HomeMy WebLinkAbout028-82 t
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DANVILLE
IN THE MATTER OF: )
)
Adopting the San Ramon ) RESOLUTION NO. 28-82
Valley Area General Plan )
as it Relates to Danville )
)
)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE DECLARES that:
1o On May 24, 1977 the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors adopted the General Plan for the San Ramon Valley
Area after receiving the appropriate recommendations and
resolution from the Contra Costa County Planning Commission,
~-~ holding properly noticed public hearings and certifying the
final Environmental Impact Report as required by law.
2. The City of Danville became incorporated on July 1,
1982 and this Council now intends to adopt the San Ramon Valley
Area General Plan as applicable to the area now within the
boundaries of the City of Danville.
3. There is filed with this Council and its Clerk a copy
of the following:
a. Resolution No. 77/436 passed by the Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors on May 24, 1977 and adopting the
San Ramon Valley Area General Plan.
~ b. The San Ramon Valley Area General Plan approved
by the County Board of Superivsors.
~ 4. The action of this Council in adopting this Resolution
,/
is catergorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code §21084(a)).
5. There is not yet a Planning Commission in the City and
therefore certain Planning Commission procedures are not
applicable to the adoption of this Resolution (Gov. C. ~65358).
6. On September 13, 1982 this Council held a hearing on
the matter of adopting the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan
which is the subject of this Resolution. Notice of the hearing
was duly given in the manner required by law. The Council at the
hearing called for testimony of all persons interested in the
matter. No one came forward to speak.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Danville does hereby approve and adopt the San Ramon Valley
'-~ Area General Plan as applicable to the area within the boundaries
of the City of Danville.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Danville on 10-18-82 ,
1982 by the following vote:
AYES:MAY, MC NEELY, OFFENHARTZ
NOES:NONE
ABSENT:LANE, SCHLENDORF (excused)
STAi NO .......
Attest:
<
Page 2.
RESOLU:, ION NO. 18-1981(SR)
RES(~;,.UTION OF THE SAN F~AMON VALLEY AREA PLANNNG COMMISSION OF THE
COUNTY OF t';:ONTR/\ (.OSTA, SLATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS
AND I~,ECOMMENDA'IIONS ON FI4E SYCAMORE VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE
SAN RAMON AREAs CONTRA COSTA COUNTY.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Go'vernment Code 65450, public hearings
were held before the San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission o.n April 9, May 21,
July 16, August 27, November 19, December 3, December 10, December 17, 1980 and
3anuary 28, February 4, February 25 and April 1, 1981 to consider a proposed Specific
Plan and the Ella on that project for the Sycamore Valley Area of Contra Costa County;
and !
WHEREAS, all the procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Contra Costa County Guidelines to implement this Act have been met, and the
hereinafter listed matter was discussed fully with testimony and documentation presented
by the public and various county, local and state agencies; !
WHEREASs the E1R was prepared in connection with the General Plan Amendment
/-~ and the proposed Specific Plan for approximately 2,500 acres to allow approximately
1,850 units and associated improvements, public facilities and open space lands within the
Sycamore Valley 'Area; and that EIR including responses to comments constitute the Final
EIR for the General Plan revision and for the Specific Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the San Ramon Valley Area Planning
Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing on April 1, 1981, makes the following
findings and recommendations on the matter:
1. That the specific Plan is consistent with and will implement tt.e Sycamore
Valley Area General Plan Amendment.
2. The Specific Plan with its proposed standards for implementa'tion will mittgate
many of the impacts enumerated in the Environmental Impact Report 'and
through public testimony.
3. The Specific Plan has left significant areas in open space and is protecting the
environmental resources of the area through the designs and standards of the
Specific Plan.
4. The Plan with the conditions for circulation, access, water facilities, sewer
facilities, schools, parks and trails, drainage, open space, museum and offices,
/'-" and a mix of residential densities and types, will implement the general plan
1
% ~ · .
RESOLdTION NO. 18-1981(5R)
and each of its elements and provide for the public safety.
5. That the Specific Plan with 1,850 dwellings and population potential of 6,000
residents will have significant impacts on the San Ramon Valley.
6. That the Specific Plan attempts to mitigate impacts by on service providing
agencies by providing capital improvements, both on and off-site, and fees.
