have an irregular shape due to the lot depth
measurement do not meet the intent and purpose of the Ordinance Code. Unlike the ten
lots with average lot width variances described above, these lots do not contain within
them lot dimensions that otherwise meet the R-7 lot dimension standards. The requested
variances for those four lots to the average lot width standard are denied.
V. SUBDIVISION MAP
50. Pursuant to Title 9 of the Contra Costa County Code, the County
finds that Subdivision Map 8533 is consistent with the goals and policies of the General
Plan. The findings above regarding General Plan consistency, apply to the determination
that the map is consistent with the General Plan. .The Subdivision Map is discussed in
the staff reports presented to the County. The County approves Subdivision Map 8533
subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 1).
51. The conditions include additional review to provide further
assurance that all lots within Subdivision Map 8533 meet applicable standards.
Specifically, a maximum 34 residential lot project is approved, subject to additional
review for effects on biological resources, Preliminary Review Submittal of grading and
residential designs, compliance with approved zoning standards, and with hydrologic and
road design standards, subject to the final review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator which may lead to further reductions in the number of allowed residential
lots for this project prior to approval of a Final Map.
52. Most of the site(84 percent) contains slopes-that exceed a 15%
gradient; some of the property has slopes exceeding 26%. This Board finds that the
Project responds to terrain constraints by reduction in the maximum.number of allowable
residential lots; use of 2'/2:1 (horizontal to vertical) gradients for engineered slopes; use of
retaining walls along segments of project roads to limit the "footprint" of grading; and
minimizes disturbance to sensitive lands by stepping residences up and down the slope..
53. Subdivision Map 8533 contains all information required.by State
Law and by the County.Code, including all information referenced in Ordinance Code
section 94-2.806. The Map provides, to the extent feasible given the nature of the site.
and the challenges faced in designing a viable development project, for future passive or
natural heating and cooling opportunities.
G:\currerit planning\curr-plan\afshar\General Findings-b.doc
RD\
B-1 3
Exhibit 3
Zoning Administrator Resolution
Recommending that
Board Certify EIR as Adequate
Resolution No. 11-2006
RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, COUNTY OF CONTRA
COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CONCERNING THE ADEQUACY OF AN
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED ON A VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP FOR A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, SUBDIVISION 8533
(Siavash Afshar—Applicant& Owner) IN THE EL SOBRANTE AREA.
WHEREAS, after the County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on May 25, 2004 on a proposed Vesting Tentative Map application filed by Siavash
Afshar for a 40-lot residential project fronting on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive in
the El Sobrante area, the Commission voted to:
• Determine that the project would not result in any impacts to the environment
that after required mitigation, would not be significant;
• Adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for the purposes of the
project's compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
• Approved the project subject to conditions and mitigations.
WHEREAS, three groups filed a joint appeal of the County Planning Commission
approval to the Board of Supervisors: the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning
Advisory Committee, the Friends of Garrity Creek, and the Hilltop Neighborhood
Association;
WHEREAS, after conducting a noticed public hearing on July 13, 2004, the
Board of Supervisors determined that the project might result in impacts to the
environment that would not necessarily be mitigated to a less than significant level; the
Board voted to grant the appeal; overturned the decision of the County Planning
Commission; and directed an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)be prepared, and that
the matter return to the Board for further consideration upon a determination by the
Zoning Administrator that the EIR is complete;
WHEREAS, following the decision by the Board of Supervisors, the applicant
made several modifications to the design of the project;
.WHEREAS, the Community Development Department issued a Notice of
Preparation to responsible and trustee agencies that the County would be preparing an
Environmental Impact Report on the project pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act;
WHEREAS, subsequently, the County prepared a Draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) on the project and issued a Notice of Completion on it, including the
opportunity to provide public comment on the adequacy of the document, including
opportunity to testify at a hearing of the Zoning Administrator; after accepting testimony,
Resolution No. 11-2006
Adequacy of Final EIR
Subdivision 8533(Afshar),EI Sobrante area
Zoning Administrator Finding and Recommendation
the Zoning Administrator directed staff to prepare responses to the public comments
received on the Draft EIR,together with the Draft EIR, constituting a Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the project;
WHEREAS, following the completion of the public comment period, staff
prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report on the project, and scheduled a closed
public hearing before Zoning Administrator for consideration of its adequacy;
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator having considered all evidence and
testimony presented on this matter;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Zoning Administrator:
• FINDS that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)prepared for Subdivision
8533 to be complete and adequate; new information (edits to the text) are
warranted to clarify and make insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR; that
it has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), and to the requirements of the State and County CEQA
Guidelines; and that the EIR reflects the County's independent judgment and
analysis as being adequate for the purpose of decision-making on this project,
which is before the Board of Supervisors on appeal; and
• RECOMMENDS that the Board of Supervisors adopt the Subdivision 8533 EIR
for purposes of satisfying this project's compliance with CEQA, subject to
amendments that are in the attached excerpts to the EIR that are identified in
marked text.
The actions of the Zoning Administrator were issued by the Zoning Administrator
at a closed public hearing on February 27, 2006.
ATTEST:
DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP
Community Development Director
and Zoning Administrator,
County of Contra Costa,
State of California
G:\current plaruring\curr-plan'\resolutions\SUB 8533 ZA Res on Final EIR.doc
RD`•,
R-2
ERRATA
Final Environmental Impact Report
For SDO18533 (Afshar)
El Sobrante Area, Contra Costa County
SCH# 2003102107
At the Closed Hearing on February 27, 2006 the Zoning
Administrator directed the following text edits to the Final EIR.
Additionally, the language in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP presented in Exhibit 5,
was modified for improved consistency and clarity of intent.
Modified February 28th, 2006
DRAFT EIR/COUNTY FILE No.SDO18533 4.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact GEO-2: Future landslide movement associated with mapped landslides on
the site or future destabilized slope conditions could damage homes, roadways, and
other planned site improvements. (PS)
Two landslides have been identified, as shown in Appendix D. Future slope failure in
these areas could endanger the planned homes and other improvements,
particularly after heavy rains that can trigger slope failure. The southern landslide is
located on proposed Lots 30, 31, 32, and 33. The northern landslide is located on
proposed Lots 4 and 5. Other upgradient lots could also be adversely affected if
the landslides are not properly mitigated. Grading plans (Klemetson, 2004) show the
excavation of landslide area.
The perennial spring is mapped in the area of the proposed open space, within
about 10 feet west of the permanent retaining wall proposed for the west side of
Garrity Creek Drive. Disturbance of the soil and spring in this area could result during
the construction of the retaining wall. This soil - and spring-disturbance could
destabilize the slopes as a result of the spring saturation pattern moving.
Mitigation Measure GEO-2(a): To mitigate against future landsliding, the two
landslides shall be entirely excavated and removed down to the slide plane
determined by AKA, Inc. to be at a depth of 10 feet below ground surface.
The area of the landslide shall be regraded with engineered fill following the
construction of a keyway, benches, and subsurface drainage. For the southern
landslide area, it may be necessary to seek off-site easements to remove
portions of the toe of the landslide, if deemed necessary by the geotechnical
engineer. In addition, the toe of the landslide in Lot 5 extends into the creek
bank, and this area of removal must be regraded with structural supports for
the creek bank and bridge across Garrity Creek. All necessary permits for such
earthwork shall be obtained from the California Department of Fish and Game
(for work within the creek bank) and other applicable agencies.
Mitigation Measure GEO-2(b): Prior to approval 44gg of the gubdiViSiGR Final
Map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall
submit an updated Grading Plan, along with a Corrective Grading Plan, for
review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. The gradients of cut slopes
and fill slopes in the project shall not exceed 2.5:1 (horizontal to vertical).
Where steeper slopes are required, special engineering solutions shall be
provided (e.g., reinforced earth with associated slope stability analysis).
Mitigation Measure GEO-2(c): During grading operations, all keyways and cut
slopes shall be logged by an engineering geologist. In areas of highly sheared
or deeply weathered rock, the applicant's geologist shall provide supplement-
al recommendations, such as drainage facilities, over-excavation of the slope,
and replacement with engineered fill or reinforced earth.
Mitigation Measure GEO-2(d): The geotechnical engineer responsible for the
design of Garrity Creek Drive should reexamine the retaining wall and its
3/12/2006 4.4-10 _
DRAFT EIR/COUNTY FILE No.SDO18533 4.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
■ space, vehicles and motorcycles shall not be allowed to travel off
designated roadways.
■ Use of non-native, invasive species that may spread into adjacent
undeveloped open space areas shall be prohibited in landscaping plans.
Unsuitable species include blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus),
acacia (Acacia spp.), pampus grass (Cortaderia selloana), broom (Cytisus
spp. and Genista monspessulana), gorse (Ulex europoeus), bamboo
(Bambusa spp.), giant reed (Arundo donax), periwinkle (Vinca spp.), English
ivy (Hedera helix), and German ivy (Senecio milanioides), among others.
■ Graded slopes and areas disturbed as part of the project shall be
monitored to prevent establishment and spread of introduced broom
species (Cytisus spp and Genista monspessulana). The removal and
monitoring program shall include annual late winter removal of any rooted
plants when soils are saturated and cutting back of any remaining flowering
plants in the spring before seed begins to set in late April. Such removal
may be the responsibility of the project homeowners' association.
■ Provisions for maintenance of landscaping and revegetation of graded
slopes shall be specified as part of the plan, with replacement plantings
and seeding provided as necessary to ensure re-establishment of cover.
Maintenance and monitoring of landscape improvements in open space
areas shall be provided for a minimum of 5 years, and shall be the
responsibility of the project homeowners' association.
■ Prior to approval 444g of the Final Map, evidence shall be submitted for
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that the project plans are
in compliance with the provisions of the CDFG Streambed Alteration
Agreement, as prescribed by the final MMP.
Mitigation Measure 13I0-2(b): A final MMP shall be prepared and implemented
to provide for adequate replacement of sensitive natural communities and
biological habitat affected by proposed development on the site. The
following detailed specifications shall be followed to ensure avoidance of
sensitive resources and achieve successful implementation of the final MMP.
■ Habitat and tree replacement plantings shall be implemented in accord-
ance with the standards and criteria prescribed by the CDFG, and
contained in the final MMP.
■ A Project Restorationist shall be retained at the expense of the applicant to
monitor implementation of the MMP and to oversee maintenance require-
ments and monitoring of all mitigation plantings, seeding, and invasive
species eradication. At a minimum, the Project Restorationist shall have
demonstrated expertise in restoration ecology and at least 3 years of exper-
ience in restoration design and implementation, including experience in
wetland restoration. The Project Restorationist shall have the authority to
stop work or request change orders as necessary. In addition, the Project
Restorationist shall conduct the site inspection and habitat monitoring
311212W6 4.5-34
DRAFT EIR/COUNTY FILE NO.SDO18533 4.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
■ programs, and prepare reports documenting the restoration program for
submittal to the Corps, CDFG, RWQCB, and County Community
Development Department.
■ All grading on the site shall be performed during the summer months and
completed before October 1. Appropriate erosion/sediment control
measures shall be in place by October 15. Eradication of invasive species
shall be accomplished in advance of mitigation plantings during the
summer months. Mitigation planting and seeding shall commence in the
late fall or early winter, with the onset of winter rains.
■ To prevent indirect and cumulative adverse effects of the development on
water quality of Garrity Creek and its tributary, grassy swales shall be
constructed as described in the MMP. The swales are intended to capture
and slow the movement of urban runoff into the north and east forks of
Garrity Creek. The swales shall be planted and seeded with appropriate
native species and deed-restricted from development or renovation, as
described in the MMP. No direct outfalls into the Garrity Creek channels
shall be constructed. Discharges from the swales would be over ground
stabilized by erosion blankets with rock inter-plated with willows or other
species approved by the Project Restorationist.
■ Habitat restoration and revegetation shall provide for maximum vegetative
cover, conducive to the restoration of the creek corridors, and provide for
vegetative screening between the stream channel and adjacent roads
and dwellings.
■ The plant palette shall be consistent with the requirements of the CDFG and
prescriptions contained in the final MMP.
■ A temporary drip irrigation system shall be provided for all container plant-
ings installed as part of the final MMP. Irrigation shall be supplied for up to 3
years, with a gradual reduction in volume of water applied in years 2 and 3.
The details of the irrigation system and watering schedule must be
approved by the Project Restorationist.
■ The applicant shall guarantee an 85-percent survival rate for the plantings
over the 5-year monitoring period. For this purpose, a $40,000 bond (or
equivalent) security shall be deposited with the County to ensure perform-
ance of the final MMP.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2(c): The proposed Site Plan, Riparian Mitigation Plan,
and MMP shall be revised to ensure adequate avoidance of Central Coast
riparian scrub and mature native trees on the proposed off-site construction
staging area northwest of the site. This shall be accomplished prior to approval
of the Final MapeIlive-A4GIa using the following detailed specifications:
• The off-site creek channel and edge of native willows canopy shall be
mapped by engineered survey to accurately identify their location in
relation to proposed improvements. The canopy line shall be identified as
3 :- 6 4.5-35
DRAFT E!R/COUNTY FILE No.SDO18533 4.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
other waters at the proposed crossing of Royal Oaks Drive. Theinstallation of grassy
swales proposed at the interface between creek setbacks and the rear yard of
residences would serve to intercept urban runoff and allow for pretreatment before
entering the creek channels. As noted previously, removal of invasive exotics and
revegetation of the riparian corridors and open space areas with native species
would serve to improve the aquatic and terrestrial habitat values of these segments
of the east and north forks of Garrity Creek.
Both direct and indirect impacts on sensitive jurisdictional waters may result from the
possible effects of development on the spring and seep in the northwestern portion
of the site. As indicated in Figure 4.5-4, the proposed alignment of Garrity Creek
Drive passes through a portion of the Central Coast riparian scrub associated with
this complex. This segment of the roadway would be supported downslope by a
retaining wall extending from the north end of the cul-de-sac, along the west side of
the roadway, and then along the edge of the northern limits of the proposed
development area on Lot 29. No detailed geotechnical data are available on the
nature of this spring/seep complex or the extent of construction disturbance
required to accommodate the proposed roadway and retaining wall improvements
at this location. However, the mapped location of the spring is shown within 10 feet
of the retaining wall and construction access may adversely affect this feature. It is
also possible that the slope above the spring and seep may require dewatering as
part of slope stabilization purposes, and could result in intercepting the surface
waters of the spring, and its eventual loss as an active feature. If this spring is lost as
a result of dewatering, willows and other hydrophytic vegetation surrounding and
downslope could also go into decline and eventually die. All of these represent
potentially significant impacts on jurisdictional waters and the associated riparian
vegetation.
Modifications to the wetlands and other waters on the site would be subject to
jurisdictional review and approval by the Corps, RWQCB, and CDFG. The County
recognizes that subsequent permitting processes with resource agencies could result
in additional mitigation beyond that required by the County in the CEQA process.
As noted previously, the revised MMP prepared by Wood (2004) provides a detailed
plan with a detailed conceptual approach. to mitigating potential impacts on
wetland resources and riparian habitat through creation of replacement at ratios of
from 2:1 to 3:1 in the proposed open space area along both forks of Garrity Creek.
The overall approach to replacement and enhancement appears more than
adequate, although further refinement is necessary to address potential impacts on
a number of unaddressed resources.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3(a): The proposed Site Plan, Riparian Mitigation Plan,
and MMP shall be revised to ensure adequate avoidance of the active spring
and seep in the proposed open space area in the northwestern portion of the
site. This shall be accomplished prior to approval of the Final Map Tem+
ive
using the following detailed specifications:
3/12/200L 4.5-30
_ _ A
DRAFT EIR/COUNTY FILE NO.SDO18533 4.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
addresses weed control and states that invasive species will be eradicated, but
provides no details on how to:accomplish or monitor this goal.
Mitigation Measure 13I0-4(a): The proposed Site Plan, Riparian Mitigation Plan,
and MMP shall be revised to further address loss of wildlife habitat, maintain
opportunities for wildlife movement across the site, and minimize disturbance to
open space areas. This shall be accomplished prior to approval of the Final
VeSS *Rq T91A$9+i"o Map using the following detailed specifications:
■ The proposed alignment of the 5-foot-wide pedestrian trail shall be
eliminated or greatly reduced in its location and extent. If feasible, any
pedestrian trail shall follow the emergency vehicle access road or follow the
existing open alignment of Road 24 from the northwest corner of the off-site
parcels containing the construction staging area, continue south and east
across the north fork of Garrity Creek at the existing culvert crossing, and
then continue southeast past the edge of the proposed northern detention
basin, and across the boundary between proposed Lots 31 and 32,
connecting with the west end of the cul-de-sac at Adam Court.
■ To alert visitors of its intended use, permanent metal signage stating that the
area serves as sensitive habitat shall be installed at any pedestrian entrance
or channel crossing within the proposed open space area in the
northwestern portion of the site.
■ A permanent movement corridor shall be provided for wildlife linking the
proposed open space in the northwestern portion of the site with the open
space along the east fork of Garrity Creek. An area with a minimum width
.of 25 feet shall be established from the western boundary of the site at the
west side of proposed Lots 31 and 32 within which fencing that would
exclude wildlife would be prohibited and native vegetation would be
planted and retained as part of an expanded grassy swale area and
upland area. Some protective fencing may be necessary for safety
purposes around the proposed detention basin to be sited in this area, but
the fencing and basin design shall balance security and safety issues with
the need to maintain opportunities for wildlife movement along the creek
corridor.
Mitigation Measure BIO-4(b): The final MMP shall be revised to include an
expanded discussion of the program to control invasive exotic species in
proposed open space areas. Section 4.4.2 of the MMP shall specify initial
methods to remove and kill targeted invasive, non-native plant species. This
may include controlled use of herbicides, which must be carefully controlled
given the intended function as open space and presence of sensitive
aquatic habitat of the creek channels, spring, and seep.
The combination of the mitigation measures above would reduce this impact
to a less-than-significant level. (LTS)
3/12/2006 4.5-39
1
DRAFT EIR/COUNTY FILE No.SDO18533 4.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
compaction, trenching, landscape irrigation, and other modifications within the root
zone. Considerable care is necessary to protect trees in the vicinity of grading,
building and roadway construction, and landscape improvements. Wounding of
trunks and major roots during construction is a common problem that results in the
invasion of harmful organisms and can contribute to structural decay of the tree.
Root loss, and a reduction in potential rooting area, often contributes to long-term
tree decline. In general, any disturbance within the dripline should be avoided to
prevent adverse changes that may affect the long-term health and condition of
trees to be preserved.
Mitigation Measure 13I0-5(a): Trees near the adjusted limits of grading shall be
preserved and protected, to the greatest extent possible, where feasible from
an engineering and geotechnical standpoint and warranted based on their
good to excellent health and structure. An engineering survey for all native
trees with trunk diameters of 6.5 inches or greater diameter at breast height
(dbh) shall be performed prior to approval of the Final V8StiRg TeRtGti.,o Map,
and trunk locations within 20 feet on either side of the proposed limits of
grading shall be mapped with tree species and condition information.
Wherever possible, individual native trees at the perimeter of the proposed
limits of grading with trunk diameters exceeding 6.5 inches shall be preserved
through adjustments to the limits of grading, use of short over-steepened
slopes, and other acceptable methods. Where possible, non-native trees at
the perimeter of the proposed limits of grading with trunk diameters
exceeding 12 inches shall be preserved where the trees do not detract from
proposed habitat enhancement efforts. Protection of individual native trees
shall take precedence over maintaining the full width of the proposed grassy
swale that would separate the east fork of Garrity Creek from the rear yard of
Lots 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 36, as long as the function of the swale is not
compromised. The number of trees protected through further refinement of
project plans shall be quantified, and an updated report summarizing final
estimates for tree removal and preservation shall be submitted to the County
Community Development Department for review and approval prior to
approval of the Final VeStdRg TeRtGfiV8 Map.
Mitigation Measure BIO-5(b): The final MMP shall be revised to include an
expanded goal of providing for the replacement of non-native trees to be
removed by proposed development and details on their replacement with
native tree species as part of the open space plantings. Non-native trees to
be removed shall be replaced according to the following replacement ratios:
trees with trunk diameters of from 6.5 to 12 inches dbh to be replaced at a 1:1
ratio; over 12 inches to 24 inches at a 2:1 ratio; and over 24 inches dbh at a
3:1 ratio (number of replacement trees:number of trees removed). Section
3.0 of the final MMP shall be revised to specify the total number of non-native
trees to be removed and the number of native replacement trees. Revisions
to the final MMP incorporating specifications for replacement plantings of
3/12/2006 - 4.5-39
DRAFT EIR/COUNTY FILE NO.SDO18533 4.14 RECREATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS
plan as a potential site for park acquisition. Therefore, a homeowner's association is
the most appropriate entity to take over maintenance of on-site open space.
Given liability concerns, it is likely that only on-site residents would be able to use the
on-site open space.
The following are mitigation measures recommended to reduce the above
potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure REC-1: The on-site open space resources shall be protect-
ed by the following means:
■ All on-site open space shall be deed-restricted and dedicated to an on-site
homeowner's association (HOA) that would be responsible for ongoing
maintenance and operation. This dedication (and appropriate documen-
tation) shall occur prior to approval of the Final SiVisiea Map.
■ The HOA shall establish an appropriate fee structure for project residents
that would help to offset ongoing maintenance and operation costs.
■ An Operations and Maintenance Plan shall be established for the on-site
open space by the HOA to ensure that water quality and vegetation
management provisions are addressed. This Plan shall be approved by the
County's Public Works Department and the California Department of Fish
and Game prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the site.
■ Adequate signage shall be posted at the site to identify times of use and
appropriate controls such as avoidance of garbage in the creek, cleaning
up after animals, etc.
■ The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) of the HOA shall
provide for holding owners of private lots financially responsible for any
debris cleanup required as a result of illegal dumping in the creek structure
setback zone.
The combination of the above mitigation measures would reduce the potential
recreation-related impact to a less-than-significant level. Alternatively, the
proposed trail and any public access to on-site open space could be
eliminated. Also, refer to mitigation measures in Section 4.5, Biological
Resources. (LTS)
References
Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 2003. Initial Study for
Subdivision 8533, File No. SDO 18533 (Hillview), October 22.
Contra Costa County and City of Richmond, 2001. The EI Sobrante Valley Parks
Study, January.
3,12,2006 4.14-4 -
FINAL EIR FOR THE EL SOBRANTE SUBDIVISION 8533
more distant from urbanization.. In the case of the proposed project, 1.65 acres
have slopes greater than 26 percent. Their distribution across the site is shown
in DEIR Figure 3-6. These relatively small areas of greater than 26 percent
slope are not considered of adequate size to require avoidance of any
development in such slopes, according to County staff. The Tentative
Subdivision Map (presented in figure 3-4 of the DEIR) indicates 1.73 acres of
private open space in the proposed project (i.e., the project includes two areas
of integrated open space,which exceeds the acreage of land with slopes of 26
percent). It should also be noted that the project proposes to step homes up
and down the slopes on the property, rather than creating "padded" lots. This
form or development can be interpreted as minimal grading that is consistent
with General Plan Policy 10-24.
The following text test is added to page 4.1-14, of the EIR.
The project would not conflict with the County's zoning ordinance except
as related to the requested variances, as described in Chapter 3. No
significant environmental impacts would result from approval of the
requested variances. The project's compatibility with General Plan
policies is addressed in Table 4.1-1.
The project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan since such plans do not apply to the
site.
Over 16 percent of the project site includes slopes that exceed 26 percent.
An additional 67.5 percent of the site has slopes exceeding 15 percent. As
can be seen in Figure 3-7, significant portions of the site are proposed for
cut and fill. While individual homes are expected to "step' into the
hillsides and not require pad construction, the proposed cut and fill for
road construction adjacent to lots would also result in grading of
individual lots (see Figure 3-7). Natural contours on the site would be
altered, but the general character of the on-site terrain would remain. No
fill would occur within the actual creek corridor, which would be
restricted from any development (see Section 4.5, Biological Resources, of
the EIR). The only exception is the Royal Oaks Drive crossingof f the
creek channel,which is subject to apermit from CDFG. The CDFG
permit would provide measures to protect habitat values.
A total of 22,000 cubic yards of earth are estimated to be cut and 27,000
cubic yards are estimated to be fill material. (This corresponds to an
average of 550 cubic yards of cut per lot and 675 cubic yards of fill per
lot, or relatively minimal grading for a hillside project, according to
County staff.) On-site fills of up to 12 feet for Adams Court and up to 28
feet at the Garrity Creek crossing are proposed (see Figure 3-7). Cut
88
FINAL EIR FOR THE EL SOBRANTE SUBDIVISION 8533
mitigation process. The Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the project's
potential impacts on biological resources was developed and was reviewed as
part of the EIR process. It is also the intent of CEQA to evaluate projects at
an early enough stage that changes to the project design can be incorporated
as part of the mitigation measure process (see CEQA Guidelines, Section
15004).
No major changes in project design or lot layout would occur based on the
plans referenced. These plans are primarily intended to ensure that potential
impacts are minimized and that adequate monitoring occurs.
The project description describes the on-site open space and proposed trails on
the site. These trails would be open to use by members of the project
Homeowners Association (HOA). The HOA cannot provide public use trails,
primarily for liability reasons.
The following text is added for clarification on page 3-19,paragraph 1:
....to the north. The on-site open space and trails would be available for
use by members of the project site Homeowners Association.
Maintenance of detention ponds is addressed under Mitigation Measure
HYDROLOGY-2 on page 4.3-13 of the DEIR. The project's relationship to
General Plan policies is addressed in Table 4.1-1. The project's compliance
with the County's regulations regarding the number of homes served by cul-
de-sacs is addressed on page 4.1-13 of the DEIR.
C2-16: See Master Response No. 2 and Master Response No. 5.
C2-17: The commentor states that the DEIR fails to address potential impacts that
similar projects in the area were found to have, specifically erosion, runoff,
riparian loss, soil absorption loss, and construction-related issues.
Impacts to Garrity Creek are analyzed in DEIR sections 4.3 (Hydrology and
Water Quality) and 4.5 (Biological Resources) and appropriate mitigation
measures are described to reduce any impacts. Mitigation Measure
HYDROLOGY-1 and Mitigation Measure BI0-3(b) require that a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan be prepared and implemented using Best
Management Practices to control both construction-related erosion and
sedimentation and project-related non-point discharge into waters on the site.
In addition, Mitigation Measure HYDROLOGY-2 requires that appropriate
easements, access and security for use of equipment to clean out detention
basins be provided prior to approval of a final vesting map.
Detention basins must be maintained, inspected and cleaned on a regular basis
to ensure that they can hold the requisite maximum storm event runoff. The
imposition
134
FINAL EIR FOR THE EL SOBRANTE SUBDIVISION 8533
policies of the Contra Costa County General Plan. Response to Comment C 1-
25 addresses potential conflicts with General Plan policies. The EIR preparers
do not ignore the fact that environmental constraints should be considered in
project planning. A number of mitigation measures are recommended to
ensure that significant environmental impacts do not result from site
development.
C2-32: The commentor states that the proposed project violates a number of General
Plan policies and therefore has a significant land use planning impact. As
already noted, Section 4.1, Land Use and Planning, of the DEIR evaluates the
project's relationship to applicable policies of the Contra Costa County
General Plan. Refer to Responses to Comments C1-22, C1-25, C1-26, and
C1-27.
The EIR preparers do to not ignore the fact that environmental constraints
should be considered in project planning. A number of mitigation measures
are recommended to ensure that significant environmental impacts do not
result from site development.
C2-33: The commentor notes that a number of General Plan policies affect the
allowable density of the project. Refer to Master Response No. 1, which
addresses a new Reduced Project Alternative. While there would be cut and
fill on the site, there would not be fill of"canyons" as the word is commonly
defined.
C2-34: The commentor reviews General Plan policies regarding development on
steep slopes. Refer to Responses to Comments C 1-26 and C 1-27. Also refer
to Response to Comment C1-25, which addresses how steep slopes on the site
could be protected.
C2-35: The commentor objects to the DEIR's findings regarding the General Plan
policy that calls for retaining the semi-rural and suburban character of the
community. It is true that large lots are located to the south and southwest of
the site. The DEIR does not state that the "semi-rural" quality is only due to
the 10 acres of the project site, as the commentor contends. Refer to Master
Response No. 1, which addresses a Reduced Project Alternative that may help
to address the commentor's concerns.
C2-36: The commentor notes that, due to existing traffic and circulation problems, the
General Plan calls for approval of new development at the low to mid-range
of the respective single-family residential designations. The commentor states
that the DEIR does not provide sufficient information to determine the extent
to which local traffic issues may limit the size of the project. General Plan
Policy 3-203 states that new development should be approved at the low-to
mid-range of the perspective single-family residential land use density
134
designations. At the low range of the General Plan allowable density, up to 50
units could be built on the site. The proposed project consists of 40 units, within
the allowable density.
Section 4.2, Transportation/Traffic, of the DEIR evaluates the impacts of project-
generated traffic. This analysis did not identify traffic impacts that are significant
enough to warrant reducing the size of the project. The commentor does not
provide evidence to refute this conclusion.
C2-37: The commentor notes the DEIR's conclusion that the project does not provide
affordable housing, o ,,;.o,� by r-e„er-al Plan pelie < There is no development
agreement on this site that requires provision of affordable housing. Therefore
from staff's perspective,the General Plan does not require provision of
affordable housing on this site. This comment does not address the adequacy of
the EIR nor the CEQA process and should be addressed to the decision-making
body.
C2-38: The commentor indicates that the County could not legally issue a variance from
zoning code requirements for the allowable number of housing units on a cul-de-
sac. The project would not need a variance related to the number of homes on a
cul-de-sac. Refer to page 4.1-13 of the DEIR.
C2-39: The commentor notes that the General Plan does not allow for development that
creates unmitigated significant impacts on the environment and local community.
No significant unavoidable impacts were identified for the project. See Response
to Comment C1-92.
C2-40: The commentor requests that the County find the DEIR inadequate and direct the
applicant to prepare a revised DEIR. The County does not find that a new DEIR
is necessary.
Exhibit 4
Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (see Table 1) has been prepared to
comply with the requirements of State law (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). State
law requires the adoption of a mitigation monitoring program when mitigation measures are
required to avoid significant impacts. The monitoring program is intended to ensure
compliance during implementation of the project.
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been formulated based upon the
findings of the DEIR and the comments received on the DEIR and addressed herein. This
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program identifies mitigation measures recommended
in the EIR to avoid or reduce identified impacts, and specifies the agencies responsible for
implementation and monitoring.
The first column identifies the mitigation measure. The second column entitled
"Implementing Mechanism" indicates the appropriate condition of approval #, the third
column entitled "Monitoring Requirements" refers to the type of monitoring that should be
undertaken to ensure that the mitigation measure is implemented. The fourth column entitled
"Person/Agency Responsible for Monitoring" refers to the agency responsible for ensuring
that the mitigation measure has been implemented. The fifth column entitled "Timing or
Frequency of Monitoring" identifies when and/or for how long the monitoring shall occur.
The str-ikeeut and underline reflects the modifications recommended by the Zoning
Administrator at the February 27, 2006 hearing.
$ • o
I
o �
•� o w
w w d ti O N •� ��'
tw
o rA
0 o co 0 ou
'1 � o � o � o"� o•�
a a
OC y•rte„
U Q J U U
a+ U
q
w
00
� t7
A A'J U U U U
J
O (V
W � b
�.. • U UV. U U
a a �M a a —91
a°",
� •C
aj
W ++
a O
a
fy I a .� O .� '� N O o O ow ., 99 O� a pl O
N � � � rn ` � y•� C �O U � U U ,C. O � O .�
D C C ??
a
C o a� Ga o Ca b o y - a o o U C ° X 5 0
•i h G R' �' ��" �; N y w N cXd ,w y '� ;=, p O ° p . ."O'' x '•y. C', G.
•.0+ sem, 'E O S b d ° ° b a� o yX. 2 N o b - ° w`rt
r U �e a� o
o
El O u > N .0 C U a~i G, o - O O M °
O O
ba �a 014 ami > o N
Vs
a., w O C C
0,01 0
Ea
rb
o .. o
cd OUI N •5 M p N 'b O 1 ^� N 'b y C+.F. 3 i>
on a� rC J J
r r�
d
W'En v o CW
CC
I CC cb� R lJ" 0 7� U
i
a
W y
A„coi d
. a
S � En
o � r"n � a
M
63 0 CCS
G a
cn ► a P+
en
a A
00 c o U
o GC,
m
q pp Cl)
0000
W G• rte••. 00
s �dt
z U
d
w
w
0
� � r
0
El et o
In r u3
a
chi N 7 N CT O Ov
CJ U
on cd U +O+ t''d y y O o p
p ca •O d O �cd tt��0 O N� .n7^ N �+' ai 4) •C O +-'
O ^ 0 03 01
ai o p Y y ani c� ami o C
153 0
ea a � r„y � o � aC , aoU � c�n " °oa • � � o
bD w, O v" cei G+ c� `� y y a'
CT" m ,� O 6J,O W N ,.
�" �' •C G p v op eco U oU o o o C7 o� °,° o . �
o o o
.+ ^.'j •r O U tV V.' v O .D N o y N o0 N
vao ° � °' oa `� �
o0
Q � TyN7, d � G •'o vQUNb � y w
� -- s�
�� U tr Utz
� d
c is e
d
po � g
0
0 0 •�
� r
o ° �
g � i
v �
a
a�
dt
C y
oma
O
co
.. Q
N N
q � �
!A 000 Q
03
H qt
A
d
-d O
O .+
m v,
LIS
� � C
0
w
o .o
swMD
o C y y
W. o Oil,
P
w o
� o a� m .� v,.� .s F,"
O
y v m b p—
o -E,
y p,' J a,.f q G o u m a Fn ra o y H y U 3
.on C?"�` G G�� '.� w y a� .� •�
Cd
"Ire UR
:+ a C� a� Ey, o G � '.•- m ro� c"i �`^' � U m � y 'v o
N
.°G.O al N
v, y try o• ;3 G
�:° G� a� •�.°: v .° � � nu^�� � y C a w, G b y ° O a� :., �:'� W °y'� �
p ° •�+ G a �.� � � � � as "� � m a~i C v tea, � � � W � � � .° :? on.o ^o
M. ^•J a3 S= fJ y y GO vOi C")
D
0
c o R
O
U Q
U
cn00
c w Q
cn
In U O
N
d � �
Cal
P'
a
o Q
J
o-
w
t•� �qq'' �, J 63 � '� � v. �"d G� � oA rid
cL a U pIn
y'� yv OL ,°r' w ✓ c
� cd o� N U •'�,
o-'s U' a� ca G! o r d u' y y o 0 0
O O G p y Y 'yp �'•O V. W N U 3 •O .- O J AS
EiV� .�.,-fro��' � � O O{,,"'� V � � � O .r]�•�',��+��U �,� 'Nd
4+ \"• .p e'j, O O O V
oA O W � al � R :�, � � a id N v� G a�� t� � �r� td J G+•^;,� G+ r � J
,J•U'S+ ¢f. � G3 re�t � � ,a � pPv. �-� �� on�, cs � a��, .��,, m
r r J m ca ani w •: ., v io C� et D
Uy, .v �d .� W O O'O N oa r O
M 'v r•o � tO6' "�' v 'y� ' d� w ,, � va°Ji'o �' �3
O -i j. � � ,� � �•m� � ta
F1 O �J w cA U N U s^ sa d U gj U D J U Dom➢
Om as 6n o '� •-aU
16
O R+ r UC °+� y•i4^1,. "�" .p N p'"� Ur' y .O S� 'G .-''.. �,,'•�' •op.L j 1
°' •9 d v a� cc P GG C�' y �G C�'oi .0 'd ami P P p ` ami
�a �� r�: � o � •� v y °� w�}' a°�i .••� o� � �'n r�3 Q p '' m R'� � c� G '3 0
°D ° G ✓ G c3 d oR p o
N ¢i
!�+ •�rrp � � � � `cd � ?..� c'` � � °� `� � ai
`� y ani 9 a� Jp u o °� ° C c�i v Caa7_5 ca
J D � l 'p �10 � az c v °� e-
°�
-.o:,
x oD c°
D
d � '
U ' J
o
OL
03
to °✓ � � Q
18) O O V
i� p raj
U �
� P
U
•k.o Q U U
v+ �•o U rJ U CS?
H � U
G? d
an U, ri O
CD N U
y �.
� � r
� � a
o
Ssl .A U '
r� � o °' �•� 002 �� o w EA w3
o" �, .� r•.�^• o �' ¢,o, °�+ � on-�d � `�' d p� o .�`"
.+� N�� G+ ,w°''„ ono � c,.+� � aw on .��• P o
w � v� y moo o �1} � °� o �•� c� o �. � �al o �
v, A 1; °✓ 'a o o
A � o� ai � a� .� .- oo v, :� o o,D .G �:o `a �'' es � v •� y
•� C8 .� N ,� V, .�+ 03 y G1 6? y ,
v, doo O .ea
OD va0G J G0 ywaCpoA .1151J - VJ ti
0-6 U�
J w u O o n U J
b
Jiyr
CJ
i
C },
C 'rRr- ° -••.
u
o P�� �
r v
p lop
OD G{
1
n
en
mooQeK
� 6
� � d
N o
7 �
a A a U Q
a
V3
d � �
� P+
..•. U: "� � p6 O'° O ° G 4•. ,Or O .•° Q std O ,G
WA
� � � . N � o ° � � .fl O �,� c3 � o o v �, .•� •r o m ° ,�
G104
"m ed v .r�
'O p •y V „G7 "` 47 "C dpi .H.
o� `} U ,� ° vtd tn
s�
.r U ^ r.•a ^O +y'+•'•srn O N � ^., �.'. O '� P+trr. v: O
uG o >•
o us 4e,
u G �� 'C a> ° C� K � °> .�e3 .� m .C, �-' � i3 ..•� G w v � G ..� ° � v,
v ty° � > A o �. o �3 ai �,� � �o O o� oui ' � o ••{j '� p� .°J�-,� `-°r p�
d .O O O H :.) ai N^J e± � y f• •-' �f .G N C O.O U N j � U y O ,^� i v c~d
�1 � r G � .• 7 cq ❑ C ;y
v J v�cJ "cd
G y 61 c6 r, C y Cif N .N w U O C y
at G G W c3H w cd v m 3u ' v
r C 0? O .,.1 P+•Y�•�, _ a-� G •� RS
o� �v o m o a fl G 3 T3 o G of��d U ° Q -Cl,
c' o -.ej " am = s " EL= vw Ooo p
CS z+'o ^'a "' O t'r'd +''1 O W .7 N c�U �••.I
V O Y'G cd u G
`a X3_ 0 w 0o
� � �
p� bl) y
1
o •
ooxa
� U
o 7a cg
w
u o •CT
C4" rj w0b
C � ed *.Z U
> 9 �� y
to 0
c �
x Q
gal a
b
00
{p
0 o y Q d U
J p
q N
ro �
oo G
w u q N 06
x
z
04
C1 H OG
O
h
a
W .'
o a.
rx
w
a y
[i. .-. W a+ cam• v N
,fir.. •iy ,�
o ~ �
000'� � �� ° cb�d+ 000 O
T
67 O 'N p ° H a 4: U O .b O y •b v c4.d0.Q .� O v
o p cu as b o a� v a� ro ai o , o B , o ti o ccd a
G cd
OD ° au R 'a Lo, °' ami �n `any O0
-o 0 ci /y m U ; 00 0 O °? O N a O O 0 �r k" o o G
C °3 o. o R ti �.y7 N O F •� .' '� O n G cy n N o c ti
p :e •-� cd �v,." v; v: fi,c.. y ^" � a a � :9 `^ � Lam'^O o� o v `y�' pp.•... cc o
ol
O. w+' N•ti v GNU Vi '� bD y i "Cl = On U ,� .0 O
•mryyfpn�Aop oQ >
0 O o 0. > wO -00.GtdJ pOoo q mO0N Co O Cd u c ' " c b ' y 2 ,.o.�o ,ab � ' G fu''c
0 �on
co
vvUG,
it
'
Nk ya�
�v
u
d
y
�d
W
y p0 O
00
OR Q
d
a
O
a $'
W o N p 0 i`i Hca on N N 7 J .
