HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10162001 - D.4 (3) TO- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
' Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR '`'` County
rn 2:diiN'�'
DATE: October 9, 2001
SUBJECT: HEARING ON THE APPEAL BY PETER OSTROSKY•(OWNER) OF THE SAN RAMON
VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL' OF THE TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO RESUBDIVIDE-THE-EXISTING
5.31 ACRE SITE INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMESITES AND AN 8
UNIT CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT FOR SENIORS 55 OR OLDER WITH 6 ATTACHED
"DUET" UNITS AND TWO DETACHED UNITS. PROPOSED- REZONING OF THE
PROPERTY IS FROM R-20 TO P-1 TO CREATE A CLUSTER TYPE DEVELOPMENT
WITH OPEN SPACE RATHER THAN CONVENTIONAL R-20 LOTS. THE SUBJECT
SITE IS LOCATED AT LIVORNA ROAD, INTERSTATE 680 AND SUGARLOAF DRIVE
IN THE ALAMO AREA, AND IS REFERED TO AS ALAMO GARDENS (SD988263,
RZ983069, DP983025).
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
UPHOLD the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's decision to
deny Subdivision 8263 and Development Plan 983025 (Resolution # 18-2001).
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITT E
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON_OrtobPr 9, 2001 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER U
See attached addendum for Board's-:action-:.
".
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
XX_UNANIMOUS(ABSENT Nnnt- ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES:_ ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
Contact: Michael Laughlin 335-1204 ATTESTED October 9, 2001
Community Development JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: County Counsel-Silvano Marchesi SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Public Works-Engineering Services, Heather Ballenger
Peter Ostrosky, Owner and Appellant �YI
Patricia Curtain, Owner's Representative
BY v , DEPUTY
October 9, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#'s: SD988263, RZ983069, FDP983025
Page 2
ALTERNATIVE BOARD ACTIONS
Listed below are two possible alternative actions that the Board could take on this appeal:
Alternative 1 (Deny the Project)
Adopt a motion to:
A. SUSTAIN the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission decision that the
Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate and consistent with the State CEQA
guidelines and County CEQA guidelines.
B. DENY the applicant's appeal and sustain the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission's denial of Subdivision 988263 and Development Plan 983025 utilizing
the findings made by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission as a
basis for this decision.
Alternative 2 (Approve the Project)
Adopt a motion to:
A. SUSTAIN the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission decision that the
Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate and consistent with the State CEQA
guidelines and County CEQA guidelines.
B. DECLARE the Board's intent to approve the applicant's appeal and overturn the San
Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's denial of Subdivision 988263 and
Development Plan 983025.
C. DIRECT staff to prepare findings for Board adoption and final Board action on the
appeal and to prepare an ordinance rezoning the property.
Alternative 3 (Approve the Project with modifications or reduction in density)
Adopt a motion to:
A. SUSTAIN the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission decision that the
Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate and consistent with the State CEQA
guidelines and County CEQA guidelines.
B. DECLARE the Board's intent to approve the applicant's appeal and overturn the San
Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's denial of Subdivision 988263 and
Development Plan 983025, and stating suggested modifications to the plans.
C. DIRECT staff to prepare findings for Board adoption and final Board action on the
appeal and to prepare an ordinance rezoning the property.
October 9, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#'s: SD988263, RZ983069, FDP983025
Page 3
FISCAL IMPACT
None. The applicant has paid application fees to process this project and is obligated to pay
supplemental fees for staff time and material costs which exceed 100% of the initial fee
payment. Conditions of approval require payment of fees and assessments and installation of
public and private improvements at the applicant's expense.
BACKGROUND
The site is a remainder of the Sugarloaf Hill subdivision which occurred in 1984. The original
subdivision area was 50 acres, 26.5 acres of which were required to be dedicated to open
space. Three of the parcels (50,53,54) are already subdivided for single family residential use
(shown as lots 9, 10 and 11 on the current plan). Parcels 48 and 49 are residual, vacant
parcels that were not proposed to be developed at the time. The owner had originally retained
the parcels for possible commercial rezoning and use, given the proximity of the property to
Highway 680 and Livorna Road. The CC&R's for the homes within the Sugarloaf Hill
subdivision made buyers aware of the intent to develop the property with a use potentially
different than single family residential development (see attached copy of the CC&R's
submitted by the applicant in Section 1 of the May 16, 2001 staff report). The owner is now
proposing development of this residual property for 8 clustered residential units (reduced by
two units since the December public hearing). Clustering of units serves to retain the drainage
course, mature trees and to keep steeper portions of the lot free from development. Site
grading will occur to create the access road, parking and pads for the residences. Retaining
walls are included in the project design since the site is below Sugarloaf Drive and Livorna
Road. The design of the project allows for the blocking of interior and exterior noise from
Interstate 680 to an acceptable level for the future residents of the project.