· t
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission
having reviewed the comments submitted in response to the EIR, finds that the
environmental documents constituting the Final EIR are adequat. e and provide an
environmental analysis suitable for decision making on the project~ and the Planning
Commission certifies to the Board of Supervisors that it finds the EIR to be adequate and
· !
that it has been completed in compliance with State Cuidelines and County processing
procedure for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon reviewing this project th~at it' became clear
to this Commission that changes or alterations are required to the e:<isting County
General Plan and that a Specific Plan is required which would mitigat~ or avoid many of
the significant environmental effects of development in the Sycamore Valley as identified
in the final environmental impact report; and
BE IT FURTHER BESOLVED that specific economic, social, or other consider-
ations make infeasible with mitigation measures or plan alternatives of some of the items
identified in the environmental impact report. It was felt that there is a severe housing
shortage existing within Contra Costa County and that area would provide a substantial
opportunity to help alleviate this problem.
BE ]T FURTHER RESOLVED thatthe San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission
concurs with the findings of the EIR that the Specific Plan would have certain
environmental effects and adopts the following findings and measures which partially
mitigate those effects in the manner indicated. This impact follows the same sequence as
identified in the summary of the Draft EIR.
A. LANE) USE:
Impact: Reduction in maximum allowable land use intensity specific in San Ramon
Valley Area General Plan.
Findings: Certain changes or alterations to tile underlying project would mitigate or
avoid the significant environmental effect. The Draft Environmental Impact Report
- 2-
.o
· ' RESC !TION NO. 18-1981(SR)
statement is incorrect and was correcLed in the final EIR document. The plan
,'-', amendment does not reduce the number of units allowable within 'the existing
general plan but places the number of units within the plan: range. This plan
amendment varies the density found on the general plan to cluster development in
Jess sensitive areas while protecting those more significant features from develop-
ment.
B. PLANS AND JURISDICTIONS
1, Williamson Act Control Cancellation
Impact: Elimination of tax incentive to retain lands in agricultural production.
I ·
Findings: Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction"
of another public agency (The Board of Supervisors) and not the? Commission. The
Board of Supervisors will need to resolve whether or not it is consistent with the law
to cancel Williamson Act contracts. The two agricultural preserves within the
Specific Plan are distant from other preserves on the fringes of development. These
bisect the valley, where logical extension of development fron~ both ends occur.
Failure to include them into the developmnent scheme of the valley would have gaps
· in the integrated development of the valley. The majority of the agricultural
preserve north of Camino Tassajara is topographically difficult to develop and is
proposed [o ?emain open space. The preserve south of Camino Tassajara has
developable land which should be integrated into the area development scherrfe. At
the Lime of cancellation hearing of the preserve contract, findings will be presented
in accordance with the State law.
2. "Greenbelt" Principle
Impact: Recognition of San Ramon Valley Area General Plan proposed Sycamore
Valley greenbelt; ¼ mile wide.
Findings: Specific econornic, social, or other considerations make infeasible those
(or certain of those) mitigation measures or project alternatives that are within
County's responsibility and control. Rather than having a greenbelt in the middle of
the valley, an open park area will be located in the southeastern end of the planning
area to form a visual break as one enters the valley. A break in this area was felt to
be more productive in terms of buffering the existing residential area than a
greenbelt in the middle of the planning area and it could be utilized for public park
purposes to service the valley area residents; not just those which would reside in
f-%
- 3-
· '-" RESOf'-'~-ION NO. 18-1981(SR)
the specific plan area.
Development Phasing Principle
Impact; San Ramon Valley Area General Plan principle of development phasing
from west to east is eliminated.
Findings= Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible those
mitigation measures or project alternatives that are within ithe County's res-
ponsibiJity and control. This principle was invalidated due to the Blackhawk Ranch
Development which has brought public facilities into the area. I
The General Plan
Amendment encourages that all major Jands be developed togeth.er in an assessment
district or other appropriate mechanisms to insure service costs abe borne by project
developers to the extent mandated by the agencies serving the valley. The Specific
Plan enforces this with standards for development and the phasing from west to east
is not appropriate.
