Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 09281993 - H.7
H. 7 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on September 28 , 1993, by the following vote: AYES : Supervisors Powers, Smith, McPeak, and Torlakson NOES : Supervisor Bishop ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Hearing On General Plan Amendment GPA 7-91, Rezoning Request 2961-RZ, and Subdivision 7174 , Allied Investments and Belmont Development Company,Moraga Area This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the recommendation of the Contra Costa Countv Planning Commission, by direction of the Board of Supervisors on March 9, 1993, on the request, as amended, by Allied Investments (applicant) and Belmont Development company (owner) for a General Plan Amendment from Agricultural Lands to Single Family Residential-Low Density (GPA 7-91) , rezoning request from General Agricultural (A-2 ) to Single Family Residential (R-15) (2961.-RZ) , and for approval of Subdivision 7174 to subdivide the site into 16 units with variances to minimum lot dimensions; and to consider the appeal by Allied Investments and Belmont Development Company from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission denying approval of application GPA 7-91, 2961-RZ and Subdivision 7174 in the Moraga area . Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the project . The public hearing was opened and the following persons presented testimony : Maury Huguet, Jr . , 924 Main Street, Martinez, representing the owner; Kathryn Carr, 1215 Camino Pablo, Moraga; Steve Maiza.ika, 1209 Carnino Pablo, Moraga; Sue Noe, 23 La Salle Drive, Moraga; The public hearing was closed. Following discussion of the matter, Supervisor Smith moved to declare the board' s intent to approve the General Plan Amendment from Agricultural Lands to Single Family-Low Density, to ask the applicant to return with a map and ask the staff to return with findings that would eliminate the scenic easement mitigation but consider the issues of decreasing the grading, changing or eliminating the need for variances, decreasing the count and placing the hammerhead at the end of the street and having the appropriate rezoning associated with that map. Supervisor Powers seconded the motion with the addition of no less than 15 units and some consideration for the Homeless or Affordable housing fund. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Board DECLARES ITS INTENT to approve the General flan Amendment as requested by Allied Investments (applicant) and Belmont Development Company (owner) from Agricultural Lands to Single . Family Residential-Low Density (GPA 7-91) , rezoning request 2961-RZ and Subdivision 7174 with the direction to the applicant to submit a revised map as amended by the Board of Supervisors; and Community Development staff is DIRECTED to prepare the appropriate documentation for Board consideration on November 2, 1993 . 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the Cc: Community- Development Department date shown. County Counsel ATTESTED: Allied InvestmentsClerk of t e Board Belmont Development Pri�L BATCHE R, Of ervi rs an unty Administrator B Deputy y 13 f7 CP 11 1_5 9,M GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #7-91-CO., REZONING 2961-RZ & SUBDIVISION #7174. ALLIED INVESTMENTS (Applicant) - Belmont Development Co. (Owner) The applicant/owner requests approval to change the general plan designation on a 7.12 acre parcel from Agricultural Lands to Single Family Residential-Low Density. Rezoning 2961-RZ, to rezone from A-2 to Single Family Residential District (R-15), Subdivision #7174, to subdivide the 7.12 acre parcel into 16 units with variances to minimum lot dimensions. Subject property is located on the east side of Camino Pablo Road, due north of Rancho Laguna Park, approximately 660-ft„ southeast of.Tharp Drive, MORAGA AREA. Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 28 September 1993 - 2:15 P.M. -'f TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS � • Contra Costa FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON Count/ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT fir'•, `. 'a� DATE: August 26, 1993 STd" COUN'/� SUBJECT: County Planning Commission Response to Board Referral on Allied Investments General Plan Amendment (GPA #7-91-CO), Rezoning (File #2961-RZ), and Subdivision (#7174) Requests in the Moraga Area SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Deny a redesignation to Single Family Residential-Low Density including the recently modified (R-15; 16-lot) project. BOARD OPTIONS Refer to four project options discussed on pages 7 and 8 and the Addendum of the August 17, 1993 Planning Commission staff report under "X. Options for Commission." FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On MarVh 9, 1993 the Board of Supervisors conducted a hearing on the recommendation of the County Planning Commission to deny related requests from Allied Investments pertaining to a 7-acre parcel, located at the extreme southeast corner of the Town of Moraga. At that time, the applicant was requesting (1) redesignation from Agricultural Lands to Single Family Residential- Medium Density; (2) rezoning from General Agricultural (A-2) to Single Family Residential - R-10; and (3) approval of a 17-lot subdivision. The basis for the Commission action was that the proposed.project would not be compatible with nearby agricultural operations and that the site was not suited for the proposed density. Prior to acting on the project, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared and found adequate by the Commission. The EIR determined he CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECO ND ON O BCO APPROVE OTHER7w SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: 'ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Robert Drake - 646-2091 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED cc: Allied Investments PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Town of Moraga THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Public Works Department BY , DEPUTY 2. project would result in impacts relating to land use, aesthetics and conflicts with planning policies. After the Board completed its hearing, the Board voted to refer the project back to the Commission to consider the merits of a redesignation to the Single Family Residential-Low Density category (1.0 - 2.9 units per net acre) . Concomitantly, the Board asked the Commission to consider the merits of requiring development that would accommodate Affordable Housing on the site. PROJECT MODIFICATION Following the Board action, the applicant modified his project to provide for a slightly smaller project. The modified request is now seeking (1) redesignation to Single Family Residential-Low Density; (2) rezoning to Single Family Residential - R-15; and (3) approval of a 16-lot subdivision with variances to the proposed R- 15 standards. The revised zoning and subdivision are at the upper limit of the SFR - Low Density range. A letter dated August 3, 1993 from the applicant's legal representative was also received endeavoring to provide justification for deviation from the prescribed mitigation measures in the EIR. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The Board referral and the revised project were considered by the Planning Commission at its August 17, 1993 hearing. After taking testimony, the Commission voted 4-2 (Terrell and Accornero dissenting) to recommend denial of the revised project as reported in Commission Resolution #34-1993. The majority of the Commission felt that the project had not materially changed from the earlier site plan reviewed by the Commission, and that the proposed project would conflict with operations on the adjoining Carr Ranch. Appropriate Development The Commission was unable to form a consensus as to what if any development was appropriate for this site. Of the six Commissioners who were present at the hearing, two Commissioners (Terrell and Accornero) feel that the recently revised project is appropriate. Two Commissioners (Gaddis and Straus) feel that the existing agricultural zoning should not be changed. One Commissioner (Wong) was not prepared to recommend what type of development might be appropriate for the site. The sixth Commissioner (Clark) feels that development might be appropriate but that it would have to meet several parameters including: - development could not exceed a density of 1 unit per net acre (for this 7+ acre site, the maximum yield might be 5 or 6 lots) ; this is tantamount to a density level at the low end of the SFR - Low category, or at the high end of the SFR - Very Low category. - alteration of the design of the project from a mass-graded, flat pad design to a minimal grading approach; - incorporation of measures to assure that proposed development: - will be compatible with adjoining agricultural operations and the municipal park; - will not detract from existing scenic qualities of the area, (this may include use of scenic easements) ; 3. development should only be considered by application of the Planned Unit (P-1) District, not one of the conventional residential (R- ) zoning districts. Affordable Housing The Commission took no formal action on the suitability of Affordable Housing for the site. However, the general consensus is that the site is not appropriate for this style housing due to the remoteness of the site from services. RHD/aa BDVII/7174.BD 8/26/93 Resolution #34-1993 RESOLUTION OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RESPONDING TO THE REFERRAL FROM THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONCERNING THE ALLIED INVESTMENTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA #7-91-CO) , REZONING #2961-RZ, AND SUBDIVISION #7174 IN THE MORAGA AREA. WHEREAS, Allied Investments applied for a General Plan Amendment from Agricultural Lands to Single Family Residential- Density for an approximate seven acre parcel located in the Moraga area; and WHEREAS, Allied Investments applied to rezone the same site from General Agricultural (A-2) to Single Family Residential (R-10) and for Subdivision 7174 for 17 units consistent with the general plan amendment request; and WHEREAS, after conducting public hearings on these items on December 8, 1992 and January 19, 1993, the County Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the general plan amendment, rezoning, and subdivision requests as reported in Commission Resolution #5-1993 ; and WHEREAS, on March 9, 1993 after conducting a public hearing, the Board of Supervisors voted to refer this project back to the County Planning Commission to consider the merit of a redesignation of this site to Single Family Residential - Medium Density, and participation in the County's Affordable Housing Program; and WHEREAS, in June, 1993, Allied Investments modified their project request to (1) seeking a redesignation of the site to Single Family Residential - Low Density; (2) rezoning to Single Family Residential (R-15) ; and submission of a revised subdivision map for 16 units; and WHEREAS, on August 17, 1993, the County Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing on the referral from the Board of Supervisors and the revised project description, at which time the Commission took testimony from individuals in favor and in opposition to the project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission RECOMMENDS DENIAL of the modified project; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for the Commission decision are as follows: 1. The project would not be compatible with existing ranch operations in the vicinity. 2. The site is not suited for the proposed density. Resolution #34-1993 3 . The revised project has not substantially changed from the previous 16-unit project which was rejected by the Commission. 4 . The revised project continues to omit mitigation measures contained in the EIR for the project aimed at reducing the land use and visual impacts of the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that because of varied perspectives on the Commission, the Commission was unable to come to a consensus as to what if any development would be appropriate for the site; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the consensus on the Planning Commission is that it would not be appropriate to require that affordable housing be provided at this site because of its remoteness from services that would be needed by low-to-moderate income households; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman and Secretary of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission shall respectively sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the provision of the Planning Law of the State of California. The instruction by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission to prepare this resolution, incorporating the above and aforementioned, was given by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on Tuesday, August 17, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Gaddis, Straus, Wong, Clark. NOES: Commissioners - Terrell, Accornero. ABSENT: Commissioners - Woo. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. -2- Resolution #34-1993 I, Richark Clark, Chairman of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing was duly called and held in accordance with the law on Tuesday, September 7, 1993 and this resolution was duly passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - STRAUS, TERRELL, WONG, ACCORNERO, WOO, CLARK. NOES: Commissioners - NONE. ABSENT: Commissioners - CARMEN CADDIS. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - NONE, C Chairman of the County Planning Commission, Contra Costa County, State of California A f he County Planning Contra Costa County lifornia FD34-93.m RD -3- Findings Map �r Z SQP A-2 - + ,� + + + \ + ; , + \ A.2 +I Rezone From A'-Z- ToR- IS M0VACA Area I, 2 . CA eChair of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, State of California, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of "PAC,-E --r I.i o F -[l4 indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission in the matter of L Chair of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission,State of California ATT etary o th Contra Costa County Planning Com fission, State of Calif. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT., MAILING LIST - GPA #7-91-00. , 2961-RZ & Subdivision #7174 (9/02/93) Allied Investments James E. Townsend, Jr. Jennifer Wines 1033 Detroit Avenue 507 Butterfield Place 165 Selborne Way Concord, Calif. 94518 Moraga, California 94556 Moraga, California 94556 Belmont Development Company John & Jacqueline Hoover Malcolm Sproul c/o Ellman, Burke, Hoffman & 1207 Camino Pablo 45 Williams Drive uJohnson Moraga, California 94556 Moraga, California 94556 -1 Ecker Building, Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94105 Kenneth Renz A. J. Carr, Jr. Allied Investments 783 Crossbrook Drive 1211 Camino Pablo P. 0. Box 397 horaga, California 94556 Moraga, California 94556 Moraga, California 94556 4aurice Huguet, Attorney Sanders Ranch Homeowners Assn. Carole Mohan )24 Main Street #2 Sanders Ranch Road 161 Selborne Way 4artinez, California 94553 Moraga, California 94556 Moraga, California 94556 :arl M. & Janey B. Marszeviski Stephen & Donna Kay Mazaika Phyllis Parrill =898 Camino Pablo 1209 Camino Pablo 166 Selborne Way 4oraga, California 94556 Moraga, California 94556 Moraga, California 94556 :harles Nikkel & Ann Kelley- Trudine M. Mazaika Susan A. Cuneo Nikkel 3706 Saundale Road 107 Oxford Drive 1.890 Camino Pablo Lafayette, California 94549 Moraga, California 94556 loraga, California 94556 -)tephen G. Holland Michael W. & Geraldine Mazaika Edward J. Johnson :882 Camino P.ab:lo. ; . 1205 Camino Pablo 100 Oxford Drive 1oraga;' Cali.fornia. 94556 g �, .California.94556 :• Moraga, Cal.ifornaa:;94556 }: Mora a` 9 'obin Cort Moraga Park & Recreation Author- Gary D. Moline .876 Camino Pablo ity 1890 Camino Pablo loraga, California 94556 Camino Pablo Moraga, California 94556 Moraga, California 94556 errance J. & Ardell A. Robin P. Cort & James R. Canter James E. Townsend, Jr. Callaghan P. 0. Box 397 507 Butterfield Place 863 Camino Pablo Moraga, California 94556 Moraga, California 94556 ioraga, California 94556 ichard N. Demirjian Kathryn & Scott Carr Warren & Marion Zee taenig Demerjian 1215 Camino Pablo 120 South Sandingham 862 Camino Pablo Moraga, California 94556 Moraga, California 94556 oraga, California 94556 ,OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. , MAILING LIST - GPA #7-91-00. , 2961-RZ & Subdivision #7174 (9/02/93) East Bay Municipal Utlity Dist. Terrance J. & Ardell A. Callaghn 2130 Adeline Street #110 1863 Camino Pablo �loraga, California 94556 Oakland, California 94623 3ollinger Canyon Improvement Moraga Fire District Association 1280 Moraga Way 1091 Bollinger Canyon Road Moraga, California 94556 loraga, California 94556 Town of Moraga 'tanning Director Acalanes High School 350 Rheem Boulevard 1212 Pleasant Hill Road loraga, California 94556 Lafayette, California 94549 Sue Noe, Mayor of Moraga Northwest Information Center ?3. La Salle Drive Sonoma State University loraga, California 94556 Department of Archaeology Rohnert Park, Calif. 94928 wail L. Moll Department of Fish & Game, Region 153 Selborne Way #3 - ATTN: Terry Palmisano loraga, California 94556 P. 0. Box 47 Yountville, California 94599 3orghild Leeds Moraga School District 101 Oxford Drive 1540 School Street Aoraga, California 94556 P . 0. Box 158 Moraga, California 94556 )onald L. Baibs East Bay Regional Park District 133 Selborne Way 11500 Skyline Boulevard ,Moraga:,-"California 94556 ATTN:;:;: Linda Pratt .... • Oakl and;�Cal ifornia 94619-2443 . Susan Vasgerdsian City of Orinda 141 Selborne Way Attn: Mr. Gray loraga, California 94556 26 Orinda Way Orinda, California 94563 larla Cross Phillips City of Lafayette 19 Donald Drive 3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd. #210 loraga, California 94556 P. 0. Box 1968 Lafayette, California 94549 ATTN: Cathy Hoover :arta Cross Phillips Frank Bellecci 10 Donald Drive 2290 Diabmond Boulevard loraga, California 94556 Concord, California 94520 T0: BOARD OF SUPERVIS^4S E.3 FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: February 11, 1993 SUBJECT: ALLIED INVESTMENTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT i RELATED PROJECTS SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(s) i BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Deny the Allied Investments General Plan Amendment County File 87-91, Rezoning 12961, and subdivision 87174 as recommended by the County Planning Commission. 2. Deny the appeals relative to these applications in conformance with the County Planning Commission resolution. FISCAL IMPACT Application fees covered the cost of processing. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On, Tuesday, January 19, 1993 the County Planning Commission denied the These applications on a 4-2 vote on the grounds the P jg�t was not compatible with the area, � / If the Board wishes to approve these projects, you will need to accept the Final EIR as adequate on this project, declare your intent to approve the applications and continue this project for a month to allow time for CEQA findings to be prepared. Ultimately, this could be added into the 1st consolidated general plan amendment for 1993. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE "/A70L, RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEN ION OF PAA6 COMMITTEE _ APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON March 9. 199" APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the recommendation of the Contra Costa County Regional Planning Commission on the request by Allied Investments (applicant) and Belmont Development Company (owner) to change the General Plan designation on a 7.12 acre parcel from Agricultural lands to Single Family Residential Medium Density (GPA 7-91-CO); a request to rezone 7.12 acres from General Agricultural District (A-2) to Single Family Residential District (R-10) (2961-RZ); and a request to subdivide the 7.12 acre site into 17 units (Subdivision 7174); and to consider the appeal by Allied Investments and Belmont Development Company (appellants) from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission denying approval of application ((GPA 7-91-CO, 2961-RZ, and Subdivision 7174 in the Moraga area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the proposed project and the appeal. Mr. Barry described the site location and commented on the Planning Commission's actions and he also presented options for Board consideration. The public hearing was opened and the following persons appeared and spoke: John D. Hoffman, 1 Ecker Building, Suite 200, San Francisco, representing Allied Investments, presented a written statement in support of their appeal, and he summarized the appeal. Margaret DePriester, 142 Selborne, Moraga, spoke in opposition. i. Edward Johnson, 100 Oxford Drive, Moraga, spoke in opposition to , the development. Kathryn Carr, 1215 Camino Pablo, Moraga, representing herself and Scott Carr, requested denial of the General Plan Amendment, rezoning, and tentative subdivision map. John Hoover, 1207 Camino Pablo, Moraga, spoke in opposition. Jenifer Wines, 165 Selborne, Moraga, spoke in opposition. Robin Cort, 1876 Camino Pablo, Moraga, urged the Board to deny approval of this project. Sue Noe, 23 La Salle Drive, Moraga, Mayor of Moraga, spoke in opposition. Mr. Hoffman spoke in rebuttal. The public hearing was closed. Supervisor Smith inquired as to whether the Planning Commission considered other zoning and general plan designations for this piece of property other than the one before the Board today. Mr. Barry recalled that the Commission did not discuss explicitly other general plan designation or rezoning options for the property. Supervisor Smith advised that it might be appropriate for the Planning Commission to take policy direction from the Board of Supervisors to consider another alternate general plan designation and zoning requirement along with a potential map along the lines of a single family low density. Supervisor Bishop commented on the urban limit line. Supervisor McPeak inquired whether .there had been problems in Sanders Ranch with soils stability, slippage and drainage. Mr. Jay Tashiro, Planning Director, Town of Moraga, responded that because of recent rains there had been a couple of landslides within the Sanders Ranch. Supervisor McPeak raised the issue of affordable housing and clustering of homes. Supervisor Torlakson expressed concerns with buffering and interfacing with the Town of Moraga. Supervisor Smith moved to refer this matter back to the Planning Commission with policy direction to consider other General Plan designations, specifically single family low density, and other appropriate zoning and map. Mr. Westman clarified the motion to include reopening the hearing and referring.the subdivision back to the Commission so that they could make further recommendations concerning the subdivision. Supervisor Smith concurred. The Board discussed the matter. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above matters are REFERRED back to the Contra Costa County Planning Commission to further consider a General Plan designation of Single Family-Low Density and appropriate zoning. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: TT . Ty, v NOES: TTT ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT:_-. ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Jim Cutler, CCCCDD ATTESTED tlarch 9 . 1993 cc: Community Development PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Public Works THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS C CAO OUM'/ ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel Tn1..r ,.c rn,,.-.,,.._ qV /{Mn //IA/ _._.• D£PUTv CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: County Planning Commission DATE: August 17, 1993 FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director By: Candida Wensley, Planner SUBJECT: SUB 7174 - Modifications and Additions - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Attached is a Fax from East Bay Regional Parks District requesting modifications and additions to Conditions 8.F. and 22. of SUB 7174. The wording of the revised.conditions, which is listed below, will be read into the record at tonight's Planning Commission meeting: 8.F. The developer, EBRPD, Town of Moraga, and Contra Costa County shall investigate the feasibility of constructing a trail segment on the west side of Camino Pablo. W. the'< ra l.:us�r; > hi :S. ent s.: ed.ed �n girder,to ret�:c to the x�st�r . y...::....::::...::........ ... ... ...... .. . 9 tick::; rossar soutfterl:::: Co';tf}e'is it rse t�:o ::..f: :;..r :>: ."'B"..,: :;; This segment, tit) .;: j;:.<.:::.::: :.:;.::::::::::.9.;:::::.::::.:..::.::.5�.:..:.:::.....::::, . ...::.:::.J0.6:.:a...;�a,r.:Rac c ;R sad,. s seg a t, :.............................................................................................................................................:...........:........................... which is not a frontage improvement, is needed to complete the trail. The cost of any off-site trail construction shall be credited against the park dedication fees paid by the developer (Mitigation for Impact B. 8.). ........................................................................... .. ...................................... ...... ............. . ................ .......................... 22. T3 . . .I..CortitS.... .... e. .. ..:...0d:a...:d:.t:�.::..::...:.:..4.:.. rn.Qnt 1. rtS:vithiG:h:St�atl:il.i3detftrfi :::::::::::.:.1 .f>.:::::::::::::::::::.:::::::.::::::::.:.:::.: ..;::::... .. :. :.. .... ::::::.:.: .p: ...................... ::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::.::.::::::::.:::: cr�ass�n ::ch:an es:::::note::d> n:<:Condi ion>;:B::F< far> airi:irt6`''bla and the road along the ..::._.....::.9::.:.:::::.::::: .:: .:::::::: 9 ............................................................................................................................................................... southern property line to EBRPD and the Town of Moraga for their review and comment, prior to approval by the Zoning Administrator (Mitigation for Impact E.3.). 3aprvOtr3>r€ i<;: ,I.. ::s.; ..> :.;:.;:f? v::.;;: :: c�. �orltru �txri v►rith,nhertiirt�ltf�v <:(l€ora a:fl:anzrh:::Tl:::<to::::stahc#anitatx�tshtf::b;`:: aB:a;':<fe brat :.:: Y:::::::::::::..::::: ::.:::.:B.:..:::::::. :.::..:::..:::::::.:.:::.::::: .............................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................... CW/aa LTRXII/7174.CW cc: SUB 7174 P. 01 AUG-13-93 FRI 16:03 EBRPD GENERAL MANAGER FAX NO. 5105691417 ..•.y 'trawl.: _ .� .� `�'� ,; rrr ...� � >' '1 a A-s-T BAY R. -GTO A --FAR : T {4 I10.,RI,OF,:;A�r� . Jcc rf,KCpa'ry5.�l,b*tLTf TSC MWK1..ic.jfCACLtrt ' SusanS.n;,rn,Se:Jn+,v John Vowrp-, Qouplas 5=ccn Dat[Tarry., FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: �` " � 1 FAX NO. DATE: FROM: Total number of pages including cover sheet: Original will will not be mailed. For your information At your request Please review and comment As we discussed Please call me -COMMEINTS: Please use fax (510) 569-1497 for Advanced Planning & Acquisition Department �S 2950 Perafla Oaks Caurt P.O.Soft 5381•Oakland CA MM038t-5f 0 E35 87 u•Fart 510�69�t31� ::.eS.Scfc:L'efefdc[6tLrsrScvSrses..c:r.r..:euuu..r.....,.n.v,.�r..........��.......,.. ................+..v,o......v....v..r.r,..r.............._...... ..._ ....:_-.,,.�..._....._...c_... . .. f ; Agenda Items #1 , 2, & 3 Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 17, 1993 - 7:30 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION _ALLIED INVESTMENTS (Applicant) - BELMONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (Owner): This project consists of the following related applications: General Plan Amendment #7-91 : A request to change the General Plan designation on a 7.12 acre parcel from Agricultural Lands to Single Family Residential-Low Density. 2961-RZ: A request to rezone 7.12 acres from General Agricultural W 2) to Single Family Residential (R-15). Subdivision 7174: A request to subdivide the 7.12 acre site into 16 units with variances to the minimum lot dimension requirements. The subject property is located on the east side of Camino Pablo Road, due north of Rancho Laguna Park, approximately 660 feet southeast of Tharp Drive, in the Moraga area. (A-2) (ZA: T-12) (CT 3521 .02) (Parcel #258-500-004). 11. BACKGROUND This project was previously considered by the Planning Commission last year and the early part of this year. At that time, the applicant was proposing to redesignate the 7 acre site to Single Family Residential-Medium Density (3.1 - 4.9 units per net acre), rezone to Single Family Residential R-10 and seek tentative map approval for 21 lots. An E1R was prepared on the project which the Commission voted to certify as adequate. Following certification of the EIR, the applicant submitted a revised site plan reducing the number of proposed lots to 17. On January 19, 1993 the Planning Commission heard and considered the merits of the project. After taking testimony, the Commission voted to recommend denial of the project because it was determined to not be compatible with the surrounding agricultural area, and that the site is not physically suited for the proposed density. Attached are the two staff reports from that hearing, and the Commission resolution. ::/�J•'•.r..::.:•:'.' •_:_'1 J�.f:.<:f,'_ 'a:cfi.:ls l:'•i.iii.:..�...5..:.Sr�v....._.�...._.____.-. _ (Ls-.st�� _. --.--_ -__ �• +�:4��ftfL'Y.�.l 1v3c5GLs�::.- w � . .wJl.'.-?..0 nZti[SAlJ:fini[%:/i[%'lifi[r[ftil:�/:r:�'.'.'.•::•.:.t.,.,.r.rww..www-crva[Yvvw.•w__ __- r•crrc.[v r�....._rcruraww....._...:._.w.w.v.._... w..[.,............w_.r:.r.r......r. ...... III. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REVIEW The Board of Supervisors considered the project on.March 9, .1993. .- After taking testimony, the Board voted to refer the project back to the Planning Commission to consider the merits of a General Plan redesignation of the site to the Single Family Residential-Low Density 0 .0 to 2.9 units per net acre) category. The Board also requested that the Commission review the possibility of providing affordable housing on the site. IV. AFFORDABLE (LOW-TO-MODERATE INCOME) HOUSING PROGRAM The Board of Supervisors has requested that the Planning Commission consider the possibility and merit of having development of this site participate in the County's Affordable (low-to-moderate income) Housing Program. The following discussion describes the key parameters of the program. A low to moderate income household is defined as a household that earns between 80% and 120% of current median household income for Contra Costa County. According to State law, if a developer proposes to devote 25% or more of the total units to Moderate Income Households, or 10% or more of the total units to Low- Income Households, the County must allow for a density bonus or other incentive of equivalent financial value. State law also requires that the minimum density bonus provided must be at least 25% over the otherwise maximum residential density permitted under the existing zoning and General Plan. In determining what the price of a home would have to be to qualify as a low or moderate income household, the County refers to the income levels published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (Figure 2): The assumptions listed at the bottom of Figure 1 are utilized to calculate the qualifying housing prices. According to Figure 1 , at the moderate income household level 0 20% of median area income) the maximum price of a home for four persons is $206,600. If the developer enters into a density bonus program, a contract is executed between the develop- er/owner and the County in the final stage of the development review process. This contract establishes purchase price limits, as well as resale controls which would be incorporated into deed restrictions. V. REVISED PROPOSAL Recently, the applicant has modified his request such that he is now seeking a General Plan Amendment to Single Family Residential-Low Density, and rezoning to Single Family Residential, R-15. He has also submitted a revised tentative map reducing the number of lots to 16. The revised plan is at the upper limit of the density range for the SFR-Low designation. Requested Variances: All of the proposed lots comply with the net lot area require- ments (minimum 15,000 square feet) for the proposed R-1 5 district. However, three -2- .yi%tfs..r'*..'f4�:1ti�%�teSf:f:f:deia:`e':<. 'r"'-4`-=r3i�'ft�Eitsnes�i:ESC::iSi:iSTSGu:_.r��Gt::S�scst:;sL✓��::e:e:C�Sc:v�.n.r..r:;t'r.:;X'i':heti:�s;�sisfsf:e::._:i;<;u:ic::;::;_i..-.,<..c.<...<.e.�.. .. (Figure 1) MAXIMUM PRICE OF A HOME AFFORDABLE FOR A HOUSEHOLD AT 120% OF MEDIAN AREA INCOME Apr-93 MEDIAN INCOME $36,680 $41,920 $47,160 $&Z400 $66,680 $68,950 $62.230 $66,600 120%OF MEDIAN $44,020 $60,300 $66,690 $62.880 $66,820 $70,740 $74,680 $78,600 FAMILY SIZE 1 2 3 4' 6 6 7 8 INTEREST RATE 6% $164,700 $191,600 $216,400 $246,300 $262,100 $278,900 $295,700 $312,600 7% $160,900 $176,400 $200,000 $224,700 $240,100 $265,400 $270.800 $286,200 7.6% $144,600 $168,100 $191,700 $216,300 $230,100 $244,800 $269,600 $274,200 8% $136,700 $161,300 $183,900 $206,600 $220,700 $234,800 $249,000 $263,100 9% $128,000 $148,900 $169,800 $190,600 $203,700 $216,700 $229.800 $242800 10% $118,600 $136,000 $157,300 $176,600 $188,800 $200,800 $212,900 $226,000 11% $110,300 $128,300 $146,300 $164,300 $175,600 $186,800 $198,000 $209.300 12% $103,000 $119,700 $136,600 $163,300 $163,900 $174,300 $184,800 $196,300 13% $96,400 $112,100 $127.900 $143,600 $163,400 $163,300 $173,100 $182goo 14% $90,600 $105.400 $120,100 $134,900 $144,200 $163,400 $162,600 $171,800 16% $86,400 $99,300 $113,200 $127,100 $136,900 $144,600 $163,300 $161.900 16% $80,700 $93,800 $107.000 $120,100 $128,400 $136,600 $144,600 $16,-1,000 ASSUMPTIONS 1.INCOME BASED ON U.S.DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING&URBAN DEVELOPMENT PUBLISHED ESTIMATES OF MEDIAN INCOME, OAKLAND PMSA(ALAMEDA&CONTRA COSTA COUNTY). 2 DOWN PAYMENT OF 10% 3,MONTHLY HOUSING EXPENSE COST OF 33%OF MONTHLY INCOME. 4.TAXES ARE CALCULATED AT 1.26%OF THE MARKET PRICE OF THE HOME. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION DUES ARE ESTIMATED AT$160 MONTHLY. 6.MORTGAGE INSTRUMENT IS A 30 YEAR FIXED RATE MORTGAGE. 6.APPROPRIATELY SIZED UNITS ARE AS FOLLOWS: #PERSONS 1 2 3 4 6 OR MORE UNIT SIZE STUDIO 1 BEDRM 2 BEDRM 3 BEDRM 4 BEDRM K6/KH/HsgPrt Source: Cohtra Costa County Density, Bonus Program Policy Statement adopted by the County Board of Supervisors April 22, 1981. • c -- -rte•... E ' xsftfsitf.f....:......,r.&sisfu:LGiaddcS ......' ........ ---.._�.ss::_;:s�.i-::.. ..._. ...._._.. O O O Q to N O n ^ ^ 00 N O M rn W) 00 w N N O O O N O O L O\ 1I 1 00 ¢ �O N S.- 0 O O O r lr1 O V'1 > O 0S" 0 QJ c0 ^ a �p O N 4- 0 O O O a\ -0 >' O O in O\ s.. 0 tn ^ ^ c m •W LL �o � G.^' G O O O -� N Q\ N N C +� N cn �O C =3 O O O cd i•� U- O �p cn Y7 N H E z (� Q� cncmLn .., O `� C G cd O 0 0 o c ct E w m 00 r o E O 'c N cn cd O E _ =yM CO ul Im G E A.E ¢ o m cd 0 C.- 4).- •— -� m O O 0 ►— U G "Q •cn m 04 s. cd 4 VR — cd .. a� •- Q U - - a� n 30 "v nN S.- 000 n �p 0 0 N of the proposed lots are substandard with respect to the average lot width requirement (minimum 100 ft.). In addition to the other requested entitlements, the proposed project will require the granting of variances for these lots. The affected lots are identified as follows: Lot No. Average Lot Width 1 92 ft. 6 95 ft. 12 93 ft. Average lot width is calculated by dividing the net area of a lot by the lot depth. VI. COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS PLAN Overall, the revised site plan is very similar to the map previously reviewed by the Commission. The lotting pattern and the grading plan, which incorporates large pads and angular cut slopes, found in the revised map, mirror the grading and site plan of the superseded map. Except along Camino Pablo, graded slopes are generally at a 2:1 gradient. Several graded slopes facing Rancho Laguna Park are 25-40 feet in height. The most notable difference between the two maps is that the revised vesting tentative map has 16 lots rather than 17 lots. Further, all of the lots have at least 15,000 square feet, whereas, in the previous plan the parcels were as small as 10,000 square feet. Because all of the lots contain some slope area, the functional (flat pad) lot sizes are somewhat smaller than the actual lot dimensions. The functional dimensions of the lot sizes vary but the minimum area appears to be approximately 9000 square feet. As with the earlier plan, the revised plan provides for on-site cutting and filling. The 8/3/93 letter from the applicant indicates that the proposed grading will not totally balance on site. It is not clear where the source of the material is located for the required fill import; nor the approximate quanitities of fill and required truck loads, and the proposed haul route. The plan continues to provide for retaining walls, however they would not exceed 3 feet in height. Additionally, the revised site plan includes a Parcel "A" in the extreme northwest corner of the site, offered for dedication by the applicant. Presumably, the dedication is intended to allow for protection of the hillside above Camino Pablo. -5- VII. DISCUSSION While the revised site plan is within the density.range specified for Single Family Residential-Low Density, this map is similar to the previous plan reviewed by the Commission. A. Compliance with EIR Mitigation Measures The revised plan continues to omit mitigation measures from the EIR relating to plan policies and visual impacts. Attached is the EIR "Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures" and Mitigation Site Plan from the Alternatives Section of the EIR. Those mitigation measures which have not been incorporated into the revised project are marked. State law requires the County to enforce these mitigations unless findings are adopted to override them. 1 . Grading and Unit Density: Mitigation Measure C.4 referred to in the attached summary of mitigation measures, proposes to mitigate unnatural appearing slopes by requiring that graded slopes not exceed a slope of 2'/z:1 . The measure would also reduce the yield of the project and only allow custom homes that conform to existing terrain on steeper hillsides. Contrary to the mitigation measures, the grading plan presented by the applicant shows angular cut slopes, mass grading and conventional pads. And, while the density has been reduced, it still does not meet Mitigation Measure A-1 , which calls for a holding capacity of 1 1 lots for the site, in order to meet the slope policies in the General Plan. 2. Scenic Easement: Another mitigation measure in the EIR, designed to reduce visual impact of the development, is the establishment of a 140' wide, 81 ,918 square foot scenic easement, landscape improvements, and lighting and landscape maintenance district along the west side of the property fronting Camino Pablo Road. The June 2, 1993 map does not include the mitigation measure. Incorporating the grading restrictions, scenic easement and other design mea- sures into the project proposal would better protect existing scenic qualities on the east side of Camino Pablo. B. Requested Lot Variances Before the County can grant the requested variances for the three variances, several findings must be made pursuant to Section 26-2.2006 of the ordinance code. The applicant has not provided any justification for the requested variances. -6- ... . ..:. .. .•....C,.+.rv-.•,:.sS.i-.:.:.e>:R..^.e.e.:.:_ ,cos: •:"<:iStl,s...✓ .r./_.er.,ddo,:c.e.s:e',Ce:dd•..,::.:: '__..., ..__.......:r.-_.,. ....-.._.....>...,. .......re_e.......r..._�_......._ ..... ...... . VIII. CEQA RAMIFICATIONS On October 13, 1992, the County Planning Commission approved the Final EIR as being complete and adequate. A new State law would require the County to apply all EIR mitigation measures in the approval of any residential project on this site unless a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted by the County. The unavoidable impacts (described on page 112 of the EIR) associated with single family development include: loss of visual open space, change in land use, loss of agricultural soils, and development of 2.4 acres of slopes greater, than 26%. Cumulative impacts include impacts on traffic, water quality, amount of available agricultural land, public services and utilities, visual quality, and run-off. The Statement of Overriding Consideration will have address the unavoidable environ- mental impacts associated with the project, as well as any EIR mitigation measures that are not incorporated into the approved project. IX. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO CEQA FINDINGS Attached is a letter dated August 3, 1993 from the applicant's attorney commenting on the EIR mitigation measures and site design alternatives. The aim of the letter is to provide justification for the project's deviation from the EIR mitigation measures and site design alternatives. The letter addresses the specifics of the site plan as well as broader policy issues. On the latter point, the letter indicates that this project could contribute to satisfying the County's Housing Element residential development goals. On many points, staff feels that this justification is not persuasive. The EIR meaures that would restrict grading and reduce the number of lots are still valid. X. OPTIONS FOR COMMISSION Listed below are several decision options for the Commission to consider in its review of the revised project. A. Accept the Revised 16-Unit Project If the Commission (1 ) accepts the applicant's justification for overriding the EIR findings and mitigation measures; (2) is prepared to make the required variance findings; and (3) the Commission finds merit in the project, then the Com- mission could adopt a motion recommending to the Board approval of the applicant's request. The conditions of approval attached to the January 19th staff report could be modified to allow the proposed project. -7- ::+•L'•:.cd:G�tc:e.r..:r.:ii•....:ecf Ff;Sar',.r_•SdcSe:G:::::e::sfi�bCr�'iscfu%ic'�✓:::32stiiFioe:c_.::✓':%$�v<i`i5f1:...._._....:���iivei:._..s::.:t�•riit�._,...............> ._�..._.._ _ .. . .. B. Affordable Housing Recommend to the Board of .S.upervis.ors of a Single Family.Residential -. Low designation but with the provision of a requirement for participation in the - Affordable Housing program including 25% density bonus. Before rec- ommending this approach, the Commission may wish to see if the applicant is willing to participate in this program including the density bonus program. If the applicant would like to increase the number of proposed lots, then the Commission should continue the rezoning and subdivision applications indefinitely so that a revised plan can be prepared, reviewed and noticed. Should the Commission determine that the Affordable Housing Program alternative is not appropriate, then as part of its decision, the Commission should explain why this alternative is not deemed to be appropriate. C. Reaffirm Previous Denial Find that the project has not substantially changed from the previous plan reviewed by the Commission, and reaffirm the previous denial recommendation. D. Consider Other Project Configuration Find that the land use designation of Single Family Residential Low Density (or alternately, the Very Low density category) is appropriate, but that the subdivi- sion should be reconfigured in accord with all or some of the EIR mitigation measures. Find out if the applicant is willing to make the suggested modifica- tions and, if so, continue the hearing indefinitely to allow the applicant to submit a revised tentative map. The revised 0 6-unit) project is at the high end of the SFR - Low density range. Attached is an Addendum that reviews other design densities and their approxi- mate unit yields on this site. The Addendum also describes possible application of the Planned Unit P-1 District ordinance which allows greater flexibility in the design of projects than the conventional (R- ) residential zoning districts. XI. CONCLUSION The most recent revision to the proposed project continues to omit many of the EIR mitigation measures. The justification offered by the applicant for deviating from those measures is largely not persuasive. Therefore, staff does not support the revised plan. Based on the above-listed options, the Commission should determine which option is appropriate and provide direction to staff on a recommended project. Further, except for a reaffirmation of the earlier denial recommendation, the Commission may wish to -8- .Gsl!i..^. oW�.FlLc:FL+.iiit.'r1FLFLFLiSFSt:c.:kiFL2^i}S'6i'GL'Y"' !Le:!itf2i .5kf ---- .¢L:�•:..e.... �.. ...._:•e....L. � ..��.v,......_.v..:,t::. _..... continue the hearing to a future date so that the appropriate general plan amendment documents and subdivision conditions of approval can be prepared and further reviewed. CW/aa SUBXI/7174.CW 7/6/93 7/14/93 8/11/93 -9- ADDENDUM ALTERNATIVE ZONING DISTRICTS AND PROJECT DENSITIES In order to give the Commission some examples of different densities and corresponding zoning districts that would be appropriate for a land use designation of Single Family Residential-Low Density, staff has prepared a discussion of six different density/zoning scenarios for the subject parcel. The six different scenarios include a R-40 alternative, a R-20 alternative, a R-15 alternative (which unlike the applicant's proposal includes the 140' wide scenic easement), and three P-1 development alternatives. Because the Commission voted to find the EIR for this project adequate, staff assumes that the 140' buffer mitigation measure would be applied to any single family project on the subject site. Therefore, all alternatives in this section of the staff report include the 140' buffer. A. R-40/1 Dwelling Unit per Net Acre Alternative: The R-40 zoning alternative would allow for approximately six units to be built on the subject property and would have a density of approximately one dwelling unit per net acre. Staff arrived at six units by dividing the net acreage (5.8 acres according to the EIR) by 40,000 square feet. Under this alternative, because of the large size of the lots, the applicant would be allowed to include the area of the scenic easement in order to meet the square footage requirements of the R-40 zoning district. In accordance with R-40 zoning, parcel sizes for this category could not be smaller than 40,000 square feet, without the grading of variances. With this alternative, the property would be developed at the low end of the density range for Single Family Residential-Low Density. Attached is a copy of the "Reduced Density Alternative" site plan (Figure 31 ) taken directly from the EIR which illustrates a conceptual six lot subdivision. The conceptual plan illustrates a private internal road that follows the natural topography (i.e., the axis of a swale), ending just below the 560± foot topographic contour. The smaller lots are on the flattest portions of the site. Only three lots overlook Camino Pablo Road, and the building sites would be setback 140 feet from the road. If the alternative were to be approved, it would include a rezoning from A-2 to R-40 and an approval for a six lot subdivision, and a General Plan Amendment changing the land use designation on the property from Agricultural Lands to Single Family Residen- tial-Low Density. B. R-20/1 .4 Dwelling Units per Net Acre Alternative: The R-2p alternative would allow for a maximum of eight units to be built on the subject property and would have a -10- 6;r-e'" �: A ➢�+}2•JiK/.�90 '; ndbf:u;,�l:!r.:.'i.�:. :d ie...... ..�:!:....-... _ .. __...... .... ..__ . density of approximately two dwelling units per net acre. A development at this density would be within the center of the density range for the Single Family Residential-Low Density land use designation. (Please note that the square footage of the scenic easement was subtracted-from the net area.in.order to calculate density.) Unlike in the R-40 alternative, staff does not think it would be appropriate to allow the square footage of the scenic easement to be included in the square footage of the lots in order to meet minimum area requirements for the R-20 zoning district. Specifically, if the area of the scenic easement was included, there would be very little area left in which a house and the uses accessory to it could be established. An approval for this alternative would include approval of an eight lot-subdivision, a rezoning from A-2 to R-20, and a General Plan Amendment of land use designation from Agricultural Lands to Single Family Residential-Low Density. C. R-15/2.7 Dwelling Units r)er Net Acre Alternative: Under the R-1 5/1 .8 dwelling units per acre alternative, a total of approximately 11 units could be built on parcels with a minimum lot sizes of 15,000 square feet. As in the R-20 alternative, staff does not think it is appropriate to include the square footage of the scenic easement, in order to meet minimum square footage requirements for the R-1 5 zoning district. An approval for this alternative would include approval of an 11 lot subdivision, and a General Plan Amendment of land use designation from Agricultural Lands to Single Family Residential-Low Density. D. Planned Unit (P-1) District Alternative: The foregoing "conventional" zoning districts can be constraining for hillside sites such as this one. If the Commission wished to tailor the density and development restrictions to better fit the development opportuni- ties and limitations of this site, another approach would be to consider application of the P-1 ordinance in tandem with a General Plan Amendment. It is more commonly utilized by the County for residential hillside projects. In addition to submission of a tentative subdivision map, the P-1 approach requires that a Final Development Plan application be filed, heard and approved. Additional documents are also required as part of the submittal such as a preliminary landscape plan. Moreover, the County can require other information to be submitted such as proposed design guidelines. Unlike in the R-40, R-20 and R-15 zoning district, lot sizes, setbacks, rearyards, and sideyards and structure height restrictions may vary in a P-1 district. This flexibility might allow for: • clustering of development that would allow for the 140 foot wide scenic easement and development elsewhere on the site; the restrictions on lot sizes could vary to fit the site; -11- S��duxv.'.:.'Le:i3s:j�3�e:i18ffeLc�iG•.'�:1%�i�e'FifC'RP"/id'�SY'-'�= !Y'��*•'•C^=�v,��TSC6K'K`.. sa:'':iii3;dc`.Gs': - """'�4;if.�:tr��ii::,:,.:. .r.,�_.�.,.:. .. .. ..... • instead of allowing for the proposed padded lots, the amount of grading could be minimized to essentially the access roads, driveways, drainage systems and building footprints; • the design of accessory structures (decks, etc.), retaining walls and fences could be restricted; • smaller frontyard setbacks for side-entry garages. Ordinarily, setbacks must be at least 20 or 25 feet; and/or • greater restrictions on the height of development and other architectural characteristics. The conventional zoning districts allow houses to be built up to 2'/2 stories and 35 feet tall. When contrasted with the conventional zoning districts, the P-1 district is also a more effective (i.e., legally defensible) method of enforcing on-going design restraints on projects. For example, design conditions can be enforced on not just the initial build- out of a project, but also on any subsequent renovations. Should the Commission favor this approach, some direction should be provided to staff and the applicant on the desirable project density and configuration. E. P-1/Affordable Housing/Single Family Residential-Low Density Alternative: If the land use designation on the property was changed to Single Family Residential-Low Density, the zoning were to be changed to P-1 , the developer agreed to provide 25% low to moderate income housing, and the County elected to compensate the applicant entirely with a density bonus, then a minimum of 21 units could be approved on this parcel. This number was arrived at by multiplying the maximum number of units allowed in the Single Family Residential-Low Density land use designation (16.82) by 25% and adding the product to the maximurn number of units allowed. Assuming the 140' wide easement was applied to this alternative, after the easement was subtracted, 3.8 acres would be available for building and landscaping. Dividing this by 21 units, each lot would have roughly 7,800 square feet per lot for building and landscaping. An approval for this alternative would include approval of at least a 21 lot subdivision, a rezoning from A-2 to P-1 , and a General Plan Amendment of land use designation from Agricultural Lands to Single Family Residential-Low Density. F. P-1/Affordable Housing/Single Family Residential-Very Low Density Alternative: If the General Plan designation was changed to Single Family Residential-Very Low Density rather than Single Family Residential-Low Density, zoned P-1 and a density bonus program was applied to this land use designation, the minimum number of units the County could allow on the parcel would be six units. Under the density bonus program there is no cap on the maximum number of units allowed. -12- ` "�DlitS:33'6tSdetS+SG.�S:t�iiFS:fft✓'-_,c�.s:t:uc<r,2;:f<Y.i.G_...::!r'::::�_�C�:tit%::.r_....r.........._..,_.�_..._....».v.-..._�:u._.._ . .._. An approval for this alternative would include approval of at least a six lot subdivision, a rezoning from A-2 to P-1 , and a General Plan Amendment of land use designation from Agricultural Lands to Single Family Residential-Very Low Density. -13- �fiP.f"..��dx'a���s:ksBSts:o-n._..............Y ...;>r,•S.c:...,..�... .,,J.�ci;... ,. ...........,._ �... fes, �. 9 "�` --. --_ ...... . . ............. ............ Contra Costa County Community Development Department Contra Costa County Planning Commission Staff Report & Recommendation ALLIED INVESTMENTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Agenda Item # I INTRODUCTION A request was received from Allied Investments to amend the County General Plan on 7.12 acres of land in the unincorporated area near the southern boundary of the Town of Moraga. The requested plan amendment is from Agricultural Lands to Single Family Residential Medium Density. That would allow fora project at 3.0 to 4.9 dwelling units per net acre. The requested plan amendment covers the Land Use Element of the County General Plan; it is shown on Map 1. II CEQA AND RELATED PROTECTS An Environmental Impact Report on this project was prepared and was determined to be adequate by your Commission. This General Plan staff report draws on information found in the EIR and is related to its findings. If the requested General Plan amendment is approved for this site as requested by the property owner, rezoning#2961 form A-2 to R-10 and subdivision#7174 which calls for 17 residential lots (21 were analyzed in the DEIR) will be brought to hearing. Map 2 shows that subdivision map. III PROJECT SETTING The project site is just west of an intermittent stream that drains into San Leandro Reservoir and it is approximately 0.5 miles north of the Alameda/Contra Costa County line. The Orinda and Lafayette interchanges of Highway 24 are approximately six (6) miles northwest and north of the site, respectively. The site can be further identified as Contra Costa County Assessor's Parcel (APN) 258-500-044. Historically, the site and adjoining lands have been used for grazing cattle. There are no buildings on-site. The project was a part of the Carr Ranch until sold to a relative and optioned by the applicant. From the ranch complex shown on Map 3, the Carr's 1 :;�' s6i;Y.�it2fS��;%.�.....'�iS$'i;it:ist.�Gc."c.'iiusi�r's<.<.<ie��e<ceus<G3fi�_..%.::�SiSiiie%S;isetrTi3irsc:r ..:iif�':;+•r_�tt�;rsi£sisu <Sit%s+rs`r..;f�c.G3cfvs:Gs;r-.>c:<s�tC�:_•__._ _....,_.......... ......_. ... MAP 1 ALLIED INVESTMENTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Land Use Element of the County General Plan ►+ooL » , P , aY • „ + �r . _ • ' 4~ • •17 N F a. x.4 IF v w N • N x i / ..�.r E•. M � b A K .. r . LEGEND • . M I SV Single Family Residential-Very Low SL Single Family Residential-Low !n � » We may PS Public/Semi-Public PR Parks .& Recreation n w • �` SS, �w ,» » » OS Open Space ; n. �• a AL Agricultural Lands ' z , • : WS Watershed "' •' �' s»` "' , Y Project Site _ . + AL WS Requested Change 't "•.. «; N from Agricultural Lands �„ "• + to Single Family Residential- Medium Density. »� r Ing a no ♦ _ North ITS m3 1"=60C b + + AL PR WS .. �+s.+r+•s�,KVYi{.di.•'GG+'.__ _'LYG43t4G=.GG[:GCSGGG'GtS2}TSL'•iGGU•SlSSSf5.�3:i2.fi."2S[i.t,4wSS'i25•X"1"ii%.L'i!&e_::Y.,;•' -v:C«d..G.id+tiLiiSG � .. .r tit 1s4 �f 1 } is � tilt N 12 • Y } h w 1 ; 1 M owr /��• + i 26 owe so .�. • �.. ii� ~ �� �� �,• rte.•. ; • f j!. •�'. '. — .�� a :S r jw 'sh! s 1 ♦ t _ 1j 1f r. !�'� `.._ T• O . � •\•= ice' � �' � r.- � - • ► - rrrrr •z � � - ftl 'Q i � � i ar. •`moi/: _ .t .r` _ _ •-�i�� •'i, Til" i -'• - 1~�. _ :r. .rte••�'' '� ...yam t. - •�j..^. - - zy:� - •,,,.:� ''I-..;.. •r ��•��'Ar • y � � ''••ms`s,- j 4i ti,.•; n�:`.�: •l•• i � r���..�_- �f� :,, k��!-rl,..r�' �rsJ: '{ 'i• ,f� - _ -_ �;s'i .f: '�.•r-:t �y`.,;,ys.• _� .r •:-�- } :�•y 1f,�� -• .�ts 'i.. : .1 .�Y�.. :.-d 7 -'a� 1 �•i'•,,.r7'�� l ��.+ �y +l '- ••fit`•:f- i `•i' _':_'!'.,_ :.��.y�•v'-••'• V wb'.i;j'i..�.- - - f �' ir'• •1 � is I�. .�•,`+.• •Y. -i'- :.y•...5 _ _It♦ J%��:.:_"•' _ '.�;. ,d. ���� '` � s. t -�.!..e_.ice. , ♦ �•\��•!- _ f•) •..rte •� •• . ._ •,� �r�• �131: �i � � TY, !t �. -� `.i.: ... ff✓ ;tet, 'ji_ :t � ,`d- ,- -.. _ +'�- �r''j�.g' �� fr .`sof• .i� t 7�� q 11' i �.► t• - - - I" i'. _ 's:. ter: .";.i-� • L r s L JI I Zar "�• ,fr:. ..�.. �� •I.�:.:: :moi e�x'�_. �}: -tib+.:�• ,�'r,:•": �•r - �""'-?`•.s•s' `�►y:..'.._�,�,�-••+per..: .r=` S ''�el•:� .i ..tr . �t �•"�..� 7 a r� i- .KJ'•..�~i' ..f-.-1: -,' .3:.,>..�i: .•i'w. - -NIC �w •` •�.`. Ci.:.T-.','.. r►N::Ij�t'� ,�/':..• 1' .�':_ �J`:•l:yiwi'f�:' i�. '�: wii: '.d•_ 'I:'L '�•� s{I.7 •• `�'6_ •: '•,!s:'� �.5..+.'J.!` ..L.__.i<.M, �. I,'- 'stir...' .-3f .��:.•P. '`•.':j• ✓r•,� ♦-.�:. '�.. .•.-. _., �.. ow_rsratxz:.c::cmay.:Lfr36l.S<iwtJ:;:.cxiar5;�., ter• -. . ......... _ p/✓L4StStV SrPLSt Z+S 1�:C..:4'dfJifdL':ii..�4G'Sf3[:G[fG525t1;6tf[:[:L'6Cd�:f:]iif,Dy Jl..._..f......... ......... .... ✓✓ .cv.r..[v.c.uut�.:+c. v nom✓ vv✓.edw.l...vJ.:rt�ru�.ww.:�•.......v...ra.._...... .. .....���✓✓.:..v ✓ ... ........✓.nt.cv S.U'.I.:..rr.r✓✓ _._.......✓..✓✓...-....:.U4fiVCw'....:..:.:✓'.. • Y \ [N have grazed the project site and lands north of the project site. They also graze watershed lands to the east and southeast which are owned by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). The-Carr Ranch also includes Williamson Act Lands located approximately 0.5 miles east of the sit-e-.--- Lands ite.Lands immediately to the east are dwellings and agricultural buildings on Carr Ranch. The residential subdivision to the west of Camino Pablo consists of residential lots in the Town of Moraga. Lots on the valley floor in this part of Moraga range from 10,000 to 17,000 square feet. South of the site is the Town's Rancho Laguna Park. The Site is covered by grassland vegetation. There are no trees, brush or wetlands on the site. Just south of the site, Camino Pablo becomes a narrow, two-lane roadway. Approximately 100. feet south of the park, EBMUD has installed a gate to prevent unauthorized vehicular access to its Upper San Leandro Reservoir property. The topographic setting of the site indicates that it is bounded on the west and south by existing roadways, and a short distance east of the site is the channel of an unnamed intermittent stream that conveys surface runoff to the King Canyon arm of the Upper San Leandro Reservoir, which is owned and operated by the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD). Runoff from the site, as well as from developed lots in Moraga Valley, drain into the reservoir. Topographically, the site is at the south terminus of a ridge which swings easterly when traced to the north. Total relief on the site is approximately 60 feet, ranging from an elevation of more than +600 feet to less than +560 feet. IV URBAN SERVICES The site is within EBMUD boundaries, however, LAFCO has placed the site outside of its proposed urban water Sphere of Influence (SOI). The land is outside of the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District and its SOI. According to LAFCO this site is outside the Moraga and all urban service district's SOIs and is currently not planned by that agency for urbanization (see Map 4). The SOI line East the Moraga incorporation boundary were set to protect the Carr.Ranch and to keep it as available agricultural operation. For sewer services to be provided to the property, LAFCO would need to modify its SOI policies in the area. Moraga is concerned that should this project be approved in the County, that it would 2 plat M- v I Mr, IVA Boundary of Moraga's Corporate Limits and Sphere of Influence and UP$ON 1253+ ../frfva• .cxwobtYW.ni^t25�""•• ��-,:•- •t•L'•ditL'Geif.L.t:ciC.'