The development provides for a unique type of senior "step down" housing on a site which
does not lend itself to conventional single family residential development. Seniors wishing to
move out of their existing homes in the community would have an opportunity to do so, freeing
up single family housing stock. Providing housing options and types is a goal of the County's
Housing Element.
Objections have been raised about the density and cluster arrangement of the development
proposed, and the Alamo Improvement Association made a recommendation of denial on the
current proposal. Answers to the questions raised in their review letter are discussed in the May
16, 2001 staff report, attached. Neighbors have expressed opposition to the project, primarily
concerning the density and cluster housing type, which is dissimilar to the detached single-
family residential character of the neighborhood (see correspondence in Section 3 of the May
16, 2001 staff report).
SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONALPLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS
The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission (SRVRPC) held two hearings on this
matter on December 20, 2000 and May 16, 2001. At the first hearing the Planning Commission
took testimony concerning the project and indicated their intent to deny the project unless
changes were made. After the December meeting, the applicant reduced the number of units
October 9, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#'s: SD988263, RZ983069, FDP983025
Page 4
for the cluster portion of the development from 10 units to 8 units. At the May meeting, the
Commission reviewed the revised plans and felt that the revisions did not go far enough to
address their concerns. The Commission requested that staff present them with findings for
denial of the project at their June 20, 2001 meeting. The findings were adopted by majority
vote of the Commission, and are attached to the Commission resolution.
APPEAL
On June 27, 2001 an appeal was received by the owner and project proponent disagreeing
with the Commission's decision. The appeal letter is attached for reference.
APPEAL DISCUSSION
The Community Development Department made a recommendation for the approval of the
project to the Commission. The basis for this recommendation was made on the following
factors. The SRVRPC findings disagreeing with staff's findings are included in the discussion:
Environmental Review: The application was not found to have any significant environmental
impacts, based on the initial study and review conducted by staff, which included acoustical
reports and a photo simulation provided by the applicant. Since the project is relatively small
and is in an area zoned and designated for residential development, it will not create severe,
unmitigated adverse impacts upon the environment (also see Negative Declaration and Initial
Study in Section 2 of the May 16, 2001 staff report). The property is currently subdivided into 5
residential properties, so the net increase in the number of units is 6 units. Neighbors indicated
in testimony the difficulty in entering and exiting the existing subdivision from Livorna Road
during peak traffic periods. Guest parking impacts along Sugarloaf Terrace were documented
with photographs submitted at the May meeting, and are attached as recent information with
the appeal letter.
General Plan Compliance: In a review of General Plan polices which apply to the project,
numerous policies and the allowed land use density were used as arguments to support the
application (these are shown in italic). A discussion of these policies,with SRVRPC findings, is
also included. In reviewing these policies, the discussion in the introduction requires looking at
policies as a group rather than myopically focusing on a single policy which may support or not
support a proposed project.
Land Use and Density.
The property is designated Single Family Residential-Low Density (SL). The density allowed in
this category is 1.0 to 2.9 dwelling units/net acre. The proposed density is at the maximum of
2.9 dwelling units/net acre, based on the entire area of the rezoning, (5.31 acres) excluding
actual road improvements. Where improvements have not been proposed,the County General
Plan assumes a 25% right-of-way dedication. In this case, the road improvements are less
than 25% of the total site area (18.5%). One of the arguments against the original proposal
reviewed at the December hearing was that by drawing the P-1 rezoning boundary to include
the undeveloped single family lots, that the cluster development area was "borrowing" that
density to allow for more units on the site than would be allowed if the 3.22 acre site was
October 9, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File Ws: SD988263, RZ983069, FDP983025
Page 5
considered by itself. The applicant reduced the number of units on this portion of the site to 8,
so that this portion of the development does not borrow density. The two lots that comprise the
cluster development site are 3.22 gross acres. Subtracting the interior driveway and visitor
parking (0.40 acres), the net acreage is 2.82 acres. This would allow for up to 8 units under the
permitted General Plan density of 2.9 units per acre.
The SRVRPC made the finding that the predominant character of the Alamo area is detached,
single family residential development on larger lots. This project would introduce a type of
housing currently not found in the immediate area. They also felt that the density of the
proposed project was too high, as described in further detail below.
Land Use Element
Policy 3-8 Infilling already developed areas shall be encouraged.
Policy 3-18 Flexibility in the design of projects shall be encouraged in order to enhance scenic
qualities and provide for a varied development pattern.
Policy 3-27 Existing residential neighborhoods shall be protected from incompatible land uses
and traffic levels exceeding adopted service standards.
Policy 3-28 New residential development shall be accommodated only in areas where it will
avoid creating severe unmitigated adverse impacts upon the environment and upon the
existing community.
This project can be categorized as an infill development, and eventual development of the site
would be encouraged over development at the edge of developed areas in the County. The
primary issue is the density and type of the development. The AIA and neighbors would prefer
lower density single-family detached development, while the applicant sees the site as
appropriate for an attached and detached residential cluster type development.