4. Circulation/Sceni.c Routes Changes to the General Plan
Impact: Northward extension of Sycamore Valley Road to Blackhawk Road would be
precluded across Short Ridge. I
Findings: Certain changes or alterations to the underlying project would mitigate or
avoid the significant environmental effect. While the general plan amendment
would delete the Sycamore Valley extension, it was felt that construction of such an
extension would cause more environmental impacts on the hills and bring more
traffic onto Sycamore Valley Road than could be handled by that road. The deletion
of this road from the general plan is a mitigation measure to those impacts.
.5. Water/Sewer District Annexation
Impact: Revision of LAFCO Sewer and Water Spheres of Influence to place all the
valley within these boundaries and the annexation in this area to be served, since a
portion of area cannot be served without these modifications.
Findings: Such changes or alterations should be adopted by LAFCO. Revisions of
the LAFCO Sphere of Influence lines and the annexation of land to water and sewer
districts is necessary for implementation of the plan. Since approval of these
changes is the responsibility of agencies other than Contra Costa County, mitigation
or conditions is the responsibility of these other agencies.
6. ABAG Policy on Commuting
Impact: Possible increase in short auto trips and long distance commuting.
Findings: Specific economics, social, or other considerations make infeasible those
- 4-
f
~- RESOLUTION NO. 18-1981(SR)
mitigation measures or project alternatives. Provision of bicycle, walking and
equestrian paths to reduce unnecessary short auto trips along with standards for bus
turnouts at the entryways to individual neighborhoods provides areas for eventual
transit system.
C. CIRCULATION i
1. Intersections
Impact: Diablo Road/Camino Tassjara - Level of Service C with no Crow CanyDn
extension and Traffic Area D:3,000 units. i
Findings: Certain changes or alterations to the underlying project would mitigate or
avoid the significant effect. Prior to filing of a Final or Parcel Map~ improvementsl
must be assured and the widening of Camino Tassajara between Sycamore Valley
road and Diablo Road to provide four lanes with a minimum 56 feet pavement.
Curb~ gutter~ sidewalk,. and longitudinal drainage will be required ?long the frontage.
The widening of Diablo Road between Interstate 680 and Camino Tassajara will be
required pursuant to the adopted Precise Alignment Plan or.approyed modifications.
Impact
Sycamore Valley Road/Camino Ramon/I-680 northbound on-ramp
a. Level:of Service C for Traffic Area D -- 200 units with no Crow Canyon
extension or Traffic Area D = 200 or 1,500 units with Crow Canyon extension.
b. Level of Service B for Traffic Area D -- 1,500 units with no Crow Canyon
extension or Traffic Area D = 3,000 units no Crow Canyon Extension.
Findings: Approval of the plan will include standards to mitigate or avoid the
significant effect by causing changes or alterations to occur. Prior to approval of
any preliminary development plan or tentative map~ the 1-680/Sycamore Valley Road
interchange improvements or viable alternative must be assured (placed on the
CALTRANS priority list for construction) or guaranteed by developers. Prior to
filing of any Final Maps of Parcel Maps, construction of the interchange improve-
ments or viable alternative must be 100% guaranteed either by an award contract or
a cash deposit for the total cost of improving the interchange or the alternative.
The improvements must be under construction prior to issuance of the 250th building
permit, and completed prior to issuance of the 800th building permit. Prior to the
filing of a Final Map or Parcel Map improvements must be assured to Sycamore
- 5-
RESOF--'TION NO. 18-1981(SR)
Valley road as a four-lane divided roadway from 1-680 to Camino Tassajara. The
improvements will generally consist of widening to provide a minimum 'of 36 feet of
pavement in each direction, the construction of a median island, curbs, sidewalks,
bicycle path, street lights, median island landscaping and open-graded overlay of the
existing pavement. Additional improvements will be required at; the intersection of
Camino Ramon and Sycamore Valley Road, including modification of the existing
traffic signal and the installation of a traffic signal at the Old Orchard Road/
Sycamore Valley Road intersection. Crow Canyon Road extension between Camino
Tassajara and Dougherty Road as a limited access divided park,way. The scope of
the improvements will be subject to the review of the County Public Works
!
