Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12171996 - D3 Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WJIa FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON t./l.lu DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: December 10, 1996 SUBJECT: Final Development Plan (County File IDP96-3004) , and Appeals by Howard and Lettie Siu and by Shapell • Industries of Northern California (Applicant) of the County Planning Commission's decision relative to the Wendt Ranch Subdivision (County File #SD96-8002) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and with State and County CEQA Guidelines. 2. Adopt the Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations related to the approval of this project. 3. Render a decision on the appeal filed by Shapell Industries of Northern California with one of the following options: A. Shapell Appeal Option 1: Deny the appeal of Shappell Industries of Northern California and uphold the decision of the County Planning Commission approving Subdivision 968002 with the conditions as modified herein. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x_ YES SIGNATURE • RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMIT EE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON December 17, 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X See attached addenduT. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: IV, V & II NOES: T & T T T ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Dennis M. Barry 335-1210 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED Decomber 17_ 996, cc: Howard and Lettie Siu PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Shapell Industries THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AND COUN Y ADMINISTRATOR Public Works City of San Ramon B , DEPUTY Town of Danville j:\aw\wendt1.bo D�3 Board Order - Wendt Appeals December 10, 1996 Page 2 B. Shapell Appeal Option 2: Grant the appeal of Shapell Industries of Northern California and amend the EIR Impact Statement, the Mitigation Measure and permit Condition #89 to reflect that a Kit Fox mitigation plan and consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game is only required if preconstruction surveys indicate the presence of the species on the site (refer to Exhibit B for suggested text changes) . 4. Render a decision on the appeal filed by Howard and Lettie Siu with one of the following options: A. Siu Appeal Option 1: Deny the appeal of Howard and Lettie Siu and uphold the decision of the County Planning Commission approving Subdivision 968002 with conditions as modified herein. B. Biu Appeal Option 2: Grant the appeal of Howard and Lettie Siu and amend conditions as necessary to incorporate the Board's decision. 5. Approve the permit condition changes proposed by the County Public Works and Community Development Departments which were discussed at the November 19, 1996 Board hearing on this project (refer to Section D herein and to Exhibits D and E) . 6. Approve Final Development Plan (County File #96-3004) with conditions as modified herein. 7. Adopt the findings contained in County Planning Commission Resolution #29-1996 as the basis for the Board's action (refer to Exhibit F) . 8 . Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared for this project. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On November 5, 1996, the Planning Commission approved Subdivision 968002 with modifications to the staff recommended conditions. Appeals were filed by Shapell Industries of Northern California on November 6, 1996 and by Howard and Lettie Siu on November 14, 1996. On November 19, 1996, the Board continued the hearing on the Final Development Plan (County File #DP96- 3004) to this date to be considered along with the appeals of the Subdivision. The letters of appeal from Shapell Industries and from Howard and Lettie Sue have been included as Exhibits A and C. A. Shapell Anneal;, Shapell appealed permit condition #89 which is a mitigation measure to address impacts of the project on Kit Fox habitat. The discussion of the appeal is provided in more detail in the report for the Board's November 19, 1996 meeting, and is summarized here. In general, the Environmental Impact Report concludes that the "Project Development would result in reduction of San Joaquin kit fox foraging habitat and may adversely affect individual animals. For the habitat, this is a significant impact; for individual animals, the impact level is unknown" (reference: DEIR pg. III.J-15) . The corresponding mitigation measure, which is included as permit condition #89, requires the preparation of an off-site mitigation habitat program for the Kit Fox. The appellant suggests that there is insufficient evidence presented to conclude that the project is in fact kit fox foraging habitat, Board Order - Wendt Appeals December 10, 1996 Page 3 while acknowledging that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game consider it as such. In short, the appellants believe that verification of the presence of kit fox is necessary to demonstrate that the site is in fact foraging habitat and thus warranting mitigation. The appellant proposes that Condition #89 be amended such that the habitat program is only required if preconstruction habitat surveys verify the presence of kit fox. If the Board agrees with the appellant, Impact Statement #J1, Mitigation Measure #J1 and permit condition #89 should be modified. Suggested text is provided in Exhibit B. B. Siu Appeal: The letter of appeal, which addresses a number of issues, is included as Exhibit C. Mr. Siu included a letter from Save Our Danville Creeks regarding the hearings held before the County Planning Commission. Since that letter includes concerns regarding the process, rather than the project itself, the letter has been included for the Board's information. No additional discussion is provided herein other than to note that the County Planning Commission held hearings on this project on October 8, 1996 as well as on November 5th, where all those who requested to speak were heard by the Commission. Those hearings were noticed and conducted consistent with State Planning laws and with County ordinances and procedures,. The following section responds to the issues of the appeal in the order present in the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Sui. The letter of appeal had a number of attachments (refer to Exhibit C) . Since these attachments are copies of documents previously provided to the Board for the November 19th meeting, no additional discussion is provided herein. 