Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10171989 - 2.5 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon Contra Director of Community Development CJV.7la DATE: September 6, 1989 C ^ SUBJECT: Appeal by ARTEK, Inc. of the County Planning Commission decision to require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for Subdivision 7233 (Sequoia Hills) in the Walnut Creek/Saranap area. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Deny the appeal and sustain the Planning Commission decision to require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report in accord with Option A actions listed below. Option A - EIR Required 1. Endorse the findings of the County Planning Commission as presented in attached resolution. 2. Deny the appeal. 3. Direct staff to commence the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, and require the applicant to pay fess to cover the costs of the Environmental Impact Report in accord with County requirements. Option B - EIR Not Required 1. Find that the proposed project will not result in any adverse environmental impacts as documented in the initial study dated May 10, 1989, prepared by staff. 2. Grant the appeal of ARTEK, Inc. 3. Determine that the Negative Declaration issued by staff is appropriate for the project. 4. Refer the project back to the County Planning Commission for noticed public hearing and decision on the merits of the project. BACKGROUND This subdivision application was filed with the Community Development Department on November 16, 1988. the applicant is seeking to subdivide three acres into seven lots. The site is zoned R-6, but it is rather steep with a history of slide problems. A soils report was submitted indicating that the project would be feasible with extensive soil repair actions. A group called Community to Save Sequoia Hills, comprised of nearby residents, submitted a petition requesting the preparation of an EIR. The City of Walnut Creek also indicated concerns with the site plan. After reviewing the site and documentation, staff agreed that the project would be feasible. Moreover, staff concluded that the project would comply with the zoning standards and eliminate a slide problem that has plagued the neighborhood in the past. Consequently, staff issued a Negative Declaration and a staff report recommending approval of the project with the elimination of one lot. The matter was considered by the County Planning Commission on July 25, 1989. However, before any testimony was taken, the Commission voted ( 5-1) to reverse the Negative Declaration determination and instead required the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. See attached resolution. APPEAL+ r On August 3, 1989, the applicant appealed the Commission's action. See attached 8/2/89 letter. DISCUSSION Prior to the Planning Commission action, staff had concluded that the project was feasible and that it would not generate any adverse environmental impacts (and would substantially correct a slide problem) . The Commission felt that the situation warranted further independent review. Two options are presented above: to grant and reject the applicant's appeal. It should be noted that if an EIR is required, the geotechnical component of the study may be particularly costly depending on how much work is required to provide an additional independent review of soil conditions. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE• ,--74k RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RE 0F1 B06P COPWTTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATUREM : ACTION OF BOARD ON OnTnhFr 179 1989 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER On October 10, 1989 the Board of Supervisors deferred to this date the decision on the appeal by ARTEK, Inc. from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the application filed by ARTEK, Inc. (applicant/owner) for tentative subdivision map approval to subdivide 2. 9 acres of land into seven lots (Subdivision 7233 ) in the Walnut Creek/Saranap area. Supervisors Schroder commented on the three areas of concern that people in the area expressed including soils, drainage and visual impact. He commented that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was not necessary and that there had been extensive studies done. He recommended that the Planning Commission again address those three areas, review the matter and return with a recommendation to the Board. Supervisor Torlakson clarified that this action was not approving the subdivision but rather returning the matter to the Planning Commission for them to analyze the project with those three concerns in mind. Karl Wandry, Community Development Department, commented that the Board could ask the Planning Commission to consider the EIR question and the subdivision and recommend both back to the Board. Supervisor Schroder agreed to incorporate Mr. Wandry' s comment into the motion. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the appeal of ARTEK, Inc on Subdivision 7233 , Walnut Creek area, is REFERRED back to the County Planning Commission to review issues related to soils and potential slide activity, storm drainage and visual impact and the subdivision and report back to the Board with recommendations. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X 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. cc: ARTEK, Inc. ATTESTED October 17, 1989 Community Development Dept. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR a BY a�YV9 Qom__ � DEPUTY vvie c 'i•.:: .u. 89 AUG -3 Pt1 4` 43 r � DF -► DEPT ARCHITECTS= RECEIVED CONTRACTORS August 2, 1989 DEVELOPERS SEP (f, 1989 PHIL BATCHELOR Contra Costa Board of Supervisors CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS c/o Community Development Dept. B TRA COSTA 651 Pine Street ., Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Appeal of EIR Preparation Subdivision No. 7233 Seven Lots On July 25, 1989, the Planning Commission voted to require that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared`for County Subdivision No. 7233. The Commission took this action against the recommendation of the County staff. Additionally, the City of Walnut Creek, whose "sphere of influence" extends to this site, specifically did not request an EIR be prepared, nor is it their policy to have such a comprehensive document prepared for projects of similar scope. We believe the Planning Commission mistakenly assumed that the City of Walnut Creek desired an EIR be prepared, due to a vaguely worded letter from the City concerning the Negative Declaration. We hereby appeal this decision to the Board of Supervisors on the grounds that the significant environmental impacts have been adequately addressed in the detailed "Conditions of Approval," prepared by Community Development staff, and therefore the preparation of an EIR would be redundant as regards the relevant issues. We would like to state for the record that we recognize and appreciate that this is a visually prominent site with a noted history of a slide problem. r Also, the adjacent area has experienced local flooding (prior to installation of the Olympic Blvd. culvert) during periods of heavy rains. Additionally, tall and ugly buildings which loom over the existing neighborhood could be eyesore. As such, we recognize that there are legitimate items of concern that must be addressed as an integral part of the development of this site. Accordingly, we propose, as additional measures, the items contained in Exhibit 'A' (Additional Proposed Mitigation Measures) attached hereto. These additonal mitigation measures, together with the staff's thorough list of proposed conditions of approval, address each and every one of the relevant and legitimate concerns expressed by neighbors and the Planning Commission. 2231•A COMMERCE AVE. CONCORD,CALIFORNIA 94520 415 686.4230 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors August 2, 1989 Page two We believe that preparation of an EIR for this project is not likely to produce any information'br suggest any mitigation measures not already incorporated into the project. By overruling the staff's recommendations and requesting the preparation of an EIR for a project of this size, the Planning Commission has set a dangerous and unmanagable precedent for similar projects in the future. Preparation of an EIR is likely to cost $40,000 (plus a required 25% county administration fee) which adds over $7,000 of cost to each unit and as such would create a hardship on us. I also wish to point out that the development of this site includes the repair of a landslide that has inundated an adjacent home on at least three occasions over the last thirty years. This repair work alone is likely to cost $75,000 — $100,000 and will, of course, be performed under the direct supervision of a licensed geotechnical engineer as well. as the County Grading Department. The sooner this work is undertaken the sooner this tremendous liability can be eliminated for good. It is obviously in everyone's best interest that this subdivision request be concluded so that we can get the slide repaired before it fails under heavy -rainfall. In delaying this project unnecessarily, the County incurs a fair share of the liability should damage result. I look forward to presenting this project to you at the appropriate time. Sincerely, ARTER Inc. Edward Patmont President EP/ms AT&T:CDC.LTR • 1 e. Exhibit A Additional Proposed Mitigation Measures 1. VISUAL IMPACT a. We will prepare an accurate photographic rendering of the site so that all the homes will be clearly shown as to the actual proposed design and specific site location. We will incorporate "stepped" designs on the downhill elevations to minimize the visual impacts. b. We agree to prepare a Landscape Plan by a licensed Landscape Architect prior to approval of the Tentative Map by the Planning Commission. All. plantings to be on an automatic irrigation system installed during construction of the homes. Specific areas to be landscaped will be the downhill side of the homes in order to minimize the visual impacts. 2. BUILDING HEIGHT We agree to adhere to the height restriction of the City of Walnut Creek which is 25 feet. This is three feet shorter than the 28 feet staff recommendation and is a full 15 feet less than that allowed by the counties height limit for hill areas. (Note: 35 ft. height limit allows approximately a 40 ft. high building on the downhill side.) 3. STORM DRAINAGE We agree to prepare plans for the storm drainage facilities immediately and to obtain the specific approval of the Flood Control Department erior to approval of the Tenative Map by the Planning Commission. Additionally, we agree to have the City of Walnut Creek review said drainage plan for conformance to their standards. 4. CONSTRUCTION PARKING/TRAFFIC We agree to complete all earthwork and road improvements on Sequoia TerracerP for to construction of those homes served off Sequoia Terrace. The intent here is that construction parking be accomplished on Sequoia Terrace rather than along Sequoia Avenue. AT&T:EXHIBIT.A