•.si ....�...: .. ... v -.rx�__^..,,aar <-•:eti•'• =�i:t.G'C/+C.r�i' �—wd......ww....��w .cr....�..�w......._..�..._...�..�.............r.......r......_.... .. be the de facto provider of urban services such as police protection. V EXISTING GENERAL PLAN The Land Use Element of the County General Plan currently designates the site as Agricultural Lands. As defined in the General Plan, the purpose of the "agricultural lands" designation is to preserve and protect lands capable of producing, and generally used for production of food, fiber, and plant materials. Watershed lands near the site are owned-by East Bay Municipal Utilities District to safeguard public water supplies. Urban uses are not permitted in watershed areas. Land Use Element policies promote the preservation of agricultural lands by minimizing conflicts with urban land uses (Policy 3-11)and buffering agricultural land (Policy 3-12). The General PIan also promotes cooperation between the County and cities to preserve agricultural land (Policy 3-13). It also directs that residential densities shall decrease as the natural slope increases, but does not provide specific criteria (Policy 3-28). Within the Land Use Element, the General Plan defines an Urban Limit Line (ULL). The associated text states that all urban development must occur within the ULL. The subject property is within the ULL. The General Plan also stresses that compliance with the voter-approved Measure C - 1990` prevents development of all lands within the ULL. With regard to lands inside the ULL, only 50% of the currently undeveloped lands in the unincorporated area can be developed. In the southern portion of Moraga, the ULL and the Town's corporate limits coincide. everywhere except for a 70-acre area bounded by Camino Pablo and Sanders Drive. (See Map 5 for the ULL in the vicinity of the site.) The project site is located in the extreme southwest corner of this area. Furthermore, the Town's sphere of influence ends at the Town boundary, so the entire 70-acre area that is within the ULL is outside Moraga's sphere of influence. A supplemental listing of relevant General Plan policies taken from the DEIR is shown as Table 1. The Town of Moraga General Plan does not show land use densities outside of the existing city boundaries. According to city staff this is because they prefer and presume this area will remain rural. The DEIR.describes town policies for lands within the city on pages 19 through 21. VI COUNTY ZONING 3 fi^"'+v+•�i'•kG5};[1:f.:[2si22Rsv: 566 L 2$eSYiiS� 2.S[iLGGG;i4'is3.:L%:FL'ew:=.<:L.iG_fGGLi�:.::::ui::t.dGc:t:c:u�'•c:c'x.':.r arc nb.rorc....::Gc,:;t::,:.�•_.,...:._...._.... The site is currently zoned A-2. The existing county zoning for the amendment area is shown on Map 4. VII SITE CONSTRAINTS The site is best described as rolling hills treading northwest to southwest. Along the northern boundary are four areas which exceed 26% slope. The development approach required to build at the densities of Single Family Residential Medium Density is to grade the site to yield developable lots. While this can be accomplished technically, such- an effort needs to be analyzed in the context of General Plan policies, especially dealing with slopes in excess of 26%. The General Plan discourages this unless to accomplish other valid policy goals found in the General Plan such as increased housing supply. A second main constraint is the provision of an acceptable subdivision access road on the south side of the property. The existing driveway provides access to this site and the Carr Ranch buildings beyond. Upgrading this road will provide impacts on the trail which abuts the west-side of the site and could impact the ranching operation, depending on how it is designed. The road will impact the perception of the area from the park to the south. (This can be seen on the air photo shown on Map 4) VIII POLICY CONSIDERATIONS IN THIS REQUESTED PLAN AMENDMENT There are many policy issues which an amendment request such as this brings up; the main issues are discussed below: • Impact on the Can Ranch In a rapidly suburbanizing county such as ours, many ranchers sell out and,move their operations to an area with less conflicts between ranching and suburban areas. Contra Costa County is blessed with several ranching families which appear committed to staying for the long haul. This five acre site was part of the Carr Ranch which has been optioned out to Allied Investments by a member of the family. Whether this sale is an indication of the balance of the family's long term commitment to agriculture is not known at this time. The site is located immediately west of the main ranch operation as shown on Map 4. The Draft EIR on page 27 states "approval of the..project may make continued agricultural operations on the Carr Ranch more difficult, which suggests the project may conflict with Conservation Element Policies 8-29, 8-32, 8-33, 8-34, and 8-36. These policies require protection of agricultural uses." 4 -------------------------------------------------------- History has shown that bringing new suburban homes up to the edge of a working ranch will create conflicts over noise, cats and dogs, odors, and trespass. The County is considering a "right to farm: ordinance that would alert prospective purchases that an active working ranch is nearby.- Moraga earby:Moraga Concerns Moraga is concerned with the ability of the County to service this small residential area with police and other municipal type services since this would be the only unincorporated subdivision in this portion of the County. This is a valid concern since the site is distant from other portions of the Sheriffs beat serving the area. A proposed condition of approval would be for the property owner to vote the property into a special policy district to pay for police services. This is now a standard condition for all subdivisions within the unincorporated area of the County. • LAFCO SOI Concerns Moraga is largely flanked to the south by EBMUD Watershed lands. When the Town of Moraga was incorporated, the city boundaries were established to place all development lands within the city. The Carr Ranch and the large parcel to the west across Camino Pablo were left out of the town because they were felt not to be either developable or were a part of the Carr Ranch. -This LAFCO policy reinforced existing County land use plan policy in the area which placed developed or planned urban areas within the Town and excluded the planned agricultural areas. • AN ENLARGED DEVELOPMENT AREA The DEIR in the alternative section on page 101 examined the prospect of if a larger, more logical development area could be fashioned on a 70 acre area (this site and the 63 acres to the north). As the graphics on the 105 and 106 of the Draft EIR indicate, a larger geographic area could be developed through the use of extensive topographic modification techniques. However, the end result would be even greater impacts on the Carr Ranch. • REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVES It would be possible to development lower density alternatives for the site. The current request is for 3-5 dwelling units per acre which allow 16 to 26 units on the site. The revised application for 17 units conforms with this designation. A plan density of Single Family Residential Low Density would allow 7 to 16 units on the site. A single Family Residential Very Low Density would allow 1 to 5 5 •�' - C�L}"/A+ .�J.rs"'i.:'r1.1�iuYL1:rG����dCrn7'3}Si4"'I......... .....__r ,... ._._....,.... ..... • units on site. While these alternatives would generate less traffic and lessen to some extent the impacts of the project on the Carr Ranch, it would not eliminate those impacts. The Commission: could select from one of these viable alternatives. IX RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board denial of the requested change to single family residential medium density but consider recommending another single-family residential classification at a density deemed appropriate by the Commission. l trnshcut.up r:c--:r1r.:rsdr..:::'csit'cfi_Sisd:i"r�::::5•.'•'Si:Kitk:oi••••:•[:a.:::ltic;e:<:s% ?K. ..c;G::.. _..Sii: ".'•G...r__.._",. r3,tY..:Ttt ---------------i-jJ:'r..,:.6;:::%_mac 1:,:Y_ 3•_.Gi. r.:a..,j-..:...n::.,i..c.y..__.:....: _. ... • - yr Agenda Item # /7Z 3 Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1993 - 7:30 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION ALLIED INVESTMENTS (Applicant) - BELMONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (Owner) - This project consists of the following related applications: General Plan Amendment #7-91: A request to change the General Plan Designation on a 7.12 acre parcel from Agricultural Lands to Single Family Residential-Medium density. 2961-RZ: A request to rezone 7.12 acres from General Agricul- tural (A-2) to Single Family Residential (R-10). SUBDIVISION 7174: A request to subdivide the 7.12 acre site into 17 units. The subject property is located on the east side of Camino Pablo Road, due north of Rancho Laguna Park, approximately 660 feet southeast of Tharp Drive, in the Moraga area. (A-2) (ZA: T-1 2) (CT 3521.02) (Parcel #258-500-004) II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission follow their recommendation on the General Plan Amendment #7-91 . Ill. HISTORY This project was continued from the December 8, 1992 Planning Commission hearing. The project was continued at the request of the applicant. IV. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: The subject parcel is currently designated as Agricultural Lands. General Plan Amendment #7-91 proposes that the designation be changed to Single Family Residential-Medium Density. B. Zoning: The site is currently zoned A-2. C. CEQA Status: An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and determined to be adequate by the County Planning Commission. 3f�..:f�i::ise..�is%iir.:Get:,.'e.%�'ris1£iS%i�:�'1.:e;i;iSLi::i:Cr�cSiSff£Lficcc':- _::2''�%ismGudc:i;iiiii;xr_4.•t-;:s:%i.[ii:t:ti::,::.L-:_iii:t4fkksF.�. :..r_,1......_.-..y.--,".----'--'---" �...w...�,�..� .... . ... .... . _. Y ` r D. Site Description: The project site is just west of an intermittent stream that drains into San Leandro Reservoir and it is approximately 0.5 miles north of the Alameda/Contra Cosa County line. The Orinda and Lafayette interchanges of Highway 24 are approximately six (6) miles northwest-and north of-the"site, respectively. The site can further identified as Contra Costa County Assessor's Parcel #258-500-004. Historically the site and adjoining lands have been used for grazing cattle. There are no buildings on-site. The project was a part of the Carr Ranch until sold to a relative and optioned by the applicant. From the ranch complex shown on Map 3, the Carr's have grazed the project site and lands north of the project site. They also graze watershed lands to the east and southeast which are owned by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). The Carr Ranch also includes Williamson Act lands located approximately 0.5 miles east of the site. Lands immediately to the east are dwellings and agricultural buildings on Carr Ranch. The residential subdivision to the west of Camino Pablo consists of residential lots in the Town of Moraga. Lots on the valley floor in this part of Moraga range from 10,000 to 17,000 square feet. South of the site if the Town's Rancho Laguna Park. The site is covered by grassland vegetation. There are no trees, brush or wetlands on the site. Just south of the site, Camino Pablo becomes a narrow, two-lane roadway. Approximately 100 feet south of the park EBMUD has installed a gate to prevent unauthorized vehicular access to its Upper San Leandro Reservoir property. The topographic setting of the site indicates that it is bounded on the west and south by existing roadways, and a short distance east of the"site is the channel of an unnamed intermittent stream that conveys surface runoff to the King Canyon arm of the Upper San Leandro Reservoir, which is owned and operated by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). Run-off from the site, as well as from developed lots in Moraga Valley, drain into the reservoir. Topographically, the site is at the south terminus of a ridge which swings easterly when traced to the north. Total relief on the site is approximately 60 feet, ranging from an elevation or more than +600 feet to less than +560 feet. V. DISCUSSION Current Planning staff is recommending that the Commission's decision on the subdivision and the rezoning be dependnt upon the Commission's decision on the Genral Plan Amendment. . .. . ..... .......... .. .. .. . . it 3 If, after reviewing this staff report and Comprehensive Planning's staff report, the Commission chooses to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they approve the requested General Plan Amendment-,:Rezoning=and 'Subdivision, staff has included conditions of approval (attached) as well as a discussion of how these conditions of approval relate to.the EIR, and the mitigation measures described in the EIR (see below). VI. REVIEW OF EIR MITIGATION MEASURES The following is a summary of identified potential significant impacts and mitigation measures from the project EIR. The summary of EIR impacts and mitigations are based . on the 21-unit site plan originally submitted with the application. The applicant has revised the project to include 17 rather than 21 lots. Because of this reduction in lots, the project impact fee calculations (school district, park dedication) are no longer current. A. Plans, Ordinances and Policies: 1) Land Use and Policy Consistency: Impact: Project grading appears to conflict with General Plan policies -for development of steep slopes. Project approval may make continued agricultural operations on the Carr Ranch difficult, and it could be considered incompatible with the adjacent residential area. EIR Mitigation: Grade project topography at a 2.5:1 slope ratio. Consider slope as a determinant of holding capacity of site. The EIR proposes a relationship between slope and lot yield that results in a holding capacity of 11 lots. Revised Plan: While the revised 17 lot plan does reduce the number of lots on the site, it does not reduce the number of lots to the number recommended by the EIR 0 1 lots recommended). In addition, there is still a substantial amount of grading proposed on the revised site plan. Staff Comment: The EIR mitigation has been made a requirement in the conditions of approval (COA 1 & 2). 2) 65%/35% Land Preservation Standard: Impact: This project will reduce remaining developable lands under 65/35. EIR Mitigation: The amount of acreage devoted to urban usage must be subtracted from the amount under 65/35 calculations which could still be developed. This will be done by Comprehensive Planning. .r. -�.:r:. .•.'.•..'..•....;.;•;.'...:.J:•:'.sir ... .. ' .... 4C.Li<i_ ... -. -.... _.._.:................ ..�.»—.......... ... 4 3) Camino Pablo Improvement: Impact: Widening of Camino Pablo Road conflicts with rural character of area. EIR Mitigation: Widen Camino Pablo to minimum width necessary to provide access to project. Staff Comments: The Public Works Department conditions of approval regarding road improvements, include widening requirements which . address this impact and mitigation, accordingly. 4) Local Agency Formation Commission: Impact: Project annexation into utility district spheres of influence may encourage development of area remaining within the ULL. EIR Mitigation: LAFCO review of annexation request should comprehen- sively examine the 70 acre ULL area. -Staff Comment: The EIR of this project has been sent to LAFCO and reviewed by a LAFCO representative. It is anticipated that LAFCO's review of the annexation request will examine the 70 acre ULL area.. 5) Agricultural Lands Impact: The project at the density proposed presents obstacles to long term viability of adjacent agricultural lands. EIR Mitigation: A statement notifying future owners of adjacent agricultural uses should be recorded on the deed for each lot (COA #26). B.. Public Agencies and Utilities 1) Schools Impact: Using the formula in the EIR, the 17 unit project will generate 11.9 elementary and intermediate school students and 3.23 high school students. EIR Mitigation: School impacts will be mitigated by school fees. The Moraga School District fee is currently S1_37 per square foot of new residential development. Staff Comment: School fees are payable at the building permit stage. (Advisory Note A.) - � ,G[�O�JS!•iL�l' "`*"�[:[SGE11L`[Stl:SL"..:+:f.L:[:(SL'.CGL_srLi�L':SCiW..YLi�...r_....[.,✓.[.r.[<isi'.[LiSL'[:[:e.ri_{[i[:[Li:[:L:c:C•<.:::::: •�.:e45[:::::.:::,:.::,:::.... ..._ •:.✓lA9SlJuiIL[3[irfN2'.d'S u�.. -3 X6.utek��e...�c000•[ux.c.[��[...+ioin.aw- - .c.c..i�w[.b<.[.•.��.....[.[...............:.......[.....,.........__..�_..__........... :. ... _ .. 5 2) Water Service Impact: Project requires approximately 15,750 gallons of water per day and extension of nearby water main. Mitigation: Applicant is required to fund construction of water facility improvements upon annexation approval by LAFCO. 3) _ Water Quality Impact: Project adds to the cumulative increase in surface run-off, short-term soil erosion, and suburban contaminants into the Upper San Leandro Reservoir. EIR Mitigation: The routine County procedures require an erosion control plan at the time that the grading permit is processed. Currently, cities and counties are required to secure a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board which addresses mitigation of water quality effects of urban run-off. -Staff Comment: The EIR mitigation is incorporated into the Conditions o-f Approval (COA #t18). 4) Sewage Service Impact: Project adds to cumulative demand on sanitary treatment plant capacity. EIR Mitigation: Include low-flow toilets and other water-conserving facilities to reduce sewage flow from project. Staff Comment: The EIR mitigation has been made a requirement in the Conditions of Approval (COA ##4). 5) Police Services Impact: County Sheriff response to site does not meet response time standard for urban areas. EIR Mitigation: The owner of the property will be required to either participate in a police services district or enter into a contract, which would state that Moraga would provide police services to the project. Staff Comment: The EIR mitigation has been made a requirement in the Conditions of Approval (COA ##5 and Advisory Note B). �,ys•�«xw. -- :if%Gfi'.:6�e:C"tRKfGl�S�6rSfSCKitir.'ril..ref_• ::ti�:duu;ifiLe�..G::✓'i::i[ftf:iiie��: ;:tr;�_:�:•.:e:�_:.::_;�;;c:�,.,.�:..�..._�.. ............... .. .. 6 6) Fire Protection Impact: Project is not within one and one-half miles of a fire station. EIR Mitigation: Install automatic fire sprinkler systems subject to approval by Moraga Fire Protection District, and construct residences according to measures recommended by the Fire District. Staff Comment: The Conditions of Approval include this mitigation (COA #6 and Advisory Note C). 7) Parks and Recreation Impact: Project increases use of Rancho Laguna Park. EIR Mitigation: The applicant's park dedication fee should be reserved for the Moraga Parks and Recreation Department. Staff Comment: This mitigation measure is a Condition of Approval for this project (COA #7 and Advisory Note D). 8) East Bay Regional Park District Impact: The project poses impacts to (a) visual quality, (b) safety, (c) drainage and stability, and (d) fencing. EIR Mitigation: The applicant shall be directed to work with the EBRPD to ensure that trail-related issues are resolved to the satisfaction of the district. Staff Comment: This mitigation is incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project (COA #8). 