Director, and will generally consist of two 20-foot wide traffic lanes and 16-foo1~
wide median island, longitudinal and transverse drainage. ' e
impact: Sycamore Valley Road/San Ramon Valley Boulevard- Lev I of Service C
Findings: Approval will include standard to mitigate or avoid the significant effect
: by causing changes or alterations to occur. Prior to approval :of any preliminary
development plan or tentative map, the 1-680/Sycamore Valley F~oad improvements
must be assured Which may include San Ramon Valley Blvd.
Impact: Crow Canyon road/San Ramon Valley Blvd. - Level of Service C
Findings: Approval will include standards to mitigate or avoid the significant effect
by causing-changes or alternatives to occur. Other projects adjacent to San Ramon
Valley Blvd. at Crow Canyon Road will provide improvement to mitigate the
impacts.
Impact: Camino Tassajara/Dougherty Road
Findings: Certain changes or alterations will mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effect. Camino Tassajara is planned as a limited access road and the
plan requires that Dougherty Road south of Camino Tassajara be abandoned and
superseded by Crow Canyon Road. Old Blackhawk Road intersection with Camino
Tassajara will be a relatively minor intersection as it is now a cul-de-sac street.
2. Roadways
Impact: Lane improvement to roads serving the area such as, Sycamore Valley
Road, Camino Tassajara westerly of Sycamore Valley Road, Camino Tassajara
easterly of Sycamore Valley Road, Diablo Road westerly of Camino Tassajara and
Crow Canyon Road.
Findings: Approvals will mitigate or avoid the significant effect by causing change~
- 6-
RESOI TiON NO. 18-1981(SR)
or alteration to occur as follows:
a. Sycamore Valley Road - will be improved as a'four-lane divided roadway from
1-680 to Camino Tassajara. i
b. Camino Tassajara (westerly of Sycamore Valley Road) - will be improved with
36 feet of pavement in each direction. i
Camino Tassajara (easterly of Sycamore Valley Road) - Will be improved to
four lanes with a minimum of 56 feet of pavement.
c. Diablo Road (westerly of Camino Tassajara) will be widened between 1-680 and
Camino T'assajara pursuant to the adopted precise plan. i
d. Crow Canyon Road extension, between Camino Tassajara and Dougherty Road
will be improved with two 20-foot wide traffic lanes a'gd a 16-foot wide
median island.
3. Sycamore Valley Traffic !
Impact: Minor adjustment of intersection and roadway proposalsifrom Specific Plan
to development plan stage. I
Findings: Conditions of approval will mitigate or avoid the significant effect by
causing those changes or alterations to occur. The standards for implementing the
/-~
plan requires that internal roadways comply with County standards, separate bicycle
lanes fromm driving surface along Camino Tassajara, traffic signals, and limited
access along Camino Tassajara.
D. SERVICES AND UTILITIES
1. Water System Expansion
Impact: Growth inducement related to changes in jurisdictional boundary and
insufficient water distribution facilities.
Findings: Other public agencies should determine if specific economic, social, or
other considerations make infeasible those (or certain of those) m!tigating changes
or project alternatives. The County General Plan has designated this area for
growth since 1957. While the provision of water facilities to this area is growth-
inducing, that growth has long been planned to respond to that demand for housing.
The provision of water tanks and lines to serve development is necessary to fulfill
those plans. Decisions on that expansion are to be made by LAFCOANDEBMUD.
2. Sanitary Sewer System Expansion
Impact: There will be growth inducement related to changes in jurisdiction bound-
- . - "7 -
RESOLUTION NO. 18-1981(SR)
aries and additional treatment capacity of the plant is needed.
Findings: Other public agencies should determine if specific economic, social, or
other considerations make infeasibie those mitigating change8 or project alter-
natives. The planned growth of this area is discussed under water service
immediately above, Decisions on the expansion of capacity of the Central Contra
Costa Sanitary district is up to that agency.
3. Fire Protection Service
Impact: There is a concern that the fire district would be unable to meet service
requirements for additional equipment and personnel within ~xisting budgetary
constraints. ; ;
Findings: Certain changes or alterations to the underlying project would mitigate or
' i
avoid the significant environmental effect. Specifically, the Specific Plan mandates
that prior to filing of the first Final Subdivision Map for any !major project, the
developers of Sycamore Valley shall enter into an agreement with the San Ramon
Valley Fire Protection District to provide for one fire station site, one fire station
and one purnper truck according to the specifications on the District. The Fire
Station and Sheriff's Sub-Station shall be located in the vicinity of the Camino
Tassajara - Crow Canyon intersection but no necessarily within the Specific Plan
Area. * '~
4. School System
Impact: There are insufficient school facilities available to handle the impact of
this scale of development.