Given the location of the site and site constraints, the architect has designed a project that
exhibits flexibility in design, protects all existing oak trees on the site and provides a varied
development pattern. As shown in the attached visual simulations in Section 2 of the May 16,
2001 staff report, the project with landscaping will be attractive. To the passer-by, the cluster
development will appear as 5 large single family homes based on the massing of the project in
two single and three paired units.
Since the project is residential in nature, it would be considered compatible. A commercial or
industrial use would be considered incompatible. However, the neighbors and AIA see the
project as incompatible since the proposed unit type differs from the single-family detached
units in the neighborhood. Community Development staff finds the project to be a compatible
land use and within the permitted density.
The adjoining property owners feel that the project will have a significant impact on the
community since it differs from the single family residential character of the neighborhood. In
addition, the AIA letter states a concern that the project will lower property values.
October 9, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#'s: SD988263, RZ983069, FDP983025
Page 6
From Staff's perspective, improvement of the property over the current undeveloped state
would tend to maintain or increase neighboring home values, particularly with the perimeter
landscaping on Livorna Road and Sugarloaf Drive. The target market for this project is well-off
seniors who will expect a high quality living environment and home.
The SRVRPC found that the project site can be categorized as an infill site, and that some
flexibility in design may be appropriate due to site constraints. The proposed cluster portion of
the development is not compatible with the existing residential neighborhood and neighborhood
development pattern which consists of single family homes on lots averaging one half acre.
The development is too dense given the visibility of the site and the site constraints. The type
and mass of structures proposed does not match the neighborhood development pattern.
Policies for the Alamo-Diablo-Blackhawk Area
Policy 3-135 Promote the individuality and unique character of each community based on
existing community images.
Policy 3-136 The character of the area as one of predominantly single family residences shall
be developed, and multiple family residential units shall be provided in suitable densities and
locations. A range of densities shall be offered in order to provide for a variety of family sizes,
income levels, and.age groups.
Policy 3-142 When rezoning in Alamo, the appropriate single family residential zoning will
include R-20, R-40, R-65 and R-100 and P-1. Both Alamo and Diablo have special
characteristics which preclude clustering in established areas.
The predominant character- of the Alamo area is detached, single family residential
development on larger lots. The architect has tried to mimic the mass of larger homes in the
neighborhood with the duet units. The exterior architecture has significant detailing for a high
quality appearance. As shown on the visual simulation, it will be difficult to distinguish the unit
type from surrounding vantage points.
This project would introduce a type of housing currently not found in the area. It would allow for
senior residents wishing to downsize from existing homes in the community to do so and
remain in the community. It can be argued that this site is appropriate for the type of housing
proposed, and no variances or density bonuses are requested. The site may not be desirable
for conventional single family residential development due to the freeway noise levels and
exposure to Livorna Road. If houses fronted on Sugarloaf Terrace, the rear yards would be
visually exposed from the freeway and other vantage points, and exterior noise would be
unmitigatable due to the elevated nature of the freeway. Depending on the rear yard
treatments, conventional development could be less attractive than a project with a
comprehensive plan and cohesive landscaping.
In this case, the applicant is proposing P-1 zoning. Clustering in this location mitigates noise
and preserves the trees and land north of the drainage area. Conventional subdivision or
development could place the scenic area under multiple ownerships and would not mitigate for
October 9, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#'s: SD988263, RZ983069, FDP983025
Page 7
noise. As shown on the visual simulations, the project would have a single story ranch style
appearance with a high pitched roof. Clustering of development for this site is supported by the
Community Development Department for the reasons stated in this report, and the same
concept could be used with a single family detached home type.
The SRVRPC found that the predominant character of the Alamo area is detached, single
family residential development on larger lots. This project would introduce a type of housing
currently not found in the immediate area. The site was not found to be suitable based on the
density and location. A more appropriate location was identified along Danville Boulevard and
other areas west of Interstate 680. The location is considered an established area, and
clustering is not appropriate.
The SRVRPC also found that the proposed density of the project, at approximately 2.5 dwelling
units/net acre, is inconsistent with the intent of General Plan policy 3-142 (above) that the
maximum net density in the residentially-designated, Alamo-Diablo-Blackhawk areas of the
General Plan be 1.9 DU/net acre, rather than 2.9 DU/net acre elsewhere, as evidenced by the
exclusion in Policy 3-142 of R-15 as an appropriate single family zoning designation in these
areas.
Transportation and Circulation Element
Policy 5-34 Scenic corridors shall be maintained with the intent of protecting attractive natural
qualities adjacent to various roads throughout the county.
Policy 5-36 Scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be conserved, enhanced, and
protected to the extent possible. Policy 5-37 The existing system of scenic routes shall be
enhanced to increase the enjoyment and opportunities for scenic pleasure driving to major
recreational and cultural centers throughout this and adjacent counties.