1. Public Services and Utilities: Statement of Appeal Summary: A permanent sewer management program must be planned to pump sewage to the north, and must not potentially dump untreated sewage into Alamo Creek in case of repair, power outages or other facility emergencies. Staff Response: The design and construction of sewer facilities for this project are under the jurisdiction of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. The Sanitary District requires that any sewer pump station incorporate specific backup safety measures (e.g. redundant pump systems, alternative power source, and alarms) to protect against back- up or overflow in the event of power outages or other facility emergencies. This issue was also addressed in the November 15, 1996 memo from the Public Words Department to the Board along with the recommendation that a permit condition be added to require verification that the back-up measures have been incorporated into the system design. Statement of Appeal Summary: Given the significant increased wildland fire risk, Shapell should provide a substantial land buffer between the Sui property which can be accessed from both the Siu and Wendt properties in order to maintain a 30 to 40 foot fire break. Shapell must help maintain the Siu access dirt road to facilitate access to this fire and multi-purpose buffer zone. Staff Response: Permit condition #110 requires the applicant to prepare an "Open Space Fire Management Plan" and to submit the proposed Plan to the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District and to the Zoning Administrator prior to the filing of the final map. The report Would address fire prevention as well as fire suppression measures. The need for, and the proper size/location of, a fire break should be determined through this review with the Fire District. Similarly, provisions for accessing a fire break would be addressed through this process. Board Order - Wendt Appeals December 10, 1996 Page 4 Although we believe that this issue is sufficiently handled by the existing permit conditions, the Board could amend Condition #110 by adding the following language: e °gpen�pat" lan shall sgecificaliy ess #fie meed for a fire break between, the open;space ort�on�f`��thesite and the Siu property The :Plan 'shall: include-any necessaryaccess to the open space ,for fire �r�v�t on :and. suppression ,,^ 2. Air Quality: Statement of Appeal Summary: There is a significant increased risk of Coccidioidomycosis or Valley Fever from spores, which are made airborne by grading. Shapell should be liable for medical treatment, loss of income or other effects for 5 years after grading. Staff Response: The appellant did not provide evidence to support the position that grading substantially increases the incidence of Coccidioidomycosis. The Environmental Impact Report disclosed that grading of the site, as well as construction and demolition, would increase dust. The report included ten (10) mitigation measures all of which have been included as permit conditions (refer to permit conditions 72A- J. In addition, the permit requires the applicant to submit monthly construction reports to verify compliance with the fugitive dust control conditions. 3. Noise: Statement of Appeal Summary: There will be a significant noise impact on the Joseph and Verna Simpson Lake and Wildlife Reserve. The noise would be mitigated by eliminating the southwest cluster of 16 units and by design and landscaping requirements. (Note: the appellant cites Impact F1 of the EIR. ) Staff Response: Impact FI states that traffic generated by this project together with cumulative development, will increase ambient noise levels by up to 5dBA. The cumulative traffic considers development that would occur by the year 2010. Projects considered in the cumulative analysis include Dougherty Valley (11,000 units) , Tassa jars Valley (5,950 units) and Tassajara Meadows (230 units) plus approximately one million square feet of commercial space. There is no evidence to suggest that eliminating sixteen residential lots or imposing design/landscaping requirements on the Wendt site would measurably alter this calculation. Further, it should be noted that the contribution of Wendt Ranch to the cumulative noise increase is only IdBA. An increase of 3 dBA must be achieved before a noise increase is generally perceptible. A. Soils and Geohazards: Statement of Appeal Summary: Grading on all slopes greater that 26% within 200 feet of the creeks should be avoided based on slides, erosion and creek siltation concerns. Staff Response: The primary conditions which address the appellant's comment are the requirement to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (COA 158)and the requirement that final grading and development plans eliminate construction and grading within 100 feet of Alamo Creek to the extent feasible (COA 99) . The permit also includes a number of other conditions which address slides, erosion and creek siltation. They include Board Order - Wendt Appeals December 10, 1996 Page 5 avoiding making cuts on the lower portion of unstable hillsides (COA 19) , improving the stability of open space lands (COA 19) , preparating a design level geotechnical report and a slope stability analysis (COA 21) , preparing