'd, 4d. -+ .... G�,r- y ? N
,V-'+ ... r+ y r+ O cd U �+ 9 a
-,:S ct
id w on o� ° on o�ane v y G o r v 4 G y o
cC 'rO .� Dn O �'` F'" ..� V
� c�`� N y•�D ❑DD
❑ � ,•-+T„.,,P�',,,'� �'+ �.. � o G .T, .fl o� cO.t ? G C' ,,°., y'D o P++ . p v
•,a A V'U y c0 u ° > T N N U .� d y °
Er, to
tn
u w p•�'G� � vd� � m � N ems xJ., � ,,,., °� °' o an� d C � d .�
on'ai Gf+. C' •� .��' O �d •p'
o d u coni"� y u 1 on
on N
r
D
V
.O ti 0
03
u
•� Cil � d
o � °
�p
u p
. C�"" y O � y .b❑ OD � O
'L y v
0 an
9 41
0 00
w o`bo o > ww P. tb
o
A
U
oa U ' �U
z o U U
O Q oD U
> U N
Q U
m �
z EA
O
m
0
a
x CL) Aa no a
o
x
Ei
w
a
I'D o
z vC G b w a� ° ° N u > G 000
F` tl a� °C y rcd ra o y a� .� o cd
M" O ' R, b y $ a. o p w G ti Ei oC N .c
u X 0.p U N ..U. �' N •� O 4�+ {". , cd C'- 6j cC y cd .mo w+
("�. ..v. .b N CC� N �i,'4>' O v; U b�•' ti T O .� v 4� N K
op-V O O 0 m .b 'O •� N CID 'h O N u I c .—U
��. G b b N > ami y p w Crw� ti 75 G o
Z I
cc ate ' a' a�. o bow EE ° u ,�' o •14
6 '0 � �b•� �-• °
o v v
> cc
p .a R o �
po 5OD ,°„ N N y Q'.v+ '.-y. '.^I•
/� ,� C�, cd c�tl p N U •a N O •O N
nz
cV L4 U p 4. p�p.� w? �'�. •b N v^i h ob as
p v U' v
G.•��' r�'
0.1 G 3 avi ° �, m a � . n � ■ ■
• a
•i. �'b R
y O
q
^ I
a •4 ,a? o
� ? d
o ❑ o —
V
00
U
Z y U Q Q
0
>_ U U U
U U U
A
OA
m �
v
� M
O
w •o � o � o �
Z •� �"� O O '� h �. h w � cid •a
p- 70 A ac •� p ^� O0 v 'a a3i a -"c,, j
b C Q r,
tl ° ouluw
CID
m� � o G o 0 4 �i °
is ^ ° tl U c o b C ° rmn'dCC o'Q •� b " p, a� �', on U
.> Da .G C
z,o off° ° 'i o p °
.o
105-
L) h m b > b °: m
`° ^� 5 • h ^ y Op 'b d w
ami rn •b �i •.. � o d p of � o � v.j � °' p.,..., m � � v •� o o �
v o ~ 9r b ,b o o > u to x v
7: aDoU cJ .D •C-a' y ^ O +� p .b N G ^ y U a.., R,�, y p Ci, id W N Tin
C C � Q A � v p+^� tiQ .D of 4,
CJ aE V cd " N F'r U 'b U Q N O ca 0 OD U!
ac43i •- .� � ou � 5
� � � � � O � w ° p � D � N •rr W Tl_'� .� td "' tl,"� � r0 N u. P. � � > fir" > C
o q ami °tv -g .
a� o
CE-V ^-o b ° 0 �- _o^� o y y o
� � U Hy > o mhe Cl,
a
�^yu ar
p ar ca.L) °
ZD qt
w
� U
00
dR �
W Fa M t)DEn
C'd
w
a
wj u
45 w
"C �±
ol
W � w N +'O � u'', .a w Y � � .O O Q .�� {.,,'•"� `� �.YJ Ry .-�
..a O, OD O T} � � N ..-. ,.add p ��y^.rJ � ,,., y„�•^� cd � Q+ � Vi y� �,,
� �b G �'� Uu°i ,j c'—,�,,,� '��' �.s� �Q4„y t'^ l J �,��� �j fQ+. tib-+ .� :C �� •�^
�,l V- y : cNo � g .o'J care"n� C5 .8 ° p aFii
OJ
°� y v - rs r v o y C o s~ o •p o`�i A
1 y O+� �. cru'd ,°� d t •ti v .O •" 00 N N A ^ 8
,� � y ��•� ^�y ,� �„,� �"y v .��' •r* ar � '• w � iii .� y
ar o b a to c3 0 .� a�
G� � oo � � = °vowmer oy �ar cd
ca a�
'° � a � w �.;� �.� d �,�'�� Q 1 � '•^° ° o :n�•-•`� P" K °' � c3 Ci aXi ar
cr
•
p.
o
w moo„
N
in tl
ed N
Ce tt .:2 00
-.54 IP-
In In
5 Zr
tA
3
V
on U b 03 li
R 7�1� Yi@5 'w ,
IP
00
tn
00
'op
OO
Lo
Id i5,
OD
o G
G �
� Y7 y �•�
C
►. w
0
I
n U
h
00
z o o Q
o d U
I
n i
m
L-L to
cv �
0
a
W ^O
w � cra
O G
a
W
^o
> ~ °
vfuto—
� voNvwo � c� > ws~ ° ymc � p ^n: a
y -4 �w o ° id
a a c cam.
►. v, p ° N D ❑ 'D 4P, b ' 1 •K. v 'O N'C
o
b o
a o as �� c pvy1 p c a o
0 cid R y p v GD ? G O ob O O
SO
.u3co a Q `� '� �- aani `� ��05
0odpi a) 7 ;
oj
on C aR F v o u - ami s
r ,o u v a a� '
b O o vrr
> 0 ■
■ ■ ■ � N mai r a
P is
of
Vag
va
4
En
o* 1-1)
-5 �pl "t,
C-4 'r, 1:0� JUD -a'
oD �.
N 's
W 0G F- Tv
101,
05
-td '0- w 'r- ,
S S
G
0 10
-14 0 , - ?t op
i tJ
r. 0
03 w
by I -6 o
is
5 -1 IA
'q �S S �� CI. w
i�- 'g
0 A'
55
it
'A
1;j -PA G
SP
tr,
t
d 6
rA u r
c a4 t
�U x
CA
0
R
y
o.
N
y
O'v�
2 �
° Ga N
c^i
OD
� d.Q
U
r G� O
d
C4
a
w �
p,o T ou tpon tmD
00
6 5 end � � y obi o
d C, N ` w o%cs cs N ,� c'a o a:• G - �y
.+ 0. r.+ G N ,,, p p ° ..+
t; 5 y °n�i w orb o °" �° �o
cd � yG 1� � � p �.,� N .~,� �l�•'�cd � 5~.+ �dc JC c�',�a•td'• �� � �.. p
d JC
I ,�1 d
40 ' �O�p :J y �5 y•Cy ^ O ..+
a �'� °�,.� °�' � �� � � o,° '� � ani ��•�i �� � �� d° � �^c �„�
J A'ca y J41� •„r„ p p'` H �"� p J N .0 y .`•" N Aed ,�..' N
m ani Cl. o ten'd o �s y a d o cs
C ' qS
�� oa� tiyp2sv v °J . � C ?e7Fj
6 it
cci p � F v� cd ++^°� � C3 �.. y ed .-•� ,�, �,y � y1 p y �
�J' ° O !� .° ''"G"'CN V •y— r? fin r 'y'� �C � 'n �
45 A p .
O G+
d
' o
0 0� IS
u � N
cD m
v.
W
y•o�`i�J
d
� U
cn +p+r G A At N
,Z
a v
r
N
r
VP16.
va
m 4
z•
d
d
m
t4 'IID
a r � � � ° vo r• ao N 'o .o ° � "ora :% a�o%� ��•�„
N N ✓ r
y ONCE.+•� T y1 V G+ .e "rJ �y Tr' O
pp 0 oD P-O,� VU : .+' `9 r„ O 5,,+'N ,6j 'a O J
d •p er N iw-N ' G a y 4 0 0, o� -! p o ° ° J oa
r d r y Q T c6 y,. G S♦ +^' y d
W r 'v M a5 G c, ° r� °
v.
to
'Sa
Niti N .i3 Y.� O 00 G O�r `J in
to W
♦ � cd N �NGO r' J .y .r+. N r!� Up
� O v
CS N y d Y' � 3 N� Fj {��'`,� N'. .� � O J.} Qip 6j �., y � p v � �, 4•Q
y Q rO N'O bl d
ri
•
p
C^O ca
o
w
w
a
oC C y G
o.ra d C, d
a �
a
m
N
O
rA
x d
w
a to
v
C w on ❑ v. '� a G o
cd
O h m � r c�.i
yo w y 4w .ell w d p W o4 ty o
za � p y •�
03 °ry �+ Cw' N � LLQ v'. F•+ �� w v. F ^w'" R+� +a+
15 G•G
� 1 T w ,� d G w o •rs �i G,� •c�e N a
aw � � v _ w �
Hcz REQ
a
� u
w 6n o
auk a_ v y,
o BVI :e
o 'O on p
yAj p �'C U
04 a S 0
I � �
v
y U M
M
Q
to Q
N Vl
N N
�* r
c:w
w
0
a b
ca ;;
x i2l.
4.1 �
� � d
o .
w
r+
0
o �-
Q ti .r �+ ..•, ,O O Gi+
Piz' v, G'w Tii O O
2 N Com" y .a N.0 V. O crtiOm V T O O Cl O r
'a ony G y'P
OA y y RS :C ."• .-+ y .O y ;y �i }q. y O U ..-y' GN O 1
d '+h- ~�' .� � f=.W.�0. y � �� �•� 'dd.Sa �j P+'O W v � �1 ��" '" G U 'Ci F U ' `O +N-i
to aU,0 �"' 'O O .'� O 'rs ^..yr 0 O N y � t'd Y>'� aQ�y;,a tcS � ;'a � ,`,;"O id •p. U .fit. � 'LS
T v, .O t r V O C?
'r •°w,' •s .� N W O al o `r`', O t~ r �"` w .= N W O
7y ov � oc� yyoo " c� Lu .?: 5 Tai 3 � k
Li ^-•. v p '� "cd ,-. f'. a� .`t' ,r•E as a'��F,s,.�^o `� M,o% O � ca v
o Rcicj .-
+ m
.5 0.
tiU t5 Op .Oa
,�,.,.�..,, .��O ,L.�=.L"a vC3.' ��"' Viou-+'a".�� +U�F•+ N❑id.b.c'.a�NC', ,Ui t:ai Upca P+ `oo G Ors' *�O7
O o GQ
•.��'i�cd
� O ec�cef � N T�
U0
cC o o ° N Sly D ° '� m d'
I ■
a
1
0
•� w
H
,G O+
� O cad
U
x a N
o � � At
O U
y'C U
cdEn
�r
r p're�
O U d
N C
yO� Do
N N
J N f O
y N bP� '7, N+ ✓� N
.•a jam" a-. .'' ^�" ..^ N t .�+ �'" F�+.� N '' t: p Ay ES N
H tr. F
O vN J"� �ij .� �' O O •oU 00 0? G t) •�'CS `'z/ H }��''U+
W
cn
N y,� p'O O U O➢ E6
py 7 J �•v.'.� � �c3„ � � y .��' yN,� O .r �' � 7 '•' N 7'' •-t,.''
C4ds.-" y N .� N O H � U N p..�p,N O O� LJ> �'.^i•� 7r. � �p �i.
�' ,G G+y .D .�+ D3'✓ SG,� U.'�' Li•�oD J t�%%3 U p
J �-rs o G u � .. O G a� O o .�•a
v-18 :d v 40) .0 m
�`•N -' r Q•�'�' '.1 @ �•id : O � N .�+, (33, OyH+ ,dyj � c5
tn
v J
t
d y
� R
o P+J
U
O
y7' d Q
G p�
�o �lip
a
�+ U
Q
V
a J
•o w J
v, o
G N M
�-
x
I
S.0
ta
OD 05
m a
61
V U y•n U N V
U N iOD
' G� � G ci 1 �, ��, �N p� �O G �F dl �, c3•.a L{{S,,, ,,, N
N N -0 G v,Ok
Os It
tAOD
OD
OQ'C3 •O rd G ', ,' U r�n T ' y a•+ NG
G�• DA N .✓ ^', �y 4G+ cn td 61 c6 .r1
G o � .� °+ � � yam `,' - v � U o ✓ ~� tr, a� coo cG L, Q U
U ft1 ar, •O O G ° y N .rj, dp cd c{3,'1 � ,•v "� .U+ 2 N t5
N � �� ami ° LsU `� V� 0
jz �
dt 6 � cy"YGti of v ai 4) c`d
a
N y
•O � O
0
0
G .^
7^
� � r
G O
G flpi� p � O G i
p N
m
v
Uo CY
0o p U U
w
o p4
m
d
G
W w
O V
a � r
u, .r
d
F �
� � V1 N ° ✓ e'�j
N % ✓ v d c1 G+ O o m C . C P v p
. � 1� 'w �" � V�'«i ✓ y G N � �'+ � �,i:: R3
ig,
p p'�'` C^ G 3 o H a
R
'H•` rf ?'v.� d pp
G
lull
c'tls Uo �a ° aro `� ° m y o� w v 11) T : o
� c ° o
� 4J "�J' S p O a6 � N ...+ � O �� H N p � � LTp''' :ty+� �P N U�,,,.•��•+•,.�, N
.•^'N p .p,
O a N N `L1 Wj .0. w . 'Si Tp W N
S m a4 � a G p G. p o tj Ts
OA
cl� rn
en
.rl
00
7-
tn
O C) -3
1"72
tg�
C,rA lo- 's ?� o `6 tn th s-— o . SA
tp
Ac., 5
";A cd
18 .5
o . 'A
t.� DD N1�
C) trl
cy tr
t4-.:a
Ll • to
tr) tb
5,
Ita'0 0)
.� N r''DU G QS`d 'O .,. •� ,.� G+ td 1 .. y u� y^Jl\G� " N'�,
tr.
NL
'000G �
4-+
'cl vo �o Com.
•C oD� °' o c� `�
°IDA o �
3
w
cn o h U^Q
In
c p cs
oo c h U ts1
rn
dcr, d O U
d O
� d0 U
� rQ�
d
O
O
Vi
3 �
w
H
O y p
N � O � O• y H`ti 't-
C) %
p,
r
N C� d �, �•�1 p y .y y
O Qc ?
q e r�� 'G ✓ ea .tl Ly G v N!
a O �" {�. Y y N .•i4 � L' .•+ y � pj N m y � Ofl,•"n oa ° J td G
_ C3 0
Z 9 o 00 G o y °°' y p..�y o •d o
w •y� 0- ;d ^'' �cd' cC y N O cJ o O =,r , G. '�� ",p p
J ,�`�,, ,p ,.•GO v N y c" „�' O & O N G v ca ++ G ..•.: N u0'
1 + N O r
ems N S` � �, •� Q y Gk .p❑ a> c?'�a� o� C � w id y w u}y ✓ p � �d r
ED
cl
.y
� r
as y
OD
PA
71
s� to
4
C I
0 , Pl O N IS
S 0 tr�
4) tn w
to 0
ot 0
s 5
SO
S
Exhibit 5
Staff Study
April 11 , 2006
i
a
as y
e
P
J
♦ y
y N 7
"7.
�G+
e
G
N O
d
. � O
OJO
8 d a cd
p,
COS ami 4 a
r^J ' o O ° .�n °� �r ° a T•
a%' r'%' N N o 7-.',.-� �"� �G N G.O� i O� ° '..^N � � .��d r.�+� N °U• � G
tA
roU vcN d7aO vv �y� w3 o400
� �
° Ui SM w
d O 4 j
amu, J
t
,� t
a
F � �
°
osaa
� w
0
o
A �
oc
U
oU on
M a C
� N
A
m �
a
DO �_ as
w � a a
E I
p N
C4
a �
cu
71 cn
Cti ,7
1C
S y n cC S
o
w
w
a
a�
0 0
.a .K u « r o . o c c°i t'. a� � ou o ID
y D cd td D C U
0 0 w C ° w m �° y ° o b chi o ca y y
°
a) ° y U
» ° o o• 5 �' ° 0 ° ° y o U ° aoi o
o
MO o
, '.�
a
/--� CD Ci V '� " a) OD N •� 0 in N A '0 d 0 C. 8
0 0 C wo cd E b 2 o FM is
w ti > o P a°�i °� a o aoi " bC ` - ° a`"i
ro
to to w s
o o ° v 0 °
m a - p
cid 'a� G °' axi v o y G to
rr op " a o
o ��+ C i:.l oCn aai
ice. '.7Q"'.7 r5„ ��„ N ., -1 a ° '� o a) N
O c o � �� C.
as ob O y g� n � � m o o o� '� °o � � 0 0'
W u 0 o `•3 .a � v� � �I � a 3 � � � � o on.^ � v � � c� � p •rJ � �,c "n��
' V1N210d11v0'kLNf100 v1S00 vl LLN00
z9m.in smdo-LNvsv3ld . EE58 NOISIAI(isns .d-
�' !b Hinos QS 1Sv3 m L L NOd dVW 3ALLv1N31 EMMA r
'�•� ON11:133NION3 NOS13W3`N SNISVO NOUN3130 a�
o,
r
!v 1 u-)
cc
S \ _ / I \ao � _ -1-
_ Q
tR
da g
t'1 ' / I d tts_ , z
ff 1 F- -
�■
\ / tz 4
\ ov^oon
o
1` Hpp O O u7 00 N w ,*� tL N4
G3� V n W l.]U UUU
Nn� Z qp
W L)L)
U o�Q P� m $ 6o zVY .f z ? pn F'i�
00 u O n0 L2m 1 f n �< �` �WFW-• NO N 4 V7Of`m
CV) n Z11� O J nom'^ WWD -'t�o / / J nNo 4y ��h
\t n >>O TUy.}'�Q'mN UZ dN W � V =oF
mW�> Nl4l/VINILLA fOVU2 ���� "--n
>m LOAllL3doMd rj
WJ O N�N n ,^rj�,i / z_ Y/ o R N
't vl Oi/7 <a --m v0— Z— Q „yX O•• ■� �� W OZ Z
t Q,� IJ. vrn�nnm. O mJ U s� ^ �+ a:= D pZ ,.
tt WpoW ¢ -O.0- U WZW / xx i G W �OOmJJ O !�
® F N -- ¢ U 4O In
O ttt CC,
m /NN ¢ �~
0' Mg <O I...p �NNN"N
Y �4- V'1 Z_ Z I l J U�-� �� D <'- IJ NN NNN
,'1 'pp Wad u'I aorn oO— ooaa o'n /
Q�Q0 W Nto N[�vNN �r,20 v)>z I
r
M z
`\\`\� I I � r i / \ I I I\ r � I i •
\\\LO� \'
LL
1Cl) er
-Ta x
If It,
N
-- N/ I \
Ap- If
1a)
1K Mg
fill 2
Cq
Lo
bbb
CIO w
LU
m n6yQQll bg "-Ib xo tyG a er��S � �"�
EXHIBIT 2-B
GENERAL FINDINGS RELATED TO APPROVAL OF
VARIANCES AND MAP FOR EL SOBRANTE SUBDIVISION 8533
BY THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
I. INTRODUCTION
1. These general findings are adopted by the Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors ("Board") for the El Sobrante Subdivision 8533 (the "Project").
These findings refer to the EIR prepared for that project, SCH 42003,102107 ("EIR"), and
are based upon that EIR. These findings are also based upon the staff reports presented
to the Planning Commission and the Board, all materials contained in the record of
proceedings including public testimony, and as identified in the CEQA Findings for the
Project (Exhibit 2-A). Some findings are based especially upon specific reports, or upon
specific pages of the EIR, as noted below. However, all findings are based upon the
entire record. References to specific reports and specific pages of documents are for ease
of reference only, and are not intended to identify those sources as the exclusive basis for
the finding.
2. These general findings are attached as Exhibit 2-B and
incorporated by reference into the following approval documents pertaining to the
Project:
• Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 1); and .
• Vesting Tentative Map dated 10/23/2004.
For ease of reference, all the relevant findings under the Planning and
Zoning Law,.the County Code, and other applicable policies or regulations are included
in this one document.
3. Attached to these same approval documents is an Exhibit 2-A that
contains CEQA Findings, Also attached is an Exhibit 4 that references impacts,
mitigation measures, and resulting levels of significance, and sets forth the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMR-P"). All Exhibits are incorporated by
reference into each other, and into the approval documents.
4. These findings use capitalized terms as they are used in the EIR.
References to title, chapter and to code sections are references to the County Code unless
the context clearly indicates otherwise. References to Exhibits are references to the
exhibits attached to the approval documents to which this Exhibit 2-B is attached.
II. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
5. The Project is governed by the Contra Costa County General Plan
and any decision by the County affecting land use and development must be consistent
Exhibit 2-B
Genera!Findings for
Subdivision 8533
with the General Plan. This Board adopts the conclusions, analysis and explanations
contained in the EIR, staff reports and these findings regarding the consistency of the
Project with the General Plan.
6. The Project Sponsor has proposed the development of a 40-lot
residential subdivision located on approximately 10 acres designated Single-Family
Residential-High Density by the General Plan. This Board approves variances and a
subdivision that will allow a maximum of 34 residential lots, subject to certain review
criteria listed in Conditions of Approval number:
42 General Site Plan Alterations;
#8 — 14, 18, & 20 Review for Impacts to Biologic Resources;
#23 Graded Slope Restrictions
446-49 Design Review
#59 Road Design
474 - 87 Hydrology
7. The following reference to "Project" is defined as the project that
has been approved by the Board of Supervisors including any Conditions of Approval.
General Plan policies that are pertinent to the development of this site
include those identified in Table 4.1-1 on pages 4.1-5 through 4.1-10 of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for this project. Among the pertinent General Plan policies
are the following:
Land Use Element
3-202 "Upgrade the community's drainage system to eliminate
problems caused by local inundation, ponding and sheet
overflow during storms, ...."
Conservation Element
.8-3 "Watersheds, natural waterways, and areas important for
the maintenance of natural vegetation and wildlife
populations shall be preserved and enhanced."
8-10 "Any development located or proposed within significant
ecological resource areas shall ensure that the resource is
protected."
8-14 "Development on hillsides shall be limited to`maintain
valuable natural vegetation especially forests and open
B-2
Exhibit 2-B-
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
.grasslands, and to control erosion. Development on open
hillsides and significant ridgelines throughout the County
shall be restricted, and hillsides with a grade of 26 percent
or greater shall be protected through implementing zoning
measures and other appropriate actions."
Safety Element
9-11 "Proposed extensions of urban or suburban land uses into
areas characterized by slopes over 15 percent and/or
generally unstable land shall be evaluated with regard to
safety hazard prior to the issuance of any discretionary
approvals. Development on open hillsides and significant
ridgelines shall be restricted, and hillsides with a grade of
26 percent or greater throughout the County shall be
protected through implementing zoning measures and other
appropriate actions."
9-12 "Generally, residential density shall decrease as slope
increases, especially above a 15 percent slope."
8. The General Plan defines the densities of its residential
designations in terms of housing units per net acre as described in Chapter 4.1 of the
Draft Environmental Impact Report ( Draft EIR) (Land Use and Planning), including
modifications to this chapter described on Pages 228-229 of the Final Environmental
Impact Report (Final EIR). The General Plan designates the site Single Family
Residential—High Density, 5.0— 7.2 dwelling units per net acre. Net acreage includes :
all land area used exclusively for residential purposes, and excludes street, highways and
all other public rights-of-way. Under the General Plan, net acreage is assumed to
constitute 75 percent of gross acreage for single family residential uses, including the
Single-Family Residential-High Density land use designation. (Land Use Element 3-13,
Table 3-4). The Project site's gross acreage is 10 acres, which results in 7.5 net acres.
Applied to this site, the General Plan density range of 5.0 to 7.2 units per net acre would
normally be 37 to 54 units. However, Page 3-13 of the Land Use Element of the General
Plan also provides that the allowable density range may be reduced under the following
circumstances:
When calculating the allowed density of a parcel, readers should keep in
mind that unique environmental characteristics may justify a reduced
number of units or intensity of use than is normally allowed under the
General Plan designation. "
9. : This Board finds that the Project site contains unique
environmental characteristics that would justify a reduced number of units than is
normally allowable under the General Plan designation. Those unique environmental
characteristics include:
B-3
Exhibit 2-B
Genera!Findings for
Subdivision 8533
• The creekbeds of two tributaries of Garrity Creek which run
alongside the west and south boundaries of the site, and
wetlands on a nearby hillside; the creekbeds and wetlands
contain unique environmental resources that are not adequately
protected by the Project as proposed. Also, greater separation
of residential development from a nearby seep on the hillside is
warranted;
• Steep slopes that warrant protection. Eighty-four (84) percent
of the Project site contains slopes with a grade of 15% or
greater. Sixteen (16)percent of the Project site (including
much of the northern area of the site occupied by Lots 27 and
28) contain slopes that have grades of 26% or greater. These
slopes warrant protection by restriction on development;I and
• The shape and configuration of the Project site, including a
relatively narrow stem component that connects the main
portion of the site to its entrance on Hilltop Drive.
10. .This Board finds that in consideration of these unique Project site
characteristics and related general plan policies, that to allow for a finding of Project
consistency with the General Plan it is necessary to reduce the number of residential lots
from 40 lots to a maximum of 35 lots as required by the Conditions of Approval. Some
of the area of the eliminated and modified residential lots shall be placed within a deed-
restricted Open Space parcel in.the northwest corner of the property to be owned and
maintained by a project homeowners association with possible provision for limited
public access. Moreover, additional reductions in the Project unit count may also be
required prior to approval of a Final Map as a result of the Project's obligation to comply
with other Conditions of Approval pertaining to:
• Hydrology;
• Geotechnical;
• Biological;
• Compliance with specified zoning ordinance parameters; and
• Design Review.
This Board finds that the reduction in units necessary to comply
with the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit 1 are consistent with the General "
Plan goals and policies, including the land use designation for the Project site.
Accordingly,this Board finds that the Project is consistent with the General Plan.
Ref.Figure 3-6(Slope Map)on pg. 3-11 of the Draft EIR.
B-4
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
11. This Board finds that the Project is compatible with, and conforms
to, the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan.
The Project furthers the objectives and policies of the General Plan and does not obstruct
their attainment. The Project, as conditioned through Conditions of Approval set forth in
Exhibit 1; is compatible with, and in harmony with, General Plan goals and policies.
Specifically, implementation of the Project will result in the fulfillment of several
important General Plan policies including reinforcement of the suburban character of the
area by continuing the single-family residential pattern, discouraging sprawl, maintaining
a compact urban form,compliance with the 65/35 urban limit line, as amended,
protection of terrain with slopes exceeding a 15% grade, and preservation and
enhancement of natural waterways and open space, all by promoting infill development
in an existing residential neighborhood.
12. This Board finds that the Project is in harmony with surrounding
neighborhoods,and the site is physically suitable for the type of development and
reduced density of development as required by the Conditions of Approval. The
surrounding area is primarily developed with single-family residential homes on lots
ranging from 5,000 to 40,000 square feet in area. The Project allows development on lots
that must equal or exceed 7000 square feet in area. The Project is not likely to cause
serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantial and avoidable
injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat.
13. In support of the proposed Project, the attorney for the Applicant
cited a provision of State Planning Law that is relevant to a local agency's review of a
residential subdivision project such as this project is Section 65589.5 0) of the
Government Code relative to determining appropriate unit yield for a project. This law
reads in part:
"When a proposed housing development project complies with
applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and
criteria (emphasis added), including design review standards, in
effect at the time that the housing development project's
application is determined to be complete, but the local agency
proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the
condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local
agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing
'development project upon written findings supported by
substantial evidence on the record that both of the following
conditions exist:.... "
This Board finds that the requirement of this provision of the law
for a local agency to base its decision regarding the proposed project upon specified
written findings does not apply to this project insofar as the Project as proposed does not
comply with:
• The zoning standards and criteria that were in effect on
B-5
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
November 28, 2004, the date when the modified Vesting
Tentative Map Application was accepted as complete. As
reviewed in the March 21, 2006 staff report to the Board of
Supervisors, the proposed Project does not comply with
the average lot width and lot depth standards, or yard
standards (retaining wall/fence, arch culvert, residence) of
the Single Family Residential R-7 zoning district (Chapter
84-6 of Title 8 of the Ordinance Code);
• The applicable, objective general plan standards and
criteria. Eighty-four percent of the site has a grade of 15%
or greater. Safety Element 10-28 provides that"Generally,
residential density shall decrease as slope increases,
especially above a 15 percent slope." Further, the Land
Use Element provides that"unique environmental
characteristics may justify a reduced number of units or
intensity of use than is normally allowed under the General
Plan designation: This Board finds that the Project site has
unique steep slope characteristics (and other characteristics
identified above) that justify a reduced number of units
than is normally allowed Linder the General Plan
designation, and that this conclusion is based on the
aforementioned applicable and objective general plan
standards and criteria for development on a grade of 15%
or greater.
14: The General Plan comprises many goals, objectives,policies,
principles, programs, standards, proposals and action plans, as well as performance
standards. The Board of Supervisors recognizes that certain policies necessarily compete
with each other. Examples of tensions between General Plan policies are found between
those policies that promote managed growth and encourage new residential construction,
and those that provide for protection of open space. This Board has considered all
applicable General Plan policies and the extent to which the Project conforms to, and
potentially competes..with, each of those policies. In balancing the need to provide
appropriate development separation buffers from creeks and wetland areas, and
protection of areas of the site with a steeper slope, reduces the area available for
residential development. This Board finds that the measures in the Conditions of
Approval allow for appropriate protection measures for these unique environmental
characteristics while allowing for the maximum number of units on the Project site.
15. For the reasons and policies stated in the EIR, in the staff reports,
in these findings, and in the CEQA Findings for the Project (Exhibit 2-A), this Board
finds that the balance achieved by the Project among competing General Plan policies is
acceptable, that the Project complies with all performance standards in the General Plan.
The Project achieves each applicable policy to some extent, and represents a reasonable
accommodation of all applicable policies in the General Plan.
B-6
Exhibit 1-B
Genera!Findings for
Subdivision: 8533
16. This Board has fully evaluated the extent to which the Project
achieves each policy in the General Plan, including those pertaining to density, standards
regarding slopes, geology, and soils, hazardous materials, flood hazards, drainage,
erosion and runoff, protection of water quality, protection of biological resources -
including riparian and wildlife habitat, transportation standards and goals, recreational
and aesthetic interests and protection of visual resources.
17. ' Following completion of the EIR, the Project Sponsor submitted a
Modified Site Plan dated January 5, 2006 constituting Exhibit 10 of the March 21, 2006
staff report to the Board. This Board finds that the Modified Site Plan does not contain
sufficient information about the site (e.g., topographical information) to allow for
productive analysis of its merits relative to EIR findings or General Plan policies, and
therefore has not based the Board's decision of the Project on that document.
18. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the Growth
Management Element Performance Standards of the General Plan and adopts the
conclusions, analysis and explanations contained in the EIR and staff reports regarding
the consistency of the Project with these standards.
19. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the traffic
standards and policies of the Growth Management Element. The EIR traffic study
measured peak hour traffic at key intersections in the site vicinity (along the Hilltop
Drive corridor). The analysis included calculation of existing Level of Service at these
intersections and forecasted the effect of Project-generated traffic on the operation of
these intersections. The traffic study also analyzed the existing plus project plus
cumulative scenario. Using the threshold of significance adopted by the County in the
Growth Management Element,the study concludes that the project will not have a
significant impact on Hilltop Drive traffic. Evaluation of the internal circulation of the
project identified significant impacts, and mitigation measures are proposed to reduce
those impacts to less-than-significant. This Board adopts the conclusions, analysis and
explanations contained in the traffic study and in Chapter 4.2 of the Draft EIR.
20. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the flooding
and drainage standards and policies of the Growth Management Element. No portion of
the Project site lies within a special flood hazard zone designated by the Federal
Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). The EIR indicates that the existing
Hilltop Green drainage facilities are adequate to carry peak flows from the 10-year storm
event. The hydrology chapter of the EIR summarizes technical data and engineering
analysis, which evaluated the effect of the project on peak runoff exiting the site. This
Board adopts the conclusions, analysis and explanations contained in this chapter. Based
on hydrologic model runs using methodology acceptable to the Flood Control District,
the Board finds that the two proposed storm water detention basins are capable of
keeping peak flows from the project at or below the pre-development level. Specifically,
for a runoff event with recurrence intervals of 10 years, peak flows at the Hilltop Green
culvert are decreased from 57 cubic feet per second (cfs) under existing conditions to 55
cfs after buildout of the project. For the 100-year runoff event, peak flows are reduced
B-7
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
from 85 cfs.to 83 cfs. The Project would not exacerbate potential flooding problems
downstream from the Project site and thus would not result in a significant impact. The
EIR states that the engineering details of basin design are not provided, and identifies
basin design and provision for long-term maintenance as a significant impact.
Performance criteria are provided as mitigation measures to require that engineering
detail to reduce those impacts to less-than-significant levels.
21. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the water and
waste disposal standards and policies of the Growth Management Element. The Project
site is within the EBMUD and West County Wastewater District service areas. The
Project applicant is required to comply with the requirements of these service districts.
22. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the fire
protection standards and policies of the Growth Management Element. The site is within
one mile of the fire station at #4640 Appian Way. Therefore, the project is not required
for purposes of a Project finding of consistency with the General Plan to equip residences
with interior sprinklers. The EIR proposes that the "emergency vehicle access" (EVA)
meet performance standards of the County Public Works Department and the Fire
Protection District. The District routinely is involved in the review of Improvement
Plans to ensure that hydrants (location, design), turnarounds and other fire safety-related
construction issues comply with the provisions of the Fire Code.
23. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the public
protection standards and policies of the Growth Management Element. The Growth
Management Element Standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff facility station per 1,000
population. The project will generate a population estimated at 3.25 persons per unit (an
increase of 127 persons). The size of the population increase is not significant, and the
Conditions of Approval require the Project applicant to establish a police service district
to augment police services.
24. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the parks and
recreation standards and policies of the Growth Management Element. The proposed
subdivision will have a relatively minor cumulative effect on demand for park and
recreation facilities, and is subject to payment of in-lieu park.dedication fees in
compliance with the Park Dedication Ordinance at time of issuance of building permits.
The EIR identifies protection of the private open space as a significant impact and
outlines detailed specifications to reduce those impacts to less-than-significant. Those
mitigation measures have been incorporated into the recommended Conditions of
Approval.
III. CONSISTENCY WITH ZONING
25. . The zoning district for the Project site is R-7 Single-Family
Residential District. The County adopts the conclusions, analysis and explanations
contained in the EIR and staff reports relating to the zoning. The Project will promote
the public health, safety and welfare by providing a maximum 35-unit residential infill
development in the El Sobrante area, located near transportation corridors, and designed
B-8
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
in a manner that integrates into the existing natural setting, protects hillsides and slopes,
and is environmentally sensitive.
26. The Board finds that the Project generally complies with the
Single-Family Residential (R-7) zoning designation, subject to granting of variances to
some of the standards of the R-7 district, as reviewed below, and allowed by provisions
of Chapter 84-6 of the Ordinance Code. The Project advances the purpose of the R-7
district to provide and protect areas for residential development. With the variances
authorized for approval as discussed below, the Project meets all requirements of the R-7
zoning district. The following also reviews Project variances that are denied.
IV. VARIANCES
27. Average Lot Width. The standard of the R-7 Single Family
Residential District is that single-family dwellings and structures be placed on lots no less
than 70 feet in average width. While meeting (and in some cases exceeding) the
minimum standard lot area, some of the lots within the Project are substandard in average
width, and would not be allowable without the granting of variances from the Zoning
Code standards. These lots exceed the minimum standard lot area, and if they could be
easily redrawn to reduce lot size by eliminating the triangular extension in the rear
without introducing confusion in ownership and land stewardship concerns, would meet
minimum average lot width. These lots are identified by an asterisk under the column on
the right side of Table 1 entitled "Meets R-7 Dimensional Standards" in the March 21,
2006 staff report to the Board.2 Strict adherence to the R-7 zoning standards would
inevitably result in compromising General Plan goals of protecting slopes and hillsides,
preserving open space, and providing for protection of biologically sensitive features. To
achieve the same privileges enjoyed.by properties in the R-7 zone.that do not face these
site constraints, variances are necessary. This Board finds that the granting of some
variances is appropriate due to the irregular shape of the these lots, and the method of lot
width calculation defined by County code, and concludes that approval of the requested
variances does not constitute a grant of special privilege.
. 28. Because of the special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including the location of the lots at a cul-de-sac bulb, and the irregular shape of
the property, this Board finds that strict application of the respective zoning regulations
will deprive the Project of rights enjoyed by others in the vicinity and the same zoning
district. With variances, the lots have ample area to develop a residence.
29. This Board finds that granting a variance for average lot width is
substantially consistent with the intent of the zoning district. The purpose of the R-7
district is to provide and protect areas for residential development. The substandard
average widths of certain lots are chiefly due to the irregular shape of the property. All
lots have an obvious building site, and all lots could accommodate residences that comply
with R-7 setback standards.
`'Other lots are 70 feet wide(or more)at the road frontage,but do not meet the average lot width due to the
lot depth measurement. See discussion that follows below on those lots.
B-9
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
30. In accordance with Section 82-10.002 of the Zoning Code (Small
Lot Occupancy Ordinance), any lot which does not meet minimum average width
requirements will be subject to the small lot review process prior to the issuance of a
building permit. This Board finds that this review process will further ensure that the
final design of the dwellings to be located on such lots will be consistent with the'
standards of the R-7 zoning designation.
31. The Conditions of Approval provide that no minimum lot width
variance shall be granted for a lot less than 60 feet in average lot width, for a maximum
of nine (9) lots; all other lots must fully comply with R-7 lot dimension standards
including the average lot width standard of a minimum 70 feet as defined by the code.