Findings: Certain changes or alterations to the underlying project would mitigate or
avoid the significant environmental effect. Specifically, area developers shall
provide an elementary school and site with a minimum size of 10 acres within the
planning area in addition [o developer fees as specified in the Specific Plan text.
E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact: Exposure of structures and residents to seismic ground-shaking and fault-
ing.
Findings: Condition for approval will mitigate or avoid significant effect by causing
those changes or alterations to occur. Design of structures according to building
code and geotechnica] investigation and recommedations will be incorporated into
~-. project design and approval. The grading will be done in accordance with the
· ~' RESO[ --'TION NO. 18-1981(SR)
,o
County Ordinance and the circulation plan provides for adequate access to the
neighborhood.
impact: Exposure of structure to expansive soils. I
Findings: Condition for approval will mitigate or avoid significant effect by causing
those. changes or alterations to occur. Design of foundation in accordance with the
Ordinance Code for expansive soils will minimize the 'impacts and road designs will
be based upon engineering techniques for expansive soils. i
Impact: Exposure of structures and residents to flooding along y, arnore Creek. ;
Findings: The standards for approval will mitigate or avoid the significant effect by
causing those changes or alternations to occur. The Sycamore Creek Floodway Plan
I
improvements prescribed therein will eliminate flooding along with a system of
stream maintenance by the County that will prevent future flooding.
Impact: Exposure of soils and erosion by removal of vegetation arid grading,
Findings: The standards for implementing the plan will mitigate or avoid the
significant effect by causing those changes or alternations to occur. Drainage
facilities will be constructed for each development to channel water into ·Sycamore
Creek and natural drainage where appropriate.
G. AIR QUALITY
Impact: There will be a temporary impact of dust during construction as well as
exhaust ernission from automobiles.
Findings: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible those
mitigation measures or project alternatives that are within the County's res-
ponsibility and control. Consideration of dust related impacts is not regularable at
the general and specific plan level of detail and will be considered upon review of
specific development project. Auto emissions will be partially mitigated by the
traffic improvements required of the project.
H. NOISE
Impact: There was concern that the project would generate high interior noise
levels (above 45 CNEL) and high exterior noise levels (above 60 CNEL).
Findings: The County's approval will mitigate or avoid the significant effect by
- 9-
-.: .... 7-,', ' 'l ........ ..... '--;-77 7-~---7*'-'7"L, 7-. i ....... ...... ........................................ '-~
RESOr~-'TION NO. 18-1981(SR)
causing those changes or alterations to occur. The specific plan mandates noise
attenuation measures to be considered and utilized where necessary as part Of the
review of individual development projects.
I. BIOTIC SYSTEM i
Impact: Construction in the area will cause a loss of grassland habitat, damage and
loss of trees and the interference of humans and pets witl~ the natlural ecosystem.
Findings: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible those
mitigation measures or project alternatives. Developmental related activities will
cause the change from a rural and nature setting to that of a suburban area and
there is no feasible mitigation to those effects. As development i'n the area matures
a new urban landscape will emerge. Impacts associated with development in the
area will be partially mitigated by the protecting of significan~t acreage of open
space and the preservation of the riparian vegetation along Sycamore Creek, where
possible. i :
J. VISUAL
Impact: There will be a temporary impact due to construction related impacts and
lbng-term i.mpacts due to placing water tanks on scenic ridges. The visual impacts
of certain neighborhoods are also of concern.
Findings: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible those
mitigation measures or project alternatives that are within the County's responsi.-
bility and control. These impacts will occur and tilere are limits on the mitigation
measures, which could be used, however, numerous restrictions are found in the
specific plan on the project landscaping, which will offset that impact over time.
Decisions on minimizing the impacts of water tank placement will be revi.ewed
subsequently with development applications as will the visual impact of projects
when their development applications are reviewed.
K. ENERGY USE
Impact: Use of significant amounts of non-renewable energy resources.