Policy 5-41 For lands designated for urban use along scenic routes, planned unit
developments shall be encouraged in covenant with land development projects.
Interstate 680 is a designated scenic corridor. Based on the visual simulations, the low base
elevation of the project and proposed landscaping, staff found that the project complies with
these policies.
The SRVRPC found that Interstate 680 is a designated scenic corridor. Livorna Road is a
gateway into the community. The project is not an appropriate gateway element, since it does
not reflect the predominant development pattern found on the east side of Interstate 680.
Housing Element
Goal 4,,Special Housing Needs
Program 4.2 Design flexibility for elderly projects. The objective is to encourage the
development and expansion of housing opportunities for the elderly.
October 9, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#'s: SD988263, RZ983069, FDP983025
Page 8
As previously mentioned, this project will provide for a unique type of senior housing within the
community. Given the lack of vacant land close to significant transportation routes (Livorna
Road and Interstate 680), this project would further the goals of the County Housing Element.
The SRVRPC found that this site is not appropriate for senior housing. The site is isolated and
limits walking opportunities for residents. The site is isolated and is not in close proximity to
shopping or other amenities for seniors. Noise and pollution exposure are high, and would
require that windows remain closed and mechanical ventilation be used (requiring more for
energy use and requiring higher spending on energy bills for individuals on a potentially fixed
income).
Public Facilities and Services Element
Policy 7-2 New development shall be required to pay its fair share of the cost of all existing
public facilities it utilizes, based upon the demand for these facilities which can be attributed to
new development.
The developer would be required to pay all fees associated with development as well as
provide for improvements on Livorna Road.
Noise Element
Policy 11-1 New projects shall be required to meet acceptable exterior noise level standards
as established in the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines contained in Figure 11-6.
These guidelines, along with the future noise level shown in the future noise contours.
Policy 11-2 The standard for outdoor noise levels in residential areas is a DNL of 60 dB.
However, a DNL of 60 DB or less may not be achievable in all residential areas due to
economic or aesthetic constraints. One example is small balconies associated with multi-family
housing. In this case, second and third story balconies maybe difficult to control to the goal. A
common outdoor use area that meets the goal can be provided as an alternative.
Policy 11-4 Title 24, Part 2, of the California Code of Regulations requires that new multiple
family housing projects, hotels and motels exposed to a DNL of 60 dB or greater have a
detailed acoustical analysis describing how the project will provide an interior DNL or 45 dB or
less. The also shall require new single-family housing projects to provide for an interior DNL of
45 dB or less.
The site is located in a high noise area due to the proximity of Highway 680. To comply with
the County General Plan, the project was designed in a circle to mitigate against exterior noise,
as is discussed in the acoustical reports submitted by the applicant. The project design will
allow for outdoor living areas to be at 60 dBA, and interior areas to be at 45dBA,within General
Plan guidelines.
Based on the two acoustical reports submitted with the application (and the opinion letter
concerning reflected noise), the project can mitigate exterior and interior noise levels so that
occupants can enjoy their living environment. The project will not contribute to a reflected noise
October 9, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#'s: SD988263, RZ983069, FDP983025
Page 9
increase due to its location below the freeway and location of other improvements in the
vicinity. The project itself will not contribute to significant noise in the vicinity since any noise
generated on the site (primarily auto noise) would be less than the ambient noise level created
by the freeway.
The SRVRPC found that this site is exposed to high noise levels. Even though noise can be
mitigated by the project design, aspects of the project are less than ideal for residents and
especially seniors. Bedroom orientation toward the freeway does not permit opening of
windows during the night, and there is high reliance on mechanical ventilation.
ADDENDUM TO ITEM DA
October 9, 2001
On this day, the Board of Supervisors considered the hearing of the appeal by Peter Ostrosky(owner)of
the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's denial of the tentative subdivision map and
development plan to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acre site into 3 single family residential homesites and .
an 8 unit cluster development for seniors 55 and older with 6 attached "duet" units and two detached units
and proposed rezoning of the property from R-20 to P-1 to create a cluster type development with open
space rather an conventional R-20 lots.
Dennis Barry, Director,Community Development Department and Michael Laughlin, Planner,
Community Development Department presented the staff report and recommendations. Also present was
Silvano Marchesi, County Counsel.