'The provision for variances to lot width is to address the situation that certain lots that
otherwise fully comply with R-7 standards are substandard due to added lot area beyond
the minimum requirements, and the code definition that has the effect of reducing the lot
to less than 70 feet. There are ten proposed lots that have these characteristics that
among those lots have an average lot width variance of 68 feet. However, instead of
allowing ten lots that are at variance to lot width with these characteristics, the County
would reduce the number of lots at variance to a maximum of nine (9) lots, and allow for
an average lot width of a minimum of 65 feet for those five lots. This Board finds that
such.a condition provides sufficient further assurance that the Project as developed will
be substantially consistent with the Zoning Code and will promote its objectives.
32. Retaining Walls. This Board finds that granting variances for the
construction of retaining walls does not constitute a grant of special privilege. The
objective of the project is to develop a residential subdivision in a hillside area while
protecting an existing creek corridor and minimizing grading within biologically sensitive
lands. The retaining walls proposed to be constructed for the Project will assist in
achieving this objective. The retaining wall along Royal Oaks Drive arch culvert will
minimize disturbance to riparian habitat. The location of the creek crossing was selected
by CDFG and the vertical alignment and width project roads are controlled by the
County's private road standards. The retaining wall south of the creek crossing results
from compliance with those standards. The retaining wall along Garrity Creek Drive will
minimize disturbance to biologically-sensitive lands west of the road alignment. The
retaining wall at the Adam Court cul-de-sac (and for the EVA) will minimize disturbance
to biologically sensitive lands to the west.
33. This Board finds that approval of variances for retaining walls is
appropriate due to special circumstances applicable to the property. The variances
requested for retaining walls are all associated with roadways. The County has adopted
private 'road standards. Retaining walls are commonly required in hillside areas to
comply with the horizontal and vertical alignment of private roads, especially where
grading of the area adjacent to the roadway is to be kept to a practical minimum. The
Board finds that due to the topography, location, and surroundings of the property, strict
application of the zoning regulations for retaining walls will deprive it of rights enjoyed
by others in the vicinity and within the same zoning district.
B-10
Exit ibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
34. This Board finds that approval of variances for retaining walls is
substantially consistent with the intent of the R-7 district. The purpose of the R-7 district
is to provide and protect areas for residential development. The use of retaining walls is
intended to allow the construction of a subdivision with one primary access road
connection to Hilltop Drive, along with an EVA connection to Manor Road, minimize
grading, and allow for preservation of the creek corridor.
35. Sound Barrier Wall. This Board has determined that approving a
variance for a sound barrier wall to shield a'front yard of Lot 1 is not a grant of a special
privilege. The EIR has determined that a sound barrier wall is needed to shield a front
yard of Lot 1 from traffic-related noise along the Hilltop Drive corridor (EIR Mitigation
Measure Noise-1). The Conditions of Approval require that the precise location and
design of the wall be determined prior to issuance of a grading permit.
36. This Board finds that approval of a variance for a sound barrier
wall to shield the rear yard of Lot 1 is appropriate due to the special circumstance of
marginally acceptable noise levels along Hilltop Drive. Strict application of the zoning
regulations in this situation would deprive the property of rights enjoyed by other
properties in the same zoning designation.
37. This.Board finds that approval of a variance for the construction of
a well-designed sound barrier wall is substantially consistent with the intent of the R-7
district to provide and protect areas for residential development.
38. Front Yards. This Board finds that approval of variances from
front yard setback requirements for up to 20 lots is not a grant of special privilege. The
variance granted will allow for a more varied streetscape within the project by allowing
15-feet for approximately half of the lots rather than the normal minimum 20 foot
standard. The portion that is allowed to be placed closer than 20 feet shall not involve the
garage component of the residence and shall be limited to a one story element.
39. This Board also adopts the recommendation of County staff that
additional variances be granted to reduce front yard setbacks, to provide for visual
diversity in the frontscapes. This Board finds that the approval of such variances does
not constitute a grant of special privilege as the variances will comply with modern
aesthetic standards that.were not applied to existing lots in the R-7 zone, and the
variances will improve the aesthetic quality of the Project by allowing for a more varied
streetscape. The variances will be offset by deeper setbacks on other lots, to achieve the
varied streetscape. The Project could not achieve the varied setbacks in compliance with
the R-7 standards unless excessively deep setbacks were required on these other lots,
which would deprive these other lots of benefits enjoyed by standard lots in the R-7 zone.
Staggered fronts will achieve, on average, the same approximate building space and
average setbacks as would strict compliance with R-7 zoning standards.
40. This Board finds that approval of variances from the required front
yard setback is appropriate due to the special circumstance of the property's topography
and will allow the homes to more appropriately fit into the natural slopes of the hillsides.
B-11
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
Strict application of the zoning regulations would deprive the property of rights enjoyed
by other properties in the vicinity and within the same R-7 zoning district.
41. This Board finds that approval of variances from the required front
yard setback is substantially consistent with the intent of the R-7 district to provide and
protect areas for residential development by providing fora more varied and visually
interesting streetscape.
42. Approval of variances from front yard setbacks will also serve to
advance the County's residential design goals and comply with modern design standards.
In order to ensure that the designs of the homes respect the terrain of the lots, some of the
homes located on steeper lots will have front yards setback of less than 20 feet. The
ability to place homes on lots depending on the site characteristics promotes protection of
the site, adds value and uniqueness to each property while ensuring individuality, and
provides for a varied streetscape.
43. Arch Culvert. This Board finds that approval of variances to allow
an arch culvert with the required yard areas is necessary to allow reasonable development
of this property which is physically divided by a creek, and must be crossed to allow for
access. 'This variance is required to accommodate a culvert that will be arched over the
creek, to avoid sensitive habitat. This variance is necessitated by the special
circumstance of the siting of the culvert, the location of the creek, and application of
modern rules encouraging placement of the culvert outside the banks of the creek, none
of which are faced by typical lots developed earlier in the R-7 zone. The creek forms a
natural boundary for a property line for the Project, and a variance is necessary to allow a
road supported by a structure to cross the creek.
44. This Board finds of variances to allow the arch culvert with the
yards of proposed lots is reasonable due to the creek topography and the planned use
density for the site Single Family Residential—High Density (5 — 7.2 units per net acre).
45. This Board finds that approval of these variances to allow the arch
culvert within the required yards of residential lots meets the intent and purpose of the
zoning district in that it allows for reasonable development under density standards of the
R-7 zoning district.
46. The.Project, as configured with the preceding described variances,
is consistent with the General Plan. The findings above regarding general plan
consistency, apply to the determination that the variances are consistent with the General
Plan.
47. Front Yard Variances forlots 2—5. This Board is unable to find
that the requested variances to the front yard requirements for Lots 2 -5 meets the intent
or purpose of the Ordinance Code, and denies those requested variances.
48. Lot Depth Variance for Lot 13. This Board is unable to find that
the requested variance to the R-7 lot depth requirement(minimum 90 feet) for Lot 13
B-12
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
0
Subdivision 8533
meets the intent or purpose of the R-7 district. This variance is denied.
49. Lot Width Variances for Four Lots with Irregular Shape. This
Board finds that in addition to the ten lots identified as being.substandard in lot width, but
which otherwise have characteristics that meet the R-7 lot dimensions, there are five
other lots that are 70 feet wide (or more) at the road frontage in addition to the 10 lots
with average lot widths described above, but have an irregular shape,due to the lot depth
measurement do not meet the intent and purpose of the Ordinance Code. Unlike the ten
lots with average lot width variances described above, these lots do not contain within
them lot dimensions that otherwise meet the R-7 lot dimension standards. The requested
variances for those four lots to the average lot width standard are denied.
V. SUBDIVISION MAP
50. Pursuant to Title 9 of the Contra Costa County Code, the County
finds that Subdivision Map 8533 is consistent with the goals and policies of the General
Plan. The findings above regarding General Plan consistency, apply to the determination
that the map is consistent with the General Plan. The Subdivision Map is discussed in
the staff reports presented to the County. The County approves Subdivision Map 8533
subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 1).
51. The conditions include additional review to provide further
assurance that.all lots within Subdivision Map 8533 meet applicable standards.
Specifically,a maximum 34 residential lot project is approved, subject to additional
review for effects on biological resources, Preliminary Review Submittal of grading and
residential designs, compliance with approved zoning standards, and with hydrologic and
road design standards, subject to the final review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator which may lead to further reductions in the number of allowed residential
lots for this project prior to approval of a Final Map.
52. Most of the site (84 percent) contains slopes that exceed a 15%
gradient; some of the property has slopes exceeding 261/o. This Board finds that the
Project responds to terrain constraints by reduction in the maximum number of allowable
residential lots; use of 21/2:1 (horizontal.to vertical) gradients for engineered slopes; use of
retaining walls along segments of project roads to limit the "footprint" of grading; and
minimizes disturbance to sensitive lands by stepping residences up and down the slope.
53. Subdivision Map 8533 contains all information required.by State
Law and by the County Code, including all information referenced in Ordinance Code
section 94-2.806. The Map provides, to the extent feasible given the nature of the site
and'the challenges faced in designing a viable development project, for future passive or
natural heating and cooling opportunities.
GAcurrent planning\curr-plan\afshar\General Findings-c.doc
RD\
Rev.4-12-2006-rd
B-13
EXHIBIT 2-B
GENERAL FINDINGS RELATED TO APPROVAL OF
VARIANCES AND MAP FOR EL SOBRANTE SUBDIVISION 8533
BY THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
I. INTRODUCTION
1. These general findings are adopted by the Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors ("Board") for the El Sobrante Subdivision 8533 (the "Project").
These findings refer to the EIR prepared for that project, SCH #2003102107 ("EIR"), and
are based upon that EIR. These findings are also based upon the staff reports presented
to the Planning Commission and the Board, all materials contained in the record of
proceedings including public testimony, and as identified in the CEQA Findings for the
Project (Exhibit 2-A). Some findings are based especially upon specific reports, or upon
specific pages of the EIR, as noted below. However, all findings are based upon the
entire record. References to specific reports and specific pages of documents are for ease
of reference only, and are not intended to identify those sources as the exclusive basis for
the finding.
2. These general findings are attached as Exhibit 2-B and
incorporated by reference into the following approval documents pertaining to the
Project:
• Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 1); and
• Vesting Tentative Map dated 10/23/2004.
For ease of reference, all the relevant findings under the Planning and
Zoning Law, the County Code, and other applicable policies or regulations are included
in this one document.
3. Attached to these same approval documents is an Exhibit 2-A that
contains CEQA Findings. Also attached is an Exhibit 4 that references impacts,
mitigation measures, and resulting levels of significance, and sets forth the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP"). All Exhibits are incorporated by
reference into each other, and into the approval documents.
.4. These findings use capitalized terms as they are used in the EIR.
References to title, chapter and to code sections are references to the County Code unless
the context clearly indicates otherwise. References to Exhibits are references to the
exhibits attached to the approval documents to which this Exhibit 2-B is attached.
II. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
5. The Project is governed by the Contra Costa County General Plan
and any decision by the County affecting land use and development must be consistent
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
with the General Plan. This Board adopts the conclusions, analysis and explanations
contained in the EIR, staff reports and these findings regarding the consistency of the
Project with the General Plan. y
6. The Project Sponsor has proposed the development of a 40-lot
residential subdivision located on approximately 10 acres designated Single-Family
Residential-High Density by the General.Plan. This Board approves variances and a
subdivision that will allow a maximum of 34 residential lots, subject to certain review
criteria listed in Conditions of Approval number:
#2 General Site Plan Alterations;
#8 — 14, 18, & 20 Review for Impacts to Biologic Resources;
423 Graded Slope Restrictions
446 -49 Design Review
#59 Road Design
474 - 87 Hydrology
7. The following reference to "Project" is defined as the project that
has been approved by the Board of Supervisors including any Conditions of Approval.
General Plan policies that are pertinent to the development of this site
include those identified in Table 4.1-1 on pages 4.1-5 througli 4.1-10 of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for this project. Among the pertinent General Plan policies
are the following:
Land Use Element
3-202 '`Upgrade the community's drainage system to eliminate
problems caused by local inundation, ponding and sheet
overflow during storms, ...."
Conservation Element
8-3 "Watersheds, natural waterways, and areas important for
the maintenance of natural vegetation.and wildlife
populations shall be preserved and enhanced."
8-10 "Any development located or proposed within significant
ecological resource areas shall ensure that the resource is
protected."
8-14 "Development on hillsides shall be limited to maintain
.valuable natural vegetation especially forests and open
B-2
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
grasslands, and to control erosion. Development on open
hillsides and significant ridgelines throughout the County
shall be restricted, and hillsides with a grade of 26 percent
or greater shall be protected through implementing zoning
measures and other appropriate actions."
Safety Element
9-11 ."Proposed extensions of urban or suburban land uses into
areas characterized by slopes over 15 percent and/or
generally unstable land shall be evaluated with regard to .
safety hazard prior to the issuance of any discretionary.
approvals. Development on open hillsides and significant
ridgelines shall be restricted, and hillsides with a grade of
26 percent or greater throughout the County shall be
protected through implementing zoning measures and other
appropriate actions."
9-12 "Generally, residential density shall decrease as slope
increases, especially above a 15 percent slope."
8. The General Plan defines the densities of its residential
designations in terms of housing units per net acre as described in Chapter 4.1 of the
Draft Environmental Impact Report ( Draft EIR) (Land Use and Planning), including
modifications to this chapter described on Pages 228-229 of the Final Environmental
Impact Report (Final EIR). The General Plan designates the site Single Family
Residential—High-Density, 5.0— 7.2 dwelling units per net acre. Net acreage includes
all land area used exclusively for residential purposes, and excludes street, highways and
all other public rights-of-way. Under the General Plan, net acreage is assumed to
constitute 75 percent of gross acreage for single family residential uses, including the
Single-Family Residential-High Density land use designation: (Land Use Element 3-13,
Table 3-4). The Project site's gross acreage is 10 acres, which results in 7.5 net acres.
Applied to this site, the General Plan density range of 5.0 to 7.2 units per net acre would
normally be 37 to 54 units. However, Page _3 3 of the Land Use Element of the General
Plan also provides that the allowable density range may be reduced under the following
circumstances:
"When calculating the allowed density of a parcel, readers .should keep in
mind that unique environmental characteristics may justify a reduced
number of units or intensity of use than is normally allowed under the
General Plan designation. "
9. This Board finds that the Project site contains unique
environmental characteristics that would justify a reduced number of units than is
normally allowable under the General Plan designation. Those unique environmental
characteristics include:
B-3
Exhibit 2-B
Genera!Findings for
Subdivision 8533
• The creekbeds of two tributaries of Garrity Creek which run
alongside the west and south boundaries of the site, and
wetlands on a nearby hillside; the creekbeds and wetlands
contain unique environmental resources that are not adequately
protected by the Project as proposed. Also, greater separation
of residential development from a nearby seep on the hillside is
warranted,
• Steep slopes that warrant protection. Eighty-four (84) percent
of the Project site contains slopes with a grade of 15% or
greater. Sixteen (16) percent of the'Project site (including
much of the northern area of the site occupied by.Lots 27 and
28) contain slopes that have grades of 26% or greater. These
slopes warrant protection by restriction on development;' and
• The shape and configuration of the Project site, including a
relatively narrow stem component that connects the main
portion of the site to its entrance on Hilltop Drive.
10.. This Board finds that in consideration of these unique Project site
characteristics and related general plan policies, that to allow for a finding of Project
consistency with the General Plan it is necessary to reduce the number of residential lots
from 40 lots to a maximum of 35 lots as required by the Conditions of Approval. Some
of the area of the eliminated and modified residential lots shall be placed within a deed-
restricted Open Space parcel in the northwest corner of the property to be.owned and
maintained by a project homeowners association with possible provision for limited
public access. Moreover, additional reductions in the Project unit count may also be
required prior to approval of a Final Map as a result of the Project's obligation to comply
with other Conditions of Approval pertaining to:
• Hydrology;
• Geotechnical;
• Biological;
• Compliance with specified zoning ordinance parameters; and
• Design Review.
This Board finds that the reduction in units necessary to comply
with the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit 1 are consistent with the General
Plan goals and policies, including the land use designation for the Project site.
Accordingly, this Board finds that the Project is consistent with the General Plan.
' Ref. Figure 3-6(Slope Map)on pg. 3-11 of the Draft EIR.
B-4
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
11. This Board finds that the Project is compatible with, and conforms
to, the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan.
The Project furthers the objectives and policies of the General Plan and does not obstruct
their.attainment. The Project, as conditioned through Conditions of Approval set forth in
Exhibit 1, is compatible with, and in harmony with, General Plan goals and policies.
Specifically, implementation of the Project will result in the fulfillment of several
important General Plan policies including reinforcement of the suburban character of the
area by continuing the single-family residential pattern, discouraging sprawl, maintaining
a compact urban form, compliance with the 65/35 urban limit line, as amended,
protection of terrain with slopes exceeding a 15% grade, and preservation and
enhancement of natural waterways and open space, all by promoting infill development
in an existing residential neighborhood.
12. This Board finds that the Project is in harmony with surrounding
neighborhoods. and the site is physically suitable for the type of.development and
reduced density of development as required by the Conditions of Approval. The
surrounding area is primarily developed with single-family residential homes on lots
ranging from 5,000 to 40,000 square feet in area. The Project allows development on lots
that must equal or exceed 7000 square.feet in area. The Project is not likely to cause
serious.health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantial and avoidable
injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat.
13. In support of the proposed Project, the attorney for the Applicant
cited a provision of State Planning Law that is relevant to a local agency's review of a
residential subdivision project such as this project is Section 65589.5 0) of the
Government Code relative to determining appropriate unit yield for a project. This laws
reads in part:
When a proposed housing development project complies with
applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and
criteria (emphasis added), including design review standards, in
effect at the time that the housing development project's
application is determined to be complete, but the local agency.
proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the
condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local
agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing
development project upon written findings.supported by
substantial evidence on the record that both of the following
conditions exist:....
This Board finds that the requirement of this provision of the laws
fora local agency to base its decision regarding the proposed project upon specified
written
'findings does not apply to this project insofar as the Project as proposed does not.
comply with:
• The zoning standards and criteria that were in effect on
B-5
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings fir
Subdivision 8533
November 28, 2004, the date when the modified Vesting
Tentative Map Application was accepted as complete. As
reviewed in the March 21, 2006 staff report to the Board of
Supervisors, the proposed Project does not comply with
the average lot width and lot depth standards, or yard
standards (retaining wall/fence, arch culvert, residence) of
the Single Family Residential R-7 zoning district (Chapter
84-6 of Title 8 of the Ordinance Code).
• The applicable, objective general plan standards and
criteria. Eighty-four percent of the site has a grade of 15%
or greater. Safety Element 10-28 provides that "Generally,
residential density shall decrease as slope increases,
especially above a 15 percent slope." Further, the Land
Use Element provides that "unique environmental
characteristics may justiA, a reduced number of units or
intensity of use than is normally allowed under the General
Plan designation. This Board finds that the Project site has
unique steep slope characteristics (and other characteristics
identified above) that justify a reduced number of units
than is normally allowed under the General Plan
designation, and that this conclusion is based on the
aforementioned applicable and objective.general plan
standards and criteria for development on a grade of 15%
or greater.
14. The General Plan comprises many goals, objectives, policies,
principles, programs, standards, proposals and action plans, as well as performance
standards. The Board of Supervisors recognizes that certain policies necessarily compete
with each other. Examples of tensions between General Plan policies are found between
those policies that promote managed growth and encourage new residential construction.
and those that provide for protection of open space. This Board has considered all
applicable General Plan policies and the extent to which the Project conforms to, and
potentially competes with, each of those policies. In balancing the need to provide
appropriate development separation buffers from creeks and wetland areas, and
protection of areas of the site with a steeper slope, reduces the'area available for
residential development. This Board finds that the measures in the Conditions of
Approval allow for appropriate protection measures for these unique environmental
characteristics while allowing for the maximum number of units on the Project site.
15. For the reasons and policies stated in the EIR, in the staff reports,
in these findings, and in the CEQA Findings for the Project (Exhibit 2-A), this Board
finds that the balance achieved by the Project among competing General Plan policies is
acceptable,that the Project complies with all performance standards in the General Plan.
The Project achieves each applicable policy to some extent, and represents a reasonable
accommodation of all applicable policies in the General Plan.
B-6
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
16. This Board has fully evaluated the extent to which the Project
achieves each policy in the General Plan, including those pertaining to density, standards
regarding slopes, geology, and soils, hazardous materials, flood hazards, drainage,
erosion and runoff, protection of water quality, protection of biological resources
including riparian and wildlife habitat. transportation standards and goals, recreational
and aesthetic interests and protection of visual resources.
17. Following completion of the EIR, the Project Sponsor submitted a
Modified Site Plan dated January 5, 2006 constituting Exhibit 10 of the March 21, 2006
staff report to the Board. This Board finds that the Modified Site Plan does not contain
sufficient information about the site (e.g., topographical information) to allow for
productive analysis of its merits relative to EIR findings or General Plan policies: and
therefore has not based the Board's decision of the Project on that document.
18. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the Growth
Management Element Performance Standards of the General Plan and adopts the
conclusions, analysis and explanations contained in the EIR and staff reports regarding
the consistency of the Project with these standards.
19. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the traffic
standards and policies of the Growth Management Element. The EIR traffic study
measured peak hour traffic at key intersections in the site vicinity (along the Hilltop
Drive corridor). The analysis included calculation of existing Level of Service at these
intersections and forecasted the effect of Project-generated traffic on the operation of
these intersections. The traffic study also analyzed the existing plus project plus
cumulative scenario. Using the threshold of significance adopted by the County in the
Growth Management Element, the study concludes that the project will not have a
significant impact on Hilltop Drive traffic. Evaluation of the internal circulation of the
project identified significant impacts, and mitigation measures are proposed to reduce
those impacts to less-than-significant. This Board adopts the conclusions, analysis and
explanations contained in the traffic study and in Chapter 4.2 of the Draft EIR.
20. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the flooding
and drainage standards and policies of the Growth Management Element. No portion of
the Project site lies within a special flood hazard zone designated by the.Federal
Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). The EIR indicates that the existing
Hilltop Green drainage facilities are adequate to carry peak floes from the 10-year storm
event. The hydrology chapter of the EIR summarizes technical data and engineering
analysis, which evaluated the effect of the project on peak runoff exiting the site. This
Board adopts the conclusions, analysis and explanations contained in this chapter. Based
on hydrologic model runs using methodology acceptable to the Flood Control District,
the Board finds that the two proposed storm rater detention basins are capable of
keeping peak flows from the project at or below the pre-development level. Specifically,
for a runoff event with recurrence intervals of 10 years, peak flows at the Hilltop Green
culvert are decreased from 57 cubic feet per second (cfs) under existing conditions to 55
cfs after buildout of the project. For the 100-year runoff event, peak flows are reduced
B-7
Exiiibil 3-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
from 85 cfs to 83 cfs. The Project would not exacerbate potential flooding problems
downstream from the Project site and thus would not result in a significant impact. The
EIR states that the engineering details of basin design are not provided, and identifies
basin design and provision for long-term maintenance as a significant impact.
Performance criteria are provided as mitigation measures to require that engineering
detail to reduce those impacts to less-than-significant levels.
21. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the water and
waste disposal standards and policies of the Growth Management Element. The Project
site is within the EBMUD and West County Wastewater District service areas. The
Project applicant is required to comply with the requirements of these service districts.
22. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the fire
protection standards and policies of the Growth Management Element. The site is within
one mile of the fire station at#4640 Appian Way. Therefore, the project is not required
for purposes of a Project finding of consistency with the General Plan to equip residences
with interior sprinklers. The EIR proposes that the "emergency vehicle access" (EVA)
meet performance standards of the County Public Works Department and the Fire
Protection District. The District routinely isinvolved in the review of Improvement
Plans to ensure that hydrants (location, design), turnarounds and other fire safety-related .
construction issues comply with the provisions of the Fire Code.
23. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the public
protection standards and policies of the Growth Management Element. The Growth
Management Element Standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff facility station per 1,000
population. The project will generate a population estimated at 3.25 persons per unit (an
increase of 127 persons). The size of the population increase is not significant, and the
Conditions of Approval require the Project applicant to establish a police service district
to augment police services.
24. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the parks and
recreation standards and policies of the Growth Management Element. The proposed
subdivision will have a relatively minor cumulative effect on demand for park and
recreation facilities, and is subject to payment of in-lieu park,dedication fees in
compliance with the Park Dedication Ordinance at time of issuance of building permits.
The EIR identifies protection of the private open space as a significant impact and
outlines detailed specifications to reduce those impacts to less-than-significant. Those
mitigation measures have been incorporated into the recommended Conditions of
Approval.
III. CONSISTENCY WITH ZONING
25. The zoning district for the Project'site is R-7 Single-Family
Residential District. The County adopts the conclusions, analysis and explanations
contained in the EIR and staff reports relating to the zoning. The Project will promote
the public health, safety and welfare by providing a maximum 35-unit residential infill
development in the El Sobrante area, located near transportation corridors, and designed
B-8
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
in a manner that integrates into the existing natural setting, protects hillsides and slopes,
and is.environmentally sensitive.
26. The Board finds that the Project generally complies with the
Single-Family Residential (R-7) zoning designation,,subject to granting of variances to
some of the standards of the R-7 district, as reviewed below, and allowed by provisions
of Chapter 84-6 of the Ordinance Code. The Project advances the purpose of the R-7
district to provide and protect areas for residential development. With the variances
authorized for approval as discussed below, the Project meets all requirements of the R-7
zoning district. The following also reviews Project variances that are denied.
IV. . VARIANCES
27. Average Lot TVidth. The standard of the R-7 Single Family.
Residential District is that single-family dwellings and structures be placed on lots no less
than 70 feet in average width. NVhile meeting (and in some cases exceeding) the
minimum standard lot area, some of the lots within the Project are substandard in average
width, and would not be allowable without the granting of variances from the Zoning
Code standards. These lots exceed the minimum standard lot area, and if they could be.
easily redrawn to reduce lot size by eliminating the triangular extension in the rear
without introducing confusion in ownership and laird stewardship concerns, would meet .
minimum average lot width. These lots are identified by an asterisk under the column on
the right side of Table 1 entitled "Meets R-7 Dimensional Standards" in the March 21,
2006 staff report to the Board.` Strict adherence to the R-7 zoning standards would
inevitably result in compromising General Plan goals of protecting slopes and hillsides,
preserving open space, and providing for protection of biologically sensitive features. To
achieve the same privileges enjoyed by properties in the R-7 zone that do not face these
site constraints. variances are necessary. This Board finds that the granting of some
variances is appropriate due to the irregular shape of the these lots. and the method of lot
width calculation defined by County code, and concludes that approval of the requested
variances does not constitute a grant of special privilege.
28. Because of the special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including the location of the lots at a cul-de-sac bulb, and the irregular shape of
the property, this Board finds that strict application of the respective zoning regulations
will deprive the Project of rights enjoyed by others in the vicinity and the same zoning
district. With variances, the.lots have ample area to develop a residence.
29. This Board finds that granting a variance for average lot width is
substantially consistent with the intent of the zoning district. The purpose of the R-7
district is to provide and protect areas for residential development. The substandard
average widths of certain lots are chiefly due to the irregular shape of the property. All
lots have an obvious building site, and all lots could accommodate residences that comply
with R-7 setback standards.
`Other lots are 70 feet wide(or more)at the road frontage,but do not meet the average lot width due to the
lot depth measurement. See discussion that follows below on those lots. y
B-9
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for .
Subdivision 8533
30. In accordance with Section 82-10.002 of the Zoning Code (Small
Lot Occupancy Ordinance), any lot which does not meet minimum average width
requirements will be subject to the small lot review process prior to the issuance of a
building permit. This Board finds that this review process will further ensure that the
final design of the dwellings to be located on such lots will be consistent with the
standards of the R-7 zoning designation.
31. The Conditions of Approval provide that no minimum lot width
variance shall be granted for a lot less than 60 feet in average lot width, for a maximum
of nine (9) lots; all other lots must fully comply with R-7 lot dimension standards
including the average lot width standard of a minimum 70 feet as defined by the code.
The provision for variances to lot width is to address the situation that certain lots that
otherwise fully comply with R-7 standards are substandard due to added lot_area beyond
the minimurn requirements, and.the code definition that has the effect of reducing the lot
to less than 70 feet. There are ten proposed lots that have these characteristics that
among those lots have an average lot width variance of 68 feet. However: instead of
allowing ten lots that are at variance to lot width with these characteristics, the County
would reduce the number of lots at variance to a maximum of nine (9) lots, and all` w for
an average lot width of a minimum of 65 feet for those five lots. This Board finds that
such a condition provides sufficient further assurance that the Project as developed will
be substantially consistent with the Zoning Code and will promote its objectives.
32. Retaining Walls. This Board finds that granting variances for the
construction of retaining walls does not constitute a grant of special privilege. The
objective of the project is to develop a residential subdivision in a hillside area while
protecting an existing creek corridor and minimizing grading within biologically sensitive
lands. The retaining walls proposed to be constructed for the Project will. assist in
achieving this objective. The retaining wall along Royal Oaks Drive arch culvert will
minimize disturbance to riparian habitat. The location of the creek crossing.was selected
.by CDFG and the vertical alignment and width project roads are controlled by the
County's private road standards. The retaining wall south of the creek crossing results
from compliance with those standards. The retaining wall along Garrity Creek Drive will
minimize disturbance to biologically-sensitive lands west of the road alignment. The
retaining wall at the Adam Court cul-de-sac (and for the EVA) will minimize disturbance
to biologically sensitive lands to the west.. .
33. This Board finds that approval of variances for retaining walls is
appropriate due to special circumstances applicable to the property. The variances
requested for retaining walls are all associated with roadways. The County has adopted
private road standards. Retaining walls are commonly required in hillside areas to
comply with the horizontal and vertical alignment of private roads, especially where
grading of the area adjacent to the roadway is to be kept to a practical minimum. The
Board finds that due to the topography, location, and surroundings of the property, strict
application of the zoning regulations for'retaining walls will deprive it of rights enjoyed
by others in the vicinity and within the same zoning district.
B-10
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
34. This Board finds that approval of variances for retaining walls is
substantially consistent with the intent of the R-7 district. The purpose of the R-7 district
is to provide and protect areas for residential development. The use of retaining walls is
intended to allow the construction of a subdivision with one primary access road
connection to Hilltop Drive, along with an EVA connection to Manor Road, minimize
grading, and allow for preservation of the creek corridor.
35. Sound Barrier Wall. This Board has determined that approving a
variance for a sound barrier wall to shield a front yard of Lot 1 is not a grant of a special
privilege. The EIR has determined that a sound barrier wall is needed to shield a front
yard of Lot 1 from traffic-related noise along the Hilltop Drive corridor(EIR Mitigation
Measure Noise-1): The Conditions of Approval require that the precise location and
design of the wall be determined prior to issuance of a grading permit.
36. This Board finds that approval of a variance for a sound barrier
wall to shield the rear yard of Lot 1 is appropriate due to the special circumstance of
marginally acceptable noise levels along Hilltop Drive. Strict application of the zoning
regulations in this situation would deprive the property of rights enjoyed by other
properties in the same zoning designation.
37. This Board finds that approval of a variance for the construction of
a well-designed sound barrier wall is substantially consistent with the intent of the R-7
district to provide and protect areas for residential development.
.38. Front Yards. This Board finds that approval of variances from
front yard setback requirements for up to 20 lots is not a grant of special privilege. The
variance granted will allow for a more varied streetscape within the project by allowing
1'5-feet for approximately half of the lots rather than the non-nal minimum 20 foot
standard. The portion that is allowed to be placed closer than 20 feet shall,not involve the
garage component of the residence and shall be limited to a one story element.
39. This Board also adopts the recommendation of County staff that
additional variances be granted to reduce front yard setbacks, to provide for visual
diversity in the frontscapes. This Board finds that the approval of such variances does
not constitute a grant of special privilege as the variances will.comply with modern
aesthetic standards that were not applied to existing lots in the'R-7 zone, and the
variances will improve the aesthetic quality of the Project by allowing for a more varied
streetscape. The variances will be offset by deeper setbacks on other lots, to achieve the
varied streetscape. The Project could not achieve the varied setbacks in compliance with
the R-7 standards unless excessively deep setbacks were required on these other lots,
which would deprive these other lots of benefits enjoyed by standard lots in the R-7 zone.
Staggered fronts will achieve, on average, the same approximate building space and
average setbacks as would strict compliance with R-7.zoning standards.
40. This Board finds that approval.of variances from the required front
yard setback is appropriate due to the special circumstance of the property's topography
and will allow the homes to more appropriately fit into the natural slopes of the hillsides.
B-11
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
Strict application of the zoning regulations would deprive the property of rights enjoyed
by other properties in the vicinity and within the same R-7 zoning district.
41.. This Board finds that approval of variances from the required front
yard setback is substantially consistent with the intent of the R-7 district to provide and
protect areas for residential development by providing for a more varied and visually
interesting streetscape.
42. Approval of variances from front yard setbacks will also serve to
advance the County's residential design goals and comply with modern design standards.
In order to ensure that the designs of the homes respect the terrain of the lots, some of the
homes located on steeper lots will have front yards setback of less than 20 feet. The
ability to place homes on lots depending on the site characteristics promotes protection of
the site, adds value and uniqueness to each property while ensuring individuality,-and
provides for a varied streetscape.
43. Arch Culvert. This Board finds that approval of variances to allow
an arch culvert with the required yard areas is necessary to allow reasonable development
of this property which is physically divided by a creek, and must be crossed to allow for
access. This variance is required to accommodate a culvert that will be arched over the
creek, to avoid sensitive habitat. This variance is necessitated-by the special
circumstance of the siting of the culvert, the location of the creek, and application of
modern rules encouraging placement of the culvert outside the banks of the creek, none .
of which are faced by typical lots developed earlier in the R-7 zone. The creek forms a .
natural boundary for a property line for the Project, and a variance is necessary to allow a
road supported by a structure to cross the creek.
44. This Board finds of variances to allow the arch'culvert with the
yards of proposed lots is reasonable due to the creek topography and the planned use
density for the site Single Family Residential —High Density (5 — 7.2 units per net acre).
45. This Board'finds that approval of these variances to allow the arch
culvert within the required yards of residential lots meets the intent and purpose of the
zoning district in that it allows for reasonable development under density standards of the
R-7 zoning district.
46. The Project, as configured with the preceding described variances,
is consistent with the General Plan. The findings above regarding general plan
consistency, apply to the determination that the variances are consistent with the General
Plan.
47. Front Yard i ariances for Lots 2—5. This Board is unable to find
that the requested variances to the front yard requirements for Lots 2 -5 meets the intent
or purpose of the Ordinance Code, and denies those requested variances.
48. Lot Depth Variance.for Lot 13. This Board is unable to find that
the requested variance to the R-7 lot depth requirement (minimum 90 feet) for Lot 13
B-12
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
meets the intent or purpose of the R-7 district. This variance is denied.
49. Lot Width 1,'ariances for Four Lots tit ith Irregular Shape. This
Board finds that in addition to the ten lots identified as being substandard in lot width, but
which otherwise have characteristics that meet the R-7 lot dimensions, there are five
other lots that are 70 feet wide (or more) at the road frontage in addition to the 10 lots
with average lot widths described above, but have an irregular shape due to the lot depth
measurement do not meet the intent and purpose of the Ordinance Code. Unlike the ten
lots with average lot width variances.described above, these lots do not contain within
them lot dimensions that otherwise meet the R-7 Iot dimension standards. The requested
variances for those four lots to the average lot width standard are denied.
V. SUBDIVISION MAP
50. Pursuant to Title 9 of the Contra Costa. County Code, the County
finds that Subdivision Map 8533 is consistent with the goals and policies of the General
Plan. The findings above regarding General Plan consistency, apply to the determination
that the map is consistent with the General Plan. The Subdivision Map is discussed in
the staff reports presented to the County. The County approves Subdivision Map 8533
subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 1).
51. The conditions include additional review to provide further
assurance that all lots within Subdivision Map 8533 meet applicable standards.
Specifically, a maximum 34 residential lot project is approved, subject to additional
review for effects..oh biological resources. Preliminary Review Submittal of grading and
residential designs, compliance with approved zoning standards, and with hydrologic and
road design standards, subject to the final review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator which may lead to further reductions in the number of allowed residential
lots for this project prior to approval of a Final Map.
52. Most of the site (84 percent) contains slopes that exceed a 15%
gradient; some of the property has slopes exceeding 26%. This Board finds that the
Project responds to terrain constraints by reduction in the maximum number of allowable
residential lots; use of 2'/:1 (horizontal to vertical)-gradients for engineered slopes; use of
retaining walls along segments of project roads to limit the "footprint" of grading; and
minimizes disturbance to sensitive lands by stepping residences up.and down the slope.
53. Subdivision Map 8533 contains all information required by State
Law and by the County Code, including all information referenced in Ordinance Code
section 94-2.806. The Map provides, to the extent feasible given the nature of the site
and the challenges faced in designing a viable development project, for future passive or
natural heating and cooling opportunities.
G:\current planning\curr-plan\afshar\General Findings-c.doc
RD\
Rev.4-12-2006 -rd
B-13
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 018533 in the El Sobrante area
(Siavash Afshar—Applicant & Owner) PER BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APRIL 11,
2006 APPROVAL
Administrative
1. This approval is based on the exhibits/reports received by the Community
Development Department for a maximum of 35 residential lots on the 10
acre site with' plan modifications required by condition of approval #2.
Compliance with this permit and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program may necessitate a further reduction in lots.
The.approval is based upon Subdivision 8533 Vesting.Tentative Map,
dated October 23, 2004, and received by the Community Development
Department on October 29, 2004, consisting of the following 14 sheets:
A. Sheet 1 Site Plan.
P. Sheet 2 - Grading Plan
C. Sheet 3 - Grading Plan
D. Sheet 4 - Grading Plan
E. Sheet 5 - Utility Plan
F. Sheet 6 - Utility Plan
G. Sheet 7 - Utility Plan
H. Sheet 8 - Profiles & Details
1. Sheet 9 _ Riparian Mitigation Plan
J. Sheet 10 - Riparian Mitigation Plan
K. Sheet 11 - Hillside Home Sites
L. Sheet 12 - Open Space
M. Sheet 13 - Sections
N. .Sheet 14 - Detention Basins
The approval is also based upon the following reports:
O. Subdivision 8533 Draft Environmental Impact Report
(8533 DEIR), SCH# 2003102107
P. Subdivision 8533 Final Environmental Impact Report
(8533 FEIR)
Q. Biological Resource—Related Documents
• California Department of Fish&Game,2002. Agreement
Regarding Proposed-Streambed Alteration Notification
(received by CDD on March 6, 2002).
2
• California Department of Fish &Game,March 11, 2002.
Proposed Hilltop Road .4rea Project, County File
#SD018533, Revised Vesting Tentative Ilap of
Subdivision 8533, Contra Costa CountY.