Findings: Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible those
mitigation measures or project alternatives that are within the County's responsi-
bility and control. At the general and specific plan levels of detail specific
- 10 -
· ' ', RESOLU'"'")N NO. 18-1981(SR)
mitigation measures cannot tie identified. However, reasonably available technology
shall be considered to minimize energy usage. The Preliminary Development Plan
shall address the energy conservation measures that are proposed in the project.
The use of solar energy as an alternative to fossil fuels shall be encouraged.
L. FISCAL IMPACTS
Impact: Development in the planning area will cause strains on the ability of
service provision agencies. Concerns are greatest for schools, police, fire agencY'es
both in terms of facilities and operation and maintenance costs.
Findings: Specific economic, social or other considerations ma~e infeasible those
mitigation measures or project alternatives that are within thellCounty's responsi-
bility and control. The specific plan mandates the provision of new facilities. There
is no easy solution to concerns over operation and maintenance costs and no known
legal mitigation measures which can be mandated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission, pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act and Contra Costa Count Rules to implemelnt CEQA, received
and considered tl~e EIR its evaluation of the General Plan Amendment and the Sycamore
Valley Specific Plan; utilized the EiR to analyze feasible alternatives and consider
mitigation measures, including modification of the plan when necessary to mitigate
significant environmental effects; and finds that the EIR is accurate and objective
statement that complies with tile California Environmental Quality Act, and recommends
certification of the EIR as it relates to the Sycamore Valley Specific Plan and General
Plan Amendment on Wednesday, 3uly 16, 1980 by the following vote=
AYES: Commissioners- Best, Schlendorf, Hayes, Kennett.
NOES: Commissioners- None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners- Wright
ABSENT: Commissioners- Hirsch, Young
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the San Ramon Valley Area Planning
Commission at its regular meeting held on April 15, 1981 approved and recommends to the
Board of Supervisors the approval of the Sycamore Valley Specific Plan, identified in the
April 1, 1981 hearing draft.
The instruction by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was by motion
- 11 -
.' ' RESO~_ _~T1ON NO. 18-1981(SR)
--~, of the Planning Commission on Wednesday, April'l, 1981 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners-HcFARLAND, SCHLENDORF, HAYES, KENNETT, BEST
NOES: Commissioners- NONE
ABSTAIN: Commissioners- HIRSCH
ABSENT: Commissioners- WRIGHT !
I, Linda Best, Chairman of the San Ramon Valley Area Planning !Commission of tbe
County of Contra Costa, State of California, hereby certify that the 'foregoing was duly
called and held in accordance with the law on Wednesday, April 15, ]_981, and that this
resolution was duly and re9ularly passed and adopted by the following vote of thel
Commission: i
AYES: Commissioners-KENNETT, HAYES, HcFARLAND, SCHLENDORF, BEST
NOES: Commissioners- NONE
ABSENT: Commissioners- WRIGHT
ABSTAIN: Commissioners- HIRS6H
4 ':
Chairman of the San Ramon Valley Area Planning
Cornmission of the County of Contra Costa,
State of California
ATTEST:
/,/
· ~~C]o~11~ne?an~g~ssOtfamt mhsitS~ aeo ~f J~~agthlef ocomOn V~l:iL/j~y~o;e a
-]2 -
' CONTPA COSTA COUNIY PLANNING '- RTMENT
NOtICE OF DETERMINATION ON PROJECT
UN DER MAY 2 6 1977
~'~ CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT J.R. OLSSO~t, Coun~ Clerk
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
By .....................................
' D. ENGLAND
. ."' .... Responsible Agency--
"~:': ' r~ Contra Costa County Planning Department [-~ Other:
P. O. Box 951
Martinez, California 94553
Phone: (415) 372-2024
Phone
Contact Person Dale Sanders
Contact Person
'-:" PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CP76-47 SAN RAMON GENERAL PLAN REVISION
.i,:. The project is a revision of the existing General Plan for the Greater San Ramon Valley. A'
· number o[ changes have occurred since 1967, including State requirements for new general plan
. Z' elements, the formation of new regional agencies, revision to federal and state laws and plans,
economic changes, and new trends in residential project proposals. The' result of all these factors
' is that new responsibility and possibilities for general plans exist. The General Plan proposal was
prepared in February of 1.976 and was analysed for environmental significance. It was determined
"/--~ that an environmental impact report (EIR) was required for compliance with the California
./
Environmental Quality .Act and the Contra Costa County Guidelines for preparing environmental
i-:: documents. During the review and public hearing period for tile draft environmental impact
"'. report (EIR),for the San Ramon Valley General Plan revision, comments were submitted on the
f: contents of the report. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, its
subsequent guidelines and the guidelines for Contra Costa County, a final EIR was required and
certified as adequate on April 19, 1977 by the County Board of Supervisors.