an erosion control plan addressing site development and long term maintenance (COA 24 and 25) and repairing unstable slopes (COA 36) . Statement of Appeal Summary: The potential of liquefaction should be evaluated. Based on the high risk of liquefaction, Shapell should avoid building in the vernal marsh area and the east-west seepage areas into Alamo Creek. Staff Resr)onse: The permit conditions require an analysis of liquefaction potential prepared in consultation with the County's geologist. Consistent with the EIR, the report must either propose engineering designs to mitigate the hazard or retain the area for open space use (refer to COA 20) . S. Hydrology: Statement of Appeal Summary: The increase in storm runoff in the East Branch of the Alamo Creek watershed could aggravate the existing flooding, siltation and erosion problems at the Simpson Lake and Wildlife Reserve. The appellant suggests that an adjustable outlet be used on the detention basin and requests that their hydrologist review all plans and provide input before the project proceeds. Staff Response: The issues raised are addressed by permit conditions #150, 151 and 152 as modified by the memos from the Public Works Department to -the Board. These permit conditions are standard conditions which are commonly . required for projects such as this development. The permit requires the applicant to .mitigate post-development flows in Alamo Creek to predicted pre-development flow levels by constructing an on-site detention basin. The applicant is required to submit a drainage study which analyzes existing, interim, and ultimate conditions and the feasibility of the drainage plan to mitigate flows. The applicant is also required to analyze creek bank and levee stability, creek velocities and erosion potential for drainage facilities within the project and downstream of the project including creek banks adjacent to the Siu pond and the spillway structure. The analysis will also include recommendations necessary to address any findings in the analysis. Statement of Appeal Summary: Shapell should provide specific mitigations for progressive erosion on the Siu property. Staff Response: Refer to the response provided above. Statement of Appeal Summary: An independent inspector should be provided during the construction period so that the Lake inlet gate could _be controlled in the event of a spill or siltation. The water quality basins should be oversized and should be located and maintained to maximize biofiltration efficiency. The southwest group of 16 lots should be moved to allow for an oversized wet marsh as an in-line biofilter. Staff Response: The issue of accidental siltation or chemical spill during grading and construction is addressed by permit condition #158. The applicant is required to file a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan which addresses storm water quality impacts during grading and construction of the project, including how siltation and chemical spills will be prevented from entering Alamo Creek. The issue of a water quality basin is addressed by permit conditions #159 and 160 as modified by the Public Works memos to the Board. The applicant is required to develop a Storm Board Order - Wendt Appeals December 10, 1996 Page 6 Water Quality Plan for the reduction/elimination of storm water pollutants in Alamo Creek. This includes the construction of a water quality basin as well as other features to improve storm water quality. The applicant is also required to submit a storm water quality maintenance and monitoring plan which will identify a perpetual funding source and entity that will be responsible for the long-term maintenance and monitoring of the storm water quality program. Statement of Appeal Summary: Monitoring and maintenance of water quality, drainage facilities and contamination of the Siu's ecosystem should be funded by a property owners association. Staff Response:. Refer to the Response above. 6. Biology: Statement of Appeal Summary: A biologist has documented that the Wendt and Sui properties are foraging areas for a resident pair of American Peregrin Falcons. Staff Response: All grassland areas in the vicinity of the project site (including the TVPOA and Dougherty Valley areas) are generally suitable foraging habitat for the American Peregrin Falcon. The issue is whether the proposed project would create an adverse impact on this species. The relatively minor acreage of land to be used for this residential development (as compared to the open space lands in the vicinity) , does not justify a finding of significance. Statement of Appeal: Shapell should address pollution runoff issues (appellant references Impact Statement J.7) , and should be required to obtain the approval of a qualified hydrologist who has been approved by the appellant. Staff Response: All mitigation measures, which reduce this impact to a level of less than significant, have been incorporated in the permit conditions. Additional discussion is provided in response to Hydrology comments above. 