• LSA, March 11, 2002. Results of Fish and Game Site
Visit, Hillview Project, El Sobrante.
• LSA, December 21, 2001. Biological Resources of the
Hillview Project Site, El Sobrante, Contra Costa County,
California. LSA Job #AAD130.
Monk & Associates, September 20, 2002. Hillview.
Subdivision: (SD8533), El Sobrante, California.
Wood, Michael K., 2002. Habitat Assessment for
California Red-legged Frog, Hillview Subdivision. Letter
to Sid Afshar, Architectural Design & Development,
April 22.
Wood, Michael K., 2002. Wetland Delineation and
Prelitnninary Jurisdictional Detertnination for the Hillview
Project Site, Contra Costa County, prepared for
Architectural Design & Development, March 19 revised
June 11.
Wood, Michael K., July 1, 2002. Hillviex, Subdivision,
Biologic Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
Wood, Michael K., July 5, 2002. Mitigation Monitoring
Plan for the Proposed Hillview Residential Subdivision,
El Sobrante., Contra Costa County.
Wood, Michael K., July 9, 2002. Amendment to 1603
Notification of Stream bed A lteration,Notification#2001-
982, Hillview Residential Subdivision, El Sobrante.
Wood, Michael K., July 9, 2002. Preconstruction
Notification for the Placement of Fill in Waters of the
U.S. Pursuant to Nationwide Permits 14 and 33 for the
Proposed Hillview Residential Development, El Sobrante,
Contra Costa County, California.
Wood,Michael K.,July 8, 2002. Application for Section
401 Water Ouality Certification for the Proposed
Hillview Residential Development, El Sobrante, Contra
Costa County, California.
• Wood, Michael, K., September 26, 2002. Hillview
Subdivision, Response to Comments.
Wood, Michael K., 2004. Revised Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan for. the Proposed Hillview Residential
Subdivision, El Sobrante., Contra Costa County,prepared
for Sid Afshar, Brilliant Management LLC, July 5, 2002
revised October 12, 2004.
3
U.S. Army. Corps of Engineers (Corps), 2002. File
Number 26805S. Letter to Mr. Sid Afshar, Architectural
Design & Development, from Edward A. PVvIie, C'hief-.
South Section. December 11.
R. Geotechnical and Geologic Reports
AMSO Consulting Engineers, 2001. Geotechnical
i. Investigation, Hillvievi, Residential Development, 4823
Hilltop Drive, EI Sobrante, Califoniia. HMSO Job#3128
(report dated April 30, 2001).
Alan Kropp & Associates, Inc. 2004, Geotechnical
Investigation Hilltop Drive Subdivision, Subdivision
8533, El Sobrante, California. October 18.
Abel R. Soares & .Associates, 1998. Prelitnninat-v
Geotechnical Investigation for Assessor's Parcel A"os.
426-192-005, -007, and —008, Marin Road in the El
Sobrante District of Contra Costa County, July.
S. Environmental Geolop"
Shaw Environmental, Inc., 2004. Phase I Environnnental
Site Assessment Report,Proposed Housing Development,
APNs: 436-210-007, 426-182-017, 426-1.92-005, and
426-192-008, El Sobrante, California 94803, September.
T. Water Pollution Control Program
Klemetson Engineering, 2002. Water Pollution Control
Program, Subdivision 8533; 4823 Hilltop Drive, El
Sobrante Area (APN 426-210-007, -182-001 and -017,
and—192-005 and -008 (dated February 24, 2002).
U. Archaeology Report
Pacific 'Legacy, Inc., 2001. Archaeological Survey for
Proposed Hillview.Subdivision, APN 426-192-005,. 426-
182-017
26-192-005,426-
182-017 and 426-210-007, El Sobrante, Contra Costa
County (dated April 28, 2001).
Pacific Legacy, Inc., 2004. Archaeologic Sutvet' for
Hillcrest Homes Subdivision(letter dated March 19,2004,
3 pages).
4
Revisions to the Plans
2. Unless otherwise indicated, the following conditions of approval require
compliance prior to filing the Final Map, and/or issuance of grading,
building or demolition permits.
The project shall be revised as follows. The applicant shall submit a
revised site plan (VTM) for the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator that is consistent with the provisions of the mitigation
measures recommended in the Environmental Impact Report, and that
complies with the following requirements. This approval is also based on
the findings and recommendations of the project reports and documents
listed above, along with the '`Staff Study: Concerns of Design
Components"presented in Exhibit 4, and the Final Environmental Impact
Report.
A. Open Space Parcels and Maintenance Access- Open space parcels
shall be created within the project, to be owned by the
Homeowner's Association. The northernmost open space parcel,
Lot A, shall, at a minimum, include the area labeled"Open Space"
on VTM Sheet 12. It shall also include a storm water detention
basin, along with any required retaining wall on the west side of
Garrity Creek Drive. The southernmost private open space parcel,
Lot B, shall include the area of the Royal Oaks. Drive culverted
creek crossing (including reinforced earth/keystone walls on both
flanks of the creek needed to construct the crossing). Additionally,
it shall include the 50-foot wide reach of channel downstream of the
Royal Oaks Drive, including the southernmost storm water
detention basin.
All required vehicular access for maintenance to the storm water
detention basins and creeks shall provide for ownership in fee title
by the project Homeowners Association. The development rights of
the maintenance accesses shall be grant deeded to the County. No
access easements benefiting adjoining residential lots shall be
permitted along any required creek or basin maintenance access.
The horizontal and vertical alignment of the maintenance access
driveways to the detention basins shall be acceptable to the Public
Works Department. Development rights to the private open space
parcels shall be grant deeded to Contra Costa County.
B. Reconfiguration of Site Plan Based on Limited Approval of
Variances to Minimum Lot Dimensions, and Reduction in Number
of Lots—Except as specified below,the site plan shall be revised so
5
that all lots comply with the R-7 minimum lot area (7,000 square
feet), lot depth (90-feet), and average lot width standards(70-feet).
Up to nine(9)lots are granted a variance to the average lot width R-
7 standard to allow a reduced minimum of 60-feet as defined by the
ordinance code.
The revised site plan shall be accompanied by a survey of each lot
from a civil engineer or surveyor demonstrating compliance with
these required lot dimensions.
The site plan shall provide for a maximum of 35 residential lots.
C. Redesign of(Garrity Creek View) Road Next to Northwest Open
Space - The road improvement in the northern part of the project
shall comply with Condition #14 and Mitigation Measure Bio-
3(a), which.is illustrated in the Redesign Alternative (Le. a 20 foot
wide curb-to-curb width of Garrity Creek Drive where it fronts
along Lot A, and a hammerhead turnaround at the north boundary
of the project).
D. EVA Road Extension and Barrier Improvements — The proposed
Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) only Road shall be extended
southward. Bollards or other measures to control access shall be
installed at the two ends of the extended EVA road: one set at the
northern access point adjacent to Manor Road; and one set at the
relocated south boundary of the EVA adjacent to Lot 26. This
structure shall be acceptable to the Fire Protection District and
County Public Works Department and shall allow for pedestrian
access, subject to final review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
The turn-around at the north side of the property shall be relocated
to south of the southern EVA gate and shall be designed to comply
with subdivision ordinance standards subject to the review and
approval of the Public Works Department and the Fire Protection
District.
E. Storm Water Basin and Access Design - The Final Map shall
include a "Second Sheet" that shows the storm water detention
basins, and any drainage structure facilities within the private open
space lots. Evidence shall be provided that the planned location and
access to. detention basins, including details of their control
structures (e.g., piping from basins to creek channel), are
6
satisfactory to the Public Works Department and the California
Department of Fish & Game.
F. Capacity of Detention Basin Design - The detention basin capacity
and its effect on peak flows shall be consistent with the standards
incorporated into the EIR Redesign Alternative.
G. Storm Water Control Plan Improvements Review _ The Vesting
Tentative Map shows grassy swales on Sheets 3 and 4 and it
provides typical sections on Sheet 9. These"clean water"measures
are subject to review and approval by the Public Works
Department. The project shall be 3.C. compliant, but may/may not
include grassy swales. Any grassy swales provided may be
relocated or otherwise designed based on Public Works Department
requirements. The required stormwater control plan (C.3) shall be
reviewed in light of the standards and policies that are the accepted
standard of practice at the time of the filing of the final map.
H. Offer to Dedicate a Private Access and Utility Easement Over
Royal Oaks Drive— The applicant shall be required to offer to
dedicatea private access and utility easement over Royal Oaks
Drive between Garrity Creek and Hilltop Drive;to the parcels south
and west of the subject subdivision identified as"Alejandr•e" on the
Tentative Map.
I. Quitclaim Accessory Pedestrian Easement Connecting Site with
Marin Road — The applicant shall provide evidence to the
Community Development Department that he has recorded a
quitclaim on any access rights to an existing pedestrian easement
connecting the site to Marin Road to allow any access rights to that
easement from this site to become null and void.
J. Relocation of Sidewalk Along Garrity Creek Drive—The sidewalk
provided along the west side of Garrity Creek Drive shall be
relocated to the east side of the Drive and shall extend from Garrity
Creek View to the site of the southern EVA bollards that is
required to be relocated by this permit to the vicinity of Lot 26.'
The improvement plans shall provide for a 47-foot wide sidewalk
for this section of sidewalk. Between the Garrity View Drive
sidewalk and the. extended EVA-only road requirements, the
permit requirements are intended to provide a continuous
pedestrian access from Garrity Creek View to Manor Road.
7
K. Reduction in Size of Project and Reconfiguration of.Site Plan—The
following lots shall be eliminated and the site plan reconfigured
subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
1. Within the range of Lots 6 — 12 and 35 — 40 (south side of
Garrity Creek View), one lot shall be eliminated. The
remaining lots shall be reconfigured to provide a
maintenance access that is owned in fee by the Homeowners
Association, and to allow for appropriate lot configuration
next to the arch culvert.
2. Lots 29 and 32 shall be eliminated;the majority of the area of
these lots shall be incorporated into Open Space Parcel "A"
described below to provide an expanded wildlife corridor and
an expanded residential setback from nearby wetlands and
seeps.
3. Lots 27 and 28 shall be eliminated, and the area of those lots
added.to Open Space Parcel "A" described Belo-N.
In aggregate, at least five (5) lots shall be eliminated from the
project.
Compliance Report
3. At least 60 days prior to filing a final map or issuance of a grading permit,
the applicant.shall submit a report on compliance with the conditions of .
approval with this permit and the final development plan permit for the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Except for those
conditions administered by the Public Works Department,the report shall
list each condition followed by a description of what the applicant has
provided as evidence of compliance with that condition. (A copy of the
conditions of approval may be available on computer disk;to try to obtain,
contact the project planner at 335-1210.) Unless otherwise indicated,the
applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the conditions
of this report prior to filing a final map. The compliance report shall
include an intermediate site/grading plan that'shows information required
for tentative subdivision maps, including road improvements, drainage
facilities, grading plan, lot characteristics (area, average width, average
depth) and identify the potential building sites.. The ZoningAdministrator
maY,reject the report if it is not comprehensive with respect to.applicable
requirements_for the requested ministerial perin t.
8
The permit compliance revieiv is' subject to staff time and material
charges, ivith ann initial deposit of$1,500.00 which shall bepaid at time of
submittal of the compliance report. A check is pa.vable to the County of
Contra.Costa.
Variances and.Exceptions
4. A. Average Lot Width Variance - Approval is granted to allow
variances to the average lot width standards that meet the
requirements of Section 26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code.as
follows.
70 feet required by zoning ordinance
60 feet (minimum approved for no more than nine (9) lots)
Other requested variances to the average lot width standard are
denied.
B. Denial of Variance to Lot Depth for Lot 13 (End of Cul-de-Sac) —
The requested variance to the minimum lot depth requirement for
Lot 13 is denied.
C. Retaining Wall/Fencing for Project Access Roads and Hilltop Drive
Frontage Decorative Soundwall - Approval is granted to allow
variances and exceptions to the Subdivision Ordinance to allow
retaining wall height and wall/fence combinations in required yards
for portions of three roads in the project to minimize the footprint of
grading,and possibly allow for noise attenuation along Hilltop Drive
frontage for Lot 1:
Maximum 3 feet tall retaining wall height; and six-foot tall
wall/fence combination allowed by zoning
ordinance
10 feet retaining wall approved on Royal Oaks Drive
10 feet wall/fence allowed on Garrity Creek Drive
8 feet wall/fence allowed on Adam Court
Up to 8-foot retaining wall/decorative,soundwall combination
allowable along Hilltop Drive frontage for Lot 1
D. . Reduced Front Yard Requirement - Approval is granted to allow
variances and exceptions to the Subdivision Ordinance to the front
yard. setback standard of the Zoning.;Ordinance to attain a varied
streetscape and to accommodate development of relatively steep lots.
20 feet (minimum) required by the R-7 District.
9 .
• 15 feet(minimum) allowed,provided that the garage achieves a 20
foot setback and provided that any encroachment in the 20 ft
setback zone be limited to a one story element.
• No more than 20 residences may have a front setback of less than
20 ft in the project; they inust be distributed across the site; and
the specific lots shall be identified prior to approval of the final
map.
E. Denial of Requested Front Yard Variances for Corner Lots 2 - 5
(Royal Oaks Drive) — The request to allow a zero-foot front yard
variance/exception by allowing the driveway areas of Lots 2 -5 along
Royal Oaks Drive to be included.as "legs" in the road right-of-way
design for turnarounds for-these lots is denied. The road rights-of-way
shall be reconfigured to exclude the "leg" portions ,of the two
turnarounds, and to limit use of the driveways to the respective lot
owners.
F. Variance Granted for Arch Culvert Creek Crossing—.A variance and
exception to the Subdivision Ordinance is granted to allow the
proposed arch culvert creek crossing within the required yards of Lots
5, 6, and 40.
Left Turn Lane (Pocket) on Hilltop Drive to be'Built if Feasible
5. The Applicant shall investigate the feasibility of widening existing Hilltop
Drive to provide left turn channelization at the project entrance at Royal
Oaks Drive. If determined to be feasible by the Public Works Department
and the Zoning Administrator, the Applicant shall be responsible to
construct the'channel izati on and for all related costs of right-of-way
acquisition and construction improvements. The purpose of the
investigation shall be to determine whether adequate right-of-way is
available and whether a left turn channelization would be safe,to consider
pedestrian, motorist, bicyclist and homeowner safety. The design of the
channelization will be subject to the review of the Public Works
Department, and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
Channelization, tapers,.and transition flares shall comply with Caltrans
Highway Design Manual standards based on a design speed of 40 miles .
per hour. These improvements will include relocation of existing utilities,
and pedestrian paths, as well as possible reconstruction of driveways of
existing adjacent homes to adequately conform to the widened street
section.
10
To accommodate the above improvements,the applicant will also need to
dedicate additional right of way along Hilltop Drive as well as obtain off-
site offers of dedication from adjacent property owners. Minimum total
right of way shall be 10 feet from theproposed face of curb/edge of travel
way.
Notice On Availability of Channelizatiori Improvement Plans for Public
Review and Comment—At least thirty(30)days prior to a decision by the
Zoning Administrator on whether to require the channelization,the Public
Works Department shall. provide public notice that the proposed
improvement plans are available for public review and inspection in the
office of the Public Works Department, and for receipt of comments on
them. The notice shall be issued to:
• The owners of property fronting on Hilltop Drive within 500 feet
of the Project site Hilltop Drive front property line;
• California.Highway Patrol;
• Sheriff�s Department;
• Hilltop Neighborhood Association;
• The El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council; and
• The El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee.
The decision of the Zoning Administrator on whether the channelization
improvement will be required for this project shall be in writing, and
copies provided to the two El Sobrante groups and to responding
correspondents providing a mailing address.
If the applicant, after demonstrating he has made his best, good-faith
effort, is unsuccessful in obtaining the off-site right of way necessary to
construct this channelization and related transitions, or the design cannot
meet acceptable public safety conditions, the Zoning Administrator may
modify or eliminate the channelization and related dedication
requirements. Otherwise,the project,will be required to construct the left
turn channelization.
In accord with the provisions of Ordinance Code Section 14-4.002,et seq.,
the administrative decision of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed
to the Board of Supervisors.
Scenic Easement
6. A. Lots 27 and. 28, the "Open Space" .portion of Lot 31, and the
majority of the areas of Lots 29 and 32 shall be formed into a
separate open space parcel, Parcel A. It. shall be owned by the
11
Homeowners Association. Development rights to Parcel A shall be
dedicated to the County,utilizing a deed instrument that is subject to
the revise and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The easement
instrument shall provide that nograding, fencing, development
activity, or removal of trees may occur in that area without the prior
written approval of the Zoning Administrator. Perimeter fencing
shall be provided and maintained, but its design shall be subject to
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
B. Parcel A shall be retained as visual open space, wildlife habitat, and
watershed land, and possibly low-intensity HOA-maintained
recreation facilities. The only improvements allowed within this
area are drainage facilities, EVA-only road, and possibly low-
intensity recreation facilities (e.g., tables, benches, barbeque,
horseshoe court) that comply with Mitigation Measure BI0-5(c),
and a stormwater detention basin. The details of the drainage
improvements and any proposed recreation improvements shall be
re-evaluated during final design of subdivision improvements and
the Biologic Resource MMP updates to fully protect the habitat
values of Parcel A.
C. Investigation into the Feasibility of Providing Limited Public Access
and Low-Intensity Recreation Facilities within Parcel "A" Open
Space, and Public Review Procedure — The applicant shall
investigate the feasibility of providing low-intensity recreation
facilities including limited public access to Parcel "A" Open Space.
The investigation shall take into consideration required hydrological
(detention basin) improvements and related maintenance access,
including liability and insurance issues, and the EIR biological
resource findings and mitigation measures. The applicant shall
submit twelve (12) sets of improvement plans to the Community
Development Department for the whole of Parcel A to include
improvements such as tables, benches, barbecue, horseshoe pit, or
similar improvements, and a pedestrian path from a project road to
the improvements; and limited public access, subject to final review
and approval by the Zoning Administrator. The administrative
decision of the Zoning Administrator is appealable to the Board of
Supervisors. Evidence shall be provided on the plans that they have
been designed to comply with applicable requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The plans shall be accompanied by a written analysis of the
compatibility of the proposed improvements and related activities
with existing biological resources by a qualified biologist for the
12
review and approval of the.Zoning Administrator. The applicant
shall also provide evidence that the State and Federal Resource
Agencies (California Department of Fish and Game, San Francisco
Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. An Corps
of Engineers) have had an opportunity to review and comment on
said plans, and any comments from those agencies on the plans have
been provided to the Community Development Department.
The plans shall be reviewed for:
• Provision of reasonable limited public access and private
recreation facilities;.
• Public safety; and
Compliance with required Elk biological and hydrological
findings and mitigation measures, including protection and
provision of native riparian vegetation.
'Minimum 30-Day Public Review and Comment Period on Proposed
Plans — Prior to rendering a decision on the plans, the Community
Development Department shall refer the proposed improvement
plans for comment to the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council,
Public Works Department, Urban Creeks Council, West County
Unified School District, City of Richmond Planning Department,
Sheriff Office, and El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning
Advisory Committee for comment. Concurrently, a notice of the
availability of these improvement plans for public examination in the
Community Development Department and for submittal of public
comment on them, shall be issued to the owners of property within
300 feet of the subject site (including the construction staging
parcels north of the site). The public review period shall extend a
minimum of 30-days.
Public Hearing Before the Zoning Administrator—Prior to rendering
a decision on the extent of recreation improvements within the Open
Space parcel, a noticed public hearing shall be held on the proposed
improvements before the Zoning Administrator. The hearing shall
be conducted in accord with the procedures contained in Chapter 26-
2 of the Ordinance Code.
.'If the Zoning Administrator determines that such facilities are not
compatible with the biological resources reviewed in the EIR. then
the facilities will not be required. The subdivider shall be
responsible for installing any approved recreation facilities,offering
any necessary. related public access easements, and providing
13
appropriate description of the allowed activities,responsibilities,and
related restrictions in the project CC&R's, subject to final review
and approval by the Zoning Administrator. The administrative
decision of the Zoning Administrator is appealable to the Board of
Supervisors in accord with the provisions of Ordinance Code Section
14-4.002, et seq.
CC&R's
7. Draft Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be submitted for
review with the Final Map,and shall be.subject to review and approval'by
the Zoning Administrator. This document shall provide for the
establishment of a Homeowners Association to maintain common facilities
within the project including drainage facilities,roads, and street lights. It
shall also provide for an Architectural Review' Board to review and
approve proposed building and grading projects-prior to obtaining permits
from the County. It shall also provide for establishment, ownership and
maintenance of the landscaping along the Hilltop Drive frontage of the site
and maintenance of other common facilities The Covenants, C-onditions
and Restrictions (CC&Rs) developed for this project shall include the
following restrictions:
A. Inclusion of Residential Design Measures for the Stormwater Quality
Control Plan - The document shall reference the project Best
Management Practices for the Stormwater Quality Control Plan for
the project pertaining to residential development (e.g., permeable
driveway surface). The document shall provide that construction
plans submitted to the County for residential development for
building permits shall comply with the residential design measures in
that.plan.
B. The document shall specifically identify any lots that are substandard
in average lot width; any proposed development on those lots will be
subject to the public notice and review requirements of the Small Lot
Occupancy Ordinance (Ord. Code § 82-10.002(c))prior to issuance
of a building permit.
C. The CC&R's for the project shall include specifications for fencing
of residential lots; shall specify that no retaining walls exceeding a 3-
foot height are allowed in the rear yard structure setback zone; and
shall incorporate all provisions of the design guidelines for the
project, including those which pertain to creation of rear yard "use
areas."
14
D. In accordance with the County Child Care Ordinance, the CC&Rs
shall indicate that a child care facility may be located at any
residential unit, or lot, consistent with the existing laws.
E. The document shall reference the Grant Deeds of Development
Rights that is conveyed to the County along the creek portion of the
site,and wetland portion of the site,and shall contain any agreement
entered into with the California Department of Fish & Game.
F. Provide a copy of a fencing plan that has been .approved by the
Zoning Administrator of the fencing proposed on the perimeter of
the scenic easement (Parcel A), and including the fencing of deed
restricted portions of private lots.
G. Required setbacks and off-street parking prescribed by the R-7
zoning district shall be measured from the edge of the private road
easement or property line, whichever is more restrictive, except as
modified by this approval.
H. The Design Guidelines approved by the Zoning Administrator(ref.
COA #46 —'49)
The approved CC&R's shall be recorded with the Final Map. The
applicant shall deliver a copy of the recorded document to CDD prior to
issuance of the first building permit.
Nesting Birds
8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, commencement of any site
improvement, or any tree removal, the following detailed specifications
shall be followed to avoid inadvertent take of nesting birds. Evidence of
compliance with these specifications shall.be submitted for review and
approval by the Zoning Administrator.
A. In order to avoid impacts to nesting birds, the CDFG has required that
vegetation removal be confined to the period of August 16 to February
14, during which time period preconstruction surveys and additional
restrictions are not required. Should earth-moving/grading activity or
construction-related disturbance be initiated during the raptor and
passerine bird nesting season (February 15 to August 15), a focused,
preconstruction nesting survey shall be conducted by a qualified
ornithologist to determine if this activity could disturb nesting birds. The
ornithologist must have experience detecting/ identifying raptor and
passerine bird nesting behavior. Or, if necessary, two biologists shall be ..
hired: one with experience with raptors and another with experience
15
surveying for nesting passerine birds.
B. If nesting raptors are identified on the project site during the
preconstruction survey,a minimum 500-foot-wide non-disturbance buffer
shall be established around the nest tree. This buffer shall be fenced with
orange construction fencing prior to initiation.of grading or vegetation
removal. A qualified raptor biologist shall periodically monitor the hest
site(s)to determine if grading activities occurring outside the buffer zone
disturbs the birds, and if the buffer zone should be increased to prevent
nest abandonment. No disturbance shall occur within the minimum 500-
foot-wide buffer zone until a qualified raptor biologist has determined
that the young have fledged (left the nest), and are flying well enough to
avoid project construction zones, typically by August 1.
C. If nesting passerine birds are identified on the project site during the
preconstruction survey,a 75-foot-wide buffer shall be established around
the nest tree. This buffer shall be fenced with orange constriction
fencing prior to initiation of grading or vegetation removal. The non-
disturbance buffer zone shall remain in place until it has been determined
by a qualified ornithologist that the young have fledged and are flying
well enough to avoid project construction zones, typically by August 1.
D. If active nests of raptors or passerine birds are confirmed during the
preconstruction survey, the biologist shall prepare a plan for fencing of
the buffer area and specifications to control construction activities. This
plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and
approval prior to commencement of any potential disturbance activities.
E. The County shall not issue a grading permit during the raptor and
passerine bird nesting season (February 15 to August 15) until a
preconstruction.nesting survey has been conducted and the non-
disturbance buffers(if necessary)are fenced. If active nests of raptors or
passerine birds are confirmed, a detailed compliance plan addressing
establishment,avoidance,and closure of any required buffer area shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator.
EIR Mitigation Measure B1O-1(a).
California Red-Legged Frog
9. Prior to issuance of agrading permit, commencement of any site
improvements, or vegetation removal,whichever comes first; the detailed
specifications presented in Table 3 shall be followed to avoid the remote
possibility for inadvertent take of California red-legged frog. Evidence of
16
compliance with these specifications shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Zoning Administrator.
A. Thepreconstruction survey for California red-legged frog shall be
completed within 48 hours prior to commencement of any earth-moving
activity, construction, or vegetation removal, whichever comes first.
B'. The preconstruction survey shall include two nights of nocturnal surveys
along all creek segments and areas of suitable habitat on the site and
adjacent staging area parcels.
C. The biologist performing the preconstruction survey must hold a federal
10(a)(1)(A) permit for California red-legged frog or be considered by
USEWS to be a"service approved" biologist.
D. A letter-report from the "service approved" biologist describing the
results of the preconstruction surveys shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to initiation of any earth=
moving activity, construction, or vegetation removal on the site and
adjacent staging area parcels,including removal of lion-native trees and
shrubs in the riparian corridors proposed as part of the revised
applicant's Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP).
E. If California red-legged frogs are encountered during the surveys, all
work on the site and adjacent staging area parcels shall be placed on hold
while the findings are reported to the CDFG and USFWS and it is
determined what, if any, further actions must be followed to prevent
possible take of this species. Evidence of consultation with the CDFG
and USFWS shall be provided for review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator before issuance of a.grading permit, commencement of.
any site improvements, or vegetation removal.
EIR Mitigation Measure BI04(b).
Resource Agency Permits
10. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, commencement of any site
improvement, or vegetation removal, whichever comes first, submit
evidence of compliance with the requirements of resource agencies for
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Specifically, submit
documentation that all legally required permits from the CDFG,RWQCB,
Corps, and possibly USFWS (e.g., 1600 series permits, 404 and 401
permits), were obtained, including incidental take permits and any others
and implement mitigation measures, as required by federal and State law,
to avoid,minimize, or offset impacts on any species listed under either the
17
State or federal Endangered Species Acts or protected under any other
State or federal law. (Mitigation Measure BIO-1(c))
Landscape and Vegetation Management Plan
11. Prior to approval of a final map, submit a detailed Landscape and
Vegetation Management Plan prepared by a qualified landscape architect
in consultation with a plant ecologist experienced with native species. The
Plan shall: a)provide for re-establishment of grassland, riparian, and oak
woodland cover ongraded slopes in open space areas; b) incorporate
mitigation and monitoring requirements identified in the final Biologic
Resource Mitigation Monitoring Plan (BRMMP) to replace and enhance
wetland and riparian habitat and provide for replacement of native trees
removed as part of the project; c) identify unsuitable species that should
not be used in landscaping; d) identify ways to prevent the establishment
and spread of introduced broom; and e) specify long-term management
.provisions to ensure re-establishment of native and ornamental landscape
improvements. The following detailed specifications shall be incorporated
into the Landscape and Vegetation Management Plan...
A. Graded slopes in open space areas shall be reseeded with a mixture of
compatible native and lion-native perennial and annual grassland species
to increase the diversity of the grassland cover. Highly invasive non-
native annuals typically used for erosion control alone should not be used.
B. The final MMP shall be revised to include a major salvage program that
provides for collection of native creeping wildrye (Leymus triticoides)
from the large stand on the site,and emphasizes its use in revegetating the
proposed grassy swales,perimeter of the proposed detention basins, and
open space areas on the site. Section 4.5.4 of the final MMP shall be
modified to include details on salvage, storage, and installation of this
species as part of revegetation efforts.
C. Landscaping and revegetation plans shall emphasize the use of native
plant species along the fringe of proposed developed areas,and plantings
in open space areas should be restricted to native species consistent with
the MMP. Suitable plant species for use in open space areas include
coast live oak(Quercus agrifolia),valley oak(Quercus lobata),Fremont
cottonwood (Populus fteinontii), California buckeye (Aesculus
californica), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), California rose (Rosa
californica), creeping wildrye (Leymus triticoides), and purple
needlegrass (Nassella pulchra), among other species.
D. To minimize future disturbance to grassland cover and other vegetation .
and unauthorized access to the surrounding undeveloped lands and open
18
space, vehicles and motorcycles shall not be allowed to travel off.
designated roadways.
E. Use of non-native, invasive species that may spread into adjacent
undeveloped open space areas shall be prohibited in landscaping plans.
Unsuitable species include blue gum eucalyptus (Eucaltptus globulus),
acacia(Acacia spp.),pampus grass(Cortaderia selloana),broom(Q.?tisus
spp. and Genista inonspessulana), gorse ,(Ulex europaet.cs), bamboo
(Banibusa spp.), giant reed (Arundo donax), periwinkle (Vinca spp.),
English ivy (Hedera helix), and German ivy.,(Senecio rnilanioides),
among others.
F. Graded slopes and areas disturbed as part of the project shall. be
monitored to prevent establishment and spread of introduced broom
species.(Cytisus spp and Genista monspessulana). The removal.and
monitoring program .shall include annual late, winter removal of any
rooted plants when soils are saturated and cutting back of any remaining
flowering plants in the spring before seed begins to set in late April.
Such removal may be the responsibility of the project homeowners'
association.
G. Provisions for maintenance of landscaping and revegetation of graded
slopes shall be specified as part of the plan, with replacement plantings
and seeding provided as necessary to ensure re-establishment of cover.
Maintenance and monitoring of landscape improvements in open space
areas shall be provided for a minimum of 5 years, and shall be the
responsibility of the project homeowners' association.
H. Prior to filing of the Final Map, evidence shall be submitted for review
and approval of the Zoning Administrator that the project plans are in
compliance with the provisions of the CDFG Streambed Alteration
Agreement, as prescribed by the final MMP.
(EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-2(a).
Protection/Restoration of Habitat
12. Prior to issuance. of a grading permit, commencement of any site .
improvement or vegetation removal,whichever comes first,submit a final
plan for protection and restoration of habitat shall be prepared and
implemented to provide for adequate replacement of sensitive natural
communities and biological habitat affected by development on the site.
The plan shall be. subject to review and approval of the Zoning .
Administrator. The following detailed specifications shall be followed to
ensure avoidance of sensitive resources and achieve successful-.
implementation of the final.Biological Resource MMP.
19
A. Habitat and tree replacement plantings shall be implemented in accord-
ance with the standards and criteria prescribed by the CDFG, and
contained in the final MMP.
B. A Project Restorationist shall be retained at the expense of the applicant
to monitor implementation of the MMP and to oversee maintenance
requirements and monitoring of all mitigation plantings, seeding, and
invasive species eradication. At a minimum, the Project Restorationist
shall have demonstrated expertise in restoration ecology and at least 3
years of experience in restoration design and implementation, including
experience in wetland restoration. The Project Restorationist shall have
the,authority to stop work or request change orders as necessary. In
addition, the Project Restorationist shall conduct the site inspection and
habitat monitoring programs,. and prepare reports documenting the
restoration program forsubmittal to the Corps, CDFG,.RWQCB, and
County Community Development Department.
C. All grading on the site shall be performed during the summer months and
completed before October 1. Appropriate erosion/sediment control
measures shall be in place by October 15. Eradication.of invasive species
shall be accomplished in advance of mitigation plantings during the
summer months. Mitigation planting and seeding shall commence in the
late fall or early winter, with the onset of winter rains.
D. To prevent indirect and cumulative adverse effects of the development on
water quality of Garrity Creek and its tributary, grassy swales shall be
constructed as described in the MMP. The swales are intended to capture
and slow the movement of urban runoff into the north and east forks of
Garrity Creek. The swales shall.be planted and seeded with appropriate
native species and deed-restricted from development or renovation, as
described in the MMP. No direct outfalls into the Garrity Creek channels
shall be constructed. Discharges from the swales would be over ground
stabilized by erosion blankets with rock inter-plated with willows or other
species approved by the Project Restorationist.
E. Habitat restoration and revegetation shall provide for maximum
vegetative cover,conducive to the restoration of the creek corridors,and
provide for vegetative screening between the stream channel and adjacent
roads and dwellings.
..F. The plant palette shall be consistent with the requirements of the CDFG
and prescriptions contained in the final MMP.
G. A temporary drip irrigation system shall be providcd for all container
plantings installed as part of the final MMP. Irrigation shall be supplied
20
for up to 3 years, with a gradual reduction in volume of water applied in
years 2 and 3. The details of the irrigation system and watering schedule
must be approved by the Project Restorationist.
H. The applicant shall guarantee an 85-percent survival rate for the plantings
over the 5-year monitoring period. For this purpose, a$40,000 bond (or
equivalent) security shall be deposited with the County to ensure
performance of the final MMP.
EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-2(b).
Central Coast Riparian Scrub
13. Prior to approval of the Final Map and using the following detailed
specifications, revise the VTM, Riparian Mitigation Plan, and Biological
Resource MMP to ensure adequate avoidance of Central Coast riparian
scrub and mature native trees both within the project site and ori .the
proposed off-site construction staging area northwest of the site.
A. The off-site creek channel and edge of native willows canopy shall be
mapped by engineered survey to accurately identify their location in
relation to proposed improvements. The canopy line shall be identified as
the boundary of a"No-Disturbance Zone"on the Site Plan,Grading Plan,
and Riparian Mitigation Plan.
B. All construction staging area uses shall be restricted to outside the "No=
Disturbance Zone"to avoid any adverse impacts on this sensitive riparian
habitat.
C. Temporary construction fencing shall be installed along the"No-Disturb-
ance Zone".boundary and shall be maintained in place for the duration of
construction. Any incursion into this zone shall be conducted under the
supervision of a qualified biologist.
D. The proposed 5-foot-wide trail depicted on the Riparian Mitigation Plan
(see Figure 4.5-4) shall be eliminated due to the potential impacts on
sensitive riparian habitat,or the trail shall be relocated outside the willow.. .
dominated scrub,possibly along the emergency vehicle access road or the
Road 24 alignment where it is devoid of woody vegetation.
E. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, revec, 'on and irrigation plans
that comply with the final MMP shall.be submitted for review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator.
(EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-2(c)).
21
Springs and Seeps
14. Prior to approval of the Final Map and using the following detailed
specifications, revise the VTM, Riparian Mitigation Plan, and Biologic
Resource MMP to ensure adequate avoidance of the active spring and seep
in the proposed open space area in the northwestern portion of the site.
A. The boundaries of the seep and spring shall be mapped by engineered
survey to accurately identify their location in relation to proposed
improvements.
B. A common driveway./private road with a curb-to-curb width of 20 feet
shall be used to provide any required access to the vicinity of Lots 26,
27, and 28, and the emergency vehicle access north of the site. This
refinement of the road width would provide a setback of
approximately 20 feet between the road and the spring/seep complex.
It would reduce the extent of grading, and presumably eliminate the
need for a retaining wall immediately adjacent to this feature.
C. Grading, roadway, drainage and any other development
improvements shall be restricted a minimum of 20 feet from the edge
of the spring to ensure an adequate setback from construction and to
prevent indirect. impacts of subsurface groundwater and surface
drainage.
(EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-3(a)).
SWPPP
15. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, submit a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan using Best Management Practices to control both
construction-related erosion and sedimentation and project-related non-
point discharge into waters on the site. (Mitigation Measure 13I0-3(b))
Wildlife Movement Corridors
16. Prior to approval of the Final Map and using the following detailed
specifications, revise the VTM, Riparian Mitigation Plan, and Biologic
Resource' MMP to further address loss of wildlife habitat, maintain
opportunities for wildlife movement. across the. site, and minimize
disturbance to open space areas.
A. The proposed 5-foot-wide pedestrian trail depicted on the Riparian
Mitigation Plan (see Figure 4.54 of the EIR) shall be eliminated due to
the potential impacts on sensitive riparian habitat, or the trail shall be
relocated outside the willow dominated scrub, possibly along the .
22
emergency vehicle access road or the Road 24. alignment where,it is
devoid of woody vegetation.
B. To alert visitors of its intended use,permanent metal signage stating that
the area serves as sensitive habitat shall be installed at any pedestrian
entrance or channel crossing within the proposed open space area in the
northwestern portion of the site.
C. A permanent movement corridor shall be provided for wildlife linking the
proposed open space in the northwestern portion of the site with the open
space along the east fork of Garrity Creek. An area with a minimum
width of 25 feet shall be established from the western boundary of the site
at the west side of proposed Lots 31 and 32 within which fencing that
would exclude wildlife would be prohibited and native vegetation would
be planted and retained as part of an expanded grassy swale area and
upland area. Some protective fencing may be necessary for safety
purposes around the proposed detention basin to be sited in this area,but
the fencing and basin design shall balance security and safety issues with
the need to maintain opportunities for wildlife movement along the creek
corridor.
(EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-3(a)).
Control of Invasive Exotic Species
17. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, commencement of any site
improvement or vegetation removal, whichever comes first, submit a
revised Biological Resource MMP presenting an expanded program to
control invasive exotic species in proposed open space areas. Section
4.4.2 of the Biologic Resource MMP shall specify initial methods to
remove and kill targeted invasive, non-native plant species. This may
include controlled use of herbicides, which must be carefully controlled,
given the intended function as open space and presence of.sensitive
aquatic habitat of the creek channels, spring, and seep. The proposed
program shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator. (Mitigation Measure BI04(b))
Tree Protection
18. Prior to•approval of the Final Map, an engineering survey for all native
trees with trunk diameters of 6.5 inches or greater diameter,at breast
height(dbh)within 20 feet on either side of the proposed limits of grading
shall be submitted. An arborist shall classify trees by species and
condition.. Wherever possible, individual native trees at the perimeter of
the proposed limits of grading with trunk diameters exceeding 6.5 inches
shall be preserved through adjustments to the limits of grading, use of
23
short over-steepened slopes, and other acceptable methods. Where
possible, non-native trees at the perimeter of the proposed limits of
grading with trunk diameters exceeding 12 inches shall be preserved
where the trees do not detract fromiproposed habitat enhancement efforts.
Protection of individual native trees shall take precedence over
maintaining the full width of the proposed grassy swale that would
separate the east fork of Garrity Creek from the rear yard of Lots 6, 7. 9,
10, 11, and 36, as long as the function of the swale is not compromised.