9) Mosquito Abatement District Impact: The project could increase the mosquito population. EIR Mitigation: Erosion control plans and drainage plans should be referred to CCMAD-before they are approved by the County. Staff Comment: This mitigation has been made a requirement of the Conditions of Approval (COA #9). ts�r`rr iesuec._ . Ft :1FarW`�fxxsosr..:c:. -.•.• .. - ... .. ...... ........ _ ..... i:"uieft..[SfSf3�:dG::f:L�ddY.dfSkF.G..�`r•�iL�ry�•dv�a+�n[:::i1/�:•:iLGaGY+.:d:i:J:'r�n1S7X ti.4.�...;.:J_v..._'-...._.... 7 C. Geology, Drainage and Soils 1) Seismic Shaking = Impact: Project is located in a seismically-active area. EIR Mitigation: The applicant will be required to submit a preliminary geology, soil and foundation report which proposes measures to minimize the risk of earthquake damage. Staff Comment: This mitigation is incorporated into the Conditions of Approval (COA #10). 2) Soils Impact: Loss of agriculturally-productive soils on site. Development of the site will impact operations on the Carr Ranch. EIR Mitigation: None. Loss of agricultural productivity is a significant unavoidable impact. .-Staff Comment: Because this impact cannot be mitigated, approval of the revised project will require adoption of an over-riding consideration. . 3) Drainage Impact: Tentative map does not indicate how run-off will be collected and conveyed to a natural drainage channel. A poorly designed project could create run-off or erosion problems on graded slopes in the project and impact downstream property of owners. EIR Mitigation: Require applicant submit a drainage plan to (a) convey roof gutter water in closed conduits; (b) construct a concrete lined brow fill slope over-looking Camino Pablo; (c) construct lined brow ditch on top of slopes along north and east perimeters of site; and (d) collect and convey run-off from Camino Pablo frontage to out-fall point for project run-off. Staff Comment: This mitigation measure is a Condition of Approval (COA #11). 4) Slope Stability and Foundation Conditions Impact: Project located on slope of poor stability. EIR Mitigation: Reduce slope gradient to 2.5:1 in areas of severely weathered rock, claystone/siltstone and all fill slopes. Top of all cut slopes should have a gradient of 3:1 . :G�.,3f�:.r�r..Y.rtifiFY<¢S:.:F�:f�t3�:ses.s6a1£CGESi%Si:�•wc:isiiiSaG:.�:...��c..r..ac�c•;-:.::�...:.::,.::c::do-��:;_'::i:::i:s::c:;.::::s't...__.� ...- ... �_�.... .. .._ ., ... ............ .. �r 8 Staff Comment: This mitigation measure is a Condition of Approval (COA #12). 5) Retaining Walls Impact: Design details for retaining walls have not been specified. Walls may pose aesthetic impacts. EIR Mitigation: Walls more than 3 feet high should be constructed with non-wood materials. Landscaping should be incorporated to reduce visual impact of walls. Elimination of lots and reducing pad size could avoid/minimize the need for retaining walls. Staff Comment: This mitigation measure has been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval (COA #13). 6) Expansive Soils Impact: Expansive soils can damage foundations, concrete slabs and roadways. EIR Mitigation: Use drilled pier foundations that extend through zone of shrinking and swelling. Staff Comment: This mitigation is a recommended Condition of Approval for the project (COA #14). 7) Fills Impact: Differential settlement could damage structures built upon fill that is poorly designed, compacted and drained. EIR Mitigation: Fill design should include over-excavation, greater compaction at-depth or special foundation design. Staff Comment: Mitigation is included in Conditions of Approval (COA #15). 8) Implementation Impact: Minor errors in grading could cause slope failure in the future. EIR Mitigation: Ensure proper implementation of grading code by (a) documentation of all grading procedures by project geologist and (b) review and inspection of grading by the County. Staff Comment: Mitigation is included in COA #16. +�-.Y.GiSsR5'6�:o'3i�rio'Ssn'c"Ki4Cldef'�^f'�.'fli1C"`.�' 'iS3SiiY+G�,...�,......cr...�•,.,..�.,.,...,.A,.__.. _ �..;�r� _ _- �a._crrG�'r*a"�-:— ,�s':fiStiru.';c.::::•.,...,_-............ .. 9 9) Maintenance Imr)act:_Poor maintenance of-surface and subsurface drainage improve- ments may reduce long-term stability of graded slopes. EIR Mitigation: All slopes, drainage terraces and subdrains should be maintained by the property owners according to plan and schedule approved by the County. Staff Comment: Mitigation is included in Conditions of Approval (COA #17). 10) Erosion and Sedimentation Impact: Project construction increases erosion, sedimentation and surface run-off. EIR Mitigation: Conduct all grading, excavation and filling during dry season. Revegetate all exposed soils. Require erosion control plan prior to issuance of grading permit. -Staff Comment: This mitigation is addressed in Condition of Approval #18. - D. Visual Quality and Design 1) Visual Access Impact: The western portion of the site is considered to have "high" visual access and the balance of the property is in the "moderate" category. EIR Mitigation: Areas of "high" visual access would best be left free of development. If grading is allowed, it should be subject to design review and approval for land form blending and revegetation;. Staff Comment: Mitigation is incorporated into Conditions of Approval (COA #19). 2) South and West Frontage Impact: Graded slopes along the south and west facing frontages will pose a significant visual impact. Steepness of 2:1 slope gradient, composition of compacted fill, and exposure will make revegetation difficult. r 10 EIR Mitigation: Incorporate 3:1 gradients on cut or fill slopes along Camino Pablo and south .property line, and.reduce the proposed width of Camino Pablo. Revegetate slopes with California native plan species. Reduce size of the graded pads for lots along Camino Pablo. Construct fences of a uniform design at the top of the slope. Maintain this slope area with a lighting and landscaping district. Staff Comment: See Condition of Approval #19 & #20. 3) Grading Concept Impact: Large pads on steep slopes results in many angular, engineered- appearing slopes. EIR Mitigation: Utilize flatter slopes, design custom homes on steeper hillside areas that conform to the terrain and reduce lot yield. Staff Comment: The mitigation measures are included in the Conditions of approval (COA #19 & 20). 4) -Light and Glare Impact: Units in the project will be silhouetted against the skyline, as viewed from the park and Camino Pablo. EIR Mitigation: Require that street lighting be consistent with Town of Moraga.requirements. Staff Comment: The mitigation measure is included in the Conditions of Approval (COA #21). E. Traffic and Circulation 1) Cumulative Impact Impact: The total amount of traffic from the project is well below the threshold (100 trips per hour) that would be considered a significant traffic impact. EIR Mitigation: The-applicant, like all other applicants, will be required to pay an Area of Benefit fee for the Lamorinda area. The fee at the time the application was deemed complete was $2,300 per home. Staff Comment: The Conditions of Approval include this mitigation (Advisory Note #E.). ••Sc;�'::6.s•L"�c;iv::.�rr'fr�...':i:ss4.C;ei��•ic�' .£:r :'deiw.:i:i:'rtes£:�uis6Fscs6'�:;::�_.c:r::....._.:;:�:�v'�:�.��::r;:::ssc:s:ssrr4:.:._........,<:eciU:.::.r•...�::;c: d::_: :::;;::::::.::;..:�_,_= a..'vim.,.•..--.--� .. .5:ri��.....c..:..., ..........-....,_:.-...............,.......-. ... A____...... ... ...... ... ..... ... . ... .... 2) Internal Circulation System - Impact: The EIR states that the internal road that starts out at the north property line could have growth inducing impacts and does not provide an adequate turnaround for vehicles. EIR Mitigation: The revised site plan eliminates these impacts, there- fore, there is no longer a need to mitigate. 3) EBRPD and Town of Moraga Impact: The proposed widening of Camino Pablo and road at the south boundary of the site will require realignment of the trail, encroachment easement; safety measures and temporary access measures during construction. EIR Mitigation: The County shall refer road improvement plans for pertinent roads to EBRPD and Town of Moraga for review and comment prior to approval by the Director of Community Development. -Staff Comment: This mitigation measure is included in the Conditions of Approval (COA #22). F. Biotic Resources 1) Removal of Existing Vegetation Impact: Project removes existing vegetative cover of the site (site does not include rare or unique species). Site access during construction may encourage unauthorized vehicle and motorcycle activity along the undeveloped ridgeline north of the site. EIR Mitigation: Re-establish grassland cover following grading prior to unit construction. Limit grading boundaries of the site. Project landscaping should emphasize native plant species. Block access to undeveloped areas north of the site during construction. Staff Comment: The mitigation measure is included-in the Conditions of Approval for the project (COA #23). 2) Wildlife Habitat Impact: None. Impact on wildlife is a minor cumulative impact. EIR Mitigation: Project alters existing pattern of wildlife use on the site, replacing habitat with suburban development. IN 12 3) Special Status Taxa Impact: None. Project site does not contain special-status plant or animal taxa and will not have significant adverse impact on identified taxa. EIR Mitigation: None required. VII. ROAD AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS The attached conditions of approval based on the October 7, 1992 revised tentative map include road and drainage requirements. The applicant should be fully aware of the County Subdivision Ordinance Code requirements as they pertain to this development. Because the fronting roads are in the Town of Moraga, all road and drainage improve- ments shall be subject to review and approval of the Town, and all Offers of Dedication for the roads shall be to the Town. Conditions of approval regarding the roads within the Town are subject to revision pending review by the Town Engineer. CW/aa RZIX/2961-RZ.CW 11/30/92 12/30/92 w.r'..v.ny....iyi'�..SiCiOfl=s:e-r%...u:GA^4:ft�G.S.a1G[:!i[:.Gtlii:•=siv".L'.OGOGO[iU•..........J�....w....J..��f....•..�L...ciM:y:<•_....c........—�_,�_.........r.`...,...�......._....���............ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 7174 1. The request to subdivide the 7.12 acre parcel-is approved-for 11 lots subject to the Revised Vesting Tentative -Map dated. received by the Community .-Development Department on October 7, 1992. Unless otherwise noted, the following conditions shall be complied with before filing the Final Map. 2. At least 60 days prior to filing the Final Map, the applicant shall submit a revised vesting tentative map which reflects the 11 unit subdivision, which,addresses all of the conditions of approval (Mitigation for Impact A.1). 3. Cut slopes on the site shall not exceed 2.5:1 (Mitigation for Impact A-1 and Impact - C.4). 4. A. All toilets shall be low-flow toilets in accordance with Section 17921 .3 of the Health and Safety Code. B. Water-conserving sink, shower, and lavatory faucets, in accordance with the California Energy Commission standards for new residential buildings, shall be installed in all residences (Mitigation for Impact B.4). 5. At least 60 days prior to filing the Final Map, the applicant shall either vote the property into-a police service district or present the County with a contract between the County, the Town of Moraga, and the applicant, which states that Moraga will provide police services to the project. If the police .services district option is chosen, 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 (Mitigation for Impact B.5). 6. The residential units shall be constructed with the fire protection measures recom- mended by the fire district and all residences shall have building sprinkler systems (Mitigation for Impact B-6). 7. Park dedication fees for this project shall be paid to the County Trust Fund and specifically marked for the Town of Moraga Parks and Recreation Department (Mitigation for Impact B.7). 8. A. At least 60 days prior to recording the Final Map, the applicant shall submit documentation to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval, which ensures that trail-related issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of the -East Bay Regional Park District (Mitigation for Impact 13.8). •'U'YPJ7RS2:Y4/i2SGYf3flSEf r'•;.. 2. B. Graded slopes for Lots 1 through 5 shall have a 3:1 gradient. Topsoil shall be placed on the graded slopes and they shall be planted with drought tolerant species, as specified on Page 77, Item 2 of the EIR. C. A crosswalk and stop sign control shall be installed at the intersection of the proposed subdivision road and the trail. D. A 140' wide scenic easement shall be provided along the Camino Pablo _ frontage of the site. E. The developer shall reach an agreement with EBRPD for continued public trail use during the construction period. The intent of this mitigation is to avoid trail closure for more than a few days, and to trigger construction of an interim trail, if needed. F. The developer, EBRPD, Town of Moraga, and Contra Costa County shall investigate the feasibility of constructing a trail segment on the west side of Camino Pablo. This segment, which is not a frontage improvement, is needed to complete the trail. The cost of any off-site trail construction shall be credited against the park dedication fees paid by the developer (Mitigation for Impact B.8). 9. Erosion control and drainage plans submitted to the County shall be accompanied by a stamp or letter from the Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District, indicating that the plans are acceptable to CCMAD (Mitigation for Impact B.9). 10. At least 60 days prior to recording a Final Map, the applicant shall submit a preliminary geology, soil,and foundation report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report. This report shall propose measures to minimize the risks of earthquake damage. The use of permanent retaining walls in lieu of cut slopes acid deep foundations (i.e., piered foundations) and minimization of height and gradient of cut slopes to a maximum grade of 2.5:1 (Mitigation for Impact C.1). 11. The applicant shall prepare a drainage plan that includes the following elements: A. Convey roof gutter water in a closed conduit to-storm drains in the proposed project streets. B. Construct a concrete lined brow ditch at the top of the proposed fill slope that overlooks Camino Pablo. - rr.•r'K J'J`•';' L:Li[: .rviCiviiLS�ifYrGtiS[C•.K...:iJteSS: ... �_._...1.........�,.�f. �.....- _.__.._...._....... - ..--a-3[SEAEDL3ba860V.7^- ,'iQfliXi'fi/JS'c+f�:{i$.i�C/y:A_.rt.~•t...i.�' r �i ' .............. ' �.•u...+..-.... :.ice_....�..._:.._ .._....__�__••___rrv-__ __. 3. C. Construct concrete lined brow ditches at the top of slope along the north and east perimeters of the project. D. Collect run-off carried by gutters on the Camino Pablo frontage of the site and convey it to the out-fall point for project run-off (Mitigation for Impact C.3). 12. The top of.all cut slopes shall have a gradient of 3:1 (Mitigation for Impact C.4). 13. At least 60 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or filing a Final Map, the applicant shall submit a retaining wall program for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The program shall provide for the following: A. Design and construction of retaining walls in such a manner that long-term stability is not compromised. B. Permanent (non-wood) construction is required for walls more than three feet high. C. The design of the wall shall be aesthetically pleasing and if walls pose aesthetic concerns, it may be feasible to stack them (i.e., provide two or more parallel walls), with the areas between heavily landscaped (Mitigation for Impact C.5). 14. Residential foundations shall be drilled pier foundations that extend through the zone of shrinking and swelling. 15. Fills shall be designed and constructed to minimize the potential for differential settlement. Design might include over-excavation (so as to provide consistent fill depths beneath graded pads), greater compaction at-depth, or special foundation design.(Mitigation.for Impact C.7). 16. In order to ensure proper implementation of the grading code, all grading procedures shall be reviewed by both a project geologist and reviewed and approved by the County Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department (Mitigation for Impact C.8). 17. All slopes, drainage terraces and subdrains shall be maintained by the-property owners. A plan for maintenance shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval. The maintenance plan shall either be part of the codes, covenants and restrictions for the subdivision or if there is no homeowners association, the obligation to maintain drainage facilities shall be called to the attention of home buyers through an advisory comment on the deed (Mitigation for Impact C.9). .-..,,,. . . _�....•.:u.r.>i.ev.:;•,•.. ._ :ritSkSt<<if[.'.rSr� - ttik.•..,��iY .... .. .. . .............. ......._... _ _.__ .... .. .t4fr ik':3nii"4'2o22£crdli.Ff�iYti-�,r• - ... .. — . 4. 18. The construction stage erosion control plan shall provide for the following: A. All grading, excavation and filling shall be conducted during the dry season (May 1st through October 1st) only, and all areas of exposed soils shall be replanted to minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October 1 st, only erosion control work shall be allowed by the grading permit. B. A revegetation plan prepared by an experienced plant ecologist (not landscape architect) shall be submitted as part of the erosion control plan. The plan shall emphasize use of drought tolerant native species and plants that are adaptive to conditions in this portion of Moraga. Ideally, the plan should include a mix of grasses, shrubs and trees. The plan shall provide for revegetation of all rearyard cut slopes.- Hydroseeding and hydromulching would not be adequate for this purpose. If necessary for survival of young plants, the plan may call for the use of a temporary drip irrigation system (to be abandoned after 2-3 summer seasons). The developer shall bond with the Community Development or Building Inspection Departments the landscape improvements for a period of not less than two years. C. Hydroseeding and hydromulching are not considered adequate on 2:1 slopes that are more than 18 feet in height. D. The erosion control plan shall show the location of proposed temporary detention basins, silt fences and straw bales, along with revegetation of all graded areas. It shall also contain provisions for: 1) Performing maintenance during the winter rainy season, as necessary. 2) Regular inspections by the project engineer during the winter rainy seasons. 3) Spot inspections during/immediately following severe storms. 19. A 140 foot wide scenic easement shall be placed along the western edge of the property. The easement instrument shall provide that no grading, or development activity may occur in that area without the prior written approval of the Zoning Administrator (Mitigation for Impact D.1). �GK��- '.:�::fvnrr_•v.i•L.:/_+...rrls4isrE�•Se'<:62se'�1.r:C�.c'rsecdd6c:r.Gr�.'._�... .... •.. ..,.•.• .,....- .... '-':-.. ...�.;�. :__. . 5. if grading, in order to accommodate widening of Camino Pablo, is necessary, this grading shall be kept to a minimum. Any cut or fill slopes shall have gradients of 3:1. Topsoil shall be placed on the finished surface and shall be planted with drought tolerant landscape plants, preferably California natives. Building pads on lots adjacent to Camino Pablo shall be reduced in size and fences of a uniform design shall be placed at the rear of the pad (not on the slope). The slope area along Camino Pablo shall be maintained by a special district (e.g., lighting and landscaping district) (Mitigation for Impact D.2 and D.3). 