Following the Board's questions of staff,the Chair opened the Public Hearing and invited the public to
comment:
Patricia Curtin, Crosby Heafey, Roach &May, (Attorney for Peter Ostrosky, Appellant) 1999
Harrison Street, Suite 2600, Oakland, Ca;
Stephen Harriman, 47 Quail Court,#309, Walnut Creek;
Ed Antenucci, 21 Tanbark Lane, Alamo;
Dale Bridges, 3212 Danville Blvd., Alamo;
George Henebury, 570 Marble Canyon Lane, San Ramon, Ca
Brad Horton, 1483 Danville Blvd.,Alamo;
Elvin L. VanZee,Walnut Creek;
Roger Hill, 1154 Tilson Drive, Concord;
Jack Behseresht, 1350 Sugarloaf Drive, Alamo;
Karla Smith, 1335 Sugarloaf Drive, Alamo;
Karol Bush, 41 Sugarloaf Terrace, Alamo;
Ted Upland,41 Sugarloaf Lane,Alamo;
Mike Ziemann, 3975 Beechwood Drive, Concord;
Chuck Schiller, 1365 Sugarloaf Drive,Alamo;
George DeLima, 1315 Sugarloaf Drive, Alamo;
Charles Wall, 333 Camille Avenue,Alamo;
Anna Choy, 1345 Sugarloaf Drive, Alamo;
The public hearing was closed. The Board resumed discussing the matter. Supervisor Gerber
moved to adopt alternative#3 of the staff report, which is to approve the project with
modification or reduction to density. Supervisor Gerber advised that her modifications would be
to eliminate the two single detached units, and make them attached units. This would allow for a
tighter cluster, moving the retaining wall further from Sugarloaf Drive and the open space area.
She directed staff work with the applicant regarding the modifications and return to the Board in
30 days for adoption and final action.
Supervisor Uilkema asked Silvano Marchesi, County Counsel, if it would be appropriate to re-
open the public hearing, since the recommendations had been modified. Mr. Marchesi suggested
that staff make the proposed changes and notice the public hearing on the amended proposal.
Supervisor Gerber moved to re-open the public hearing and Supervisor Gioia second the motion.
October 9, 2001
D.4/Ostrosky
Page 2
After further discussion, Supervisor Gerber restated her motion to adopt alternative#3 in the
staff report as modified and continues the matter to December 11, 2001 at 11:00. Supervisor
Gioia second the motion and the Board voted unanimously on the following action:
1. CONTINUED the public hearing to December 11,2001 at 11:00 a.m.;
2. SUSTAINED the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission decision that the Mitigated
Negative Declaration is adequate and consistent with the State CEQA guidelines and County CEQA
guidelines;
3. DECLARED the Board's intent to approve the applicant's appeal and overturn the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission's denial of Subdivision 98-8263 and Development Plan 98-3025,and
stating suggested modifications to the plans as outlined this date;
4. DIRECTED staff to prepare findings for board adoption and final Board action on the appeal and to
prepare an ordinance rezoning the property.
ALAMO GARDENS
BOARD ORDER ATTACHMENTS
• APPEAL LETTER
• SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION & FINDINGS FOR
DENIAL
• PHOTOGRAPHS SUBMITTED BY
NEIGHBORS AT THE MAY 165 2001
SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL
PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING
Peter Ostrosky
17 Sugarloaf Terrace
Alamo,CA 94507
June 21, 2001 --
Application and Permit Center
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, Second Floor,North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: DP983025,RZ983069, SD988263
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I wish to appeal the decision and the findings made by the San Ramon Valley Area Planning
Commission on June 20,2001 relative to the referenced applications.
Specifically, I am appealing the denial of SD 988263. 1 understand that the rezoning and the
associated development plan items will go to the Board of Supervisors automatically. If that
is not the case, then I wish to appeal the action on those items as well.
Enclosed is a check for $125. and a set of stamped envelopes for all property owners within
300 feet of the proposed project.
Yours truly,
A
Peter Ostrosky
RESOLUTION NO. 18-2001
U I AU'G' l J A 1' 3"7
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION,
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF
DENIAL FOR THE ALAMO GARDENS PROJECT (RZ983069 and DP983035) AND
TENTATIVE MAP TRACT 8263 (SD 988363).
WHEREAS, the owner, Peter Ostrosky, proposes to construct the Alamo Gardens
Project, which consists of a plan to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acres into 3 single family
residential homesit:es and an 8 unit cluster development (for seniors aged 55 or older) with 6
attached units and two detached units; and
WHEREAS, notice of the hearing having been lawfully given, the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held public hearings on the applicant's
requests on December 13, 2000 and May 16, 2001, and during the hearings considered comments
from the Contra Costa County staff, the project applicant, the project technical consultants, and
all interested members of the public who wished to speak; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has fully reviewed, considered, and evaluated all
the testimony, evidence and comments submitted in this matter; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, at their
meeting of June 20, 2001 recommends to deny the project based on the findings attached to this
resolution as Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the 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 planning laws of the State of California.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare
this resolution were given by motion of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on
Wednesday June 20, 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Gibson, McPherson, Mulvihill, Matsunaga
NOES: Commissioners - Neely
ABSENT: Commissioners - Jeha, Couture
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None
Page 2
WHEREAS, in a letter received June 27,2001, following the decision on this application by
the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission,the property owner appealed the San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission's denial of File#'s DP983025, RZ983069 and SD988263
(Alamo Gardens Subdivision) to the Board of Supervisors.