7. Visual Quality, Light and Glare: Statement of Appeal Summary: Architectural and landscaping criteria should address minimizing degradation of visual quality, light, sound and glare to the Sui property. A representative of the Suis should be allowed to comment on submittals. The southwest group of sixteen lots should be eliminated or moved. Staff Response, The EIR analysis found that the residential project would contrast with some of the lands surrounding the site including the south and west boundaries, but did not find significant impacts on the Siu property based on light, sound or glare The appellant did not provide any information to support this Contention. However, the permit conditions include the common requirements regarding the reflectivity of structures (must be less than 50$) and the downward direction of exterior lighting (COA 42F) . The permit conditions address buffering between the Sui property and the sixteen lots located at the southwest portion of the site. The conditions require a site design evaluation which_ will consider altering the number of lots, the lot sizes, as well as lot use restrictions and other mechanisms to buffer the two uses. The evaluation must be reviewed with the Suis to obtain their comments prior to a decision by the Zoning Administrator. Board Order - Wendt Appeals December 10, 1996 Page 7 If the Board believes that these measures are not sufficient, and that the sixteen lots at the southwest portion of the site should be moved, the following replacement for Condition 43G is suggested: � eoc�aon 4 0 �te sixteen lots located at the �buthwest portion Qf the site to thenterYor of the site �r,��`��'° the��,ymu�tsple,.;,:;family areas,gat,w the northeaster the Fitesite design evelt2stion v. _. sixteen lots leented at! the sottthwest!ern portion of bi site considering 1L111difLiC8t!i02tS he assure p!roper bufferi e"luation she!! consider altering the ntmber of !%its, the lot sizes,as well as lot use restrictions and other lheel'TaniSY1T!—"t l bU f`er-the two t2ses. This evaluation s _ be reviewed with the property owners to obtain their conatterits prior to a decision by the Zoning :hdrtinistretor-. C. Permit Condition Modifications Recommended by Staff: The Public Works Department and the Community Development Department proposed several modifications to the permit conditions. These modifications have been previously presented to the Board. The recommendations from the Public Works Department are detailed in their memorandums dated November 15, 1996 and November 19, 1996. These documents have been attached as Exhibits D and E. The report prepared by the Community Development Department for the Board's November 19, 1996 hearing recommended that Condition #90 be amended to incorporate a change to an EIR mitigation measure which provides for the permanent protection of both branches of Alamo Creek. The following text should be added to Condition #90: x�or to the filing of the first final map; the <applcant shall;, provide perpetual on site protection of the wildlife corridor. both branches of Alamo Creek Such protectl'on may take the fr�n of conservation easements, dedication 'of deveiopment? ghts to the County, or another xequ2vlent anstument -cceptab e to the County y D. Further Discussion: The Public Works Department conditions of approval approved by the County Planning Commission on November 5, 1996 and the modifications to those conditions as recommended by staff in memorandums to the Board of Supervisors dated November 15, 1996 and November 19, 1996 adequately address the drainage and water quality issues raised in the appeal from Howard and Lettie Sui. As a courtesy to Dr. Siu, staff has met with the applicant and Dr. Siu since the November 19, 1996 Board hearing in an attempt to resolve their concerns about the project. Staff will provide a report on these meetings under separate cover and/or at the Board hearing on December 10, 1996. j:%wendtl.bo ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.3 December 17, 1996 Agenda On December 10, 1996, the Board of Supervisors closed the hearing and deferred to this date decision on the following matters: A. The request of Shapell Industries of Northern California (Applicant and Owner) for a Preliminary and Final Development Plan for 323 residential units, (County File # DP 3004- 96), DanvilleBlackhawk area; B. The request for an appeal by Shapell Industries of Northern California (Applicant and Owner) for approval of a vesting tentative map (Wendt Ranch), on the 165 acre parcel to allow for 323 residential lots, park, and open space parcels, (County File #SD 8002-96), DanvilleBlackhawk area; C. The request for an appeal by Howard and Lettie Siu (Appellants) from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the application of Shapell Industries of Northern California to modify the tentative map agreement (County File #SD 8002-96) Wendt Ranch, DanvilleBlackhawk area. The Board considered the issues presented. Supervisor DeSaulnier moved staffs Recommendations Nos. 1, 2, 3b, 4a, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Supervisor Canciamilla seconded the motion. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, requested clarification from Supervisor DeSaulnier whether the motion included the modifications to the proposed conditions of approval as described in the December 10, 1996, Memorandum from the Public Works Director? Supervisor DeSaulnier stated yes. Dennis Barry further requested clarification that if the motion included granting the appeal of Shapell with respect to the kit fox habitat, then the clerk is directed to modify the findings on file to reflect attachment B, included in the packet? Supervisor DeSaulnier concurred. Supervisor Rogers commented on the project as it related to Measure C. At the conclusion of the Board's discussion, IT IS ORDERED that staff Recommendations Nos. 1, 2, 3b, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 on the request of Shapell Industries of Northern California (Applicant and Owner) for a Preliminary and Final Development Plan for 323 residential units (County File #DP 3004-96), DanvilleBlackhawk area, are APPROVED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appeal of Shapell Industries of Northern California (Applicant and Owner), is APPROVED for a vesting tentative map (Wendt Ranch) on the 165 acre parcel to allow for 323 residential lots, park, open space parcels (County File #SD 8002-96), DanvilleBlackhawk area; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appeal by Howard and Lettie Siu (Appellants), from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the application of Shapell Industries of Northern California to modify the tentative map agreement (County File #SD 8002-96), on the Wendt property, DanvilleBlackhawk area, is DENIED.