The number of trees protected through further refinement of project plans
shall be quantified, and an updated report summarizing final estimates foi-
tree removal and preservation shall be submitted to the Zoning
Administrator for review and approval prior to issuance of the Grading
Permit. (Mitigation Measure BIO-5(a))
Tree Replacement
19. The final Biologic Resource MMP shall be'revised to include an expanded
goal of providing for the replacement of non-native trees to be removed by
proposed development and details on their replacement with native tree
species .as part of the open space plantings. Non-native trees to be
removed shall be replaced according to the following replacement ratios:
trees with trunk diameters of from 6.5 to 12 inches dbh to be replaced at a
1':1 ratio; over 12 inches to 24 inches at a 2:1 ratio; and over 24 inches dbh
at a 3:1 ratio (number of replacement trees:number of trees removed).
Section 3.0 of the final MMP shall be revised to specify the total number
of non-native trees to be removed and the number of native replacement
trees. Revisions to the final MMP incorporating specifications for
replacement plantings of non-native trees shall be completed before
approval of the Final Map. (Mitigation Measures BIO-5(b) and
AESTHETICS-1(c))
Eucalyptus
20. Prior to approval of the Final Map, submit a revised drainage plan which
relocates the 12-inch drainage line originating from the cul-de-sac at the
north end of Garrity Creek Drive to avoid the potential adverse impacts on
mature eucalyptus and other desirable vegetation in the grove. This
drainage line should preferably be relocated south of the spring/seep
complex as part of the cul-de-sac relocation identified in COA #14 and
Mitigation Measure BIO-3(a). (Mitigation Measure BIO-5(c))
Trees to be Preserved
24
21. Adequate measures shall be implemented to ensure protection of trees
designated for preservation and to provide adequate mitigation if trees are
inadvertently damaged during construction. This shall be accomplished
through implementation of the following detailed specifications:
A. At least 30 days prior to issuance of a grading pennit or approval of the
Final Map, the applicant shall provide. two copies of a report from the
Project Restorationist for review and approval by the Zoning
Administrator. The report shall indicate that the Restorationist has
reviewed the recommendations.of the geotechnical report filed with the
final map. The report of the Restorationist shall recommend appropriate
measures to prevent any significant damage to trees in the project area
that are not proposed for removal,including trees on neighboring parcels
that adjoin areas proposed for grading. The recommendations of the
approved report shall be implemented by the applicant.
B. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 816-6.1204 of the Tree Protection
and Preservation Ordinance and to address the possibility that
construction activity damages trees not approved for removal, the
applicant shall provide the County with a security (e.g., bond, cash
deposit) to allow for replacement of trees intended to be preserved that
are significantly damaged by construction activity. The security shall be
retained by the County up to 5 years following the completion of the tree
alteration improvements. In the event that the Zoning Administrator
determines that trees intended to be protected have been damaged by
development activity, and the Zoning Administrator determines that the
applicant has not been diligent in providing reasonable restitution of the
damaged trees, the Zoning Administrator may require that all.or part of
the security be.used to provide for mitigation of the damaged trees.
C. The trees identified for removal on the approved Vesting Tentative Map
shall be approved for removal and all other trees shall be protected. All
grading, improvement plans and construction plans prepared for building
permits during initial project build-'out shall clearly indicate trees
proposed to be removed, altered, or otherwise affected by development
construction. The tree information on grading and development plans
shall indicate the number, size, species, assigned tree number and
location of the dripline of all trees on the property that are to be
retained/preserved..
D. Tree protection measures shall be printed on all subdivision grading and
improvement plans.
(EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-5(d))
,5
Geotechnical
22. A. At least 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or installation
of improvements or utilities, applicant shall submit a final geology,
soil, and foundation report meeting the requirements of Subdivision
Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for review and approval of the County
Peer Review Geologist. The report shall evaluate soils conditions
and provide specific criteria and standards to guide site grading,
drainage and foundation design, including drainage facilities and
private roads. This report shall include evaluation of the potential
for slope failure, seismic settlement, lateral deformation of fill
slopes, differential fill thickness, cut/fill transition lots, and
expansive soils by recognized methods appropriate to soil conditions
discovered during subsurface investigation. It shall include slope.
stability analysis, design criteria for the proposed retaining walls, a
remediation plan, and an assessment of the effect of project
implementation on stability of adjacent lots.
B. To mitigate against future landsliding,the two confirmed landslides
shall be entirely removed down to the slide plane.; The area of the
landslide shall be regraded with engineered .fill following the
construction of a keyway, benches, and subsurface drainage. If
deemed necessary to achieve long-term stability of planned
improvements,the correction grading of the Adams Court landslide
may require a grading easement to remove off-site portions of the
slide.
The toe of the landslide in Lot 5 extends into the creek bank,and this
area of removal must be regraded with structural supports for the
creek bank and arch culvert across Garrity Creek. All necessary
permits for such earthwork shall be obtained from the California
Department of Fish and Game (for work within the creek bank) and
other applicable agencies. (Mitigation Measure GEO-2(a))
C. During grading operations, all keyways .and cut slopes shall be
logged by an engineering geologist. In areas of highly sheared or
deeply weathered rock, the applicant's geologist shall provide
supplemental recommendations, such as drainage facilities, over-
excavation of the slope, and replacement with engineered fill or
reinforced earth. (Mitigation Measure GEO-2(c))
D. The project geotechnical engineer shall review Improvement Plans
for Garrity Creek Drive and provide.specific standards and criteria to
protect the spring from damage during the construction period.
26
Throughout the construction period, an impervious fence shall be
installed a minimu111 of 6 feet fi-om the springbox to prevent damage
associated . with grading and wall construction. (Mitigation
Measure GEO-2(d))
E. 'The Grading Completion Report shall in an original geologic
map that shows the details of observed features.and conditions for
cut slopes, keyways, and areas of continuous benching. The
geologic mapping should be accompanied by a.discussion of the
significance of the exposed features and how design was adapted to
address exposed conditions. The Grading Completion Report shall
also include a map based on field surveys or GPS measurements that
show the location and depth of subdrains,as well as adequate ASTM
compaction test data. During construction of improvements,
evidence of geotechnical monitoring .of foundation laying for
.buildings and retaining walls,..along with other details, shall be
provided (e.g., backfilling of utility, trenches). (Mitigation
Measure GEO-2(e))
F. A representative of the project geotechnical engineer shall be on site
full time during foundation work (observing all pier drilling and
preparation work for all slabs) to verify compliance of construction
practices and exposed conditions with the provisions of the approved
geotechnical.
G. The Grading Completion Report shall include an as-graded map
showing the location of fill, keyways:-.and subdrains, as well.as as-.
graded topography.
Graded Slopes
23. A. Prior to approval of the Final Map or issuance of a grading permit,
whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit an updated
Grading Plan, along with a Corrective Grading Plan, for review and
approval by the Zoning Administrator. Thegradients of cut slopes
and fill slopes in the project shall not exceed 2.5:1 (horizontal to
vertical). Where steeper slopes are required, special engineering
solutions shall be provided (e.g.,.reinforced earth with associated
slope stability analysis). (Mitigation Measure GEO-2(b))
B. Engineered slopes on the perimeter of the graded area shall be
contour-rounded to mimic natural terrain features.
Building Permits
27
24. A. A letter-report update shall be required for issuance of building
permits for individual lots. The intent of this update is to have the
geotechnical engineer review foundation, drainage (andany
associated grading) plans, verifying that they comply with
recommendations and the intent of the approved final geotechnical
reports. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall carry out
the recommendations,of the approved report.
B. The recommendation of the project and geotechnical investigation
shall be followed to mitigate the impacts of expansive soils and soil
creep. (Mitigation Measure GEO-3)
C. Following rough. site grading, but before the installation of
improvements, chemical testing of representative building site soil
shall be submitted to determine the level of corrosive protection
required for steel and concrete materials to be used during
construction. The following measures shall be implemented where
appropriate to protect against corrosion: use of sulfate-resistant
concrete and use of protective linings to encase steel piping buried in
native soils. (Mitigation Measure GEO-5)
D. The recommendations of the project geotechnical report shall be
followed for new building foundations,roadways,and on-site swales
and detention basins. (Mitigation Measure GEO-1(b))
Seismic Design and Earthquake
25. A. Slope stability analysis shall be provided for major slopes in the
project. The standard for the project shall be safety factors of 1.5 for
static conditions and 1.1 for pseudostatic conditions, and a seismic
coefficient of 0.15.
B. All new project residences shall be designed to meet the
requirements of the most recent update of the Uniform Building
Code (UBC) Seismic Zone Factor 4 standards, and constructed in
accordance with all applicable building codes and regulations.
(Mitigation Measure GEO-1(a))
.C. Following an earthquake that triggers ground failure in the West
County area, an inspection program should be implemented by the
Geologic Hazards Abatement District' (GRAD) or Homeowners
Association (HOA) to determine if features characteristic of
incipient ground failure are present. If so, the inspection shall
28
evaluate the extent of cracking of the cover soil materials,and assess
any damage to clean water features and on-site detention basins.
(Mitigation Measure GE04(c))
Deed Disclosure
26. Applicant shall record a statement to run with deeds to'property ac-
knowledging the approved report by title, author(firm), and date, calling
attention to approved recommendations.. and noting that the report is
available from the seller.
Geologic Hazard Abatement District
27. A. Prior to issuance.of the first.building permit, the project shall be
incorporated into the established Hillcrest Heights Geologic Hazard
Abatement District(GHAD) or equivalent. The Plan of Control for
the GHAD shall include maintenance responsibility for drainage
facilities within the scenic easement.
B. The Plan of Control and financial aspects of joining the GHAD,
along with review of grading plans and field observations of the
earthwork, shall be performed by an engineering geologist retained
by the County. The applicant shall be responsible for funding these
technical reviews.
Erosion Control
28. At least 30 days prior to requesting the issuance of a grading permit, an
Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department. The Erosion
Control Plan shall provide for the following measures:'
A. The Erosion Control Plan shall encompass the applicable provision
of the Freshwater Marsh Riparian Vegetation and Trees Mitigation
Measure.
B. Grading activities shall be restricted to the summer construction
season (April 15 through October 1). Any earthwork done after
October 1 shall be limited to activities directly related to erosion
control. The following interim control measures shall be employed
based on site-specific needs in the project areas: a) grading to
minimize areas of exposed erodible material adjacent to Garrity
Creek, and b) avoidance of over-concentration of rapidly flowing
,q
runoff in unprotected, erodible areas. (Mitigation Measure GEO-
4(b))
C. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, submit an Erosion Control
Plan for review and approval of the Building Inspection Department.
That plan shall incorporate BMPs,including such measures as water
bars, temporary culverts and swales, mulch, erosion control
mats/blankets on exposed slopes, hydroseeding, silt fences, and
sediment trapsibasins. Because the biggest problem with effective
sediment control is lack of maintenance, the Erosion Control Plan
must have a comprehensive program for inspection and maintenance
during the winter rainy season,including provisions for-documenting
maintenance activities. (Mitigation Measure GEO-4(a))
D. The Erosion Control Plan shall include effective measures to control
erosion and sedimentation over the life of the project, including one
or more of the following measures. (Mitigation Measure GEO-
4(c))
■ Downspout collection systems that outfall to splatter plates for
individual structures;
■ Use of track-walked,salvaged topsoil on all engineered slopes with
gradients of 2:5 (H:V) or flatter that are 15 feet or more in height;
and
■ Avoidance of concentrated runoff over cut or fill slopes.
Construction Period Restrictions
29. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction,
noise, litter, and traffic control requirements. These requirements shall be
printed in the General Notes portion of the grading and subdivision
improvement plans:
A. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following
construction noise, dust, litter, and traffic control requirements:
All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on
State and federal holidays on the calendar dates that these holidays
are observed by the state or federal government as listed below:
New Year's Day.(State and Federal)
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal)
Washington's Birthday (Federal)
30
Lincoln's Birthday (State)
President's Day (State)
Cesar Chavez Day (State)
Memorial Day (State and Federal)
Independence Day (State and Federal)
Labor Day (State and Federal)
Columbus Day (State and Federal)
Veterans Day (State and Federal)
Thanks Giving Day (State and Federal)
Day after Thanksgiving (State)
Christmas Day (State and Federal)
For specific details on the actual day the state and federal holidays
occur, please visit the following web sites:
Federal Holidays: http://www.opm.gov/fedhol/2006.am
California Holidays: http://www.edd.ca.gov/eddsthol.htm
B. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, commencement of any site
improvement or vegetation removal,whichever comes first,submit a
plan to ensure that all contractors and subcontractors to ft 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.
C. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, commencement of any site
improvement or vegetation removal,whichever comes first,submit a
draft of a notice and mailing list for review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator. The notice shall include a list of contact
persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility.
The person responsible for maintaining 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 individuals responsible for
noise and litter control,tree protection, construction traffic and vehi-
cles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number, shall be
expressly identified in the notice. At least one week prior to
con-imencement 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 notice that construction work will continence. The
notice shall be re-issued with each phase of major grading and con-
struction activity.
31
A copy of each notice that is mailed 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. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference
with existing neighborhood traffic flows. Construction-related
vehicle access to the site shall be limited to Royal Oaks Drive, and
the emergency vehicle access. No construction-related vehicles are
allowed to.park on neighborhood streets.
E. Transporting of heavy equipment'and trucks shall be limited to week
days between the hours of 9:00 Wand 4:00 PM. and prohibited on
Federal and State holidays.
F•. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the
cessation of construction activity, all construction.debris shall be
removed from the site.
G. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide
documentation to the Community Development Department of the
proposed approach to achieve full compliance with COA #29
requirements by all contractors and subcontractors within this project
(i.e., reference "general notes" in the grading plan, provisions in
building and grading contracts or other equally effective measures).
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
30. The Grading Plan for the project shall identify the licensed environmental
professional who will monitor earthmoving operation in the area of the
former shed(proposed Lot#16-17). The"General Notes" on the Grading
Plan shall specify the following:
Grading in the immediate vicinity of the former shed shall be
monitored by ... (identifi, the environmental firm providing this
monitoring sef-vice in the General Note). If airy contaminated soil
is detected, the Zoning Administrator shall be notified within 48
hours. Appropriate cleanup shall be pei formed.i.iriniediately and
appropriate agencies shall be contacted,prior to any building
construction.
(Mitigation Measure HAZ-1)
32
31. A. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for the residence of 4823
Hilltop Drive or a grading permit for'the project, submit the results
of an asbestos or lead=based paint survey for review-and approval of
the Zoning Administrator. If any asbestos is identified, appropriate
procedures shall be undertaken to comply with all applicable
regulations and a plan for demolition shall be approved by the
County Building Department prior to the issuance of a demolition
permit. Consultation with staff of the BAAQMD Enforcement
Division shall occur prior to demolition of any structure containing
asbestos,and such demolition shall be'subject to District Regulation
11, Rule 2. (Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 and AIR-2)
B. If lead-based paint is identified, federal and State construction
worker health and safety regulations shall be followed during
demolition activities. Any loose or peeling lead'based paint shall
be removed by a qualified lead abatement contractor and disposed
of in accordance with existing hazardous waste regulations.
Further, if lead-based paint is identified on the building structure,
near-surface soil samples shall be collected around the structure to
determine the potential for residual soil lead contamination, and
appropriate remediation shall be completed prior to new residential
construction. (Mitigation Measure HAZ-2)
Aesthetics
32. Prior to approval of the Final Map,documentation of compliance with the
following measures shall be submitted for review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator.
A. All graded slopes shall be hydroseeded immediately for those areas that
would not be paved with new roadways. Also, refer to mitigation
measures in Section 4.5, Biological Resources.
B. New roads shall be planted with trees in 15-gallon containers.on both
sides of the road,within the edge of the sidewalk area: Thcse.trees shall
be planted. approximately 25 feet on center to provide a shaded,
pedestrian-scale environment with a continuous tree canopy and to screen
roads and homes from uphill locations. Root barriers shall be included,
as necessary. Street trees shall be of a species approved by the Contra
Costa County Public Works Department. Irrigation shall be provided as
needed and identified in planting specifications that shall be included
with the Final Map submittal. Any damaged or.dead trees within the first
two years of construction shall be replaced by the applicant.. (Also refer
to COA #40 (Mitigation Measure UTILITIES-1.)
33
C. Rooftops of all new residential units shall be of a dark material to blend
into the surrounding landscape when viewed from uphill residences. Red
tile rooftops should not be allowed due to the sharp color contrast with
the surroundings and vegetation.
D. Fence material in the vicinity of both the east fork and north fork of
Garrity Creek should be open wire fencing to minimize the sense of
`'enclosure" in the vicinitN of the creeks and to allow views into the
vegetated creek corridors.r
EIR Mitigation Measure AESTHETICS-1(a).
Lot 38 Oak
33. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, submit a detailed site plan for
proposed Lot #38 that analyzes the feasibility of preserving the 12-inch
diameter Coast Live Oak. Measures to be considered include: a) use of
retaining walls at the dripline, b) custom design of residence., and c).
reduced front and side yard setback. The detailed site plan shall be subject
to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Should the Zoning
Administrator determine that preservation of the tree is impractical, tree
replantings shall be required (two coast live oaks, each in 15-gallon
containers). (Mitigation Measure AESTHETICS-1(b))
Lighting
34. Prior to approval of Improvement Plans, submit evidence that any street
lighting fixtures are shielded so that the light is cast downward to the
streets and sidewalks, and the bulbs are not highly visible or subject to
breakage and designed to minimize light and glare for their surroundings.
(Mitigation Measure AESTHETICS-2)
Cultural
35. A. If any indicators of the presence of cultural resources are discovered
during the construction of the project, earth-disturbing work shall be
halted in an area ,within a radius of.10 feet around the suspected
deposits, and an archaeologist or cultural resource specialist shall be
consulted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.. The
County's Community Development Department shall be notified
within 24 hours. If deemed appropriate under CEQA, data and
artifact recovery shall be conducted during the period when
construction work is halted. Significant cultural materials include,
but are not limited to, chipped stone, groundstone, shell and bone
34
artifacts, concentrations of fire cracked rock, ash, charcoal, shell,
bone, and historic features such as privies or building foundations.
Appropriate miti<`ation may include monitoring of further
construction and/or systematic excavation of the resources. Any
artifacts or samples collected as part of the initial discovery,
monitoring, or mitigation phases shall be properly conserved,
catalogued, analyzed, evaluated, and.curated along with associated
documentation in a professional manner consistent with current
archaeological standards. (Mitigation Measure CULT-1)
B. If human remains are discovered during the construction of the
project,an appropriate representative of Native American groups and
the County Coroner shall be informed and consulted, as required by
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. No further
excavation or disturbance of the site of the "find" or any nearby area
shall be undertaken until authorized by the County Coroner.
Mitigation Measure CULT-1 shall also apply in such a situation.
(Mitigation Measure CULT-2)
Noise
36. Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit,provide a plan for implementation
of the following detailed specifications:
A. Site planning of Lot 1 should take noise control considerations into
account. With proper site planning at Lot 1, acoustical shielding to the
backyard can be provided by a combination of the residence structure and
solidly constructed fencing. The final site. plan for Lot 1 should be
reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to construction to
ensure regulatory compliance.
B. The residence on Lot 1 should be provided with the incorporation of a
forced-air mechanical ventilation system, suitable to the local County
official,to allow occupants the option of closed windows to control noise.
EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-1.
37. Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit, submit a program to implement
the following detailed noise suppression. This program shall be subject to
review and.approval of the Zoning Administrator.
A. Limit construction to daytime working hours,as specified by the County
Noise Element, to provide relative quiet during the more sensitive
evening and early morning periods;
-1j
B. Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with inufflers that
are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment;
C. utilize "quiet" models of air compressors and other stationary noise
sources where technology exists;
D. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines;
E. Locate all stationary noise-generating construction equipment,such as air
compressors and portable power generators, as far as practical from
existing noise-sensitive receptors;
F. Notify residents adjacent to the project site of the construction schedule
in writing; and
G. Designate a "noise disturbance coordinator' who would be responsible
for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The
disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise
complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute
reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. Conspicuously
post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the
construction site.
EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-2.
Air Quality
38. Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit, submit a program to implement
the following detailed specifications to protect air quality during the
construction period. This program shall be subject to review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator.
A. Basic Control Measures: 1) water all active construction areas at least
twice daily; 2) cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose
materials; 3)pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non-toxic soil
stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,parking areas,and staging areas at
construction sites; 3)sweep daily(with water sweepers)all paved access
roads, parking areas and staging areas.
B. Enhanced Control Measures: l) hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil
stabilizers to inactive construction areas(previously graded areas inactive
for ten days or more); 2) enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-
toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); 3) limit traffic
speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour;4)install sandbags or other
erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; 5)
replant vegetation i11 disturbed areas as quickly as possible; 6) install
36
wheel washers for all existing trucks, or wash off tires or tracks of all
trucks and equipment leaving the site; 7)suspend excavation and grading
activity when winds exceed 25 miles per hour; 8) properly.maintain
construction equipment and avoid unnecessary idling near residences; 9)
• designate a disturbance coordinator who would respond to complaints
regarding construction-related air quality issues and post the coordinator's
phone number at the construction site; and 10) at least once per month,
submit a report by the contractor to the County to ensure that construction
Mitigation measures are in place.
(EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-1)
Recreation
39. The on-site open space resources shall be protected by the following
means. .Prior to approval of the Final Map, provide documentation of
compliance with the following detailed specifications. The documents
provided shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
A. All on-site open space shall be deed-restricted and dedicated to an on-site
homeowner's association (HOA) that would be responsible for ongoing
maintenance and operation. This dedication(and appropriate documen-
tation) shall occur prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map.
B. The HOA shall establish an appropriate fee structure for project residents
that would help to offset ongoing maintenance and operation costs.
C. An Operations and Maintenance Plan shall be established for the on-site
open space by the HOA to ensure that water quality and vegetation
management provisions are addressed. This Plan shall be approved by
the County's Public Works Department and the California Department of
Fish and Game prior to the issuance of a;grading permit for the site.
D. Adequate signage shall be posted at the site to identify times of use and
appropriate controls such as avoidance of garbage in the creek, cleaning
up after animals, etc.
E. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions(CC&Rs)of the HOA shall
provide for holding owners of private lots financially responsible for any
debris cleanup required as a result of illegal dumping in the creek
structure setback zone.
EIR Mitigation Measure REC-1.
Utilities
37
40. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for a residence, provide a
landscape program for front yards. For each south-facing residence, the
program shall include at least one deciduous tree to encourage the use of
solar,equipment and passive solar design. The. proposed landscape
program shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator to assure compliance with mitigation measure. (Mitigation
Measure UTILITIES-1)
Street Name
41. At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map,proposed street names shall
be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development
Department, Graphics Section(Phone#335-1270). Alternate street names
should be submitted. The Final Map cannot be approved by the Commu-
nity Development Department without the approved street name.
Election for Establishment of a Police Service District to Augment Police.Services
42. 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 Final
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.
Landscape Plan and Security for Street Tree/Hilltop Drive Landscape Improvements
43. A. The plans for the Hilltop Drive frontage will include provision for a
six-foot tall decorative masonry wall. Proposed trees shall be a
minimum 15-gallons in size;proposed shrubs shall be a minim m.5-
gallons in size. Plans shall include a color spot. At the same time,
the plans shall make clear that the plant selection at maturity
complies with the Sight Distance at Intersection Ordinance. The
plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and shall be
certified to be in compliance with the County Water Conservation
Ordinance 82-26.
38
B. ` Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall provide the
County with'a security that is acceptable to the Zoning Administrator
for 125 percent of the estimated cost of the landscape improvements.
The purpose of the security shall be to ensure timely completion of
the required landscape improvements, and shall be retained until the
required landscape improvements have been completed and accepted
by the Zoning Administrator. If compliance isnot achieved within
one year of the completion of the subdivision improvements. then
the County may contract for the completion of the landscaping and
irrigation improvement using the landscape security.
Traffic Calming and Hardscape Entry Design Measures for Royal Oaks Drive
44. Improvement plans for Royal Oaks Drive shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department for the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator, following opportunity to comment by the Public
Works Department. The plans shall provide for:
A. The installation of at least two speed bumps intended to slow traffic
along this road.
B. A hardscape design treatment for the road entry to the project..
Recycling of Construction Materials
45. A. At least 30 days ' prior to issuance of building permits, the
subdivision developer.shall submit two (2) copies of a Debris
Recovery Plan demonstrating how they intend to recycle,reuse, or
salvage. building materials and other debris generated from the
construction of new buildings for the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator, following.an opportunity for review and
comment by the Resource Recovery Specialist in the Community
Development Department (Lorna Thomson, (925) 335-1321).
B. At least 30 days prior to requesting a. final inspection on the first
residential building permit,the subdivision developer shall submit a
completed Debris Recovery Project, documenting actual debris
recovery efforts (including quantities of recovered and land filled
materials) that occurred throughout the project's duration.
Design Guidelines: General
46 . A: Prior to approval of the Grading Plan or Final Map, the applicant
shall submit for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator
39
design guidelines. The design guidelines shall be. listed in .the
CC&R's.
B. An internal Architectural Review Board shall be created to review
and approve plans in accordance with the residential design
guidelines prior to submittal of plans to Community Development
and Building.Inspection Departments. The Architectural Review
Board shall become active when at least 60% of the residences are
owner-occupied.
The following County review process will be in effect regardless of
the status of the Architectural Review Board. All residential designs
for permits shall be submitted with a design guideline checklist to
determine compliance with the design guidelines for the review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator. The County shall retain
architectural and landscape peer review, and costs of the review
shall be borne by the applicant.
C. The criteria listed in Exhibit "4-H" Staff Study Design Guidelines
shall—at a minimum—.be included in the applicant design guideline
submittal.
Design Guidelines: Setbacks
47. A. Required setbacks and off-street parking prescribed by the R-7
zoning district shall be measured from the edge of the private road
easement or property line, whicheveris more restrictive.
B. Lot setback exceptions. 15 feet (minimum) allowed,provided that.
the garage achieves a 20 foot setback and provided that any
encroachment in the 20 ft setback zone be limited to a one story
element.
Design Guidelines: Preliminary Design Submittal
48. Prior to approval of a revised grading plan or final map, applicant shall
submit for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator architectural
plans and elevations that are sensitive to the site topography. The designs
shall incorporate the criteria listed in the project design guidelines. The
Preliminary Design Submittal shall include the following:
A. Conceptual Site Plans for a cross-slope lot, a down-slope lot and an
up-slope lot that show:
40
1. Proposed grades if different from revised grading plan
2. Property lines with applicable setbacks shown "
3. All proposed easements on the property
4. Existing trees—noted as to saved or to be removed
5. Lot drainage
6. Fence types and locations with heights noted
7. Retaining walls including heights, type, color and finish
£s. Conceptual landscape and lot development activities
9. Amount of cut and fill required for design (beyond quantities
noted on revised grading plan)
B. Conceptual Exterior Elevation of House that Identify:
1. Exterior finishes
2. Sample of roofing material and color (manufacturers' brochure
OK)
3. Color chart detailing exterior colors (manufacturers' brochure
OK)
C. Conceptual Floor Plans
1. Identification of rooms
2. Proposed square footage of home, garage and other structures
Design Guidelines: Grading Conditions
49. Prior to approval of a grading plan or final map,applicant shall submit for
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator a revised grading/tree
preservation plan. The revised grading plan shall:
A. Be designed on a current topographical survey .with two-foot
contours.
B. Show the grading for the detention basins, the lot layout 'to
accommodate the basins and access to maintain the basins.
C. Reflect the proposed house grading at the back of the downhill lots
to minimize site grading and sliver fills requiring additional keyways
at house construction stage.
D. Include the arch culvert crossing detail,to be submitted to the Public
Works and Community Development Departments for review and
41
approval. The plans shall note proposed wall material and finish,
fencing and guardrail detail and include structural sections.
E. Depict storm drainage improvements including "clear, water"
features intended to comply with C.3 — requirement and piping as
well as easements on lots for utilities and private open spaces.
F. The revised grading plan shall clearly label all retaining walls,note
wall heights, and the type, color and finish of walls. No retaining
wall structural elements for the project access roadways or project
shall be on private lots without an easement. The walls supporting
the project access roadways shall be maintained by the HOA. All
private roadway structural elements shall be on easement or via
separate open space lot, and maintained by the HOA.
G. Identify all trees with a trunk circumference of 6.5 inches or greater
with trunks within twenty feet of areas proposed. for grading.
Reasonable efforts shall be made to minimize the loss of or potential
damage to existing trees. The plans shall identify the trunk
circumference, approximate canopy area, species, and whether the
tree is to be preserved or removed. The plan shall be prepared with
the assistance of a licensed arborist. The plan shall provide suitable
measures to assure protection of trees during the construction period.
The grading/tree preservation plan shall provide delineation of the
perimeter of areas and trees to be preserved by use of taping and
stakes, or other appropriate barriers. The survey of trees shall
provide for a tally of the number and trunk circumference of trees to
be removed. The aggregate trunk circumferences of trees proposed
for removal shall be totaled. No trees shall be removed from any of
the property prior to approval of the grading/tree preservation plan
without the prior approval of the Zoning Administrator.
H. Depicts grading to accommodate the conceptual designs required in
compliance with the provisions of Conditions of Approval 46-48.
1. Earthwork quantities (cut and fill) shall be noted on the revised
grading plan. Should the site not balance,the applicant shall provide
details of the proposed import/export. Include information on
location(s) of proposed fill import/export site, type of trucks, haul
route, haul hours, trucks/day and duration of operation, proposed
safety measures (flag men, strut sweeping, dust control). Any
import/export plan shall be subject to review and approval of the
Public Works Department.
42
J. After the rough gradingoperation,minimal grading shall be allowed
on the site to accommodate residential construction.
Indemnification of County
50. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including
the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless the Contra Costa County Planning Agency and its agents,
officers, and employers 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.
Applicant Responsible for Fees to Cover Mitigation Monitoring Costs
51 . The subdivider shall be responsible for staff time and material costs in
monitoring the project for compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program. The monitoring program will include provision for
periodic inspection of the project site from the commencement of
demolition and construction activity through the end of the required
survival period for maintaining required landscape mitigation
improvements. Prior to issuance of any permit or approval of a final map,
the applicant shall make an initial cash deposit of$10,000 towards this
expense to the Community Development Department.
Application Processing Fees
52 . This application is subject to a deposit of$12,831.00 which was paid with
the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application
review expenses exceed 100 percent of the initial fee. Any additional fee
due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use .
of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through
permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant
may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If the
applicant owes additional fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly
after permit issuance.
PUBLIC.WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.FOR SUBDIVISION 8533
43
COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO
APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP
General Requirements:
53. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this
subdivision shall conform to all applicable.provisions of the Subdivision
Ordinance(Title 9). Any etceptions therefrom must be specifically listed
in this conditional approval statement. The drainage, road and utility
improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the
Public Works Department and are based on the revised Tentative Map
dated October 29, 2004.
54. , Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be
submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services
Division, along with review and inspection fees, and security for all
improvements required by the Ordinance Code for the conditions of
approval of this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary
traffic signage and striping plans for review by the Transportation
Engineering Division.
Roadway Improvements—Hilltop Drive:
55. Applicant shall construct curb and 5-foot wide sidewalk(width measured
from curb face) along the project's frontage on Hilltop Drive. The face of
curb shall conform to the alignment of the existing.AC berm and be
subject to the review of Public Works. The new intersection at Royal Oaks
Drive should not conflict with planned future bicycle facilities.
(Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-3)
56. Dedicate additional right of way as necessary to accommodate the above
required sidewalk and appurtenant improvements and utilities. Minimum
total.right of way shall be 10 feet from the proposed face of curb.
Also refer to COA #5 regarding the construction of a Left-Turn Lane on
Hilltop Drive, if determined to be feasible.
57. Applicant shall install safety related improvements including traffic signs
and striping, as necessary and as approved by Public Works.
Roadway Improvements—On Site
58. Applicant shall construct curb, a 4-foot sidewalk (width measured from
curb face), where feasible given the site's geographic, constraints
44
(Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-3)necessary longitudinal and transverse
drainage and street lighting within the project as shown on the tentative
map. Pavement and right of way widths shall conform to those shown on
the tentative map as well.
59. _ Although the streets are to remain private, they shall be constructed to
County public road standards as to horizontal and vertical alignment
(using a 30 mile per hour design speed) as well as the pavement structural
section. Turn-arounds shall be subject to the review and approval of
Public Works and Fire Protection District..
60. Relocate the proposed driveway serving Lot 1 to the north side of the
proposed building footprint,to provide more distance from.the Royal Oaks
Drive/Hilltop Drive intersection.
61. Offer to dedicate a private access and utility easement over Royal Oaks
Drive between Garrity Creek and Hilltop Drive to the adjacent parcel to
the west.
Emergency Vehicle Access
62. The proposed EVA between Garrity Creek Drive and Manor Road shall
comply with design requirements of the County Public Works Department
and Fire Protection District. The applicant shall obtain an offer to dedicate
a permanent easement over said EVA from the underlying property owner
to the County on behalf of the Public. (Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-2)
63. Pedestrian access shall be provided at the gates of the proposed emergency
vehicle access. (Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-3)
Access to-Adjoining Property:
Proof of Access
64. Applicant shall furnish necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits
and/or easements for the construction of off-site,temporary or permanent,
public and private road and drainage improvements.
65. Encroachment permits from the County are required for all construction
activity within existing County right of way. Off-site street or drainage
improvements within the City of Richmond will require the appropriate .
permits from the City. °
Construction Related Project Access
45
66 The applicant shall prepare a Construction Manavement Plan for approval
by the County Public Works Department prior to the initiation of
construction. The plan shall identify routes to be used by construction
traffic and the type and number of trucks expected. While most work
would be completed on. the site without much disruption to existing
roadways, any work on the proposed Royal Oaks Drive and EVA that
affects traffic flows on Hilltop Drive or Manor Road should be completed
outside of peak hours and not during school drop-off and pick-up times.
(Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-5)
Parking:
67. "No Parking" signs and pavement markings shall be installed along all
streets subject to the review and approval of Public Works. Parking will be
allowed on one side of the street where the curb-to-curb width is at least
28 feet. Parking shall be prohibited altogether along roads with a curb-to-
curb width less than 28 feet.The Homeowners Association shall maintain
signage and the painted curbs over the life of the project. (Mitigation
Measure TRAFFIC-4)
Sight.Distance.-
68.-
istance:68. Provide sight distance at all internal intersections for a through traffic
design speed of 30 mph and a through. traffic design speed at the
intersection of Hilltop. Drive and Royal Oaks Drive of 40 mph. Sight
distance easements shall be dedicated on the final map in accordance with
the currant Caltrans intersection"Stopping Sight Distance"requirements
or Chapter 82-18 of the County Ordinance Code, whichever is greater.
Structures greater than 30 inches above top of curb grade will be
prohibited within these sight distance easements. (Mitigation Measure
TRAFFIC-1)
Utilities/Undergrou nding:
69. All new and existing utility distribution facilities shall be installed
underground.
Maintenance of Facilities:
70. Property Owner shall create.a Homeowners Association to maintain the
private roadway, street lights, drainage and stormwater management
facilities. A copy of the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions for the
46
subdivision,or a separate deed notification shall be'submitted to Public
Works for review to verify conformance with this requirement
Roadway Landscaping: ,
71. Applicant shall convey the entry landscaping/ hardscape area at the project
entrance along Hilltop Drive to the Homeowners Association, or other
acceptable entity other than the County. A maintenance plan of operation
shall be submitted for Public Works and Community Development review, ,
but the County will not accept this property for maintenance.
Pedestrian Facilities:
72. All public and private pedestrian facilities and access ways shall be
designed in accordance with Title. 24 (Handicap access) and the
Americans with Disabilities Act. This shall include all sidewalks, paths,
trails, driveway depressions, as well as handicap ramps.
73. A public pedestrian access easement shall be dedicated over the sidewalks
to be constructed within the project..
Drainage Improvements:
Collect and Convey
74. Division 914 of the Ordinance Code requires that all storm waters entering
or originating within the subject property shall be conveyed, 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 that conveys the storm waters to a natural
watercourse.
Exception
In light of the study of the downstream drainage facilities in the "Hilltop
Green" project and the deficiencies noted therein, the applicant shall
construct the. proposed on-site detention basins to reduce the peak
stormwater runoff rate from the 10-year design storm specified.in the
County Ordinance Code to or below pre-project levels.
75. Storm drainage facilities required by Division 914 shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with specifications outlined in Division 914 and
in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department.
47
Storm Water Management and Maintenance:
76. The design of Detention Basins "A" and "B" should either be based on
Contra Costa County Flood Control District criteria for regional basins,or
the applicant should provide an engineered des]--n acceptable to the
County Public Works Department. The current 2.5:1 slope gradients do
not conform to the 4:1 maximum slope allowed by County regulations.
This change would potentially affect the useable area of upgradient lots
and the lot layout may require reconfiguration or reduction in lot yield.
The drainage design and modeling data were based on the applicant's
grading plans of October 14, 2004. if the grading plans change due to lot
reconfiguration, the effect of those changes will necessitate further
bydrologic'modeling and associated stormwater management design to be
submitted to The County Public Works Department for review and
approval.. (Mitigation Measure HYDROLOGY-1)
77. A Maintenance Plan and entity responsible for funding and implementing
maintenance of the detention basins and other stormwater management
infrastructure in perpetuity shall be established prior to filing the final
map. An Operations and Maintenance Manual (OMM)for these facilities
shall be completed by the applicant and approved by the County prior to
issuance of a grading permit. The OMM shall specify that detention
basins will be operated to ensure that design storage capacity of the basin
is maintained and that accumulated residual sediment and other material
deposited will be cleaned out, following detention basin inspections.
Debris removal shall occur as needed. The drainage facilities shall be
inspected at least once per year in the fall,before the onset of a new rainy
season. (Mitigation Measure HYDROLOGY-2)
78. The grassy swales downslope of Lots 32, 33, and 34 shall be removed
based on their limited effectiveness to control and direct surface water
flow due to the relatively steep grades of these lots. (Mitigation Measure
HYDROLOGY-2)
79. Appropriate easements, access, and security for use of the needed
equipment to'clean out the detention basins shall be provided. The basins
shall be sited within separate parcels without any residential use
component. Development rights over these separate parcels shall be
conveyed to the County by grant deed. Ownership. of the lots shall be
conveyed to the Homeowners Association or subsequent maintenance
entity to be approved by the County Public Works Department.
(Mitigation Measure HYDROLOGY-2)
48
Miscellaneous :Drainage Improvements:
80. Storm drainage originating on the property and.conveved in a concentrated
manner shall be prevented from draining across the sidewalk(s)and drive-
way(s).
81. The applicant shall dedicate a public drainage easement over the drainage
system that conveys storm water run-off from public streets, if applicable.
82. In the absence of public drainage easements,the applicant shall create private
drainage easements over portions of the drainage system that convey Storni
water run-off from more than a single lot or parcel,
83. Private on-site storni drain easements, if necessary, shall have a minimum
width of 10 feet.