Nancy J. Mulvihill
Chair of the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission
County of Contra Costa, State of California
ATTEST:
DENNIS M. BARRY, Secretary
San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission,
County of Contra Costa,
State of California
EXHIBIT A
.Alamo Gardens Findings Adopted by the
San Ramon Regional Planning Commission
On June 20, 2001
Rezoning County File #RZ983069
Preliminary and Final Development Plan File #DP983025
Tentative Map File #SD988263
Alamo Area
PETER OSTROSKY (Owner)
Project Findings
File#'s RZ983069,DP983025, SD988263
Alamo Area
I. General Considerations
A. Reliance on Record. Each and all of the findings and
determinations contained herein are based on the competent and substantial
evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the
Project and constitute the independent findings and determinations of this
Commission.
B. Nature of Findings. This Commission intends that these findings
be considered as an integrated whole, whether or not any part of these findings
fail to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these findings.
If any required finding is contained in any portion of this findings document, it
shall be deemed to have not been satisfied.
II. General Plan and Existing Zoning
The property is designated Single Family Residential-Low Density (SL). The
density allowed in this category is .1.0 to 2.9 dwelling units/net acre. The
proposed density is close to the maximum of 2.9 dwelling units/net acre, based on
the entire area of the rezoning, (5.31 acres) excluding actual road improvements.
Where improvements have not been proposed, the County General Plan assumes a
25% right-of-way dedication. In this case, the road improvements are less than
25%v of the total site area (18.5%).
The areas to the south, north and east of the project site are also designated Single
Family Residential-Low Density (SL).
The subject parcel is currently zoned Single Family Residential, R-20 (minimum
20,000 square foot gross parcel size required). A rezoning to a Planned Unit
Development (P-1) is requested by the applicant, which requires a minimum of 5
acres to establish.
The area to the south, north and east of the project site is also zoned Single
Family Residential, R-20 (minimum 20,000 square foot gross parcel size
required). Interstate 680 is directly west of the project site.
II. Project Description
The applicant is proposing to create 8 new residential parcels with one common
area parcel for a senior housing development (area is currently two lots). Each
person would own the property on which the unit, driveway, and outdoor living
area sit. Each of the units share half of the entry courtyard that is shared with an
adjoining owner. Each owner would have partial ownership of the common area.
The remaining 3 lots for single family development were previously divided
2
Project Findings
File#'s RZ983069,DP983025, SD988263
Alamo Area
under subdivision 6468 and would not be part of the new homeowner's
association since none of these lots have any common areas (the CC&R's that
currently apply to those properties would remain in effect). The boundary of the
Planned Unit Development proposal was drawn to meet the 5-acre minimum area
required by the County for a P-1 rezoning.
The three single family residential sites have graded pads and utility hookups and
are ready for development. The remaining area can best be described as a bowl,
with the main area of development below Livorna Road, Sugarloaf Terrace and
Interstate 680. An access roadway and retaining walls are proposed to provide
access to the units. A segment of a drainage course extends along the northern
side of the property, and will be retained in its present location. Drainage for the
project will be directed to the existing culvert which extends under Interstate 680.
Existing trees occur in this same riparian area. A steep hillside area occurs to the
northwest, between the back of 2 existing residences and the freeway. Due to
access, slope, noise and proximity to the freeway, development of this area is not
feasible. This area and the drainage course area will be part of a common area lot
maintained by the homeowners association. The scenic easement (which now
only covers the drainage areas and trees) would be expanded to include all of this
hillside area.
III. Ordinance Code Requirements and Project Findings
Pursuant to Section 26-2.2022 of the Ordinance Code, it is the Project Applicant's
burden to produce evidence to convince the County Planning Agency that all
standards are met and the intent and purpose of the applicable regulations and
goals and objectives of the General Plan will be satisfied. Failure to satisfy this
burden shall result in a denial. The applicant submitted evidence supporting the
project and compliance with General Plan policies, and the Commission disagreed
with the interpretation presented.
Based on evidence and testimony submitted to the San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission, the Commission determines that the Project Applicant has
not met the burden of proof to convince the Commission that the Project will
satisfy the following findings that are required by County Code:
A. Findings Pertaining to Approval of a Rezoning Application
(Section 26-2.1806 of the County Code)
1. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply
with the General Plan.
The Planning Commission considered the following General Plan
policies:
3
Project Findings
File#'s RZ983069,DP983025, SD988263
Alamo Area
Land Use Element
Policy 3-8 Infilling already developed areas shall be
encouraged.
Policy 3-18 Flexibility in the design of projects shall be
encouraged in order to enhance scenic qualities and
provide for a varied development pattern.