.' ' Decision on Project: ~ Approved ~ Denied ~ Withdrawn
Decision on Environmental Impact: J-X-XJWill Have J----JWill Not Have ·Significant Effect
!-~., Environmental Impact Report: ~ Prepared J-"--I Not Required, copy of negative
~,u~..-- .. declaration attached.
Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impact: NONE
A copy of the Board of Supervisors Resolution containing a Statement of Overriding
Considerations is attached.
,f.. Date 'ff//~ '7////~'7 By i..-./~'z-'6 ~,~.~.,.~zz/~J--
Plannlng Department Representative
A
IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS i
OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of Specific Plan )
for the Sycamore Valley Area. ) RESOLUTION NO. 81/700
)
TheBoard of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT:
There is filed with this Board and its Clerk a copy of
Resolution No. 18-1981 (SR) adopted by the San RamonlValley Area
Planning Commission recommending adoption of a proposed Specific
Plan for the Sycamore Valley area.
On April 28, 1981 and May 19, 1981 this Board held hearing~
on the proposed Sycamore Valley Specific Plan as recommended by the
San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-1981 (S?~.
Notice of said hearing was duly given in the manner required by law.
The Board at these hearings called for testimony of all persons
znterested in the matter and numerous individuals appeared and pro-
vided input.
The Board on June 9, 1981 discussed the plan and the
testimony received and deferred the decision to June 23, 1981 allow-
ing staff to review the concerns expressed by County Counsel and
individual Board members.
Supervisor T. Torlakson cohented on the summary of
Specific Plan concerns prepared by Planning staff and concurred
with the proposed text amendment related to Sub-Area "B" which
*~ould provide flexibility for development of individual parcels.
Supervisors R. I. Schroder and S. W. McPeak expressed
concern with respect to maintenance of the proposed linear park
Supervisor Torlakson moved that the linear park concept
be renained in the Specific Plan with the added direction to st=ff
:o develop, within eight weeks, alternative funding mechanisms fcr
the park for consideration by the San Ramon Valley Area Planning
Commission.
Supervisor No C. Fahden seconded the motion, and the moti¢:~
failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Fahden, Torlakson.
NOES: Supervisors Schroder, McPeak, Powers.
ABSENT: None.
T~.ereupon, the Board members determined that the recommen-*
dations of one San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission for the
Sycamore Valley Specific Plan are appropriate with the following
exceptions: 1) deletion of the linear park concept and 2, modificg-
tion of Sub-Area "B" wording to reflect the language contained in
the staff summary dated June 23, 1981.
Finally, the Board hereby adopts the Specific Plan for the
Sycamore Valley area as amended.
RESOLUTION NO. 81/700
. , f,
.-. ~ bOARD OF SUPEr(visoRs, CO,,~JR, COSTA Cob~TY, CALIFORNIA
2'
~'~ Re: COMB[NED AMENDMENT OI~ THE )
· COUNTY GENERAL PLAN IN THE )
i GATEWAY VALLE¥-ORIND4 AND ) RI~SOLUTION NO. 77/ 36
',---,,i SAN RAMON VALLEY AREA~ ) : c
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT: ~
Part I - General. Contra Costa County is carrying out a program to systematically
' review the County General Plan for the purpose of keeping the Plan up to date and ;
achieving consistency with the County's development ordinances. California Planning Law
provides that each General Plan element mandated by the State can not be amended more
than three times in any calendaryear. This Board has not yet amended the General Plan
'?,~ mandatory elements during the calendar year 1977. i
The Board has considered the proposals described in Parts II and III below to amend
the County General Plan, and at Public hearings declared its intent and directed staff to }
prepare this resolution of adoption. This Board hereby declares the adoption actions ._~
described below are to constitute its first amendment of the Land Use Element and other
mandatory elements of the County General Plan in calendar year 1977. ~
?.,,
::~ Part II - Gateway Valley.- Orinda Area. A copy of Resolution No. 87-1976 adopted '
by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission is on file with this Board, in which the
Commission set forth its report on the proposed amendment of the County General Plan
v for the Gateway Valley-Orinda Area as detailed in the Board's subsequent Resolution No.