Creek Structure Setback
84. Applicant shall relinquish "development rights" over that portion of the
site that is within the setback area of Garrity Creek. The structure setback
shall be determined using the criteria outlined in Chapter 914-14, `Rights
of Way and Setbacks" of the Subdivision Ordinance. Development rights
shall be conveyed to the County by grant deed.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Requirements:
85. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and
procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)for municipal construction and industrial activities promulgated
by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its
Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay—Region II)
86. Although the new"C.3"requirements being phased in from 2004 through
2006 post-date the applicant's submission, a C.3-conforming drainage
plan shall be required for this project. The applicant's current design in-
cludes components necessary to meet the objectives of the"C.3" require-
ments. (Mitigation Measure HYDROLOGY-1)
87. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must complete a
stormwater control plan(SWOP)acceptable to the County Watershed Pro-
tection Program reviewers. This must include a detailed description of
construction phase Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) as
well as post construction BMPs to be implemented. (Mitigation Measure
HYDROLOGY-1)
49
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 OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT.
A. The Building Inspection Department will require three sets of building plans which must be
stamped by the Community Development Department and by the West County Wastewater
District.
B. Additional requirements may be imposed by the Fire District. the Health Department and
the Building Inspection Department. It is advisable to check with these departments prior
to requesting a building permit or proceeding with the.project.
C. Vesting Tentative Map Rights. The approval of this vesting tentative map confers a vested
right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with ordinances,policies,and
standards in effect as of November 28,2004,the date the vesting tentative map application
was accepted as complete by the Community Development Department. The vested rights
also apply to development fees which the County has adopted by ordinance. These fees are
in addition to any other development fees which may be specified in. the conditions of
approval.
The fees include but are not limited to the following:
Park Dedication $21000.00 per residence.
Child Care $400.00 per residence.
An estimate of the fee charges for each approved lot may be obtained by contacting the
Building Inspection Department at 335-1192.
D. Expiration of Vested Rights. Pursuant to Section 66452.6(8) of the Subdivision Map act,
the rights conferred by the vesting tentative map as provided by Chapter 4.5 of the
Subdivision Map act shall last for an initial period of two(2)years following the recording
date of the final/parcel map. These rights pertain to development fees and regulations.
Where several final maps are recorded on various phases of a project covered by a single
vesting tentative map,the initial time period shall begin for each phase when the final map
for that phase is recorded.
At.any time prior to the expiration of the initial time period,the subdivider may apply for a
one-year extension. The application shall be accompanied by the applicable filing fee. If
the extension is denied by an advisory agency,the subdivider may appeal that denial to the
J0
Board of Supervisors by filing a letter of appeal with the appropriate filing fee with the
Clerk of the Board within 15 calendar days.
The initial time period may also be subject to autornatic extension pursuant to other-
provisions of Section 66452.6(8)relating to processing of related development applications
by the County.
At the expiration of the vesting time period, remaining development (i.e., new building
permits) within the subdivision shall be subject to development fees and regulations in
effect at that time:
E. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules,regulations, and procedures of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal, construction
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).
F. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is
the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 4
Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within this development that
may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code.
G. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the
applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to
determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained.
H. Police Services District Costs and Necessary Processing Time. The applicant is advised
that the tax for the police services district is currently set by the Board of Supervisors at
$200 per parcel annually (with appropriate future Consumer Price Index (CPI)
adjustments). The annual fee is subject to modification by the Board of Supervisors in the
future. The current fee for holding the election is$800 and is also subject to modification
in the future. The applicable tax and fee amounts will be those established by the Board at
the time of voting. The applicant is advised that the election process takes from 3 to 4
months and must be completed prior to approval of the Final Map.
1. Requirement of Special Districts and School District. Comply with the requirements of the
East Bay Municipal Utility District and West County Wastewater'District. Comply�Vith
the requirements of the Contra Costa County Fire'Protection District. At time of issuance
of building permits, comply with the fee payment requirements of the Richmond Unified
School District.
J. The applicant has paid the County an environmental fee of California Department of Fish
and Game fee of$850 to the County.
51
i
K. Comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements for the Richmond/El
Sobrante and West.Contra Costa Regional Areas of Benefit as adopted by the Board of
Supervisors. These fees must be paid prior to issuance of building permits.
L. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS,
RESERVATIONS,OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL
OF THIS PERMIT.
This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section
6.6000, et. seq, the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications,reservations,
and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is
limited to a ninety-day (90) period after the project is approved.
The 90-day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any
dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the
date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the .Community Development
Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit.
G:\Cuirent Planning\Curr-p1an\Afshar\SD0185')KOAs.—bos-g
Rev. 7-6-2006
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
"� =... COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
651 Pine Street, N. Wing - 4th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Telephone: (925) 335-1210 Fax: (925) 335-1222
TO: Jane Pennington, Chief Clerk, Clerk of the Board
Attn: Kathy Sinclair RECEIVE®
FROM: Bob Drake, Principal Planner MAY 0 " 2006
BOARD OF
DATE: May 1, 2006 CLERK
CONTRA COSTA CO SUPERVISORS
SUBJECT: Modified Findings and Conditions of Approval for
Subdivision 8533 (Afshar) per 11y
4/11/2006 Board of Supervisors Approval
On April 11,2006,the Board of Supervisors conducted a continued hearing on an appeal of
the County Planning Commission approval of the above project. After completing the
hearing,the Board voted to approve the project with modifications to the staff recommended
Findings and Conditions of Approval for a maximum of 35 lots.
Attached are revised General Findings(Exhibit 2-B)and Conditions of Approval that reflect
the Board's decision for this project. For purposes of preparation of a final Board Order,
Please substitute these documents for the corresponding documents in the 4/11/2006 staff
report to the Board. Except for the Staff Study (site plan) at the end of the report, the other
documents included in the 4/1.1 staff report to the Board (including the CEQA Findings,
Exhibit 2-A) should be included in the final Board Order.
Request to Review Draft Board Order Before it is Issued
Before the Draft Board Order is Issued, I would like an opportunity to review it. When it is
available for review, please call me at X5-1214 and I will come down to your office.
Att. Revised General Findings
Revised COA
Cc: File
G:\current planning\curr-plan\afshar\sub 833 cob.mem
RD\
EXHIBIT 2-B
GENERAL FINDINGS RELATED TO APPROVAL OF
VARIANCES AND MAP FOR EL SOBRANTE SUBDIVISION 8533
BY THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
I. INTRODUCTION
1. These general findings are adopted by the Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors (`Board") for the El Sobrante Subdivision 8533 (the "Project").
These findings refer to the EIR prepared for that project. SCH #2003102107 ("EIR"). and
are based upon that EIR. These findings are also based upon the staff reports presented
to the Planning Commission and the Board, all materials contained in the record of
proceedings including public testimony, and as identified in the CEQA Findings for the
Project (Exhibit 2-A). Some findings are based especially upon specific reports, or upon
specific pages of the EIR, as noted below. However, all findings are based upon the
entire record. References to specific reports and specific pages of documents are for ease
of reference only, and are not intended to identify those sources as the exclusive basis for
the finding.
2. These general findings are attached as Exhibit 2-B and
incorporated by reference into the following approval documents pertaining to the
Project:
• Conditions of Approval (Exhibit I ), and
• Vesting Tentative Map dated 10/23/2004.
For ease of reference, all the relevant findings under the Planning and
Zoning Lav, the County Code, and other applicable policies or regulations are included
in this one document.
3. Attached to these same approval documents is an Exhibit 2-A that
contains CEQA Findings. Also attached is an Exhibit 4 that references impacts,
mitigation measures. and resulting levels of significance, and sets forth the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMR-P"). All Exhibits are incorporated by
reference into each other. and into the approval documents.
4. These findings use capitalized terms as they are used in the EIR.
References to title, chapter and to code sections are references to the County Code unless
the context clearly indicates otherwise. References to Exhibits are references to the
exhibits attached to the approval documents to which this Exhibit 2-B is attached.
II. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
5. The Project is governed by the Contra Cosier Counly General Plan
and any decision by the County affecting land use and development must be consistent
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
with the General Plan. This Board adopts the conclusions. analysis and explanations
contained in the EIR, staff reports and these findings regarding the consistency of the
Project with the General Plan.
6. The Project Sponsor has proposed the development of a 40-lot
residential subdivision located on approximately 10 acres designated Single-Family
Residential-High Density by the General Plan. This Board approves variances and'a
subdivision that will allow a maximum of 34 residential lots, subject to certain review
criteria listed in Conditions of Approval number:
#2 General Site Plan Alterations;
#8 — 14, 18. & 20 Review for Impacts to Biologic Resources;
#23 Graded Slope Restrictions
446-49 Design Review
959 Road Design
#74 - 87 Hydrology
7. The following reference to "Project" is defined as the project that
has been approved by the Board of Supervisors including any Conditions of Approval.
. General Plan policies that are pertinent to the development of this site
include those identified in Table 4.1-1 on pages 4.1-5 through 4.1-10 of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for this project. Among the pertinent General Plan policies
are.the following:
Land Use Element
3-202 "Upgrade the community's drainage system to eliminate
problems caused by local inundation, ponding and sheet
overflow during storms. ..:.''
Conservation Element
8-3 "Watersheds, natural waterways. and areas important for
the maintenance of natural vegetation and wildlife
populations shall be preserved and enhanced."
8-10 `'Any development located or proposed within significant
ecological resource areas shall ensure that the resource is
protected."
8-14. "Development on hillsides shall be limited to maintain
valuable natural vegetation especially forests and open
B-2
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
grasslands, and to control erosion. Development on open
hillsides and significant ridgelines throughout the County
shall be restricted, and hillsides with a grade of 26 percent
or greater shall be protected through implementing zoning
measures and other appropriate actions."
Safety Element
9-11 "Proposed extensions of urban or suburban land uses into
areas characterized by slopes over 15 percent and/or
generally unstable land shall be evaluated with regard to
safety hazard prior to the issuance of any discretionary
approvals. Development on open hillsides and significant
ridgelines shall be restricted, and hillsides with a grade of
26 percent or greater throughout the County shall be
protected through implementing zoning measures and other
appropriate actions."
9-12 "Generally, residential density shall decrease as slope
increases, especially above a 15 percent slope."
8. The General Plan defines the densities of its residential
designations in terms of housing units per net acre as described in Chapter 4.1 of the
Draft Environmental Impact Report ( Draft EIR) (Land Use and Planning), including
modifications to this chapter described on Pages 228-229 of the Final Environmental
Impact Report (Final EIR). The General Plan desio nates the site Single Family
Residential —Hi0h Density, 5.0—7.2 dwelling units per net acre. Net acreage includes
all land area used exclusively for residential purposes, and excludes street, highways and
all other public rights-of--way. Under the General Plan, net acreage is assumed to
constitute 75 percent of gross acreage for single family residential uses, including the
Single-Family Residential-High Density land use designation. (Land Use Element 3-13.
Table 3-4). The Project site's gross acreage is 10 acres, which results in 7..5 net acres.
Applied to this site, the General Plan density range of 5.0 to 7.2 units per net acre would
normally be 37 to 54 units. However, Page 3-13 of the Land Use Element of the General
Plan also provides that the allowable density range may be reduced under the following
circumstances:
"6ljhen calculating the allowed density of a parcel, readers should keep in
inind that unique environmental characteristics tnay justifj,a reduced
number-of units or intensill)of use than is normally allowed under the
General Plan designation. "
9. This Board finds that the Project site contains unique
environmental characteristics that would justify a reduced number of units than is
normally allowable under the General Plan designation. Those unique environmental
characteristics include:
B-3
Exhibit 2-B
Genera!Findings for
Subdivision 8533
• The creekbeds of two tributaries of Garrity Creek which run
alongside the west and south boundaries of the site., and
wetlands on a nearby hillside: the creekbeds and wetlands
contain unique environmental resources that are not adequately
protected by the Project as proposed. Also, greater separation
of residential development from a nearby seep on.the hillside is
warranted,.
• Steep slopes that warrant protection. Eighty-four (84) percent
of the Project site contains slopes with a grade of 15% or
greater. Sixteen (16) percent of the Project site (including
much of the northern area of the site occupied by Lots 27 and
28) contain slopes that have grades of 26% or greater. These
slopes warrant'protection by restriction on development;' and
• The shape and configuration of the Project site, including a
relatively narrow stem component that connects the main
portion of the site to its entrance on Hilltop Drive.
10. This Board finds that in consideration of these unique Project site
characteristics and related general plan policies, that to allow for a finding of Project
consistency with the General Plan it is necessary to reduce the number of residential lots
from 40 lots to a maximum of 35 lots as required by the Conditions of Approval. Some
of the area of the eliminated and modified residential lots shall be placed within a deed-
restricted Open Space parcel in the northwest corner of the property to be owned and
maintained by a project homeowners association with possible provision for limited
public access. Moreover. additional reductions in the Project unit count may also be
required prior to approval of a Final Map as a result of the Project's obligation to comply
with other Conditions of Approval pertaining to:
• Hydrology;
• Geotechnical:
• Biological;
• Compliance with specified zoning ordinance parameters, and
• Design Review.
This Board finds that the reduction in units necessary to comply
with the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit 1 are consistent,with the General
Plan goals and policies, including the land use designation for the Project site.
Accordingly, this Board finds that the Project is consistent with the General Plan.
' Ref. Figure 3-6(Slope Map)on pg. 3-11 of the Draft EIR.
B-4
Exhibit?-B
General.Findings for
Subdivision 8533
11. This Board finds that the Project is compatible with, and conforms
to, the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan.
The Project furthers the objectives and policies of the General Plan and does not obstruct
their attainment. The Project, as conditioned through Conditions of Approval set forth in
Exhibit 1, is compatible with, and in hannony with, General Plan goals and policies.
Specifically, implementation of the Project will result in the fulfillment of several
important General Plan policies including reinforcement of the suburban character of the
area by continuing the single-family residential pattern, discouraging sprawl, maintaining
a compact urban form, compliance with the 65/35 urban limit line, as amended,
protection of terrain with slopes exceeding a 15% grade, and preservation and
enhancement of natural.waterways and open space, all by promoting infill development
in an existing residential neighborhood.
12. This Board finds that the Project is in harmony with surrounding
neighborhoods, and the site is physically suitable for the type of development and
reduced density of development as required by the Conditions of Approval. The
surrounding area is primarily developed with single-family residential homes on lots
ranging from 5.000 to 40,000 square feet in area. The Project allows development on lots
that must equal or exceed 7000 square feet in area. The Project is not likely to cause
serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantial and avoidable
injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat.
13. In support of the proposed Project. the attorney.for the Applicant
cited a provision of State Planning Law that is relevant to a local agency's review of a
residential subdivision project such as this project is Section 65589.5 0) of the
Government Code relative to determining appropriate unit yield for a project. This law
reads in part:
"Yl'hen a proposed housing development pro ect complies with
applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and
criteria (emphasis added), including design revietit, standards, in .
effect at the time that the housing development project's
application is determined to be complete, but the local agency
proposes to disapprove the prq ect or to approve it upon the
condition that the prgject be developed at a lower densiq,., the local
agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing
development project upon written,f ndings szrppof led by
substantial evidence on the record that both of the.follouYing
conditions exist:.... "
This Board finds that the requirement of this provision of the law
for a local agency to base its decision regarding the proposed project upon specified
written findings does not apply to this project insofar as the Project as proposed does not
comply with:
• The zoning standards and criteria that were in effect on
B-5
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 85.33
November 28, 2004, the date when the modified Vesting
Tentative Map Application was accepted as complete. As
reviewed in the March 21. 2006 staff report to the Board of
Supervisors, the proposed Project does not comply with
the average lot width and lot depth standards, or yard
standards (retaining wall/fence. arch culvert, residence) of
the Single Family Residential R-7 zoning district (Chapter
84-6 of Title 8 of the Ordinance Code);
• The applicable, objective general plan standards and
criteria. Eighty-four percent of the site has a parade of 15%
or greater. Safety Element 10-28 provides that "Generally, .
residential density shall decrease as slope increases,
especially above a 15 percent slope." Further. the Land
Use Element provides that "unique environmental
characteristics may justify a reduced number of units or
intensity of use than is normally allowed under the General
Plan designation. This Board finds that the Project site has
unique steep slope characteristics(and other characteristics
identified above) that justify a reduced number of units
than is normally allowed under the General Plan
designation, and that this conclusion is based on the
aforementioned applicable and objective general plan
standards and criteria for development on a grade of 15%
or greater.
14. The General Plan comprises many goals. objectives, policies,
principles, programs, standards, proposals and action plans. as well as perfonnance
standards. The Board of Supervisors recognizes that certain policies necessarily compete
with each other. Examples of tensions between General Plan policies are found between
those policies that promote managed growth and encourage new residential construction,
and those that provide for protection of open space. This Board has considered all
applicable General Plan policies and the extent to which the Project conforms to. and
potentially competes with, each of those policies. In balancing the need to provide
appropriate development separation buffers from creeks and wetland areas, and
protection of areas of the site with a steeper slope, reduces the area available for.
residential development. This Board finds that the measures in the Conditions of
Approval allow for appropriate protection measures for these unique environmental
characteristics while allowing for the maximum number of units on the Project site.
15. For the reasons and policies stated in the EIR, in the staff reports,
in these findings. and in the CEQA Findings for the Project (Exhibit 2-A), this Board
finds that the balance achieved by the Project among competing General Plan policies is
acceptable,that the Project complies with all performance standards in the General Plan.
The Project achieves each applicable policy to some extent, and represents.a reasonable
accommodation of all applicable policies in the General Plan.
B-6
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
16. This Board has fully evaluated the extent to which the Project
achieves each policy in the General Plan, including those pertaining to density, standards
regarding slopes, geology, and soils, hazardous materials, flood hazards. drainage,
erosion and runoffprotection of water quality, protection.of biological resources
including riparian and wildlife habitat. transportation standards and goals, recreational
and aesthetic interests and protection of visual resources. .
17. Following completion of.the EIR, the Project Sponsor submitted a
Modified Site Plan dated January 5, 2006 constituting Exhibit 10 of the March 21. 2006
staff report to the Board. This Board finds that the Modified Site Plan does not contain
sufficient information about the site (e.g., topographical information) to allow for
productive analysis of its merits relative to EIR findings or General Plan policies. and
therefore has not based the Board's decision of the Project on that document.
18. ' This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the Growth
Management Element Performance Standards of the General Plan and adopts the
conclusions, analysis and explanations contained in the EIR and staff reports regarding
the consistency of the Project with these standards.
19. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the traffic
standards and policies of the Growth Management Element. The EIR traffic study
measured peak hour traffic at key intersections in the site vicinity (along the Hilltop
Drive corridor). The analysis included calculation of existing Level of Service at these
intersections and forecasted the effect of Project-generated traffic on the operation of
these intersections. The traffic study also analyzed the existing plus project plus
cumulative scenario. Using the threshold of significance adopted by the County in the
Growth Manayuement Element, the study concludes that the project will not have a
significant impact on Hilltop Drive traffic. Evaluation of the internal circulation of the
project identified significant impacts, and mitigation measures are proposed to reduce
those impacts to less-than-significant. This Board adopts the conclusions, analysis and
explanations contained in the traffic study and in Chapter 4.2 of the Draft EIR.
20. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the flooding
and drainage standards and policies of the Growth Management Element. No portion of
the Project site lies within a special flood hazard zone designated by the Federal
Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). The EIR indicates that the existing
Hilltop Green drainage facilities are adequate to carry peak flows from the 10-year storm
event. The hydrology chapter of the EIR summarizes technical data and engineering
analysis, which evaluated the effect of the project on peak runoff exiting the site. This
Board adopts the conclusions, analysis and explanations contained in this chapter. Based
on hydrologic model runs using methodology acceptable to the Flood Control District,
the Board finds that the two proposed storm water detention basins are capable of
keeping peak flows from the project at or below the pre-development level. Specifically.
for a runoff event with recurrence intervals of 10 years, peak flows at the Hilltop Green
culvert are decreased from 57 cubic feet per second (cfs) under existing conditions to 55
cfs after buildout of the project. For the 100-year runoff event, peak flows are reduced
B-7
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
from 85 cfs to 83 cfs. The Project would not exacerbate potential flooding problems
downstream from the Project site and thus would not result in a significant impact. The
EIR states that the engineering details of basin design are not provided, and identifies
basin design and provision for long-term maintenance as a significant impact.
Performance criteria are provided as mitigation measures to require that engineering
detail to reduce those impacts to less-than-significant levels.
21. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the water and
waste disposal standards and policies of the Growth Management Element. The Project
site is within'the EBMUD and West County Wastewater District service areas. The
Project applicant is required to comply with the requirements of these service.districts.
22. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the fire
protection standards and policies of the Growth Management Element. The site is within
one mile of the fire station at #4640 Appian Way. Therefore. the project is not required
for purposes of a Project finding of consistency with the General Plan to equip residences
with interior sprinklers. The EIR proposes that the "emergency vehicle access" (EVA)
meet performance standards of the County Public Works Department and the Fire
Protection District. The District routinely is involved in the review of Improvement
Plans to ensure that hydrants (location. design). turnarounds and other fire safety-related
construction issues comply with the provisions of the Fire Code.
23. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the public
protection standards and policies of the Growth Management Element. The Growth
Manauemerit.Element Standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff facility station per 1,000
population. The project will generate a population estimated at 3.25 persons per unit (an
increase of 127 persons). The size of the population increase is not significant, and the
Conditions of Approval require the Project applicant to establish a police service district
to augment police services.
24. This Board finds that the Project is consistent with the parks and
recreation standards and policies of the Growth Management Element. The proposed
subdivision will have a relatively minor cumulative effect on demand for park and
recreation facilities, and is subject to payment of in-lieu park dedication fees in
compliance with the Park Dedication Ordinance at time of issuance of building permits.
The EIR identifies protection of the private open space as a significant impact and
outlines detailed specifications to reduce those impacts to less-than-significant. Those .
mitigation measures have been incorporated into the recommended Conditions of
Approval.
III. CONSISTENCY WITH ZONING
2.5. The zoning district for the Project site is R-7 Single-Family
Residential District. The County adopts the conclusions, analysis and explanations
contained in the EIR and staff reports relating to the zoning. The Project will promote
the public health, safety and welfare by providing a maximum 35-unit residential infill
development in the EI Sobrante area, located near transportation corridors, and designed
B-8
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
in a manner that integrates into the existing natural setting, protects hillsides and slopes.
and is environmentally sensitive.
26. The Board finds that the Project generally complies with the
Single-Family Residential (R-7) zoning designation. subject to granting of variances to
some of the standards of the R-7 district, as reviewed below, and allowed by provisions
of Chapter 84-6 of the Ordinance Code. The Project advances the purpose of the R-7
district to provide and protect areas for residential development. With the variances
authorized for approval as discussed below. the Project meets all requirements of the R-.7
zoning district. The following also reviews Project variances that are denied.
IV. VARIANCES
27. Average Lot YVidlh. The standard of the R-7 Single Family
Residential District is that single-family dwellings and structures be placed on lots no less
than 70 feet in average width. While meeting (and in some cases exceeding)the
minimum standard lot area, some of the lots within the Project are substandard in average
width. and would not be allowable without the granting of variances from the Zoning
Code standards. These lots exceed the minimum standard lot area. and if they could be
easily redrawn to reduce lot size by eliminating the triangular extension in the rear
without introducing confusion in ownership and land stewardship concerns, would meet
minimum average lot width. These lots are identified by.an asterisk under the column on
the right side of Table 1 entitled "Meets R-7 Dimensional Standards" in the March 21,
2006 staff report to the Board.'` Strict adherence to the R-7 zoning standards would
inevitably result in compromising General Plan goals of protecting slopes and hillsides,
preserving open space, and providing for protection of biologically sensitive features. To
achieve the sante privileges enjoyed by properties in the R-7 zone that do not face these
site constraints.. variances are necessary. This Board finds that the granting of some
variances is appropriate due to the irregular shape of the these lots. and the method of lot
width calculation defined by County code, and concludes that approval of the requested
variances does not constitute a grant of special privilege.
28. Because of the special circumstances applicable to the subject
property. including the location of the lots at a cul-de-sac bulb. and the irre��ular shape of
the property, this Board finds that strict application of the respective zoning regulations
will deprive the Project of rights enjoyed by others in the vicinity and the same zoning
district. With variances, the lots have ample area to develop a residence.
29. This Board finds that granting a variance for average lot width is
substantially consistent with the intent of the zoning district. The purpose of the R-7
district is to provide and protect areas for residential development. The substandard
average widths of certain lots are chiefly due to the irregular shape of the property. All
lots have an obvious building site, and all lots could accommodate residences that comply
with R-7 setback standards.
Other lots are 70 feet wide(or more)at the road frontage, but do not meet the average lot width due to the
lot depth measurement. See discussion that follows below on those lots.
B-9
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings fir
Subdivision 8533
30. In accordance with Section 82-10.002 of the Zoning Code (Small
Lot Occupancy Ordinance), any lot which does not meet minimum average width
requirements will be subject to the small lot review process prior to the issuance of a
building permit. This Board finds that this review process will further ensure that the
final design of the dwellings to be located on such lots will be consistent with the
standards of the R-7 zoning designation.
31. The Conditions of Approval provide that no minimum lot width
variance shall be granted for a lot less than 60 feet in average lot width, for a maximum
of nine (9) lots; all other lots must fully comply with R-7 lot dimension standards
including the average lot width standard of a minimum 70 feet as defined by the code.
The provision for variances to lot width is to address the situation that certain lots that
otherwise fully comply with R-7 standards are substandard due to added lot area beyond
the minimum requirements. and the code definition that has the effect of reducing the lot
to less than 70 feet. There are ten proposed lots that have these characteristics that
among those lots have an average lot width variance of 68 feet. However, instead of
allowing ten lots that are at variance to lot width with these characteristics, the County
would reduce the number of lots at variance to a maximum of nine (9) lots, and allow for
an average lot width of a minimum of 65 feet for those five lots. This Board finds that
such a condition provides sufficient further assurance that the Project as developed will
be substantially consistent with the Zoning Code and will promote its objectives.
32. Relaining malls. This Board finds that granting variances for the
construction of retaining walls does not constitute a grant of special privilege. The
objective of the project is to develop a residential subdivision in a hillside area while
protecting an existing creek corridor and minimizing grading within biologically sensitive
lands. The retaining walls proposed to be constructed for the Project will assist in
achieving this objective: The retaining wall along Royal Oaks Drive arch culvert will
minimize disturbance to riparian habitat. The location of the creek crossing was selected
by CDFG and the vertical alignment and width project roads are controlled by the
County's private road standards. The retaining wall south of the creek crossing results
from compliance with those standards. The retaining wall along Garrity Creek Drive will
minimize disturbance to biologically-sensitive lands west of the road alignment. The
retaining wall at the Adam Court cul-de-sac (and for the EVA) will minimize disturbance
to biologically sensitive lands to the west.
33. This Board finds that approval of variances for retaining walls is
appropriate due to special circumstances applicable to the property. The variances
requested for retaining walls are all associated with roadways. The County has adopted
private road standards. Retaining walls are commonly required in hillside areas to
comply with the horizontal and vertical alignment of private roads, especially where
grading of the area adjacent to the roadway is to be kept to a practical minimum. The
Board finds that due to the topography. location, and surroundings of the property, strict
application of the zoning regulations for retaining walls will deprive it of rights enjoyed
by others in the vicinity and within the same zoning district.
B-10
E.rhihit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
34. This Board finds that approval of variances for retaining walls is
substantially consistent with the intent of the R-7 district. The purpose of the R-7 district
is to provide and protect areas for residential development. The use of retaining walls is
intended to allow the construction of a subdivision with one primary access road
connection to Hilltop Drive, along with an EVA connection to Manor Road, minimize
grading, and allow for preservation of the creek corridor.
35. Sound Bat•rier wall. This Board has determined that approving a
variance for a sound barrier wall to shield a front yard of Lot 1 is not a grant of a special
privilege. The EIR has determined that a sound barrier wall is needed to shield a front
yard of Lot 1 from traffic-related noise along the Hilltop Drive corridor (EIR Mitigation
Measure Noise-1). The Conditions of Approval require that the precise location and
design of the wall be determined prior to issuance of a grading permit.
36. This Board finds that approval of a variance for a sound barrier
wall to shield the rear yard of Lot I is appropriate due to the special circumstance of
marginally acceptable noise levels along Hilltop Drive. Strict application of the zoning
regulations in this situation would deprive the property of rights enjoyed by other
properties in the same zoning designation.
37. This Board finds that approval of a variance for the construction of
a well-designed sound barrier wall is substantially consistent with the intent of the R-7
district to provide and protect areas for.residential development.
38. Fronl lards. This Board finds that approval of variances from
front yard.setback requirements for up to 20 lots is not a grant of special privilege. The
variance granted will allow for a more varied streetscape within the project by allowing
15-feet for approximately half of the lots rather than the normal minimum 20 foot
standard. The portion that is allowed to be placed closer than 20 feet shall not involve the
garage component of the residence and shall be limited to a one.story element.
39. This Board also adopts the recommendation of County staff that
additional variances be granted to reduce front yard setbacks. to provide for visual
diversity in the frontscapes. This Board finds that the approval of such variances does
not constitute a grant of special privilege as the variances will comply with modern
aesthetic standards that were not applied to existing lots in the R-7 zone, and the
variances will improve the aesthetic quality of the Project by allowing for a more varied
streetscape. The variances will be offset by deeper setbacks on other lots, to achieve the
varied streetscape. The Project could not achieve the varied setbacks in compliance with
the R-7 standards unless excessively deep setbacks were required on these other lots,
which would deprive these other lots of benefits enjoyed by standard lots in the R-7 zone.
Staggered fronts will achieve, on average, the same approximate building space and
average setbacks as would strict compliance with R-7 zoning standards.
40. This Board finds that approval of variances from the required front
yard setback is appropriate due to the special circumstance of the property's topography
and will allow the homes to more appropriately fit into the natural slopes of the hillsides.
B-11
Exhibit 2-B
General Firrdirtgs fir
Subdivision 8533
Strict application of the zoning regulations would deprive the property of rights enjoyed
by other properties in the vicinity and within the same R-7 zoning district.
41. This Board finds that approval of variances from the required front
yard setback is substantially consistent with the intent of the R-7 district to provide and
protect areas for residential development by providing for a more varied and visually
interesting streetscape.
42. Approval of variances from front yard setbacks will also serve to
advance the County's residential design goals and comply with modern design standards.
In order to ensure that the designs of the homes respect the terrain of the lots. some of the
homes located on steeper lots will have front yards setback of less than 20 feet. The
ability to place homes on lots depending on the site characteristics promotes protection of
the site, adds value and uniqueness to each property while ensuring individuality, and
provides for a varied streetscape.
43. .Arch Culvert. This Board finds that approval of variances to allow
an arch culvert with the required yard areas is necessary to allow reasonable development
of this property which is physically divided by a creek, and must be crossed to allow for
access. This variance is required to accommodate a culvertthat will be arched over the
creek, to avoid sensitive habitat. This variance is necessitated by the special
circumstance of the siting of the culvert, the location of the creek, and application of
modern rules encouraging placement of the culvert outside the banks of the creek, none
of which are faced by typical lots developed earlier in the R-7 zone. The creek forms a
natural boundary for a property line for the Project. and a variance is necessary to allow a
road supported by a structure to cross the creek.
44. This Board finds of variances to.allow the arch culvert with the
yards of proposed lots is reasonable due to the creek topography and the planned use
density for the site Single Family Residential —High Density (5 — 7.2'units per net acre).
45. This Board finds that approval of these variances to allow the arch
culvert within the required yards of residential lots meets the intent and purpose of the
zoning district in that it allows for reasonable development under density standards of the
R-7 zoning district.
46. The Project, as configured with the preceding described variances,
is consistentwith the General Plan. The findings above regarding general.plan
consistency, apply to the determination that the variances are consistent with the General
Plana
47. Front Yard Variances.for Lots 2—5. This Board is unable to find
that the requested variances to the front yard requirements for Lots 2 -5 meets the intent
or purpose of the Ordinance Code. and denies those requested variances.
48. Lot Depth Variance.for Lot 13. This Board is unable to find that
the requested variance to the R-7 lot depth requirement (minimum 90 feet) for Lot 13
B-12
Exhibit 2-B
General Findings for
Subdivision 8533
meets the intent or purpose of the R-7 district. This variance is denied.
49. Lot Width P ai-iances.for Four Lots ivith Irregular Shape. This
Board finds that in addition to the ten lots identified as being substandard in lot width, but
which otherwise have characteristics that meet the R-7 lot dimensions, there are five
other lots that are 70 feet wide (or more) at the road frontage in addition to the 10 lots
with average lot widths described above, but have an irregular shape due to the lot depth
measurement do not meet the intent and purpose of the Ordinance Code. Unlike the ten
lots with average lot width variances described above, these lots do not contain within
them lot dimensions that otherwise meet the R-7 lot dimension standards. The requested
variances for those four lots to the average lot width standard are denied.
V. SUBDIVISION MAP
50. Pursuant to Title 9 of the Contra Costa County Code. the County
finds that Subdivision Map 8533 is consistent with the goals and policies of the General
Plan. The findings above regarding General Plan consistency, apply to the determination
that the map is consistent with the General Plan. The Subdivision Map is discussed in
the staff reports presented to the County. The County approves Subdivision Map 8533
subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 1).
1. The conditions include additional review to provide further
assurance that all lots within Subdivision Map 8533 meet applicable standards.
Specifically, a maximum 34 residential lot project is approved, subject to additional
review for effects on biological resources, Preliminary Review Submittal of grading and
residential designs, compliance with approved zoning standards, and with hydrologic and
road design standards, subject to the final review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator which may lead to further reductions in the number of allowed residential
lots for this'project prior to approval of a Final Map.
52. Most of the site (84 percent) contains slopes that exceed a 15%
gradient, some of the property has slopes exceeding 26%. This Board finds that the
Project responds to terrain constraints by reduction in the maximum number of allowable
residential lots, use of 2'/:1 (horizontal to vertical) gradients for engineered slopes:. use of
retaining walls along segments of project roads to limit the "footprint" of grading; and
minimizes disturbance to sensitive lands by stepping residences up and down the slope.
53. Subdivision Map 8533 contains all information required by State
Law and by the County Code, including all information referenced in Ordinance Code
section 94-2.806. The Map provides, to the extent feasible given the nature of the site
and the challenges faced in designing a viable development project, for future passive or
natural heating and cooling opportunities.
G:\current planning\curr-plan\afshar\General Findings-c.doc
RD\ .
Rev.4-12-2006-rd
B-13
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 018533 in the El Sobrante area
(Siavash Afshar—Applicant & Owner) PER BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APRIL 11,
2006 APPROVAL
Administrative
1. This approval is based on the exhibits/reports received by the Community
Development Department for a maximum of 35 residential lots on the 10
acre site .with plan modifications required by condition of approval #2.
Compliance with this permit and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program may necessitate a further reduction in lots.
The approval is based upon Subdivision 8533 Vesting Tentative Map,
dated October 23, 2004, and received by the Community Development
Department on October 29, 2004, consisting of the following 14 sheets:
A. Sheet 1 - Site Plan.
B. Sheet 2 - Grading Plan
C. Sheet 3 - Grading Plan
D. Sheet 4 - Grading Plan
E. Sheet 5 - Utility Plan
F. Sheet 6 - Utility Plan
G. Sheet 7 - Utility Plan
H. Sheet 8 - Profiles & Details
I. Sheet 9 - Riparian Mitigation Plan
J. Sheet 10 - Riparian Mitigation Plan
K. Sheet 11 - Hillside Home Sites
L. Sheet 12 - Open Space
M. Sheet 13 - Sections
N. Sheet 14 - Detention Basins
The approval is also based upon the following reports:
O. Subdivision 8533 Draft Environmental Impact Report
(8533 DEIR), SCH# 2003102107
P. Subdivision 8533 Final Environmental Impact Report
(8533 FEIR)
Q. Biological Resource—Related Documents
California Department of Fish&Game,2002. Agreement
Regarding Proposed Streambed Alteration Notification
(received by CDD on March 6, 2002).
2
California Department of Fish&Game,March 11,2002.
Proposed Hilltop Road Area Project, County File
#SD018533, Revised Vesting Tentative Map of
Subdivision 8533, Contra Costa Counn'.
LSA, March 11, 2002. Results of Fish and Game Site
Visit, Hillview Project, El Sobrante.
LSA, December 21, 2001. Biological Resources of the
Hillview Project Site,El Sobrante, Contra Costa County,
California. LSA Job #AAD130.
Monk & Associates, September 20, 2002. Hillview
Subdivision (SD8533), El Sobrante, California.
Wood, Michael K., 2002. Habitat Assessment for
California Red-legged Frog,Hillview Subdivision. Letter
to Sid Afshar, Architectural Design & Development,
April 22.
Wood, Michael K., 2002. Wetland Delineation and
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the Hillview
Project Site, Contra Costa County, prepared for
Architectural Design & Development, March 19 revised
June 11.
Wood, Michael K., July 1, 2002. Hillview Subdivision,
Biologic Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
Wood, Michael K., July 5, 2002. Mitigation Monitoring
Plan for the Proposed Hillview Residential Subdivision,
El Sobrante., Contra Costa County.
Wood, Michael K., July 9, 2002. Amendment to 1603
Notification of Streambed Alteration,Notification#2001-
982, Hillview Residential Subdivision, El Sobrante.
Wood, Michael K., July 9, 2002. Preconstruction
Notification for the Placement of Fill in Waters of the
U.S. Pursuant to Nationwide Permits 14 and 33 for the
Proposed Hillview Residential Development,El Sobrante,
Contra Costa County, California.
Wood,Michael K.,July 8,2002. Application for Section
401 Water Quality Certification for the Proposed
Hillview Residential Development, El Sobrante, Contra
Costa County, California.
Wood, Michael, K., September 26, 2002. Hillview
Subdivision, Response to Comments.
Wood, Michael K., 2004. Revised Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan for the Proposed Hillview Residential
Subdivision,El Sobrante., Contra Costa County,prepared
for Sid Afshar, Brilliant Management LLC, July 5, 2002
revised October 12, 2004.
3
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), 2002. File
Number 268055. Letter to Mr. Sid Afshar, Architectural
Design & Development, from Edward A. Wylie, Chief-
South Section. December 11.
R. Geotechnical and Geologic c Reports
AMSO Consulting Engineers, 2001. Geotechnical
Investigation, Hillview Residential Development, 4823
Hilltop Drive, El Sobrante, California. AMSO Job#3128
.(report dated April 30, 2001).
Alan Kropp & Associates, Inc. 2004, Geotechnical
Investigation Hilltop Drive Subdivision, Subdivision
8533, El Sobrante, California. October 18.
Abel R. Soares & Associates, 1998. Preliminary
Geotechnical Investigation for Asse.ssor.'s Parcel Nos.
426-192-005, -007, and —008, Marin Road in the El
Sobrante District of Contra Costa County, July.
S. Environmental GeoloQv
Shaw Environmental, Inc., 2004.Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment Report,Proposed Housing Development,
APNs: 436-210-007, 426-182-017, 426-192-005, and
426-192-008,El Sobrante, California 94803, September.