Policy 3-27 Existing residential neighborhoods shall be
.protected from incompatible land uses and traffic
levels exceeding adopted service standards.
Policy 3-28 New residential development shall be
accommodated only in areas where it will avoid
creating severe unmitigated adverse impacts upon
the environment and upon the existing community.
Finding: This Commission finds that the project site can be
categorized as an infill site, and that some flexibility in design
may be appropriate due to site constraints. The proposed
cluster portion of the development is not compatible with the
existing residential neighborhood and neighborhood
development pattern which consists of single family homes on
lots averaging one half acre. The development is too dense
given the visibility of the site and the site constraints. The type
and mass of structures proposed does not match the
neighborhood development pattern. Concern was expressed
about the impact of the project on existing property values.
Evidence: Testimony before the Commission, County General
Plan, observation of Commissioners.
Policies for the Alamo-Diablo-Blackhawk Area
Policy 3-135 Promote the individuality and unique character of
each community based on existing community
images.
Policy 3-136 The character of the area as one of predominantly
single-family residences shall be developed, and
multiple family residential units shall be provided in
suitable densities and locations. A range of
densities shall be offered in order to provide for a
4
Project Findings
File#'s RZ983069,DP983025,SD988263
Alamo Area
variety of family sizes, income levels, and age
groups.
Policy 3-142 When rezoning in Alamo, the appropriate single
family residential zoning will include R-20, R-40,
R-65 and R-100 and P-1. Both Alamo and Diablo
have special characteristics which preclude
clustering in established areas.
Finding: The Commission finds that the predominant
character of the Alamo area is detached, single family
residential development on larger lots. This project would
introduce a type of housing currently not found in the
immediate area. The site was not found to be suitable based on
the density and location. A more appropriate location was
identified along Danville Boulevard and other areas west of
Interstate 680. The location is considered an established area,
and clustering is not appropriate.
The Commission also finds that the proposed density of the
project, at approximately 2.5 dwelling units/net acre, is
inconsistent with the intent of General Plan policy 3-142
(above) that the maximum net density in the residentially-
designated, Alamo-Diablo-Blackhawk areas of the General
Plan be 1.9 DU/net acre, rather than 2.9 DU/net acre
elsewhere, as evidenced by the exclusion in Policy 3-142 of R-
15 as an appropriate single family zoning designation in these
areas.
Evidence: Testimony before the Commission, County General
Plan, observation of Commissioners.
Transportation and Circulation Element
Policy 5-34 Scenic corridors shall be maintained with the intent
of protecting attractive natural qualities adjacent to
various roads throughout the county.
Policy 5-36 Scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be
conserved, enhanced, and protected -to the extent
possible.
Policy 5-37 The existing system of scenic routes shall be
enhanced to increase the enjoyment and
opportunities for scenic pleasure driving to major
5
Project Findings
File#'s RZ983069, DP983025, SD988263
Alamo Area
recreational and cultural centers throughout this and
adjacent counties.
Policy 5-41 For lands designated for urban use along scenic
routes, planned unit developments shall be
encouraged in covenant with land development
projects.
Finding: The Commission finds that Interstate 680 is a
designated scenic corridor. Livorna Road is a gateway into the
community. The project is not an appropriate gateway
element, since it does not reflect the predominant development
pattern found on the east side of Interstate 680.
Evidence: Testimony before the Commission, County General
Plan, observation of Commissioners.
Housing Element
Goal 4, Special Housing Needs
Program 4.2 Design flexibility for elderly projects. The
objective is to encourage the development and
expansion of housing opportunities for the elderly.
Finding: The Commission finds that this site is not appropriate
for senior housing. The site is isolated and limits walking
opportunities for residents. The site is isolated and is not in
close proximity to shopping or other amenities for seniors.
Noise and pollution exposure are high, and would require that
windows remain closed and mechanical ventilation be used
(requiring more for energy use and requiring higher
spending).
Evidence: Testimony before the Commission, County General
Plan, observation of Commissioners.
Noise Element
Policy 11-1 New projects shall be required to meet acceptable
exterior noise level standards as established in the
Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
contained in Figure 11-6. These guidelines, along
with the future noise level shown in the future noise
contours.
6
Project Findings
File#'s RZ983069,DP983025, SD988263
Alamo Area
Policy 11-2 The standard for outdoor noise levels in residential
areas is a DNL of 60 dB. However, a DNL of 60
DB or less may not be achievable in all residential
areas due to economic or aesthetic constraints One
example is small balconies associated with multi-
family housing. In this case, second and third story
balconies may be difficult to control to the goal. A
common outdoor use area that meets the goal can be
provided as an alternative.
Policy 11-4 Title 24, Part 2, of the California Code of
Regulations requires that new multiple family
housing projects, hotels and motels exposed to a
DNL of 60 dB or greater have a detailed acoustical
analysis describing how the project will provide an
interior DNL or 45 dB or less. The also shall
require new single-family housing projects to
provide for an interior DNL of 45 dB or less.