20. In general, homes shall be built to conform to the existing terrain. Interval slopes with vertical heights of five (5) feet or less shall have a 2:1 gradient or flatter. Higher slopes should have gradients of 2.5:1 or flatter. Split level pads are encouraged and internal slopes more than 10 feet high are discouraged (Mitigation for Impact D.3). 21 . At least 30 days prior to obtaining building permits, the applicant shall submit a conceptual street lighting, fencing, and landscaping plan to facilitate further evaluation of light and glare. These submittals shall include the following elements: A. Street lighting consistent with the Town of Moraga requirements. B. Fencing design at the rear of building pads. C. Profiles extending from the west edge of Camino Pablo to any proposed two- story residences on Lots 1 through 7 and Lot 14 (to evaluate possibility of second story windows being a source of light and glare).- D. Landscape plan for slopes along the west and south edges of the property. 22. The applicant shall refer road improvement plans for Camino Pablo, and the road along the southern property line to EBRPD and the Town of Moraga for their review and comment, prior to approval by the Zoning Administrator (Mitigation for Impact E.3). 23. Grassland cover shall be re-established following grading and prior to unit construction. Grading shall be limited to the boundaries of _the site. To the extent possible, landscaping shall emphasize the use of drought tolerant, native plant species. Native plant species commonly used for landscaping which would be suitable for use on the site include coast live oak, valley oak, California buckeye and toyon. The applicant shall block access to undeveloped areas north of the site during construction, in order to discourage vehicles and motorcycles from driving off-road on the site (Mitigation for Impact F.1). .iiT'�US`r.:i�.'.`rLS.,Li�.:Y•.:... ._:�:u�.'FG�.�'�:'��'rr�if3ftCL`�i:._:G :i^vim SiSi:rEa...:cSiQSY(�:..i:t:a. ..r..r....ri�GSdt...._...�1-.r:x.:...._.r....�.._..�<:.:.�.....__._._.__.........._.... /� irA� 6. 24. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading,trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. 25. 22. Comply with the following construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements: A. Noise generating construction activities, including such things as power generators, $hall 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. The restrictions on allowed working days may be modified on prior written approval by the Zoning Administrator. B. The project sponsor shall require their 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. 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 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 the individual responsible for noise and litter control shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be reissued with each phase of major grading activity. A copy of the notice 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. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Any violation of the approved program or applicable ordinances shall require an immediate Vvork stoppage. Construction work shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate construction bond has been posted. ��cr�ft�Sr-n/i14+8r�-.s:�rcccc.iscsiivctidSiS• c..�c,oa:>:;,••=-. "�;;.• 7. E. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. Prior to issuance of building permits, the proposed roads serving this development shall be constructed to provide access to each lot. This shall include provision for an on-site area in which to park earth moving equipment. 26. In accordance with the child care ordinance, the applicant shall pay a child care fee of $400 per tot, prior to the issuance of certificates of final occupancy for the residences. 27. The following statement shall be recorded at the County Recorder's Office for each parcel to notify future owners of the parcels that they own property in an agricultural area: "This document shall -serve as notification that you have purchased land in an agricultural area where you may regularly find farm equipment using local roads; farm equipment causing dust; crop dusting and spraying occurring regularly; burning associated with agricultural activities; noise associated with farm equipment and aerial crop dusting and certain animals and flies _ may exist on surrounding properties. This statement is, again, notification that this is part of the agricultural way of life in the open space areas of Contra Costa County and you should be fully aware of this at the time of purchase." (Mitigation for Impact to be added to page 32 of the DEIR, according to the response document.) (Mitigation for Impact A.S.) 27. The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road, and utility improvements will require the review and approval of the Public Works Department: A. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. Conformance with the Ordinance includes the following requirements: 1) Constructing road improvements along the frontage of Camino Pablo, subject to the review of the Town of Moraga and the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Constructing curb, four-foot six-inch sidewalk (width measured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and necessary pavement widening along the frontage will satisfy this requirement. The face of curb shall be 20 feet from the ultimate centerline of the road. - ., .v2fSo2a2i',:i:2:'cGG.,CDC�t� "•""•r.r..,a�o'i«.ew r .. .-• ....,v���:�ltSib2is.S2:GGt'rSbG;.tS;.+;cc:i:�iciir.:w�..... .,.,..�....__... . 8. 2) Constructing a paved turnaround at the end of the proposed private road. 3) Undergrounding of all utility distribution facilities, including the existing distribution facilities along the Camino Pablo frontage. 4) Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the subject property, 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 which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. 5) Designing and constructing storm drainage facilities required by the Ordinance in compliance with specifications outlined in Division 914 of the Ordinance and in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department. The Ordinance prohibits the discharging of concentrated storm waters into roadside ditches. 6) Installing, within a dedicated drainage easement, any portion of the drainage system which conveys run-off from public streets. 7) Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer, payment of review and inspection fees, and security for all improve- ments required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions of approval for this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the County Public Works Department, Road Engineering Division, and the Town of Moraga. 8) Submitting a Final Map prepared by .a registered civil engineer or licensed'land surveyor. B. Convey to the Town of Moraga, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on Camino Pablo as required for the planned future width of 84,feet. C. Construct an 18 foot half-width roadway on-site along the southerly boundary of the property as shown on the tentative map, and convey to the Town of Moraga, by Offer of Dedication, the corresponding right of way. That portion of the roadway which lies between Camino Pablo and the project access shall be 24 feet wide. The southerly edge of pavement shall be constructed with a two-foot rock shoulder to allow for possible future.widening, and the northerly edge of pavement shall be curbed. The southerly edge of pavement shall be considered the future centerline of the road and shall coincide with the southerly boundary of the subject property, or as directed by the Town. D. Relinquish abutter's rights of access along Camino Pablo, including the curb return. 9. E. Construct a 32-foot paved private roadway to County private road standards, within a 40-foot easement, to serve all parcels in this proposed subdivision. F. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a concen- trated manner, from draining across the sidewalk and driveways. G. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary of permanent, drainage improvements. ADVISORY NOTES A. Comply with the requirements of the Moraga School District fees at time of issuance of building permits. B. 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 thos6 established by the Board at the time of voting. C. Comply with the requirements of the Moraga Fire Protection District (Mitigation for Impact B.6). D. The applicant shall comply with the Park Dedication Fee Ordinance, which requires that the applicant pay a fee of $2,000 .per lot at the time a building permit is obtained (Mitigation for Impact B.7). E. The -applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the south County Area of Benefit as,adopted by the Board of Supervisors. F. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal, construc- tion and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Walter Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay- Regional II or Central Valley-Region V). CW/aa RZXIX/7174C.CW 11/25/92 1/5/93 J.-�_::_�...... ft•G�....;a:...reesesr�f f3�..�.r.:.•.�•�t�ift�-�._�:,_,=,::;,•'�c,:•.., ... — :�� ..... . . ..... ..... Resolution #5-1993 RESOLUTION OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,RECOMMENDING DENIAL'OFTHE ALLIED INVESTMENTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA#7-91-CO), REZONING # 2961, AND SUBDIVISION #7174 IN THE MORAGA AREA. WHEREAS, Allied Investments applied for a General Plan Amendment from Agricultural Lands to Single family Residential Medium Density for an approximately seven acre parcel located in the Moraga area; and WHEREAS, Allied Investments applied for Rezoning #2961 to rezone that same site from General Agriculture (A-2) to Single Family Residential (R-10) and for subdivision #7174 for 17 units consistent with the requested general plan amendment; and WHEREAS, staff prepared an initial study and determined these applications to be environmentally significant; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared, circulated to interested agencies and 'individuals, and accepted as being adequate for decision making purposes; and WHEREAS, staff reviewed the proposed applications and prepared staff reports on these requests and the staff reports were circulated to interested individuals and agencies; and all hearing were legally noticed; and WHEREAS, public hearings were held on these items on December 8, 1992 and January 19, 1993 and numerous persons spoke both pro and con on the issues; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County Planning Commission finds that the Final Environmental Impact Report is adequate taking actions on these applications; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission RECOMMENDS DENIAL of general plan request GPA #7-91-CO, 2961-RZ and Subdivision #7174; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this recommendation are as follows: 1 . The proposed project is not compatible with the agricultural character of the adjacent areas. 2. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development project. 3. That the project is not consistent with the County General Plan. .x�.e.e:ir'.LRf.:fSftfisis�F'isi;Yl2:.fYSY.[:i5C6it:i.:':c_:ii�'G'Ci3i.'".Y�_�'�.cio3f3rb_•:1::��il ..... _ . ...... .. ., ... .. . . Resolution#5-1993 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all written and graphic material developed.for and pertaining to these proceedings are made part of the record; and �. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairwoman and Secretary of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission respectively sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the provision of the Planning Law of the State of California. The instruction by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission to prepare this resolution, incorporating the above and aforementioned, was given by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on Tuesday, January 19, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Clark, Sakai, Gaddis, Frakes NOES: Commissioners - Terrell, Accornero ABSENT: Commissioners - Woo ABSTAIN: Commissioners —None 1, Helene Frakes, Chairwoman of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing was duly called and held in accordance with the law Tuesday, February 2, 1993 and this resolution was duly passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners -TERRELL, PCCORNERO, 1400, CADDIS, CLARK, -SAKAI, FRAKES NOES: Commissioners -NONE, ABSENT: Commissioners -NONE. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - MONEI Chairwoman of the Planning Commission Contra Costa County, State of California ATTE T: S cr to of tra Costa County Pla Hing Comm s n, State of California. �-�"v _ --- +:,-.�•�r��•saaaaara..ce;rr..aux._•+u•.ric:caGwe;.....c.c.ae:acworocc.�.r.c.arc.c.c...c......�,.....-._.�.c..._......................... DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ALLIED INVESTMENTS GPA 7-91 COUNTY FILE 2961-RZ SUBDIVISION 7174 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY „L • '9 Cho,-� =_ ',�ti�� sr'`��COUIy� n� �Y JUNE 1992 C.�3iit"�'i.:s:.::ccltisi;u ,:r-�xtrYaa•.:sel��:ialC.ti%;_. ._ - -�^----------------------............................._.... .. �- SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TOPIC IMPACTS - MITIGATION MEASURES A. LAND USE AND POLICY CONSISTENCY 1. County General Plan(p.25) Project grading appears to conflict G with Genera{Plan policies for s19ptt 't< erm.sio'i�,as a Re' development of steep slopes. dereitTnaof:fi{.#iolcling.trapacity,ofl- Project approval may make sitefirejl�:proposes':a':: ; �.. continued agricultural operations on relationshtpietweeii:slope.and lot the Carr Ranch difficult, and it could ie(ilaxti(ts'n`a figlcJinS3 be considered incompatible with the "aCifji or`'` s: adjacent residential area. 2. 65%/35%Land Preservation Project develops 10%of 70+acre 4'(ilia e,�,�a.01MStandard (p.30) Urban Limit Line(ULL)area without A:RA Al !5%(vng.&tudy of the an equitable percentage of open efit'ird Ll -';'if=tFie Board of:. space. Superyisorsdetermines-that the,long te.rr►j;usQ;ofie: air Rartafi`# . agri6ii6ral;hb EIR suggests a %inimum parcel size NOW for the site:' 3. Camino Pablo Improvement Widening of Camino Pablo Road Widen Camino Pablo to minimum Standards(p.31) conflicts with rural character of area. width necessary to provide access to project. 4. Local Agency Formation Project annexation into utility district LAFJQQ;Jeyjgvy.,9fAnnexation request Commission(LAFCO)(p.32) spheres of influence may encourage s q "eve. . amine" .. �:. _ - ft development of area remaining within the :acrearea_ 4e ULL. B. PUBLIC AGENCIES AND UTILITIES' 1.Schools (p. 39) Elementary students generated by Applicant is required to pay school project attend Camino Pablo fees. The District plans to construct Elementary school where enrollment portable classrooms. is at capacity. 2. Water Service(p.39) Project requires approximately Applicant is required to fund 15,750 gallons of water per day and construction of water facility extension of nearby water main. improbements upon annexation approval by LAFCO. 3. Water Quality(p.40) Project adds to the cumulative The routine County procedures incraase in surface runoff,short- require an erosion control plan at the termisoli erosion,and suburban time that the grading permit is contaminants into the Upper San processed. Currently, cities and Leandro Reservoir. counties are required to secure a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board which addresses mitigation of water quality effects of urban runoff. 4. Sewage Service(p.40) Project adds to cumulative demand Include low-flow toilets and other on sanitary treatment plan capacity. water-conserving facilities to reduce sewage flow from project. ............ . _ . •.:r.:c;uL!;3ns:.GiF2�5C6cx:s:s:;,�uS�ctft4si�:::�wsccs;.f:t2.�!S�: Sii:.�=:.•'....... .:.....•-.----.. ...._..........., ........ . . .. . S. Police Services(p.41) County Sheriff response to site does (a) Project residents can form police not meet response time standard for service district; (b) Sheriff's urban areas. Department can realign local police beat;of(c)Applicant and County can negotiate a contract with Moraga for police services. 6. Fire Protection(p.41) ~,. Project is not within one and one-half .Install automatic fire sprinkler miles of a fire station. systems subject to approval by Moraga Fire District. 7. Parks and Recreation(p.41) Project increases use of Rancho -The applicant's park dedication fee Laguna Park. should be reserved for the Moraga Parks and Recreation Department. 8. East Bay Regional Park District The project poses impacts to(a) The applicant shall be directed to to M Trail(p.41) ,visual quality, (b) safety, (c) work with the EBRPD to ensure that drainage and stability, and(d) trail-related issues are resolved to fencing. the satisfaction of the District. 9. Mosquito Abatement District The project could increase the Erosion control plans and drainage (p.42) mosquito population. plans should be referred to CCMAD before they are approved by the County. C.GEOLOGY, DRAINAGE AND SOILS• 1. Seismic Shaking(p.63) Project is located in a seismically- Reduce the risk of seismic damage •active area. by minimizing slope gradients, . installing permanent retaining walls and using deep foundations. 2.Soils(p. 63) Loss of agriculturally-productive sstof.agricuttural'productivity is a soils on site. Development of the ISS ri'.� #"?"itjaVbdable:irripact. site will impact operations on the ""'" r^" = Carr Ranch. 3. Drainage(p.64) Tentative map does not indicate how Require applicant submit a drainage runoff will be collected and conveyed plan to: (a)convey roof gutter water to a natural drainage channel. in a closed conduits; (b) construct a concrete lined brow ditch on fill slope overlooking Camino Pablo;(c) construct lined brow on slopes along north and east perimeters of site; and (d)collect and convey runoff from Camino Pablo frontage to outfall point for project runoff. 4. Slope Stability and Foundation Project located on slope of poor R ' d. . Conditions(p.64) stability. r c s S QQJ ArI all-iitl 11 10 : s out v 5. Retaining Walls(p.65) Design details for retaining walls Walls more than 3 feet high should have not been specified. Walls may be constructed with non-wood pose aesthetic impacts. materials. Landscaping should be incorporated to reduce visual impact of walls. Elimination of lots and reducing pad size could avoid/minimize the need for retaining walls. ;;cam .�...cw` :•tdiSk�.'i''' �::�:3FLfsis:. r<<'... .........s�...._.....:...................'...... ....�_ _ _ 6. Expansive Soils (p.66) Expansive soils can damage Use drilled pier foundations that foundations, concrete slabs and extend through zone of shrinking roadways. and swelling. 7. Fills(p. 66) Differential settlement could.damage_:;FilldesfgA.shoufd include over- _ structures built-upon fill that is'poorly excavation,greater compaction at- designed,compacted and drained. depth or special foundation design. 8. Implementation(p.66 Minor errors in grading could cause Ensure proper implementation of slope failure in the future. grading code by: (a)documentation of all grading procedures by project geologist;and(b)review and inspection of grading by the County. 9. Maintenance(p.67) Poor maintenance of surface and All slopes,drainage terraces and subsurface drainage improvements subdrains should be maintained by may reduce long-term stability of the property owners according to graded slopes. plan and schedule approved by the County. 10. Erosion and Sedimentation Project construction increases Conduct all grading, excavation and (p.67) erosion,sedimentation and surface filling during dry season. runoff. Revegetate all exposed soils. Require erosion control plan prior to issuance of grading permit. D. VISUAL QUALITY AND DESIGN 1. Visual Access (p.72) The western portion of the site is Areas of%'hk h':visual_access would considered to have"high-visual 6est> bei@fttreeof.:develoPment If access and the balance of the grading:is allowedrt should be» property is in the"moderate" i subject.to des�n review and. category. approvalMtoandfoj�n blending and revegetaton: 2. South and West Frontage(p.77) Graded slopes along the south an rporaie ad ents'nn'cut or ; west facing frontages will pose a fill .00- significant f gosignificant visual impact. Steepnes south- of outhof 2:1 slope gradient,composition o pro p �ot,Camino Piblo. compacted fill,and exposure will ReYeg9tj tee>GIQ e_s With Cal'rforn make revegetation difficult. natiye,•pfatpsaeseciuce size.'of t[ie; ra ,;pQt btstong :�.. Caminoa'lohst'ruct cis of WE14'.1-1ris fa;��g i gtriict: 3. Grading Concept(p.78) Large pads on steep slopes results iellatt6m4ew.desiga custom in many angular,engineered- h6-L�j itee Ills i'ews<. at.