T. Water Pollution Control Program
Klemetson Engineering, 2002. Water Pollution Control
Program, Subdivision 8533; 4823 Hilltop Drive, El
Sobrante Area (APN 426-210-007, -182-001 and -017,
and—192-005 and-008 (dated February 24, 2002).
U. Archaeologyport
• Pacific Legacy, Inc., 2001. Archaeological Survey for
Proposed Hillview Subdivision,APN 426-192-005,426-
182-017 and 426-210-007, El Sobrante, Contra Costa
County(dated April 28, 2001).
Pacific Legacy, Inc., 2004. Archaeologic Survey for
Hillcrest Homes Subdivision(letter dated March 19,2004,
3 pages).
4
Revisions to the Plans
2. Unless otherwise indicated, the following conditions of approval require
compliance prior to filing the Final Map, and/or issuance of grading,
building or demolition permits.
The project shall be revised as follows. The applicant shall submit a
revised site plan (VTM) for the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator that is consistent with the provisions of the mitigation
measures recommended in the Environmental Impact Report, and that
complies with the following requirements. This approval is also based on
the findings and recommendations of the project reports and documents
listed above, along with the "Staff Study: Concerns of Design
Components"presented in Exhibit 4,and the Final Environmental Impact
Report.
A. Open Space Parcels and Maintenance Access- Open space parcels
shall be created within the project, to be owned by the
Homeowner's Association. The northernmost open space parcel,
Lot A, shall, at a minimum, include the area labeled"Open Space"
on VTM Sheet 12. It shall also include a storm water detention
basin, along with any required retaining wall on the west side of
Garrity Creek Drive. The southernmost private.open space parcel,
Lot B, shall include the area of the Royal Oaks Drive culverted
creek crossing (including reinforced earth/keystone walls on both
flanks of the creek needed to construct the crossing). Additionally,
it shall include the 50-foot wide reach of channel downstream of the
Royal Oaks Drive, including the southernmost storm water
detention basin.
All required vehicular access for maintenance to the storm water
detention basins and creeks shall provide for ownership in fee title
by the project Homeowners Association.The development rights of
the maintenance accesses shall be grant deeded to the County. No
access easements benefiting adjoining residential lots shall be
permitted along any required creek or basin maintenance access.
The horizontal and vertical alignment of the maintenance access
driveways to the detention basins shall be acceptable to the Public
Works Department. Development rights to the private open space
parcels shall be grant deeded to Contra Costa County.
B. Reconfiguration of Site Plan Based on Limited Approval of
Variances to Minimum Lot Dimensions, and Reduction in Number
of Lots—Except as specified below,the site plan shall be revised so
5
that all lots comply with the R-7 minimum lot area (7,000 square
feet), lot depth(90-feet), and average lot width standards(70-feet).
Up to five(5) lots are granted a variance to the average lot width R-
7 standard to allow a reduced minimum of 65-feet as defined by the
ordinance code.
The revised site plan shall be accompanied by a survey of each lot
from a civil engineer or surveyor demonstrating compliance with
these required lot dimensions.
The site plan shall provide for a maximum of 35 residential lots.
C. Redesign of(Garrity Creek View) Road Next to Northwest Open
Space - The road improvement in-the northern part of the project
shall comply with Condition #14 and Mitigation Measure Bio-
3(a), which is illustrated in the Redesign Alternative (i.e. a 20 foot
wide curb-to-curb width of Garrity Creek Drive where it fronts
along Lot A, and a hammerhead turnaround at the north boundary
of the project).
D. EVA Road Extension and Barrier Improvements — The proposed
Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) only Road shall be extended
southward. Bollards or other measures to control access shall be
installed at the two ends of the extended EVA road: one set at the
northern access point adjacent to Manor Road;and one set at the
relocated south boundary of the EVA adjacent to Lot 26. This
structure shall be acceptable to the Fire Protection District and
County Public Works Department and shall allow for pedestrian
access, subject to final review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
The turn-around at the north side of the property shall be relocated
to south of the southern EVA gate and shall be designed to comply
with subdivision ordinance standards subject to the review and
approval of the Public Works Department and the Fire Protection
District.
E. Storm Water Basin and Access Design - The Final Map shall
include a "Second Sheet" that shows the storm water detention
basins, and any drainage structure facilities within the private open
space lots. Evidence shall be provided that the planned location and
access to detention basins, including details of their control
structures (e.g., piping from basins to creek channel), are
6
satisfactory to the Public Works Department and the California
Department of Fish & Game.
F. Capacity of Detention Basin Design-The detention basin capacity
and its effect on peak flows shall be consistent with the standards
incorporated into the EIR Redesign Alternative.
G. Storm Water Control Plan Improvements Review - The Vesting
Tentative Map shows grassy swales on Sheets 3 and 4 and it
provides typical sections on Sheet 9.These"clean water"measures
are subject to review and approval by the Public Works
Department. The project shall be 3.C. compliant,but may/may not
include grassy swales. Any grassy swales provided may be
relocated or otherwise designed based on Public Works Department
requirements. The required stormwater control plan(C.3) shall be
reviewed in light of the standards and policies that are the accepted
standard of practice at the time of the filing of the final map.
H. Offer to Dedicate a Private Access and Utility Easement Over
Royal Oaks Drive— The applicant shall be required to offer to
dedicate a private access and utility easement over Royal Oaks
Drive between Garrity Creek and Hilltop Drive to the parcels south
and west of the subject subdivision identified as"Alexandre"on the
Tentative Map.
I. Quitclaim Accessory Pedestrian Easement Connecting Site with
Marin Road — The applicant shall provide evidence to the
Community Development Department that he has recorded a
quitclaim on any access rights to an existing pedestrian easement
connecting the site to Marin Road to allow any access rights to that
easement from this site to become null and void.
J. Relocation of Sidewalk Along Garrity Creek Drive--The sidewalk
provided along the west side of Garrity Creek Drive shall be
relocated to the east side of the Drive and shall extend from Garrity
Creek View to the site of the southern EVA bollards that is
required to be relocated by this permit to the vicinity of Lot 26.
The improvement plans shall provide for a 4-foot wide sidewalk
for this section of sidewalk. Between the Garrity View Drive
sidewalk and the extended EVA-only road requirements, the
permit requirements are intended to provide a continuous
pedestrian access from Garrity Creek View to Manor Road.
7
K. Reduction in Size of Project and Reconfiguration of Site Plan—The
following lots shall be eliminated and the site plan reconfigured
subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
1. Within the range of Lots 6 — 12 and 35 — 40 (south side of
Garrity Creek View), one lot shall be eliminated. The
remaining lots shall be reconfigured to provide a
maintenance access that is owned in fee by the Homeowners
Association, and to allow for appropriate lot configuration
next to the arch culvert.
2. Lots 29 and 32 shall be eliminated;the majority of the area of
these lots shall be incorporated into Open Space Parcel "A"
described below to provide an expanded wildlife corridor and
an expanded residential setback from nearby wetlands and
seeps.
3. Lots 27 and 28 shall be eliminated, and the area of those lots
added to Open Space Parcel "A" described below.
In aggregate, at least five (5) lots shall be eliminated from the
proj ect.
Compliance Report
3. At least 60 days prior to filing a final map or issuance of a grading permit,
the applicant shall submit a report on compliance with the conditions of
approval with this permit and the final development plan permit for the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Except for those
conditions administered by the Public Works Department,the report shall
list each condition followed by a description of what the applicant has
provided as evidence of compliance with that condition. (A copy of the
conditions of approval may be available on computer disk;to try to obtain,
contact the project planner at 335-1210.) Unless otherwise indicated,the
applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the conditions
of this report prior to filing a final map. The compliance report shall
include an intermediate site/grading plan that shows information required
for tentative subdivision maps, including road improvements, drainage
facilities, grading plan, lot characteristics (area, average width, average
depth)and identify the potential building sites.. The Zoning Administrator
inay.reject the report if it is not comprehensive with respect to applicable
requirements for the requested ministerial permit.
8
The permit compliance review is subject to staff tine and material
charges, with an initial deposit of$1,500.00 which shall be paid at time of
submittal of the compliance report. A check is payable to the County of
Contra Costa.
Variances and Exceptions
4. A. Average Lot Width Variance - Approval is granted to allow
variances to the average lot width standards that meet the
requirements of Section 26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code as
follows:
70 feet required by zoning ordinance
60 feet (minimum approved for no more than nine (9) lots)
Other requested variances to the average lot width standard are
denied.
B. Denial of Variance to Lot.Depth for Lot 13 (End of Cul-de-Sac) —
The requested variance to the minimum lot depth requirement for
Lot 13 is denied.
C. Retaining Wall/Fencing for Project Access Roads and Hilltop Drive
Frontage Decorative Soundwall - Approval is granted to allow
variances and exceptions to the Subdivision Ordinance to allow
retaining wall height andwall/fence combinations in required yards
for portions of three roads in the project to minimize the footprint of
grading,and possibly allow for noise attenuation along Hilltop Drive
frontage for Lot 1:
Maximum 3 feet tall retaining wall height; and six-foot tall
wall/fence combination allowed by zoning
ordinance
10 feet retaining wall approved on Royal Oaks Drive
10 feet wall/fence allowed on Garrity Creek Drive
8 feet wall/fence allowed on Adam Court
Up to 8-foot retaining wall/decorative soundwall combination
allowable along Hilltop Drive frontage for Lot 1
D. Reduced Front Yard Requirement - Approval is granted to allow
variances and exceptions to the Subdivision Ordinance to the front
yard setback standard of the Zoning Ordinance to attain a varied
streetscape and to accommodate development of relatively steep lots.
• 20 feet (minimum) required by the R-7 District.
9
• 15 feet(minimum) allowed,provided that the garage achieves a 20
foot setback and provided that any encroachment in the 20 ft
setback zone be limited to a one story element.
*No more than 20 residences may have a front setback of less than
20 ft in the project; they must be distributed across the site; and
the specific lots shall be identified prior to approval of the final
map.
E. Denial of Requested Front Yard Variances for Corner Lots 2 — 5
(Royal Oaks Drive) — The request to allow a zero-foot front yard
variance/exception by allowing the driveway areas of Lots 2 -5 along
Royal Oaks Drive to be included as "legs" in the road right-of-way
design for turnarounds for these lots is denied. The road rights-of-way
shall be reconfigured to exclude the "leg" portions of the two
turnarounds, and to limit use of the driveways to the respective lot
owners.
F. Variance Granted for Arch Culvert Creek Crossing—A variance and
exception to the Subdivision Ordinance is granted to allow the
proposed arch culvert creek crossing within the required yards of Lots
5, 6, and 40.
Left Turn Lane (Pocket) on Hilltop Drive to be Built if Feasible
5. The Applicant shall investigate the feasibility of widening existing Hilltop
Drive to provide left turn channelization at the project entrance at Royal
Oaks Drive. If determined to be feasible by the Public Works Department
and the Zoning Administrator, the Applicant shall be responsible to
construct the channelization and for all related costs of right-of-way
acquisition and construction improvements. The purpose of the
investigation shall be to determine whether adequate right-of-way is
available and whether a left turn channelization would be safe, including
the safety of pedestrians, motorists and homeowners. The design of the
channelization will be subject to the review of the Public Works
Department, and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
Channelization, tapers, and transition flares shall comply with Caltrans
Highway Design Manual standards based on a design speed of 40 miles
per hour. These improvements will include relocation of existing utilities,
and pedestrian paths, as well as possible reconstruction of driveways of
existing adjacent homes to adequately conform to the widened street
section.
10
To accommodate the above improvements,the applicant will also need to
dedicate additional right of way along Hilltop Drive as well as obtain off-
site offers of dedication from adjacent property owners. Minimum total
right of way shall be 10 feet from the proposed face of curb/edge of travel
way.
Notice On Availability of Channelization Improvement Plans for Public
Review and Comment—At least thirty(30)days prior to a decision by the
Zoning Administrator on whether to require the channelization,the Public
Works Department shall provide public notice that the proposed
improvement plans are available for public review and inspection in the
office of the Public Works Department, and for receipt of comments on
them. The notice shall be issued to:
• The owners of property fronting on Hilltop Drive within 500 feet
of the Project site Hilltop Drive front property line;
• California Highway Patrol;
• Sheriff's Office;
• Hilltop Neighborhood Association;
• The El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council; and
• The El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee.
The decision of the Zoning Administrator on whether the channelization
improvement will be required for this project shall be in writing, and
copies provided to the two El Sobrante groups and to responding
correspondents providing a mailing address.
If the applicant, after demonstrating he has made his best, good-faith
effort, is unsuccessful in obtaining the off-site right of way necessary to
construct this channelization and related transitions, or the design cannot
meet acceptable public safety conditions, the Zoning Administrator may
modify or eliminate the channelization and related dedication
requirements. Otherwise,the project will be required to construct the left
turn channelization.
In accord with the provisions of Ordinance Code Section 14-4.002,et seq.,
the administrative decision of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed
to the Board of Supervisors.
Scenic Easement
6. A. Lots 27 and 28, the "Open Space" portion of Lot 31, and the
majority of the areas of Lots 29 and 32 shall be formed into a
separate open space parcel, Parcel A. It shall be owned by the
11
Homeowners Association. Development rights to Parcel A shall be
dedicated to the County,utilizing a deed instrument that is subject to
the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The easement
instrument shall provide that no grading, fencing, development
activity, or removal of trees may occur in that area without the prior
written approval of the Zoning Administrator. Perimeter fencing
shall be provided and maintained, but its design shall be subject to
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
B. Parcel A shall be retained as visual open space,wildlife habitat, and
watershed land, and possibly low-intensity HOA-maintained
recreation facilities. The only improvements allowed within this
area are drainage facilities, EVA-only road, and possibly low-
intensity recreation facilities (e.g., tables, benches, barbeque,
horseshoe court) that comply with Mitigation Measure BI0-5(c),
and a stormwater detention basin. The details of the drainage
improvements and any proposed recreation improvements shall be
re-evaluated during final design of subdivision improvements and
the Biologic Resource MMP updated to fully protect the habitat
values of Parcel A.
C. Investigation into the Feasibility of Providing Limited Public Access
and Low-Intensity Recreation Facilities within Parcel "A" Open
Space, and Public Review Procedure — The applicant shall
investigate the feasibility of providing low-intensity recreation
facilities including limited public access to Parcel"A" Open Space.
The investigation shall take into consideration required hydrological
(detention basin) improvements and related maintenance access,
liability and insurance costs,and the EIR biological resource findings
and mitigation measures. The applicant shall submit twelve(12)sets
of improvement plans to the Community Development Department
for the whole of Parcel A to include improvements such as tables,
benches, barbecue, horseshoe pit, or similar improvements, and a
pedestrian path from a.project road to the improvements,and limited
public access, subject to final review and approval by the Zoning
Administrator. Evidence shall be provided on the plans that they
have been designed to comply with applicable requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The plans shall be accompanied by a written analysis of the
compatibility of the proposed improvements and related activities
with existing biological resources by a qualified biologist for the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The applicant
shall also provide evidence that the State and Federal Resource
12
Agencies (California Department of Fish and Game, San Francisco
Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers) have had an opportunity to review and comment on
said plans,and any comments from those agencies on the plans have
been provided to the Community Development Department.
The plans shall be reviewed for:
• Provision of reasonable limited public access and private
recreation facilities;
• Public safety; and
• Compliance with required EIR biological and hydrological
findings and mitigation measures, including protection and
provision of native riparian vegetation.
Minimum 30-Day Public Review and Comment Period on Proposed
Plans — Prior to rendering a decision on the plans, the Community
Development Department shall refer the proposed improvement
plans for comment to the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council,
Public Works Department, Urban Creeks Council, West County
Unified School District, City of Richmond Planning Department,
Sheriff Office, and El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning
Advisory Committee for comment. Concurrently, a notice of the
availability of these improvement plans for public examination in the
Community Development Department and for submittal of public
comment on them, shall be issued to the owners of property within
300 feet of the subject site (including the construction staging
parcels north of the site). The public review period shall extend a
minimum of 30-days.
Public Hearing Before the Zoning Administrator—Prior to rendering
a decision on the extent of recreation improvements within the Open
Space parcel, a noticed public hearing shall be held on the proposed
improvements before the Zoning Administrator. The hearing and
any appeal of related decisions shall be conducted in accord with the
procedures contained in Chapter 26-2 of the Ordinance Code.
If the Zoning Administrator determines that such facilities are not
compatible with the biological resources reviewed in the EIR, then
the facilities will not be required. The subdivider shall be
responsible for installing any approved recreation facilities,offering
any necessary related public access easements, and providing
appropriate description of the allowed activities,responsibilities,and
13
related restrictions in the project CC&R's, subject to final review
and approval by the Zoning Administrator.
CC&R's
7. Draft Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be submitted for
review with the Final Map,and shall be subject to review and approval by
the Zoning Administrator. This document shall provide for the
establishment of a Homeowners Association to maintain common facilities
within the project including drainage facilities,roads, and street lights. It
shall also provide for an Architectural Review Board to review and
approve proposed building and grading proj ects prior to obtaining permits
from the County. It shall also provide for establishment, ownership and
maintenance of the landscaping along the Hilltop Drive frontage of the site
and maintenance.of other common facilities The Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions (CC&Rs) developed for this project shall include the
following restrictions:
A. Inclusion of Residential Design Measures for the Stormwater Quah
Control Plan — The document shall reference the project Best
Management Practices for the Stormwater Quality Control Plan for
the project pertaining to residential development (e.g., permeable
driveway surface). The document shall provide that construction
plans submitted to the County for residential development for
building permits shall comply with the residential design measures in
that plan.
B. The document shall specifically identify any lots that are substandard
in average lot width; any proposed development on those lots will be
subject to the public notice and review requirements of the Small Lot
Occupancy Ordinance(Ord. Code § 82-10.002(c))prior to issuance
of a building permit.
C. The CC&R's for the project shall include specifications for fencing
of residential lots; shall specify that no retaining walls exceeding a 3-
foot height are allowed in the rear yard structure setback zone; and
shall incorporate all provisions of the design guidelines for the
project, including those which pertain to creation of rear yard "use
areas."
D. In accordance with the County Child Care Ordinance, the CC&Rs
shall indicate that a child care facility may be located at any
residential unit, or lot, consistent with the existing laws.
14
E. The document shall reference the Grant Deeds of Development
Rights that is conveyed to the County along the creek portion of the
site,and wetland portion of the site,and shall contain any agreement
entered into with the California Department of Fish & Game.
F. Provide a copy of a fencing plan that has been approved by the
Zoning Administrator of the fencing proposed on the perimeter of
the scenic easement (Parcel A), and including the fencing of deed-
restricted portions of private lots.
G. Required setbacks and off-street parking prescribed by the R-7
zoning district shall be measured from the edge of the private road
easement or property line, whichever is more restrictive, except as
modified by this approval.
H. The Design Guidelines approved by the Zoning Administrator(ref.
COA 946—49)
The approved CC&R's shall be recorded with the Final Map. The
applicant shall deliver a copy of the recorded document to CDD prior to
issuance of the first building permit.
Nesting Birds
8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, commencement of any site
improvement, or any tree removal, the following detailed specifications
shall be followed to avoid inadvertent take of nesting birds. Evidence of
compliance with these specifications shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Zoning Administrator.
A. In order to avoid impacts to nesting birds, the CDFG has required that
vegetation removal be confined to the period of August 16 to February
14, during which time period preconstruction surveys and additional
restrictions are not required. Should earth-moving/grading activity or
construction-related disturbance be initiated during the raptor and
passerine bird nesting season (February 15 to August 15), a focused,
preconstruction nesting survey shall be conducted by a qualified
ornithologist to determine if this activity could disturb nesting birds. The
ornithologist must have experience detecting/ identifying raptor and
passerine bird nesting behavior. Or, if necessary, two biologists shall be
hired: one with experience with raptors and another with experience
surveying for nesting passerine birds.
B. If nesting raptors are identified on the project site during the
preconstruction survey,a minimum 500-foot-wide non-disturbance buffer
15
shall be established around the nest tree. This buffer shall be fenced with
orange construction fencing prior to initiation of grading or vegetation
removal. A qualified raptor biologist shall periodically monitor the nest
site(s)to determine if grading activities occurring outside the buffer zone
disturbs the birds, and if the buffer zone should be increased to prevent
nest abandonment. No disturbance shall occur within the minimum 500-
foot-wide buffer zone until a qualified raptor biologist has determined
that the young have fledged (left the nest), and are flying well enough to
avoid project construction zones, typically by August 1.
C. If nesting passerine birds are identified on the project site during the
preconstruction survey,a 75-foot-wide buffer shall be established around
the nest tree. This buffer shall be fenced with orange construction
fencing prior to initiation of grading or vegetation removal. The non-
disturbance buffer zone shall remain in place until it has been determined
by a qualified ornithologist that the young have fledged and are flying
well enough to avoid project construction zones, typically by August 1.
D. If active nests of raptors or passerine birds are confirmed during the
preconstruction survey, the biologist shall prepare a plan for fencing of
the buffer area and specifications to control construction activities. This
plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and
approval prior to commencement of any potential disturbance activities.
E. The County shall not issue a grading permit during the raptor and
passerine bird nesting season (February 15 to August 15) until a
preconstruction nesting survey has been conducted and the non-
disturbance buffers(if necessary)are fenced. If active nests of raptors or
passerine birds are confirmed, a detailed compliance plan addressing
establishment,avoidance,and closure of any required buffer area shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator.
EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a).
California Red-Legged Frog
9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, commencement of any site
improvements,or vegetation removal,whichever comes first,the detailed
specifications presented in Table 3 shall be followed to avoid the remote
possibility for inadvertent take of California red-legged frog. Evidence of
compliance with these specifications shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Zoning Administrator.
16
A. The preconstruction survey for California red-legged frog shall be
completed within 48 hours prior to commencement of any earth-moving
activity, construction, or vegetation removal,whichever comes first.
B. The preconstruction survey shall include two nights of nocturnal surveys
along all creek segments and areas of suitable habitat on the site and
adjacent staging area parcels.
C. The biologist performing the preconstruction survey must hold a federal
10(a)(1)(A) permit for California red-legged frog or be considered by
USFWS to be a"service approved" biologist.
D. A letter-report from the "service approved" biologist describing the
results of the preconstruction surveys shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to initiation of any earth-
moving activity, construction, or vegetation removal on the site and
adjacent staging area parcels,including removal of non-native trees and
shrubs in the riparian corridors proposed as part of the revised
applicant's Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP).
E. If California red-legged frogs are encountered during the surveys, all
work on the site and adjacent staging area parcels shall be placed on hold
while the findings are reported to the CDFG and USFWS and it is
determined what, if any, further actions must be followed to prevent
possible take of this species. Evidence of consultation with the CDFG
and USFWS shall be provided for review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator before issuance of a grading permit; commencement of
any site improvements, or vegetation removal.
EIR Mitigation Measure 13I04(b).
Resource Agency Permits
10. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, commencement of any site
improvement, or vegetation removal, whichever comes first, submit
evidence of compliance with the requirements of resource agencies for
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Specifically, submit
documentation that all legally required permits from the CDFG,RWQCB,
Corps, and possibly USFWS (e.g., 1600 series permits, 404 and 401
permits), were obtained, including incidental take permits and any others
and implement mitigation measures, as required by federal and State law,
to avoid,minimize,or offset impacts on any species listed under either the
State or federal Endangered Species Acts or protected under any other
State or federal law. (Mitigation Measure 13I0-1(c))
Landscape and Vegetation Management Plan
17
11. Prior to approval of a final map, submit a detailed Landscape and
Vegetation Management Plan prepared by a qualified landscape architect
in consultation with a plant ecologist experienced with native species. The
Plan shall: a)provide for re-establishment of grassland,riparian, and oak
woodland cover on graded slopes in open space areas; b) incorporate
mitigation and monitoring requirements identified in the final Biologic
Resource Mitigation Monitoring Plan (BRMMP) to replace and enhance
wetland and riparian habitat and provide for replacement of native trees
removed as part of the project; c) identify unsuitable species that should
not be used in landscaping; d) identify ways to prevent the establishment
and spread of introduced broom; and e) specify long-term management
provisions to ensure re-establishment of native and ornamental landscape
improvements. The following detailed specifications shall be incorporated
into the Landscape and Vegetation Management Plan.
A. Graded slopes in open space areas shall be reseeded with a mixture of
compatible native and non-native perennial and annual grassland species
to increase the diversity of the grassland cover. Highly invasive non-
native annuals typically used for erosion control alone should not be used.
B. The final MMP shall be revised to include a major salvage program that
provides for collection of native creeping wildrye (Leymus triticoides)
from the large stand on the site,and emphasizes its use in revegetating the
proposed grassy swales,perimeter of the proposed detention basins, and
open space areas on the site. Section 4.5.4 of the final MMP shall be
modified to include details on salvage, storage, and installation of this
species as part of revegetation efforts.
C. Landscaping and revegetation plans shall emphasize the use of native
plant species along the fringe of proposed developed areas,and plantings
in open space areas should be restricted to native species consistent with
the MMP. Suitable plant species for use in open space areas include
coast live oak(Quercus agrifolia),valley oak(Quercus lobata),Fremont
cottonwood (Populus freniontii), California buckeye (Aesculus
californica), toyon (Heteronieles arbutifolia), California rose (Rosa
californica), creeping wildrye (Leymus triticoides), and purple
needlegrass (Nassella pulchra), among other species.
D. To minimize future disturbance to grassland cover and other vegetation
and unauthorized access to the surrounding undeveloped lands and open
space, vehicles .and motorcycles shall not be allowed to travel off
designated roadways.
18
E. Use of non-native, invasive species that may spread into adjacent
undeveloped open space areas shall be prohibited in landscaping plans.
Unsuitable species include blue gum eucalyptus (Eucaltptus globulus),
acacia(Acacia spp.),pampus grass(Cortacleria selloana),broom(Cvtisus
spp. and Genista monspessulana), gorse (Ulex europaeus), bamboo
(Bambusa spp.), giant reed (Arunclo donax), periwinkle (Vinca spp.),
English ivy (Hedera helix), and German ivy (Senecio milanioides),
among others.
F. Graded slopes and areas disturbed as part of the project shall be
monitored to prevent establishment and spread of introduced broom
species '(Cytisus spp and Genista monspessulana). The removal and
monitoring program shall include annual late winter removal of any
rooted plants when soils are saturated and cutting back of any remaining
flowering plants in the spring before seed begins to set in late April.
Such removal may be the responsibility of the project homeowners'
association.
G. Provisions for maintenance of landscaping and revegetation of graded
slopes shall be specified as part of the plan, with replacement plantings
and seeding provided as necessary to ensure re-establishment of cover.
Maintenance and monitoring of landscape improvements in open space
areas shall be provided for a minimum of 5 years, and shall be the
responsibility of the project homeowners'.association.
H. Prior to filing of the Final Map, evidence shall be submitted for review
and approval of the Zoning Administrator that the project plans are in
compliance with the provisions of the CDFG Streambed Alteration
Agreement, as prescribed by the final MMP.
(EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-2(a).
Protection/Restoration of Habitat
12. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, commencement of any site
improvement or vegetation removal,whichever comes first,submit a final
plan for protection and restoration of habitat shall be prepared and
implemented to provide for adequate replacement of sensitive natural
communities and biological habitat affected by development on the site.
The plan shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator. The following detailed specifications shall be followed to
ensure avoidance of sensitive resources and achieve successful
implementation of the final Biological Resource MMP.
19
A. Habitat and tree replacement plantings shall be implemented in accord-
ance with the standards and criteria prescribed by the CDFG, and
contained in the final MMP.
B. A Project Restorationist shall be retained at the expense of the applicant
to monitor implementation of the MMP and to oversee maintenance
requirements and monitoring of all mitigation plantings, seeding, and
invasive species eradication. At a minimum, the Project Restorationist
shall have demonstrated expertise in restoration ecology and at least 3
years of experience in restoration design and implementation, including
experience in wetland restoration. The Project Restorationist shall have
the authority to stop work or request change orders as necessary. In
addition, the Project Restorationist shall conduct the site inspection and
habitat monitoring programs, and prepare reports documenting the
restoration program for submittal to the Corps, CDFG, RWQCB, and
County Community Development Department.
C. All grading on the site shall be performed during the summer months and
completed before October 1. Appropriate erosion/sediment control
measures shall be in place by October 15. Eradication of invasive species
shall be accomplished in advance of mitigation plantings during the
summer months. Mitigation planting and seeding shall commence in the
late fall or early winter, with the onset of winter rains.
D. To prevent indirect and cumulative adverse effects of the development on
water quality of Garrity Creek and its tributary, grassy swales shall be
constructed as described in the MMP. The swales are intended to capture
and slow the movement of urban runoff into the north and east forks of
Garrity Creek. The swales shall be planted and seeded with appropriate
native species and deed-restricted from development or renovation, as
described in the MMP. No direct outfalls into the Garrity Creek channels
shall be constructed. Discharges from the swales would be over ground
stabilized by erosion blankets with rock inter-plated with willows or other
species approved by the Project Restorationist.
E. Habitat restoration and revegetation shall provide for maximum
vegetative cover,conducive to the restoration of the creek corridors,and
provide for vegetative screening between the stream channel and adjacent
roads and dwellings.
F. The plant palette shall be consistent with the requirements of the CDFG
and prescriptions contained in the final MMP.
G. A temporary drip irrigation system shall be provided for all container
plantings installed as part of the final MMP. Irrigation shall be supplied
for up to 3 years,with a gradual reduction in volume of water applied in
20
years 2 and 3. The details of the irrigation system and watering schedule
must be approved by the Project Restorationist.
H. The applicant shall guarantee an 85-percent survival rate for the plantings
over the 5-year monitoring period. For this purpose, a$40,000 bond(or
equivalent) security shall be deposited with the County to ensure
performance of the final MMP.
EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-2(b).
Central Coast Riparian Scrub
13. Prior to approval of the Final Map and using the following detailed
specifications,revise the VTM, Riparian Mitigation Plan,and Biological
Resource MMP to ensure adequate avoidance of Central Coast riparian
scrub and mature native trees both within the project site and on the
proposed off-site construction staging area northwest of the site.
A. The off-site creek channel and edge of native willows canopy shall be
mapped by engineered survey to accurately identify their location in
relation to proposed improvements. The canopy line shall be identified as
the boundary of a"No-Disturbance Zone"on the Site Plan,Grading Plan,
and Riparian Mitigation Plan.
B. All construction staging area uses shall be restricted to outside the"No-
Disturbance Zone"to.avoid any adverse impacts on this sensitive riparian
habitat.
C. Temporary construction fencing shall be installed along the"No-Disturb-
ance Zone".boundary and shall be maintained in place for the duration of
construction. Any incursion into this zone shall be conducted under the
supervision of a qualified biologist.
D. The proposed 5-foot-wide trail depicted on the Riparian Mitigation Plan
(see Figure 4.5-4) shall be eliminated due to the potential impacts on
sensitive riparian habitat,or the trail shall be relocated outside the willow
dominated scrub,possibly along the emergency vehicle access road or the
Road 24 alignment where it is devoid of woody vegetation.
E. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, revegetation and irrigation plans
that comply with the final MMP shall be submitted for review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator.
(EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-2(c)).
21
Springs and Seeps
14. Prior to approval of the Final Map and using the following detailed
specifications, revise the VTM, Riparian Mitigation Plan, and Biologic
Resource MMP to ensure adequate avoidance of the active spring and seep
in the proposed open space area in the northwestern portion of the site.
A. The boundaries of the seep and spring shall be mapped by engineered
survey to accurately identify their location in relation to proposed
improvements.
B. A common driveway/private road with a curb-to-curb width of 20 feet
shall be used to provide any required access to the vicinity of Lots 26,
27, and 28, and the emergency vehicle access north of the site. This
refinement of the road width would provide a setback of
approximately 20 feet between the road and the spring/seep complex.
It would reduce the extent of grading,and presumably eliminate the
need for a retaining wall immediately adjacent to this feature.
C. Grading, roadway, drainage and any other development
improvements shall be restricted a minimum of 20 feet from the edge
of the spring to ensure an adequate setback from construction and to
prevent indirect impacts of subsurface groundwater and surface
drainage.
(EIR Mitigation Measure 13I0-3(a)).
SWPPP
15. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, submit a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan using Best Management Practices to control both
construction-related erosion and sedimentation and project-related non-
point discharge into waters on the site. (Mitigation Measure 13I0-3(b))
Wildlife Movement Corridors
16. Prior to approval of the Final Map and using the following detailed
specifications, revise the VTM, Riparian Mitigation Plan, and Biologic
Resource MMP to further address loss of wildlife habitat, maintain
opportunities for wildlife movement across the site, and minimize
disturbance to open space areas.
A. The proposed 5-foot-wide pedestrian trail depicted on the Riparian
Mitigation Plan (see Figure 4.5-4 of the EIR) shall be eliminated due to
the potential impacts on sensitive riparian habitat, or the trail shall be
relocated outside the willow dominated scrub, possibly along the
22
emergency vehicle access road or the Road 24 alignment where it is
devoid of woody vegetation.
B. To alert visitors of its intended use,permanent metal signage stating that
the area serves as sensitive habitat shall be installed at any pedestrian
entrance or channel crossing within the proposed open space area in the
northwestern portion of the site.
C. A permanent movement corridor shall be provided for wildlife linking the
proposed open space in the northwestern portion of the site with the open
space along the east fork of Garrity Creek. An area with a minimum
width of 25 feet shall be established from the western boundary of the site
at the west side of proposed Lots 31 and 32 within which fencing that
would exclude wildlife would be prohibited and native vegetation would
be planted and retained as part of an expanded grassy swale area and
upland area. Some protective fencing may be necessary for safety
purposes around the proposed detention basin to be sited in this area,but
the fencing and basin design shall balance security and safety issues with
the need to maintain opportunities for wildlife movement along the creek
corridor.
(EIR Mitigation Measure BI073(a)).
Control of Invasive Exotic Species
17. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, commencement of any site
improvement or vegetation removal, whichever comes first, submit a
revised Biological Resource MMP presenting an expanded program to
control invasive exotic species in proposed open space areas. Section
4.4.2 of the Biologic Resource MMP shall specify initial methods to
remove and kill targeted invasive, non-native plant species. This may
include controlled use of herbicides, which must be carefully controlled,
given the intended function as open space and presence of sensitive
aquatic habitat of the creek channels, spring, and seep. The proposed
program shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator. (Mitigation Measure BI04(b))
Tree Protection
18. Prior to approval of the Final Map, an engineering survey for all native
trees with trunk diameters of 6.5 inches or greater diameter at breast
height(dbh)within 20 feet on either side of the proposed limits of grading
shall be submitted. An arborist shall classify trees by species and
condition. Wherever possible, individual native trees at the perimeter of
the proposed limits of grading with trunk diameters exceeding 6.5 inches
shall be preserved through adjustments to the limits of grading, use of
23
short over-steepened slopes, and other acceptable methods. Where
possible, non-native trees at the perimeter of the proposed limits of
grading with trunk diameters exceeding 12 inches shall be preserved
where the trees do not detract from proposed habitat enhancement efforts.
Protection of individual native trees shall take precedence over
maintaining the full width of the proposed grassy swale that would
separate the east fork of Garrity Creek from the rear yard of Lots 6, 7, 9,
10, 11, and 36, as long as the function of the swale is not compromised.
The number of trees protected through further refinement of project plans
shall be quantified,and an updated report summarizing final estimates for
tree removal and preservation shall be submitted to the Zoning
Administrator for review and approval prior to issuance of the Grading
Permit. (Mitigation Measure;BIO-5(a))
Tree Replacement
19. The final Biologic Resource MMP shall be revised to include an expanded
goal of providing for the replacement of non-native trees to be removed by
proposed development and details on their replacement with native tree
species as part of the open space plantings. Non-native trees to be
removed shall be replaced according to the following replacement ratios:
trees with trunk diameters of from 6.5 to 12 inches dbh to be replaced at a
1:1 ratio; over 12 inches to 24 inches at a 2:1 ratio; and over 24 inches dbh
at a 3:1 ratio (number of replacement trees:number of trees removed).
Section 3.0 of the final MMP shall be revised to specify the total number
of non-native trees to be removed and the number of native replacement
trees. Revisions to the final MMP incorporating specifications for
replacement plantings of non-native trees shall be completed before
approval of the Final Map. ,. (Mitigation Measures BIO-5(b) and
AESTHETICS-1(c))
Eucalyptus
I
20. Prior to approval of the Final Map, submit a revised drainage plan which
relocates the 12-inch drainage'line originating from the cul-de-sac at the
north end of Garrity Creek Drive to avoid the potential adverse impacts on
mature eucalyptus and other desirable vegetation in the grove. This
drainage line should preferably be relocated southof the spring/seep
complex as part of the cul-de-sac relocation identified in COA #14 and
Mitigation Measure BIO-3(a). (Mitigation Measure BIO-5(c)) .
Trees to be.Preserved
24
21. Adequate measures.shall be implemented to ensure protection of trees
designated for preservation and to provide adequate mitigation if trees are
inadvertently damaged during construction. This shall be accomplished
through implementation of the following detailed specifications:
A. At least 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or approval of the
Final Map, the applicant shall provide two copies of a report from the
Project Restorationist for review and approval by the Zoning
Administrator. The report shall indicate that the Restorationist has
reviewed the recommendations of the geotechnical report filed with the
final map. The report of the Restorationist shall recommend appropriate
measures to prevent any significant damage to trees in the project area
that are not proposed for removal,including trees on neighboring parcels
that adjoin areas proposed for grading.. The recommendations of the
approved report shall be implemented by the applicant.
B. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 816-6.1204 of the Tree Protection
and Preservation Ordinance and to address the possibility that
construction activity damages trees not approved for removal, the
applicant shall provide the County with a security (e.g., bond, cash
deposit) to allow for replacement of trees intended to be preserved that
are significantly damaged by construction activity. The security shall be
retained by the County up to 5 years following the completion of the tree
alteration improvements. In the event that the Zoning Administrator
determines that trees intended to be protected have been damaged by
development activity, and the Zoning Administrator determines that the
applicant has not been diligent in providing reasonable restitution of the
damaged trees, the Zoning Administrator may require that all or part of
the security be used to provide for mitigation of the damaged trees.
C. The trees identified for removal on the approved Vesting Tentative Map
shall be approved for removal and all other trees shall be protected. All
grading,improvement plans and construction plans prepared for building
permits during initial project build-out shall clearly indicate trees
proposed to be removed, altered, or otherwise affected by development
construction. The tree information on grading and development plans
shall indicate the number, size, species, assigned tree number and
location of the dripline of all trees on the property that are to be
retained/preserved.
D. Tree protection measures shall be printed on all subdivision grading and
improvement plans..