77J42.
This Board hereby adopts the amendment to the County General Plan for the
Gateway Valley-Orinda Area, as proposed in its Resolution No. 77/#2, as part of this
combined amendment to the County General Plan, including both the filed plan, text and
map, prepared by the Planning Department. The copy of the plan map and text reflecting
this amendment on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Board shall be endorsed approved
by the Clerk as provided thereon.
Part IIl- San Ramon Valley Area. A copy of Resolution No. 73-1976 adopted by the
.o
Contra Costa County Planning Commission is on file with this Board, in which the
Commission sets forth its report on the proposed amendment of the County General Plan
for the San Ramon Valley Area as detailed in this Board's subsequent Resolution No.
77/329.
This Board hereby adopts the amendment to the County General Plan for the San
Ramon Valley Area as proposed in its Resolution No. 77/329, as part of this combined
amendment to the County General Pin.a, .including both the filed plan. text and map
: prepared by the Planning Department. The copy of the plan map and text reflecting this
. amendment on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Board shall be endorsed approved by
the Clerk as provided thereon.
Part IV - Overriding Considerations. The Board concurs with the findings of the
Environmental Impact Report that the project would have certain environmental effects,
but finds that the project is justified by the following statement of overriding
:: . considerationsl
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The project as adopted was deemed the most favorable alternative when all impacts
were considered. This ptan calls for reduced development vJhen compared to the County
General Plans adopted for Alamo-Danville in 1967 and for San Ramon in 1971 and other
elements of the County General Plan. Social and economic factors, the recognition of
approved developments, and the emphasis on infilling of development into areas with
availability of sewer and water services, render the approved plan environmentally
superior to the previously adopted County General Plan for this area. The plan is in itself
a mitigation measure to reduce the substantial impacts allowed by the adopted County
General Plan.
Part V - CEQA Notice. The Director of Planning is Hereby Directed to file with the
County Clerk a Notice of Determination concerning this adoption and the related negative ,
declaration and Environmental Impact Report.
PASSED on May zo, 1977, unanimously by Supervisors present.
/ CERTIFIED COPY
I certify that this Is a full. true & correct copy r.:
the ori~hml doPument which ig on file in my ohice
~' '7- ~" 77/ 36 ..a that it ,,',,~ ,,:,.~,.',~ ,~: .'-loa:,',~ by ,:..~. n,,,.,~ ,,
R~,SOLU. ±0~; ii0 Ii.
· ,qupei-vi::ors of Confr;t Costn County. Ct0iforni:t, o':
the date shown, ATTEST: J. If. OI,SSON. Count:,
Clerk & ex-offtcio Clerk of ~ald 1Board of Super',isor.-,
. el,> epu t~Q C I e rk~.,.? .. .
cc: Director of Planning ,.--:T~ ( .... .- > }d h'{ o 4 lq-''
J
A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Specific
Plan and the related General Plan amendment has been prepared as
required by law and said EIR has been read and considered by this
Board. The Board hereby incorporates by reference and adopts as its
own findings the statement of environmental impacts and corresponding
mitigation measures on pages 2-11 of said ConvnissionI Resolution No.
18-1981 (SR). The Director of Planning is hereby directed to file a
Notice of Determination with the County Clerk.
. PASSED by the Board on June 23, 1981 by the following vote:
O. ' i
AYES: Supervisors Fahden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson,
Power s.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct
copy of a resolution entered on the minutes of said Board of
Supervisors on the date aforesaid.
Witness my hand and the Seal
of the Board of Supervisors affixed
this 23rd day of June, 1981.
J. R. OLSSON, Clerk
Vera Nelson
Deputy Clerk
cc: Director of Planning V/
Acting Public Works Director
County Counsel
./ x
RESOLUTION NO. 81/700