� - (appearing slopes. cbfifgrir o e rain c re 'lot �,.:1,; 4. Light and Glare(p.78) Units in the project will be silhouetted Require that street lighting be against the skyline, as viewed from consistent with Town of Moraga the park and Camino Pablo. requirements. _�iii�fbtftiiiL:.;tc6G�tSi3`s3 Y/%=%Li+.t3lFs1o4.ri:sY�9''dG�:n..;.aKdifc.G:�.•.�-...t;x:u:::._'_�.r ............v,,.,,.r.. .r.............. :.�`:....�vf...r+r...r�...r....-...r.r...r�..vw.ruaranr..r..vvvvsrwJcwr.e.c.»...�....,..� ..��...�......................rv...... = �..irv�__'-...vr...,r..�...__....___....__... E. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 1.Cumulative Impact(p. 86) The-total amount of-traffic from the Applicant to payA a required Area of project is well below the threshold Benefit fee for the Lamorinda area, (100 trips per hour)that would be currently$2,300 per single family considered a significant traffic unit. Measure C fee may also be impact. required(approximately $4,700/unit). A condition of approval should require applicant to pay mitigation fees required in the upcoming Lamorinda Traffic Study if study is completed and fee schedule adopted prior to recording the Final Subdivision Map. 2. Internal Circulation System Internal road that stubs out at north Unless the road is slated to connect (p.91) property line could have growth to planned development in the ULL, it inducing impacts and does not should terminate with a cul-de-sac provide adequate turnaround area that meets all Public Works for vehicles. Department criteria. 3. EBRPD and Town of Moraga The proposed widening of Camino The County shall refer road (p. 91) Pablo and road at the south improvement plans for pertinent boundary of the site will require roads to EBRPD and Town of Moraga realignment of the trail, for review and comment prior to encroachment easement ; safety approval by the Planning Director. measures and temporary access f measures during construction. F. BIOTIC RESOURCES 1. Removal of Existing Vegetation Project removes existing vegetative Reestablish grassland cover (p.97) cover of the site(site does not following grading prior to unit • include rare or unique species). Site construction. Limit grading access"during construction may boundaries of the site. Project encourage unauthorized vehicle and landscaping should emphasize motorcycle activity along the native plant species. Block access undeveloped ridgeline north of the to undeveloped areas north of the site, site during construction. 2. Wildlife Habitat(p. 98) Project alters existing pattern of None. Impact on wildlife is a minor wildlife use on the site,replacing cumulative impact. habitat with suburban development. 3. Special-Status Taxa(p. 98) None. Project site does not contain None required. speciaf status plant or animal taxa and will not have significant adverse impact on identified taxa. .r..._:-: 6nisrvi,S.:�e�Se.e. .i}SKtii�•s:noocr>;:a:�:rrxsarrrr{/_ ----s.u:e!<:r.:r" =a_fir?+r_,;.._.-f{�n�c;c.:..;,:-✓sS�:iY`.'sr.G�a3rJs'r.;tis:s:s:s:iwssrfia t�+::c:�_-_.,_:..._.......,.....<..�.,.�...____._....._.. vd III. CEQA REQUIRED A-JESSMENT A. Alternatives 1. No Project Alternative The "no project" alternative would involve retaining the- existing . 7 .12-acre parcel as undeveloped- privately held- grazing- land. - The ---- current The ---current Contra Costa County General Plan and zoning of the property .would remain unchanged. Mitigating Effects. The site could continue to serve as a visual open space, grazing land and watershed. In addition, this alter- native would, at least temporarily, avoid the various significant land use, geologic, visual quality, traffic, and public service � . impacts identified in this EIR. Without a general plan amendment or rezoning, one residence could be built on the site, provided � ! an adequate water supply and sewage issues could be resolved. There are approximately 70 acres of land inside the Urban Limit j Line (ULL) in this portion of the Moraga area. If a decision on the site were not made at this time, there would be the oppor- tunity to examine the entire area inside the ULL to determine ! which portions are most suitable for development and which, if any, should be retained as open space. The access needs of the entire 70 acre area would be considered, as well as issues of allowable densities and development standards.. Adverse Factors. The parcel is too small (7.12 acres) to be viable for agricultural uses, and it is not proposed for acqui- sition as public open space. The site is within the ULL, indicating that it may have development potential providing the i land development project is sensitive to environmental and community values, and that urban service issues can be resolved. j 2 . Mitigated Alternative This is an alternative based on the applicant's goals and develop- ment approach for the site, but which incorporates the various mitigation-measures prescribed by the EIR. of the 7.12 acre property, approximately 1.32 acres are required for widening of Camino Pablo, improvement of the roadway along the southern property line, and construction of internal roads. The remaining 5. 8 acres represent the net acreage which is available for development. Consequently, the proposed density of the project is 3 .6 units/net acre. The average slope of the property is computed to be 20. 0%, and 2.4 acres possess slopes of greater than 25%. Given the steepness of the site, the density appears high. The conceptual grading plan indicates mass grading of the entire property, and the creation of graded slopes along the perimeter of the project. These graded slopes would transform the site from a pastoral setting to an angular, highly engineered-appearing subdivision, and have a profound effect on views from the existing 99 .. .•: ,,,,;;;,,,,, ,• .,,,,f5„cuv� .< f.cSfs .fLf. „r s i f(cfcu .....ki!..__•:...:.,...:_•..., .sC._i_.. :..✓..f,:,uo,,S,r.,:i.:L:.'::.. _ ... -if�::,_�.,s_.s .. .... ..............,_._..�.rc.r.._._.......c...s.c c< ....-._. _.,..�..._.,...<..,<,.,.,_.<s..c,..r. 1 neighborhood to the west, and from the Town of' Moraga's Rancho. Laguna Park. With an 8-foot high fence at the top of slope, tha full vertical section, as viewed from Camino Pablo, would range from 25 to 40 feet high . (from .street-.level to.-top-of fence) , . Figure 3 I shows a conceptual-plan for an- 11-lot -subdivision on . VI the site. This mitigated alternative strives to soften impacts of' the proposed project by incorporating the following design features: a) The minimum parcel size is 20,000 square feet. b) All man-made slopes on the site will possess 3: 1 slope gradients on their perimeters, and interior slopes would not exceed 8 (eight) feet in 'height and would possess 2.5:1 gradients. c) Camino Pablo will be widened to the minimum width of 32 feet along the frontage of the site. This will reduce the need for grading along the west property line. d) A 140 foot wide scenic easement is provided along the Camino Pablo frontage of the site. e) Grade the scenic easement, as necessary, so that topography would screen, or partially screen, views of buildings on lots 7 through 11. ' This -could be achieved by making the building pad on these lots a minimum of five (5) feet lower than the elevation of the east margin scenic easement at the midpoint of the lot. f) Graded segments of the scenic easement would have 3 : 1 slopes, topsoil, contour rounding, and revegetation with drought tolerant California native plants. g). The internal road will terminate in a cul-de-sac. (Access is not provided to the adjacent parcel to the north.) h). Split level pads, small pads, unpadded lots and retaining walls could be used in concert with 2 .5: 1 slopes up to 8 (eight) feet high (maximum) within the interior of the project. 3 . Reduced Density Alternative Designating the site for "single family residential - very low density" would amount to approximately one (1) dwelling unit per acre, or six to seven units total. This density is similar to the density of residential development on similar slopes in the Moraga area, and is the environmentally superior alternative. At one unit per acre, the project would have more of a rural .._..J:IJir.rri.rs�4'_..:rtiK1:�S.�_.•.•.rrr:.ii.r�.•.�.[SG l..:LLr.L�G�_.:s[C• :.9._.........�.��GSULfiG•�:._r:;i.::ci[rr'+lS[i.iv<:r:<::.::::Ati::.i.;t•i..�_...__��__.... � .._ .__. _ __....... _. .. . C y�ti - C) 4J, A. MITIGATED ALTERNATIVE -f40 Qgy QJ o a�fi 000 to `'• 20,234 5 21,73 ,246 20,011 Scenic 20,509 Easement " 854 9 (shaded area) 20, 77 2 81,918 s.f. y 20,248 0 BLIC ty: 7,519 ROA TOTAL SITE 309,505 s.f. O O (7.11 A.) 3 20,425 SCALE:1"--200' PARK B. REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE 00co to L 0 0 LO ® 46,478 77,17 Scenic ;. Easement (shaded area) o >` 5 41,40 81,918 s.f. y6 ,871 4. PRIVATE ' ROAD © 0 n ,341 40,321 :. SCALE:1"= 200' AREAS SHOWN ARE±500 S.F. PARK FIGURE: PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 31 Allied Investments Project DATE: 6_92 GPA 7-91, 2961-RZ and SUB. 7174 r • • ice\ ice-\ 26-2.2004-26-2.2010 ADMINISTRATION 26-2.2004 Variance, conditional use and (2) That because of special circumstances special permits — Notice requirements. (a) Mail applicable to the subject property because of its — Addresses. Except as provided by Article size, shape, topography, location or 26-2.21, the.planning department.shall schedule surroundings; the strict application of -the a hearing before the appropriate division, and respective zoning regulations is found to deprive mail notice thereof pursuant to Government the subject property of rights enjoyed by other Code Section 65905. The mail notice shall be properties in the vicinity and within the given, by postage prepaid first-class United identical land use district; States mail, to all owners of real property within (3) That any variance authorized shall three hundred feet of the subject land, using substantially meet the intent and purpose of the addresses from the last equalized assessment respective land use district in which the subject roll, or from such other records(as the assessor's property is located. Failure to so find shall result or tax collector's) as contain more recent ad- in a denial. (Ord. 1975: prior code § 2204.30: dresses in the opinion of the planning director. Ord. 917). (b) Contents. The notices shall state the time, date and place of the hearing, the general nature 26-2.2008 Variance, conditional use and of the application,and the street address,if any, special permits — Conditional use permit of the property involved or its legal or boundary standards. An application for a conditional use description if it has no street address. permit is an application to establish a Substantial compliance with these provisions for conditional land use within a land use district notice is sufficient, and a technical failure to which does not allow establishment by right, but comply shall not affect the validity of any does allow the granting of a land use permit action taken pursuant to the procedures set after a public hearing. The division of the forth in this article. planning agency hearing the matter either (c) Revocations. Notice of hearings on initially or on appeal, shall find the following revocations shall be given in the same manner as before granting the permit: on applications. (Ords. 80-87 § 1, 78-54 § 2, (1) That the proposed conditional land use 1975: prior code § 2203.15: Ords. 917 § 5.1, shall not be detrimental to the health,safety and 856 § 1, 382 § 7: see Gov. C. § 65901). general welfare of the county; (2) That it shall not adversely affect the 26-2.2006 Variance, conditional use and orderly development of property within the special permits — Variance permit standards. An county; application for a variance permit is an (3) That it shall not adversely affect the application to modify zoning regulations as they preservation of property values and the r pertain to lot area, lot building coverage, average protection of the tax base within the county; lot width, lot depth, side yard, rear yard, (4) That it shall not adversely affect the setback, auto parking space, building or policy and goals as set by the general plan; structure height, or any other regulation (5) That it shall not create a nuisance and/or pertaining to the size, dimension, shape or enforcement problem within the neighborhood design a lot, or community; , parcel, building or structure, or the placement of a building or structure on a lot (6) That it shall not encourage marginal or parcel. The division of the planning agency development within the neighborhood; hearing. the matter either initially or on appeal (7) That special conditions or unique shall find the following conditions that must characteristics of the subject property and its exist prior to approval of an application: location or surroundings are established. Failure (1) That any variance authorized shall not to so find shall result in a denial. (Ord. 1975: constitute a grant of special privilege prior code § 2204.40: Ord. 917). inconsistent with the limitations on other 26.2 2010 Variance, conditional use and properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is special permits — Special permit standards. An located; application for a special permit shall be primarily governed by the code provision (Contra Costa County 6-86) e _ U ''•S•'•Lr;rbs.,SSs.sr..<i^ 'Lliy+./},'yyJf'''-'S fiSi32:v�;i�Sw' .._.. ..._. •e![tLSlir_ ... .. ., c:r.'i;::,,.,.....v;:s::..... __.._...::i;.:sc:. . ELLMAN, BURKE, HOFFMAN & JOHNSON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ' ONE ECKER BUILDING.SUITE 200. SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 941135 - '�'• `=n .TELECOPIER (415) 495-7587 TELEPHONE (41 5) 777-2721 August 3, 1993 Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail (510) 646-2254 Ms. Candida Wensley Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re: GPA 7-91, 2961-RZ, Subdivision 7174 Dear Ms . Wensley, As requested by the Community Development Department, we are writing on behalf of the applicant, Allied Investments, to ( 1) describe the mitigation measures incorporated into the above project to address the grading, visual and related impacts described in the certified environmental impact report (EIR) , (2) identify the considerations which make other mitigation measures discussed in the EIR infeasible, and (3) identify overriding considerations which warrant approval of the 16-lot subdivision currently proposed despite certain remaining unavoidable impacts of the project. A. Mitigation Measures Incorporated Into The Project A number of mitigation measures .that are recommended in the EIR, or that otherwise mitigate the significant impacts described in the EIR, have been incorporated into the project. These mitigation measures include the following: :: �•fF3�t3ra}�G ... s£.. i e ... .%z. ir'r tint% ilrrfsrss.. Ms . Candida Wensley Community Development Department County Administration Building August 3, 1993 Page: 2 1. Since the EIR was certified, the number of lots in the subdivision has been reduced from 21 to 16,, and the minimum lot size has been increased from 10,000 to 15,000 square feet, both of which measures will reduce the overall amount of grading required for the project. 2 . The slopes along Camino Pablo and along the south property line have been flattened to a 3:1 gradient. 3 . The slope facing Camino Pablo will be revegetated with California native plant species , the slope contours will be rounded and otherwise blended into the landform, and fencing of uniform design will be installed at the top of the slope. 4 . The Camino Pablo slope area will be maintained through a Lighting and Landscaping District. S . Camino Pablo will be improved to the minimum width permitted under County standards . Applicant understands that this minimum width is 36 feet, not 32 feet as stated in the EIR. 6 . The graded slopes facing Rancho Laguna Park on the south side of the property will be no more than 6 feet high. These slopes will also be contoured and revegetated with California native plant species . The south slopes of the lots at higher elevations which face the Park will be partially screened from view by intervening houses and vegetation on the lower lots . Ms . Candida Wensley Community Development Department County Administration Building August 3, 1993 Page: 3 7 . Retaining walls no more than 3 feet high will be incorporated into the interior of the project to reduce the height of cut and fill slopes. These retaining walls have been incorporated into Lots 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 13, 14, and 15 . 8. The height of interior slopes will also be reduced by the use of benches to break up graded slopes . Benches have been incorporated into Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14 . These benches will also be revegetated with California native plant species. 9 . Based on the current design of the subdivision, grading will be balanced on-site without the need for import or export of soil, except topsoil for revegetation purposes. B. Mitigation Measures Recommended in the EIR That Are Infeasible 1. It is infeasible from an engineering and design standpoint to reduce all graded slopes in the interior of the project to 2 .5:1 or less. The use of 2 .5: 1 slopes throughout the project would reduce the space available for building pads and for outdoor living areas such as yards, patios and swimming pools to a size that is too small for the overall lot sizes of 15,000 square feet and for the probable prices of homes on lots of this size located in this area of the County. The use of 2 .5: 1 slopes throughout the project would also require a Ms . Candida Wensley Community Development Department County Administration Building_ August 3, 1993 Page: 4 significant reduction in the number of lots. Such a reduction is unnecessary and inappropriate in view of the measures described above which will mitigate the significant impacts associated with the interior grading of the project. Preliminary geotechnical studies conducted on behalf of the applicant by Terrasearch, Inc. , indicate there are no slope stability problems associated with the use of 2:1 slopes in the interior of the project. 2. It is infeasible to incorporate small pads and split-level pads for the reasons described under Item B. 1 above. The use of unpadded lots would require further grading at the time of home construction that would make it necessary to import and/or export soil from the project site after other homes have been constructed and residents have moved into the subdivision. 3. It is infeasible to incorporate a 140 ' scenic easement on the west side of the project along Camino Pablo because such an easement would require a total redesign of the subdivision and a substantial reduction in the number of lots . Such redesign and lot reduction are unnecessary because the mitigation measures described above would mitigate the visual impacts of the project from Camino Pablo to an insignificant level. A further reduction in the number of lots is not required to mitigate the significant grading or visual impacts of the project in its current design, and is not a permitted mitigation measure under Public Resources Code § 21085. In addition, a .:.:v_.if_-:in6ncd[::::::r..:i._.n..�::.._._._..._uic.::..____.::r,"'''..w.;r=::•••:•cuSF:c.�, l_i[iv'..G{..r.Y.�..Cr:r' :.L;;:n' Ms . Candida Wensley Community Development Department County Administration Building August 3, 1993 Page; 5 further decrease in the number of lots would significantly reduce the contribution of the project to the supply of housing in the unincorporated area of the County, which currently falls short of meeting ABAG requirements . 