(EIR Mitigation Measure BI0-5(d))
25
Geotechnical
22. A. At least 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or installation
of improvements or utilities, applicant shall submit a final geology,
soil, and foundation report meeting.the requirements of Subdivision
Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for review and approval of the County
Peer Review Geologist. The report shall evaluate soils conditions
and provide specific criteria and standards to guide site grading,
drainage and foundation design, including drainage facilities and
private roads. This report shall include evaluation of the potential
for slope failure, seismic settlement, lateral deformation of fill
slopes, differential fill thickness, cut/fill transition lots, and
expansive soils by recognized methods appropriate to soil conditions
discovered during subsurface investigation. It shall include slope
stability analysis, design criteria for the proposed retaining walls, a
remediation plan, and an assessment of the effect of project
implementation on stability of adjacent lots.
B. To mitigate against future landsliding,the two confirmed landslides
shall be entirely removed down to the slide plane. The area of the
landslide shall be regraded with engineered fill following the
construction of a keyway, benches, and subsurface drainage. If
deemed necessary to achieve long-term stability of planned
improvements,the correction grading of the Adams Court landslide
may require a grading easement to remove off-site portions of the
slide.
The toe of the landslide in Lot 5 extends into the creek bank,and this
area of removal must be regraded with structural supports for the
creek bank and arch culvert across Garrity Creek. All necessary
permits for such earthwork shall be obtained from the California
Department of Fish and Game (for work within the creek bank) and
other applicable agencies. (Mitigation Measure GEO-2(a))
C. During grading operations, all keyways and cut slopes shall be
logged by an engineering geologist. In areas of highly sheared or
deeply weathered rock, the applicant's geologist shall provide
supplemental recommendations, such as drainage facilities, over-
excavation of the slope, and replacement with engineered fill or
reinforced earth. (Mitigation Measure GEO-2(c))
D. The project geotechnical engineer shall review Improvement Plans
for Garrity Creek Drive and provide specific standards and criteria to
protect the spring from daTnage during the construction period.
26
Throughout the construction period, an impervious fence shall be
installed a minimum of 6 feet from the springbox to prevent damage
associated with grading and wall construction. (Mitigation
Measure GEO-2(d))
E. The Grading Completion Report shall include an original geologic
map that shows the details of observed features and conditions for
cut slopes, keyways, and areas of continuous benching. The
geologic mapping should be accompanied by a discussion of the
significance of the exposed features and how design was adapted to
address exposed conditions. The Grading Completion Report shall
also include a map based on field surveys or GPS measurements that
show the location and depth of subdrains,as well as adequate ASTM
compaction test data. During construction of improvements,
evidence of geotechnical monitoring of foundation laying for
buildings and retaining walls, along with other details, shall be
provided (e.g., backfilling of utility trenches). (Mitigation
Measure GEO-2(e))
F. A representative of the project geotechnical engineer shall be on site
full time during foundation work (observing all pier drilling and
preparation work for all slabs) to verify compliance of construction
practices and exposed conditions with the provisions of the approved
geotechnical.
G. The Grading Completion Report shall include an as-graded map
showing the location of fill, keyways and subdrains, as well as as-
graded topography.
Graded Slopes
23. A. Prior to approval of the Final Map or issuance of a grading permit,
whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit an updated
Grading Plan,along with a Corrective Grading Plan, for review and
approval by the Zoning Administrator. The gradients of cut slopes
and fill slopes in the project shall not exceed 2.5:1 (horizontal to
.vertical). Where steeper slopes are required, special engineering
solutions shall be provided (e.g., reinforced earth with associated
slope stability analysis). (Mitigation Measure GEO-2(b))
B. Engineered slopes on the perimeter of the graded area shall be
contour-rounded to mimic natural terrain features.
Building Permits
27
24. A. A letter-report update shall be required for issuance of building
permits for individual lots. The intent of this update is to have the
geotechnical engineer review foundation, drainage (and any
associated grading) plans, verifying that they comply with
recommendations and the intent of the approved final geotechnical
reports. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall carry out
the recommendations of the approved report.
B. The recommendation of the project and geotechnical investigation
shall be followed to mitigate the impacts of expansive soils and soil
creep. (Mitigation Measure GEO-3)
C. Following rough site grading, but before the installation of
improvements, chemical testing of representative building site soil
shall be submitted to determine the level of corrosive protection
required for steel and concrete materials to be used during
construction. The following measures shall be implemented where
appropriate to protect against corrosion: use of sulfate-resistant
concrete and use of protective linings to encase steel piping buried in
native soils. (Mitigation Measure GEO-5)
D. The recommendations of the project geotechnical.report shall be
followed for new building foundations,roadways,and on-site swales
and detention basins. (Mitigation Measure GEO-1(b))
Seismic Design and Earthquake
25. A. Slope stability analysis shall be provided for major slopes in the
project. The standard for the project shall be safety factors of 1.5 for
static conditions and 1.1 for pseudostatic conditions, and a seismic
coefficient of 0.15.
B. All new project residences shall be designed to meet the
requirements of the most recent update of the Uniform Building
Code (UBC) Seismic Zone Factor 4 standards, and constructed in
accordance with all applicable building codes and regulations.
(Mitigation Measure GEO-1(a)) ,
C. Following an earthquake that triggers ground failure in the West
County area, an inspection program should be implemented by the
Geologic Hazards Abatement District (GHAD) or Homeowners
Association (HOA) to determine if features characteristic of
incipient ground failure are present. If so, the inspection shall
28
evaluate the extent of cracking of the cover soil materials,and assess
any damage to clean water features and on-site detention basins.
(Mitigation Measure GEO-1(c))
Deed Disclosure
26. Applicant shall record a statement to run with deeds to property ac-
knowledging the approved report by title, author(firm), and date, calling
attention to approved recommendations, and noting that the report is
available from the seller.
Geologic Hazard Abatement District
27. A. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project shall be
incorporated into the established Hillcrest Heights Geologic Hazard
Abatement District(GHAD) or equivalent. The Plan of Control for
the GHAD shall include maintenance responsibility for drainage
facilities within the scenic easement.
B. The Plan of Control and financial aspects of joining the GHAD,
along with review of grading plans and field observations of the
earthwork, shall be performed by an engineering geologist retained
by the County. The applicant shall be responsible for funding these
technical reviews.
Erosion Control
28. At least 30 days prior to requesting the issuance of a grading permit, an
Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department. The Erosion
Control Plan shall provide for the following measures:
A. The Erosion Control Plan shall encompass the applicable provision
of the Freshwater Marsh Riparian Vegetation and Trees Mitigation
Measure.
B. Grading activities shall be restricted to the summer construction
season (April 15 through October 1). Any earthwork done after
October 1 shall be limited to activities directly related to erosion
control. The following interim control measures shall be employed
based on site-specific needs in the project areas: a) grading to
minimize areas of exposed erodible material adjacent to Garrity
Creek, and b) avoidance of over-concentration of rapidly flowing
29
runoff in unprotected, erodible areas.. (Mitigation Measure GEO-
4(b))
C. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, submit an Erosion Control
Plan for review and approval of the Building Inspection Department.
That plan shall incorporate BMPs,including such measures as water
bars, temporary culverts and swales, mulch, erosion control
mats/blankets on exposed slopes, hydroseeding, silt fences, and
sediment trapsibasins. Because the biggest problem with effective
sediment control is lack of maintenance, the Erosion Control Plan
must have a comprehensive program for inspection and maintenance
during the winter rainy season,including provisions for documenting
maintenance activities. (Mitigation Measure GEO-4(a))
D. The Erosion Control Plan shall include effective measures to control
erosion and sedimentation over the life of the project,including one
or more of the following measures. (Mitigation Measure GEO-
4(c))
■ Downspout collection systems that outfall to splatter plates for
individual structures;
■ Use of track-walked,salvaged topsoil on all engineered slopes with
gradients of 2:5 (H:V) or flatter that are 15 feet or more in height;
and
■ Avoidance of concentrated runoff over cut or fill slopes.
Construction Period Restrictions
29. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction,
noise,litter,and traffic control requirements. These requirements shall be
printed in the General Notes portion of the grading and subdivision
improvement plans:
A. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following
construction noise, dust, litter, and traffic control requirements:
All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on
State and federal holidays on the calendar dates that these holidays
are observed by the state or federal government as listed below:
New Year's Day (State and Federal)
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal)
Washington's Birthday (Federal)
30
Lincoln's Birthday (State)
President's Day (State)
Cesar Chavez Day (State)
Memorial Day (State and Federal)
Independence Day (State and Federal)
Labor Day (State and Federal)
Columbus Day (State and Federal)
Veterans Day (State and Federal)
Thanks Giving Day (State and Federal)
Day after Thanksgiving (State)
Christmas Day(State and Federal)
For specific details on the actual day the state and federal holidays
occur, please visit the following web sites:
Federal Holidays: http://www.opm.gov/fedhol/2006.aT
California Holidays: http://www.edd.ca.gov/eddsthol.htm
B. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, commencement of any site
improvement or vegetation removal,whichever comes first,submit a
plan to ensure that all 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.
C. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, commencement of any site
improvement or vegetation removal,whichever comes first,submit a
draft of a notice and mailing list for review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator. The notice shall include a list of contact
persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility.
The person responsible for maintaining 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 individuals responsible for
noise and litter control,tree protection,construction traffic and vehi-
cles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number, shall be
expressly identified in the notice. . 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 notice that construction work will commence. The
notice shall be re-issued with each phase of major grading and con-
struction activity.
31
A copy of each notice that is mailed shall be concurrently
transmitted to the Community Devclopment 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. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference
with existing neighborhood traffic flows. Construction-related
vehicle access to the site shall be limited to Royal Oaks Drive, and
the emergency vehicle access. No construction-related vehicles are
allowed to park on neighborhood streets.
E. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to week
days between the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM. and prohibited on
Federal and State holidays.
F. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the
cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be
removed from the site.
G. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide
documentation to the Community Development Department of the
proposed approach to achieve full compliance with COA #29
requirements by all contractors and subcontractors within this project
(i.e., reference "general notes" in the grading plan, provisions in
building and grading contracts or other equally effective measures).
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
30. The Grading Plan for the project shall identify the licensed environmental
professional who will monitor earthmoving operation in the area of the
former shed(proposed Lot#16-17). The"General Notes"on the Grading
Plan shall specify the following:
Grading in the immediate vicinity of the former shed shall be
monitored by ... (identify the environmental firm providing this.
monitoring service in the General Note). Ifany contaminated soil
is detected, the Zoning Administrator shall be notified within 48
hours. Appropriate cleanup shall be performed immediately and
appropriate agencies shall be contacted prior to any building
construction.
(Mitigation Measure HAZ-1)
32
31. A. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for the residence of 4823
Hilltop Drive or a grading permit for the project, submit the results
of an asbestos or lead-based paint survey for review and approval of
the Zoning Administrator. If any asbestos is identified,appropriate
procedures shall be undertaken to comply with all applicable
regulations and a plan for demolition shall be approved by the
County Building Department prior to the issuance of a demolition
permit. Consultation with staff of the BAAQMD Enforcement
Division shall occur prior to demolition of any structure containing
asbestos,and such demolition shall be subject to District Regulation
11, Rule 2. (Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 and AIR-2)
B. If lead-based paint is identified, federal and State construction
worker health and safety regulations shall be followed during
demolition activities. Any loose or peeling lead-based paint shall
be removed by a qualified lead abatement contractor and disposed
of in accordance with existing hazardous waste regulations.
Further, if lead-based paint is identified on the building structure,
near-surface soil samples shall be collected around the structure to
determine the potential for residual soil lead contamination, and
appropriate remediation shall be completed prior to new residential
construction. (Mitigation Measure HAZ-2)
Aesthetics
32. Prior to approval of the Final Map,documentation of compliance with the
following measures shall be submitted for review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator.
A. All graded slopes shall be hydroseeded immediately for those areas that
would not be paved with new roadways. Also, refer to mitigation
measures in Section 4.5, Biological Resources.
B. New roads shall be planted with trees in 15-gallon containers on both
sides of the road,within the edge of the sidewalk area. These trees shall
be planted approximately 25 feet on center to provide a shaded,
pedestrian-scale environment with a continuous tree canopy and to screen
roads and homes from uphill locations. Root barriers shall be included,
as necessary. Street trees shall be of a species approved by the Contra
Costa County Public Works Department. Irrigation shall be provided as
needed and identified in planting specifications that shall be included
with the Final Map submittal. Any damaged or dead trees within the first
two years of construction shall be replaced by the applicant. (Also refer
to COA#40 (Mitigation Measure UTILITIES-1.)
33
C. Rooftops of all new residential units shall be of a dark material to blend
into the surrounding landscape when viewed from uphill residences. Red
tile rooftops should not be allowed due to the sharp color contrast with
the surroundings and vegetation.
D. Fence material in the vicinity of both the east fork and north fork of
Garrity Creek should be open wire fencing to minimize the sense of
"enclosure" in the vicinity of the creeks and to allow views into. the
vegetated creek corridors.
EIR Mitigation Measure AESTHETICS-1(a).
Lot 38 Oak
33. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, submit a detailed site plan for
proposed Lot #38 that analyzes the feasibility of preserving the 12-inch
diameter Coast Live Oak. Measures to be considered include: a) use of
retaining walls at the dripline, b) custom design of residence, and c)
reduced front and side yard setback. The detailed site plan shall be subject
to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Should the Zoning
Administrator determine that preservation of the tree is impractical, tree
replantings shall be required (two coast live oaks, each in 15-gallon
containers). (Mitigation Measure AESTHETICS-1(b))
Lighting
34. Prior to approval of Improvement Plans, submit evidence that any street
lighting fixtures are shielded so that the light is cast downward to the
streets and sidewalks, and the bulbs are not highly visible or subject to
breakage and designed to minimize light and glare for their surroundings.
(Mitigation Measure AESTHETICS-2)
Cultural
35. A. If any indicators of the presence of cultural resources are discovered
during the construction of the project,earth-disturbing work shall be
halted in an area within a radius of 10 feet around the suspected
deposits,and an archaeologist or cultural resource specialist shall be
consulted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The
County's Community Development Department shall be notified
within 24 hours. If deemed appropriate under CEQA,.data and
artifact recovery shall be conducted during the period when
construction work is halted. Significant cultural materials include,
but are not limited to, chipped stone, groundstone, shell and bone
34
artifacts, concentrations of fire cracked rock, ash, charcoal, shell,
bone, and historic features such as privies or building foundations.
Appropriate mitigation may include monitoring of further
construction and/or systematic excavation of the resources. Any
artifacts or samples collected as part of the initial discovery,
monitoring, or mitigation phases shall be properly conserved,
catalogued, analyzed, evaluated, and curated along with associated
documentation in a professional manner consistent with current
archaeological standards. (Mitigation Measure CULT-1)
B. If human remains are discovered during the construction of the
project,an appropriate representative of Native American groups and
the County Coroner shall be informed and consulted, as required by
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. No further
excavation or disturbance of the site of the"find",or any nearby area
shall be undertaken until authorized by the County Coroner.
Mitigation Measure CULT-1 shall also apply in such a situation.
(Mitigation Measure CULT-2)
Noise
36. Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit,provide a plan for implementation
of the following detailed specifications:
A. Site planning of Lot 1 should take noise control considerations into
account. With proper site planning at Lot 1, acoustical shielding to the
backyard can be provided by a combination.of the residence structure and
solidly constructed fencing. The final site plan for Lot 1 should be
reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to construction to
ensure regulatory compliance.
B. The residence on Lot 1 should be provided with the incorporation of a
forced-air mechanical ventilation system, suitable to the local County
official,to allow occupants the option of closed windows to control noise.
EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-1.
37. Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit, submit a program to implement
the following detailed noise suppression. This program shall be subject to
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
A. Limit construction to daytime working hours,as specified by the County
Noise Element, to provide relative quiet during the more sensitive
evening and early morning periods;
35
B. Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers that
are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment;
C. Utilize "quiet" models of air compressors and other stationary noise
sources where technology exists;
D. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines;
E. Locate all stationary noise-generating construction equipment,such as air
compressors and portable power generators, as far as practical from
existing noise-sensitive receptors;
F. Notify residents adjacent to the project site of the construction schedule
in writing; and
G. Designate a "noise disturbance coordinator".who would be responsible
for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The
disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise
complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute
reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. Conspicuously
post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the
construction site.
EIR Mitigation Measure NOISE-2.
Air Quality
38. Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit, submit a program to implement
the following.detailed specifications to protect air quality during the
construction period. This program shall be subject to review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator.
A. Basic Control Measures: 1) water all active construction areas at least
twice daily; 2) cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose
materials; 3)pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non-toxic soil
stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,parking areas,and staging areas at
construction sites; 3)sweep daily(with water sweepers)all paved access
roads, parking areas and staging areas.
B. Enhanced Control Measure's: 1) hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil
stabilizers to inactive construction areas(previously graded areas inactive
for ten days or more); 2) enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-
toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles(dirt, sand, etc.); 3)limit traffic
speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour;4)install sandbags or other
erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; 5)
replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible; 6) install
36
wheel washers for all existing trucks, or wash off tires or tracks of all
trucks and equipment leaving the site; 7)suspend excavation and grading
activity when winds exceed 25 miles per hour; 8) properly maintain
construction equipment and avoid unnecessary idling near residences;9)
designate a disturbance coordinator who would respond to complaints
regarding construction-related air quality issues and post the coordinator's
phone number at the construction site; and 10) at least once per month,
submit a report by the contractor to the County to ensure that construction
mitigation measures are in place.
(EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-1)
Recreation
39. The on-site open space resources shall be protected by the following
means. Prior to approval of the Final Map, provide documentation of
compliance with the following detailed specifications. The documents
provided shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
A. All on-site open space shall be deed-restricted and dedicated to an on-site
homeowner's association(HOA)that would be responsible for ongoing
maintenance and operation. This dedication(and appropriate documen-
tation) shall occur prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map.
B. The HOA shall establish an appropriate fee structure for project residents
that would help to offset ongoing maintenance and operation costs.
C. An Operations and Maintenance Plan shall be established for the on-site
open space by the HOA to ensure that water quality and vegetation
management provisions are addressed. This Plan shall be approved by
the County's Public Works Department and the California Department of
Fish and Game prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the site.
D. Adequate signage shall be posted at the site to identify times of use and
appropriate controls such as avoidance of garbage in the creek, cleaning
up after animals, etc.
E. The Covenants,Conditions and Restrictions(CC&Rs)of the HOA shall
provide for holding owners of private lots financially responsible for any
debris cleanup required as a result of illegal dumping in the creek
structure setback zone.
EIR Mitigation Measure REC-1.
Utilities
37
40. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for a residence, provide a
landscape program for front yards. For each south-facing residence, the
program shall include at least one deciduous tree to encourage the use of
solar equipment and passive solar design. The proposed landscape
program shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator to assure compliance with mitigation measure. (Mitigation
Measure UTILITIES-1)
Street Name
41. At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map,proposed street names shall
be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development
Department;Graphics Section(Phone#335-1270). Alternate street names
should be submitted. The Final Map cannot be approved by the Commu-
nity Development Department without the approved street name.
Election for Establishment of a Police Service District to Augment Police Services
42. 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 Final
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.
Landscape Plan and Security for Street Tree/Hilltop Drive Landscape Improvements
43. A. The plans for the Hilltop Drive frontage will include provision for a
six-foot tall decorative masonry wall. Proposed trees shall be a
minimum 15-gallons in size;proposed shrubs shall be a minimum 5-
gallons in size. Plans shall include a color spot. At the same time,
the plans shall make clear that the plant selection at maturity
complies with the Sight Distance at Intersection Ordinance. The
plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and shall be
certified to be in compliance with the County Water Conservation
Ordinance 82-26.
38'
B. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall provide the
County with a security that is acceptable to the Zoning Administrator
for 125 percent of the estimated cost of the landscape improvements.
The purpose of the security shall be to ensure timely completion of
the required landscape improvements, and shall be retained until the
required landscape improvements have been completed and accepted
by the Zoning Administrator. If compliance is not achieved within
one year of the completion of the subdivision improvements, then
the County may contract for the completion of the landscaping and
irrigation improvement using the landscape security.
Traffic Calming and Hardscape Entry Design Measures for Royal Oaks Drive
44. Improvement plans for Royal Oaks Drive shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department for the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator, following opportunity to comment by the Public
Works Department. The plans shall provide for:
A. The installation of at least two speed bumps intended to slow traffic
along this road.
B. A hardscape design treatment for the road entry to the project.
Recycling of Construction Materials
45. A. At least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits, the
subdivision developer shall submit two (2) copies of a Debris
Recovery Plan demonstrating how they intend to recycle,reuse, or
salvage building materials and other debris generated from the
construction of new buildings for the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator, following an opportunity for review and
comment by the Resource Recovery Specialist in the Community
Development Department (Lorna Thomson, (925) 335-1321).
B. At least 30 days prior to requesting a final inspection on the first
residential building permit,the subdivision developer shall submit a
completed Debris Recovery Project documenting actual debris
recovery efforts (including quantities of recovered and land filled
materials) that occurred throughout the project's duration.
Design Guidelines: General ,
46 . A. Prior to approval of the Grading Plan or Final Map, the applicant
shall submit for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator
39
design guidelines. The design guidelines shall be listed in the
CC&R's.
B. An internal Architectural Review Board shall be created to review
and approve plans in accordance with the residential design
guidelines prior to submittal of plans to Community Development
and Building Inspection .Departments. The Architectural Review
Board shall become active when at least 60% of the residences are
owner-occupied.
The following County review process will be in effect regardless of
the status of the Architectural Review Board. All residential designs
for permits shall be submitted with a design guideline checklist to
determine compliance with the design guidelines for the review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator. The County shall retain
architectural and landscape peer review, and costs of the review
shall be borne by the applicant.
C. The criteria listed in Exhibit "4-H" Staff Study Design Guidelines
shall—at a minimum—be included in the applicant design guideline
submittal.
Design Guidelines: Setbacks
47. A. Required setbacks and off-street parking prescribed by the R-7
zoning district shall be measured from the edge of the private road
easement or property line, whichever is more restrictive.
B. Lot setback exceptions. 15 feet(minimum) allowed,provided that
the garage achieves a 20 foot setback and provided that any
encroachment in the 20 ft setback zone be limited to a one story
element.
Design Guidelines: Preliminary Design Submittal
48. Prior to approval of a revised grading plan or final map, applicant shall
submit for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator architectural
plans and elevations that are sensitive to the site topography. The designs
shall incorporate the criteria listed in the project design guidelines. The
Preliminary Design Submittal shall include the following:
A. Conceptual Site Plans for a cross-slope lot, a down-slope lot and an
up-slope lot that show:
40
1. Proposed grades if different from revised grading plan
2. Property lines with applicable setbacks shown
3. All proposed easements on the property
4. Existing trees—noted as to saved or to be removed
5. Lot drainage
6. Fence types and locations with heights noted
7. Retaining walls including heights, type, color and finish
8. Conceptual landscape and lot development activities
9. Amount of cut and fill required for design (beyond quantities
noted on revised grading plan)
B. Conceptual Exterior Elevation of House that Identify:
1. Exterior finishes
2. Sample of roofing material and color (manufacturers' brochure
OK)
3. Color chart detailing exterior colors (manufacturers' brochure
OK)
C. Conceptual Floor Plans
1. Identification of rooms
2. Proposed square footage of home, garage and other structures
Design Guidelines: Grading Conditions
49. Prior to approval of a grading plan or final map,applicant shall submit for
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator a revised grading/tree
preservation plan. The revised grading plan shall:
A. Be designed on a current topographical survey with two-foot
contours.
B. Show the grading for the detention basins, the lot layout to
accommodate the basins and access to maintain the basins.
C. Reflect the proposed house grading at the back of the downhill lots
to minimize site grading and sliver fills requiring additional keyways
at house construction stage.
D. Include the arch culvert crossing detail,to be submitted to the Public
Works and Community Development Departments for review and
41
approval. The plans shall note proposed wall material and finish,
fencing and guardrail detail and include structural sections.
E. Depict storm drainage improvements including "clean water"
features intended to comply with C.3 — requirement and piping as
well as easements on lots for utilities and private open spaces.
F. The revised grading plan shall clearly label all retaining walls,note
wall heights, and the type, color and finish of walls. No retaining
wall structural elements for the project access roadways or project
shall be on private lots without an easement. The walls supporting
the project access roadways shall be maintained by the HOA. All
private roadway structural elements shall be on easement or via
separate open space lot, and maintained by the HOA.
G. Identify all trees with a trunk circumference of 6.5 inches or greater
with trunks within twenty feet of areas proposed for grading.
Reasonable efforts shall be made to minimize the loss of or potential
damage to existing trees. The plans shall identify the trunk
circumference, approximate canopy area, species, and whether the
tree is to be preserved or removed. The plan shall be prepared with
the assistance of a licensed arborist. The plan shall provide suitable
measures to assure protection of trees during the construction period.
The grading/tree preservation plan shall provide delineation of the
perimeter of areas and trees to be preserved by use of taping and
stakes, or other appropriate barriers. The survey of trees shall
provide for a tally of the number and trunk circumference of trees to
be removed. The aggregate trunk circumferences of trees proposed
for removal shall be totaled. No trees shall be removed from any of
the property prior to approval of the grading/tree preservation plan
without the prior approval of the Zoning Administrator.
H. Depicts grading to accommodate the conceptual designs required in
compliance with the provisions of Conditions of Approval 46-48.
L. Earthwork quantities (cut and fill) shall be noted on the revised
grading plan. Should the site not balance,the applicant shall provide
details of the proposed import/export. - Include information on
location(s) of proposed fill import/export site, type of trucks, haul
route, haul hours, trucks/day and duration of operation, proposed
safety measures (flag men, strut sweeping, dust control). Any
import/export plan shall be subject to review and approval of the
Public Works Department.
42
J. After the rough grading operation,minimal grading shall be allowed
on the site to accommodate residential construction.
Indemnification of County
50. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including
the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless the Contra Costa County Planning Agency and its agents,
officers, and employers 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.
Applicant Responsible for Fees to Cover Mitigation Monitoring Costs
51 . The subdivider shall be responsible for staff time and material costs in
monitoring the project for compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program. The monitoring program will include provision for
periodic inspection of the project site from the commencement of
demolition and construction activity through the end of the required
survival period for maintaining required landscape mitigation
improvements. Prior to issuance of any permit or approval of a final map,
the applicant shall make an initial cash deposit of$10,000 towards this
expense to the Community Development Department.
Application Processing Fees
52 . This application is subject to a deposit of$12,831.00 which was paid with
the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application
review.expenses exceed 100 percent of the initial fee. Any additional fee
due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use
of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through
permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant
may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If the
applicant owes additional fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly
after permit issuance.
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 8533
43
COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO
APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP
General Requirements:
53. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this
subdivision shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision
Ordinance(Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed
in this conditional.approval statement. The drainage, road and utility
improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the
Public Works Department and are based on the revised Tentative Map
dated October 29, 2004.
54: Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be
submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services
Division, along with review and inspection fees, and security for all
improvements required by the Ordinance Code for the conditions of
approval of this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary
traffic signage and striping plans for review by the Transportation
Engineering Division.
Roadway Improvements—Hilltop Drive:
55. Applicant shall construct curb and 5-foot wide sidewalk(width measured
from curb face)along the project's frontage on Hilltop Drive. The face of
curb shall conform to the alignment of the existing AC berm and be
subject to the review of Public Works. The new intersection at Royal Oaks
Drive should not conflict with planned future bicycle facilities.
(Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-3)
56. Dedicate additional right of way as necessary to accommodate the above
required sidewalk and appurtenant improvements and utilities. Minimum
total right of way shall be 10 feet from the proposed face of curb.
Also refer to COA #5 regarding the construction of a Left-Turn Lane on
Hilltop Drive, if determined to be feasible.
57. Applicant shall install safety related improvements including traffic signs
and striping, as necessary and as approved by Public Works.
Roadway Improvements—On Site
58. Applicant shall construct curb, a 4-foot sidewalk (width measured from
curb face), where feasible given the site's geographic constraints
44
(Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-3)necessary longitudinal and transverse
drainage and street lighting within the project as shown on the tentative
map. Pavement and right of way widths shall conform to those shown on
the tentative map as well.
59. Although the streets are to remain private, they shall be constructed to
County public road standards as to horizontal and vertical alignment
(using a 30 mile per hour design speed)as well as the pavement structural
section. Turn-arounds shall be subject to the review and approval of
Public Works and Fire Protection District.
60. Relocate the proposed driveway serving Lot 1 to the north side of the
proposed building footprint to provide more distance from the Royal Oaks
Drive/Hilltop Drive intersection.
61. _ Offer to dedicate a private access and utility easement over Royal Oaks
Drive between Garrity Creek and Hilltop Drive to the adjacent parcel to
the west.
Emergency Vehicle Access
62. The proposed EVA between Garrity Creek Drive and Manor Road shall
comply with design requirements of the County Public Works Department
and Fire Protection District. The applicant shall obtain an offer to dedicate
a permanent easement over said EVA from the underlying property owner
to the County on behalf of the Public.(Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-2)
63. Pedestrian access shall be provided at the gates of the proposed emergency
vehicle access. (Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-3)
Access to Adjoining Property:
Proof of Access
64. Applicant shall furnish necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits
and/or easements for the construction of off-site,temporary or permanent,
public and private road and drainage improvements.
65. Encroachment permits from the County are required for all construction
activity within existing County right of way. Off-site street or drainage
improvements within the City of Richmond will require the appropriate
permits from the City.
Construction Related Project Access
45
66 The applicant shall prepare a Construction Management Plan for approval
by the County Public Works Department prior to the initiation of
construction. The plan shall identify routes to be used by construction
traffic and the type and number of trucks expected. While most work
would be completed on the site without much disruption to existing
roadways, any work on the proposed Royal Oaks Drive and EVA that
affects traffic flows on Hilltop Drive or Manor Road should be completed
outside of peak hours and not during school drop-off and pick-up times.
(Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-5)
Parking:
67. "No Parking" signs and pavement markings shall be installed along all
streets subject to the review and approval of Public Works.Parking will be
allowed on one side of the street where the curb-to-curb width is at least
28 feet. Parking shall be prohibited altogether along roads with a curb-to-
curb width less than 28 feet. The Homeowners Association shall maintain
signage and the painted curbs over the life of the project. (Mitigation
Measure TRAFFIC-4)
Sight Distance:
68. Provide sight distance at all internal intersections for a through traffic
design speed of 30 mph and a through traffic design speed at the
intersection of Hilltop Drive and Royal Oaks Drive of 40 mph. Sight
distance easements shall be dedicated on the final map in accordance with
the currant Caltrans intersection"Stopping Sight Distance"requirements
or Chapter 82-18 of the County Ordinance Code, whichever is greater.
Structures greater than 30 inches above top of curb grade will be
prohibited within these sight distance easements. (Mitigation Measure
TRAFFIC-1)
Utilities/Undergrounding:
69. All new and existing utility distribution facilities shall be installed
underground.
Maintenance of Facilities:
70. Property Owner shall create a Homeowners Association to maintain the
private roadway, street lights, drainage and stormwater management
facilities. A copy of the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions for the
46
subdivision or a separate deed notification shall be submitted to Public
Works for review to verify conformance with this requirement
Roadway Landscaping:
71. Applicant shall convey the entry landscaping/hardscape area at the project
entrance along Hilltop Drive to the Homeowners Association, or other
acceptable entity other than the County. A maintenance plan of operation
shall be submitted for Public Works and Community Development review,
but the County will not accept this property for maintenance.
Pedestrian Facilities:
72. All public and private pedestrian facilities and access ways shall be
designed in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap access) and the
Americans with Disabilities Act. This shall include all sidewalks,paths,
trails, driveway depressions, as well as handicap ramps.
73. A public pedestrian access easement shall be dedicated over the sidewalks
to be constructed within the project.
Drainage Improvements:
Collect and Convey
74. Division 914 of the Ordinance Code requires that all storm waters entering
or originating within the subject property shall be conveyed, 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 that conveys the storm waters to a natural
watercourse.
Exception
In light of the study of the downstream drainage facilities in the "Hilltop
Green" project and the deficiencies noted therein, the applicant shall
construct the proposed on-site detention basins to reduce the peak
stormwater runoff rate from the 10-year design storm specified in the
County Ordinance Code to or below pre-project levels.
75. Storm drainage facilities required by Division 914 shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with specifications outlined in Division 914 and
in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department.
47
Storm Water Management and Maintenance:
76. The design of Detention Basins "A" and "B" should either be based on
Contra Costa County Flood Control District criteria for regional basins,or
the applicant should provide an engineered design acceptable to the
County Public Works Department. The current 2.5:1 slope gradients do
not conform to the 4:1 maximum slope allowed by County regulations.
This change would potentially affect the useable area of upgradient lots
and the lot layout may require reconfiguration or reduction in lot yield.
The drainage design and modeling data were based on the applicant's
grading plans of October 14,2004. If the grading plans change due to lot
reconfiguration, the effect of those changes will necessitate further
hydrologic modeling and associated stormwater management design to be
submitted to The County Public Works Department for review and
approval.. (Mitigation Measure HYDROLOGY-1)
77. A Maintenance Plan and entity responsible for funding and implementing
maintenance of the detention basins and other stormwater management
infrastructure in perpetuity shall be established prior to filing the final
map. An Operations and Maintenance Manual(OMM)for these facilities
shall be completed by the applicant and approved by the County prior to
issuance of a grading permit. The OMM shall specify that detention
basins will be operated to ensure that design storage capacity of the basin
is maintained and that accumulated residual sediment and other material
deposited will be cleaned out, following detention basin inspections.
Debris removal shall occur as needed. The drainage facilities shall be
inspected at least once per year in the fall,before the onset of a new rainy
season. (Mitigation Measure HYDROLOGY-2)
78. The grassy swales downslope of Lots 32, 33, and 34 shall be removed
based on their limited effectiveness to control and direct surface water
flow due to the relatively steep grades of these lots. (Mitigation Measure
HYDROLOGY-2)
79. Appropriate easements, access, and security for use of the needed
equipment to clean out the detention basins shall be provided. The basins
shall be sited within separate parcels without any residential use
component. Development rights over these separate parcels shall be
conveyed to the County by grant deed. Ownership of the lots shall be
conveyed to the Homeowners Association or subsequent maintenance
entity to be approved by the County Public Works Department.
(Mitigation Measure HYDROLOGY-2).
48
Miscellaneous Drainage Improvements:
80. Storm drainage originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated
manner shall be prevented from draining across the sidewalk(s)and drive-
way(s).
81. The applicant shall dedicate a public drainage easement over the drainage
system that conveys storm water run-off from public streets, if applicable.
82. In the absence of public drainage easements,the applicant shall create private
drainage easements over portions of the drainage system that convey storm
water run-off from more than a single lot or parcel.
83. Private on-site storm drain easements, if necessary, shall have a minimum
width of 10 feet.
Creek Structure Setback
84. Applicant shall relinquish "development rights" over that portion of the
site that is within the setback area of Garrity Creek. The structure setback
shall be determined using the criteria outlined in Chapter 914-14,"Rights
of Way and Setbacks"of the Subdivision Ordinance. Development rights
shall be conveyed to the County by grant deed.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Requirements:
85. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and
procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)for municipal construction and industrial activities promulgated
by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its
Regional Water Quality Control Boards(San Francisco Bay—Region II)
86. Although the new"C.3"requirements being phased in from 2004 through
2006 post-date the applicant's submission, a C.3-conforming drainage
plan shall be required for this project. The. applicant's current design in-
cludes components necessary to meet the objectives of the"C.3"require-
ments. (Mitigation Measure HYDROLOGY-1)
87. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must complete a
stormwater control plan(SWCP)acceptable to the County Watershed Pro-
tection Program reviewers. This must include a detailed description of
construction phase Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) as
well as post construction BMPs to be implemented. (Mitigation Measure
HYDROLOGY-1)
49
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 OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT.
A. The Building Inspection Department will require three sets of building plans which must be
stamped by the Community Development Department and by the West County Wastewater
District.
B. Additional requirements may be imposed by the Fire District,the Health Department and
the Building Inspection Department. It is advisable to check with these departments prior
to requesting a building permit or proceeding with the project.
C. Vesting Tentative MapRights. The approval of this vesting tentative map confers a vested
right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with ordinances,policies,and
standards in effect as of November 28,2004,the date the vesting tentative map application
was accepted as complete by the Community Development Department. The vested rights
also apply to development fees which the County has adopted by ordinance. These fees are
in addition to any other development fees which may be specified in the conditions of
approval.
The fees include but are not limited to the following:
Park Dedication $2,000.00 per residence.
Child Care $400.00 per residence.
An estimate of the fee charges for each approved lot may be obtained by contacting the
Building Inspection Department at 335-1192.
D. Expiration of Vested Rights. Pursuant to Section 66452.6(g) of the Subdivision Map act,
the rights conferred by the vesting tentative map as provided by Chapter 4.5 of the
Subdivision Map act shall last for an initial period of two(2)years following the recording
date of the final/parcel map. These rights pertain to development fees and regulations.
Where several final maps are recorded on various phases of a project covered by a single
vesting tentative map,the initial time period shall begin for each phase when the final map
for that phase is recorded.
At any time prior to the expiration of the initial time period,the subdivider may apply for a
one-year extension. The application shall be accompanied by the applicable filing fee. If
the extension is denied by an advisory agency,the subdivider may appeal that denial to the
50
Board of Supervisors by filing a letter of appeal with the appropriate filing fee with the
Clerk of the Board within 15 calendar days.
The initial time period may also be subject to automatic extension pursuant to other
provisions of Section 66452.6(g)relating to processing of related development applications
by the County.
At the expiration of the vesting time period, remaining development (i.e., new building
permits) within the subdivision shall be subject to development fees and regulations in
effect at that time.
E. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules,regulations,and procedures of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal, construction
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).
F. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is
the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and 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 and Game Code.
G. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the
applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to
determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained.
H. Police Services District Costs and Necessary Processing Time. The applicant is advised
that the tax for the police services district is currently set by the Board of Supervisors at
$200 per parcel annually (with appropriate future Consumer Price Index (CPI)
adjustments). The annual fee is subject to modification by the Board of Supervisors in the
future. The current fee for holding the election is$800 and is also subject to modification
in the future. The applicable tax and fee amounts will be those established by the Board at
the time of voting. The applicant is advised that the election process takes from 3 to 4
months and must be completed prior to approval of the Final Map.
I. Requirement of Special Districts and School District. Comply with the requirements of the
East Bay Municipal Utility District and West County Wastewater District. Comply with
the requirements of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. At time of issuance
of building permits, comply with the fee payment requirements of the Richmond Unified
School District.
J. The applicant has paid the County an environmental fee of California Department of Fish
and Game fee of$850 to the County.
51
K. Comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements for the Richmond/El
Sobrante and West Contra Costa Regional Areas of Benefit as adopted by the Board of
Supervisors. These fees must be paid prior to issuance of building permits.
L. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS,
RESERVATIONS,OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL
OF THIS PERMIT.
This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section
66000, et. seq, the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications,reservations,
and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is
limited to a ninety-day (90)period after the project is approved.
The 90-day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any
dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit,begins on the
date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development
Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit.
Gs\Current.Pianning\curr-pla Wfsha\SD6i,8533COAs—bos-f
Rev.4-27-2006