4 . It is infeasible to postpone action on the \ pending development applications to await the outcome of a general plan amendment/rezoning study of the entire 70-acre ULL area. No studies of the ULL area have been initiated and no development proposals for any other portions of the ULL area are pending. The development review process on the pending _ applications has already consumed approximately 18 months without final action having been taken at either the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors level. The completion of a general plan amendment/rezoning for the entire ULL area would take a minimum of another 18 months . The EIR makes clear that the Allied Investments parcel is the most suitable portion of the ULL area for development; it is the lowest, flattest, geologically most stable, easiest to service, and visually least prominent portion of the area. C. Overriding Considerations 1. The EIR identifies the loss of visual open space, the change in land use from agricultural to residential, the loss of grazing land, and the potential instability of graded slopes exceeding 26 per cent as unavoidable significant impacts ye+sr•�.r,...,:,....�..<..,.K -"-- -Wr:_,.___..._..s.:...,....,o:,.�..U1:LcxK..r..rre:...ance•e..`•♦c.:�•_♦:..:.....,.,......-�.:...-..:...:•v.,... •-,.•_....,:.::::.c-:.:...•:...1.. _ ....... ....,--'-.. .,.. ti_ .,..... .. .•• ♦. ♦ , ..� •Jam,! Ms . Candida Wensley Community Development Department County Administration Building August 3, 1993 . Page: 6 of the project. The visual and slope stability impacts will be mitigated by the measures described in Part A above. The site has no significant agricultural productivity in its current or likely future use. It does not contain prime agricultural soils and has not been part of the Carr Ranch lands since 1980 . A few horses currently graze there by permission of the current owner. There has been no grazing lease or license since the property was sold to the applicant by members of the Carr family. 2 . In balancing the benefits of the project against the remaining unavoidable impacts, after the mitigation measures and conditions of approval have been implemented, the benefits outweigh the remaining impacts because the project will make a significant contribution to meeting the need for housing in the unincorporated area of the County. The County's adopted Housing Element, as revised in 1992, shows that the County needs to develop a total of 6,447 additional housing units in the unincorporated area, including 2,966 market-rate units, in order to meet its "fair share" of the regional housing need for the 1988-1995 period, as determined by ABAG. (Housing Element, p. 6-22, 6-24, 6-104) . The Housing Element makes clear that this will be difficult because of governmental, financial and other constraints upon the production of additional housing in the Bay Area.. (Housing Element, pp. 6-26 , 6-83 to 6-101) . The Allied Investments parcel is an excellent example of a site that is not .llc:iS:t`S:52i!/l/G�CG3•'S2w`i:+•l••..,..il,;,..__.._-..-.e:s:i:-%.xi25ii:ie;e:e:-:r..v�1Wo ._....,.f_........_ r. ...s_..rw12a:�i%L. .: _. .. _. _:.._......:. . ,.. _,._....._r :_.:_�.,_ ---. fys ` y Ms . Candida Wensley Community Development Department County Administration Building August 3, 1993 Page: 7 free of development constraints, but which can be developed at a low density in the manner currently proposed without unacceptable impacts on environmental resources . The site is located in an area that has already been substantially developed for residential use, and for which needed infrastructure is already in place or is readily available. It is essential that the County permit and facilitate the development of such sites in order to have any reasonable prospect of achieving Goal 1 of its Housing Element: "To provide housing to meet the present and future needs of residents in the County of Contra Costa, and to aim at providing a fair share of the market area housing needs, within identified governmental, market, economic and natural constraints. " I trust that this provides the information requested of the applicant at this stage. If you need additional information or clarification, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance in the County's review process . cerely, John D. Hoffman JDH/wdh HOUSING ELEMENT OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 1992 r :'::r:i'i'i::'.':':.�•r ..'.'.. .. ..,. -_ �_.t__•>_vv_.__ .... .v. __.J.TS ..,..L..Ls......_.Y...rtY[......1Y_U ....._r._......i............... _.. ... - 1 6. Housing Element r • in its unincorporated areas have been increased somewhat as a result of this process, as presented in Table 6-7. ABAG applies the income category distribution to each jurisdiction's total.projected housing need to calculate the housing needs for each income category in that area (see Table 6-8). Tables 6-9 and 6-10 show the projected County housing need by tenure; and purchase price and rental cost; respectively. Contra Costa County unincorporated area projected housing need for the period 1988 to 1995 as of January 1, 1988, was 1,289 units affordable to very low income households, 903 affordable to low income households, 1,289 affordable to moderate income households, and 2,966 affordable to above moderate income households. In summary, 3,481 units affordable to very low, low and moderate income households are needed in County unincorporated areas to achieve a healthy housing market. The majority of the need for housing affordable to low very, low and moderate income households in Contra Costa County is in its incorporated areas. The County will continue to rely on many of the same resources utilized in the 1985-1990 period to address housing needs. Since 1988 the County has produced 172 very low income units and 576 low income units. Therefore, the adjusted housing needs as of December, 1992 are 1,117 units and 327 units in the very low and low income categories respectively. 6-22 6. Housing Element TABLE 6-8 PROJECTED HOUSING NEED BY INCOME CATEGORY _ CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND CITIES Total Projected Very Above Jurisdiction Need Low Low Moderate Moderate Antioch 6,343 1,395 951 1,395 2,602 Brentwood 1,905 476 343 381 705 Clayton 241 39 29 39 134 Concord 3,923 785 628 824 1,686 Danville 2,444 391 293 440 1,320 El Cerrito 722 152 108 144 1,156 Hercules 2,181 349 262 414 1,156 Lafayette 333 - 63 43 60 167 Martinez 1,745 366 244 349 786 Moraga 958 163 125 172 498 Orinda 269 43 "3�- 46148 Pinole 769 146 108 161 354 Pittsburg 3,910 899 587 860 1,564 Pleasant Hill 1,529 306 229 321 673 Richmond 4,823 53 280 1,553 2,937 San Pablo 278 75 47 58 98 San Ramon 7,669 1,227 920 1,457 4,065 Walnut Creek 2,267 453 340 453 1,021 Unincorporated Areas 6,447 1,289 903 1,289 2,966 Countywide 48,756 8,670 6,472 10,416 23,198 Source: ABAG, Housing Needs Determinations, January 1989. Af 6-24 1-,o County has learned duripg that period, however, that federal and State resources are continuing to diminish, and the County will have to place increasing reliance on local resources used in partnership with non-profit and private sectors. Given federal deficits and priorities, the County does not anticipate substantial increases in direct federal funding of housing activities. Federal resources may be subject to a different allocation method in which local control becomes more prominent. This can only enhance the opportunities , to use the scarce federal resources in a more optimal manner. Availability of State resources are also likely to be scarce. Resources are more likely to be available during the early years of the 1990-1995 time period of this Housing Element. Recent initiatives for additional financing of housing activities have not been approved by voters. Therefore, the availability of funds after 1991 may be limited. The ability of the County to generate its own resources through the issuance of tax exempt bonds is continually being diminished or potentially eliminated by changes in federal tax law. The ability to provide home ownership opportunities through the issuance of Single Family Bonds or Mortgage Credit Certificates is now scheduled to terminate on December 31, 1992. Renewal efforts may be difficult to achieve. The issuance of Multi-Family Bonds, which was a major vehicle for the financing of affordable rental housing projects in the mid-1980s, is increasingly difficult because of additional restrictions placed in federal law in 1986. Nonetheless, the County has been successful at issuing bonds for five new projects since that date. In addition, the ability to use this type of financing and the low income housing tax credit program is fairly limited in this County due to the relatively high land and development costs and the high market rents. Hence, projects that utilize such financings typically require additional forms of public assistance. Tax-exempt financing may reemerge in more significant form as a financing vehicle for projects .owned by non-profit organizations. Recent tax law amendments provide specific authorization for qualified 501(c)(3) bonds while this may represent an emerging opportunity it may require significant public participation. The decade of the 1990s should also represent a period in which the County's investment in the redevelopment process will begin to provide meaningful resources, particularly in the housing area. The County has adopted redevelopment plans for five unincorporated communities. Those areas will begin to generate significant tax increments during the decade of the 1990s and a relatively significant amount of financial resources will be available for housing that were not available in the prior planning periods. 6-26 6. Housing Element Few programs were eliminated from the previous Housing Element. Programs were eliminated because they have been completed, such as Program la, which called for a review of the General Plan (the General Plan was revised in 1991), or because they were.not proactive or were more representative of a policy and not an action, such as Program 3i, which called for maximizing financial leverage. Program 12d, which had called for exploring the feasibility of postponing property tax adjustments on housing rehabilitated with public funds,was removed due to budgetary constraints, as was Program 12k,which called for the County to study safety measures of older mobile homes. Further, some programs were removed as they were not action- oriented, but rather were general statements of support and encouragement for the continued development of market-rate and affordable housing. GOAL 1: HOUSING PRODUCTION TO PROVIDE HOUSING TO MEET THE PRESENT AND FUTURE NEEDS OF RESIDENTS IN THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, AND TO AIM AT PROVIDING A FAIR SHARE OF THE MARKET AREA HOUSING NEEDS, WITHIN IDENTIFIED GOVERNMENTAL, MARKET, ECONOMIC AND NATURAL CONSTRAINTS. Policy 1.1: Fair Share Mousing Production On a Countywide basis, attempt to increase the number of housing units to meet the need for additional housing during the 1990-1995 period. Contra Costa County's unincorporated quantified objective is based on ABA Gs determination of Contra Costa County's fair share of housing by income groups as illustrated below: UNINCORPORATED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE BASED ON REGIONAL NEEDS: 1988-1995 Total New Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Construction Income Income Income Income ABAG's Determination 6,447 1,289 903 1,289 2,966 1988-1995 Annual Share 921 184 129 184 424 6-104 1. t � y 00 AN iz rh N its x• N metro '� 6�? t� y y 0 v;E A r Y y �'� y ,rp•y.. a Oy�n,� � ao0� p � �, ry9 fj1 t i 3ZI�°�'� y e p tj i41 74 ..� ,�! � j � , if � /(�g.'`� .. .�� it "�., .,•%r• U r It I t .Cwj { O IS it It Is IV It � •;rte• , r 1s �i6- thPO { t w.r .. •�/� ,�1\ `rtc a „�� ,L- \, •`` �, r h ' COD b 00 N CL11 0 ry1p� F► r to •.{ oti u th D A M t n .• A r ' $ O S( 2 A 1 a 0 ° m ° a�QQs �'CtUiv► ;� � h% c, c3 rap ik Aim 3 (aCIA Ile Ut 14 14 iA VI iL 17 U / , _ t 4. 141L T � R 111 •• `w MY al l :J r� /•�, a � / 'mac, .�� 1,.,.� t''' :.—_. // n .AC=J � � � 0 CA Vp � 1 ' • A �j r .. r a d 1 ro o, o P RECEIVED .- SEP 27 19903 �.CLERK BOARD OF Sl1PERV{SORS .127E C amine: CONTRA COSTA CO. w•;_: _- rr, s 25 September 199 Board of Supervisors County Administration Building ESI Fine Street, Room IOE Martinez, n `S�3 Lear Supervisors: I regret that I cannot attend the Public H earing on 2C- September. SSeptember. My professional commitments require Ire to be out of town that day. I have attended the five pr e v c-u= S is',rings o7m this project and wish to reiterate my :p t - iti__ t_ this ill- conceived proposal. Fre kly, 1 t' irk its _ _It:-'"c:'geaus that the appl .+_.antt is wasting all cf cqnf time to rc=.iCL1 another proposW that doesn't even bother to -="r- :-; to most of 'the `- itigz�t_._'m measures from the EIR that '_ _.__.rt y staff have id_nt"_fisd as - onditicins of approval. The applicant's response to the Board of Supervisor's instri-1_tions reduce the density at the sit.E has been to eliminate _+ne single unit from their proposal. Ts:e proposal in frc•r.t of you. now is virtual1y identical to the one that you declined to appyovs it March of this year. instead of ..c= � �--•'�a theiv proposal '„ � _C':T:Ply with; the -..J_.;. .. rs cT _p r vat d_ . =_.,2 ty the County the applicant has hirsV Ln attorney to claim thati 1) most of the imitig.ation is umnscsssar or _nfeasWIr=.• .it'd 2ti the significant unavoidable adverse :_l,.,r ide7F-r d � o significant a.ntd are �._._ -=rsc= impacts i__:.• � :E:� .{ the EIF' are not avoidable. 1 agree with the excellent staff report which finds that the la wyer% claims are "not persaS iVE' n fact r would say that this, description is charitable. I'd call the claims + t the a.rpl._ant's law-yep dates v g �� The leiter from �. z;,- _� (dated� August 19��) claims that mitigation has been incorporated to address grading, visual and related impacts, when in fact _inly a few mitigations have been addressed, manly have been ignored, and others ors Slave been falsely claimed to be infeasible. The ET_R contains over 30 mitigation meaSLIY es, and there are 28 conditions of approval listed in the staff report. In his letter, ts;e lawyer provides a list of nines-. supposed mitigation measures that have been _;:__ -;.;_rated in the pro-e-_t. The supposed mitigation measures agreed to by the applicant are: 1. A reduction to 16 units (rem-ember t=ie last prop—sal was 17) which does not comply with the County prop Conditions of approval whicn =.Yc+_i{y that t..= Nr -.1' - - i e redesigned for a maximum of 1_ units Y. w{l4i5=-*i=CE f or the sw=ipe a!o :`]. Camnino PaL1'= cop.sisting of fI&Atening slopes, revegetation, and maintenance of the slope area. This ccmphes with mitigation -' from the EIS' and tries to M?'::= it 100k li�::e u mitigation measures instead of 1. 5. Improvement of Camino Pablo to minimum wid`,'t h pt:-:mitted under County standards. This complies wit}i mitigation A:^ from the EIR. E. Limiting graded slopes facing Rancho Laguna Park i'-= no higher than E feet. This r.nor-2s the E1-. mitigation which requires a maximum 2.1 slope. 7,2, !i.mi t s retai:ting walls to ? feet in height and uses W--ii to , --• -- the !-:eight _f _�'terior slopes. This i lie. L� _ _,—�1�__ _..�, la. partially complies Wth mitigation C5 frcmi the ETR, but ignores the most important of mitigatic-ir- - eliminating lot- _^:-d p=:�� size. _ Claims that grading is balanced and that only t_psoil will have to be imported to the site. This is not a mitigation — simply _:d;:'_ts that tops-i'! WE have to be LLmp•_..rt-J to the site b- --___ _v'=,-_' the site Wil: be graded. this list of r'._::e ... .g_`_ __ ._ 2s weally about 2 1 /2 mitigations. At y:._ r-=-.. -_ --.i,..._s__ hearing, the applicant responded that t - .1 l2tt. _ prpresented - j - -' tis+ f mitigation I. mevEureE that the c.t-FWcan haz agreed to, and Haimed that the =. am_=.t;on responded to all of the c. :diti.ons of evidence app =.1 _, everCa ! L .a no nr 2iJ --� 'itmc_t t_ mitigation, and the applicant go -s on claim that the most imp,Ytant mitigations in the conditions of approval are infeasible. The lawyer goes on to argue that it is not feasible to reduce l -ems. to 2.5:1 because there wouldn't be enough room for st i:. ming ;'- -'_s. (Maybe this :means that the site is too .hilly to be built _n) Despite the fact that the EIR and the Board t_=f built _....c i t���. � 1� V. Supervisors r have stated that th'c-'_ applicant should reduce the l „number of -- _.y the lawyer says +-}:.:t this isnot necessary because of W! the iga. ; rporaed. (Remember that we've determined that the/V2 a_t LaTlj agreed to nr o; the - - �:_ _y_t__ _ measures ,._.,% less than 10 percent?. The lawyer argues that small pads and split level pads aren't feasible (remember those swimming po=ols). T::_.-='= also a rather circular argument that unpadded" lot=s aren't feasible, because you'd have to grade pads later. Then the wouldn't be sir. _fdW lots, would they? The most argument is -t'-..:at the ea.-e�nent : __o,..mend_t in the EIR and specified V the d:.ji_, - approval � � is not feasible because it would a re�esign of the sito and a reduction of lots' THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE MITZGATIOs, The appIicant has ignored the most important mitigation of all: reduce the density to a maximum of 11 lots. The lawyer finally makes an argument that there actually are overriding considerations that you should allow thi� project to- go ogo forward. He cites the few pitiful mitigation measures as complete mitigation for the visual and sl�pe impacts' Yet every square foot of this project would still be graded, development would tower over the nearby park, and the re!usEs t� consider the scenic easemsmt along is a conditi-on of project approval. The site wouIj be lost to agricultural use and grazing which M is a�fmittad) is cn�oing o� the site. Despite the lawyers arguments that the agricultura] use is Tinsignificant°' it is still another that would be lost forever to its traditional use. The Icwycr argues that thE ov2rridiog nssd for Musing should cytv7igh tha fact that this is a mise�atly poor sito for -"SvelnpMent. SAvE7 ths fact tKat people Lie now moving out of California at a raco`f rz��v are recent announcements of base cIosuMs are Sure to c=Kn:E this trend, I duub!� !Jiat this need for Masimg actuany cxists or that it is a good reason to -4e,�7.�P this site. At the last Board of Supervisors hearing of th� Supervisors appeared to be underthe mistaken impression that because the site is within the Urban Limit Line (ULL)» �ev�I��me�� ��� �r be permitted. This is absoluteIy incorrect! 'ho esneraI F'ku for of 50% of the lands within thEF CLL. Yvaz this projnct's of General PIan PoIiciss sI0peS, �r�din�� /i�ucI r��uurc�s and prcssrratMr of °gricLAt:rOR! ����' ��e �ropos�� sits is cle�rIy one the areas within the ULL where d�veI��men� should not be permitted. This is a ridiculously bad proposal by a developer who clearly only wants to cram as many houses on the site as he can get away with. I implore you to deny,this application and Uphold the recccme:�a�ions of the County staff and Planning Commission. Very truly yours' �o�in F� Cort Canter RECEIVED SEP 2 219903 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. Margaret DePriester ,NEW 142 Selborne Way, Moraga, CR 94556 Sept. 21, 1993 Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County 651 Pine Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Supervisors: This is to urge a NO vote on the following proposal which will be before you on Sept. 28th: GPA 7-91 (Carr Ranch, Moraga area); rezoning request 2961-RB, Subdivision #7174. This proposed subdivision and development has now been denied 2 times by our County Planning Commission, appealed to the Supervisors and is now back to you for a decision. With 2 different Commissioners now on the Planning Commission, the request for a General Plan Amendment has again been denied, as well as the request for a variance. My letter of objections to the Draft E.1.R. is on record, and I gave testimony at the Board meeting at which this was discussed previously (and referred back to the Planning Commission). With the opposition of the Town of Moraga, the City of Lafayette, and a number of residents of the area involved, I hope the Board of Supervisors will reach a position of denial of this proposal. Sincerely, c,� Q -