Finding: The Commission finds that this site is exposed to high
noise levels. Even though noise can be mitigated by the project
design, aspects of the project are less than ideal for residents
and especially seniors. Bedroom orientation toward the
freeway does not permit opening of windows during the night,
and there is high reliance on mechanical ventilation.
Evidence: Testimony before the Commission, County General
Plan, observation of Commissioners.
2. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use
district are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in
adjacent districts.
Finding: The Commission finds that the use proposed in the R-
20 district (the cluster development portion with attached
units) is not compatible to uses within the'district and uses
authorized in adjacent districts.
Evidence: Testimony before the Commission, County General
Plan, observation of Commissioners.
3. Required Finding: Community need has been demonstrated for the
use proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future
financial success.
7
Project Findings
File#'s RZ983069, DP983025,SD988263
Alamo Area
Finding: The Commission finds that community need has been
demonstrated for the use based on the County need for senior
housing. However, the site is not a desirable location for senior
housing. The site is isolated and limits walking opportunities
for residents. The site is isolated and is not in close proximity
to shopping or other amenities for seniors. Noise and pollution
exposure are high, and would require that windows remain
closed and mechanical ventilation be used (requiring more for
energy use and requiring higher spending).
Evidence: Testimony before the Commission, County General
Plan, observation of Commissioners.
B. Findings Pertaining to Approval of a Planned Unit District
Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Development Plans (Section
84-66.1804 of the County Code)
1. Required Finding: The proposed planned unit development is
consistent with the County General Plan.
Finding: For the reasons set forth in Part III A, above, the
Commission does not find the proposed rezoning and
development plan consistent with the General Plan.
Evidence: Testimony before the Commission, County General
Plan, observation of Commissioners.
2. Required Finding: Inthe case of residential development, it will
constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and
stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood and community.
Finding: The Commission finds that the proposed residential
environment does not have sustained desirability and stability.
Guest parking is limited, as well as resident amenities. Safe
construction of retaining walls and proximity of retaining walls
to Sugarloaf Terrace and Livorna Road was identified as a
concern. As previously stated, the proposed cluster portion of
the development differs from the single family residential
nature of the surrounding neighborhood and community.
Evidence: Posted tentative map/final development plan and project
plans, testimony before the Commission, and observation of
Commissioners.
8
Project Findings
File#'s RZ983069,DP983025, SD988263
Alamo Area
3. Required Finding: The development of a harmonious integrated
plan justifies exceptions from the normal application of this code.
Finding: Since the Commission did not find this project to be a
harmonious plan in finding B.2. above, the Commission also
finds that the exceptions to the normal application of the code
are not justified for this project.
Evidence: Posted tentative map/final development plan and project
plans, testimony before the Commission, and observation of
Commissioners.
C. Finding Pertaining to Approval of a Tentative Subdivision.Map
(Section 94-2.806 of the County Code)
Required Finding: The advisory agency shall not approve a
tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision,
together with the provisions for its design and improvements, is
consistent with the applicable General and Specific plans required
by law.
Finding: The Commission did not find this project to be
consistent with the General Plan in findings under section A,
above, and therefore does not find the proposed subdivision
consistent with the General Plan. Proposed design and
improvements for the cluster development include a circular
road utilizing the entire width of the lower site and retaining
walls which were close to Livorna Road and Sugarloaf Terrace
that could be reduced in height if the road were reconfigured
and the project density reduced.
Evidence: Posted tentative map/final development plan and project
plans, General Plan, testimony before the Commission, and
observation of Commissioners.
9
'15 s
r f
t � x
Y Y i
{ A.,
71 _
y�Tz"3l
NIP
mw OW
• - . •
40 s • . • . • • - .
}n
f
'r
L
i
1 I
' I
i
I
i
zr�1 I y S�r 7 r F# i ' ,.:4 l :•.x r Y may.Al
�
-y'F.r-I�t, 't�} ii#FF.r t 777
F•c.s i c.„ ..T! „�.. .>t •L'r` :dam`c" "''j �+ 4�N
3% t Z '
I—,w
�' WWI
j l t `��. ,a r,'1... -• '"
,,,�
aK�Y�t }'�� C�, ��.y y '{�`-2 4�•t�,�°' cy� 4T�2�'�F�l�Z13..i f�i x�isA,�''�,,
.
�`�� 'fin k��.:i •° ,.k�'a sf� �. _
0
NOTIFICATION .
LIST
187 150 022 187 171 027 187 171 029
Walnut Creek City Of David Wei Chen&Anne Yang Enunanucl &Teresa Roman
1445 Civic Dr 81 Sugarloaf Ln 60 Sugarloaf Ln
Walnut Creek. CA 94596 Alamo. CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507
187 171 029 187 171 030 187 171 (.).,1
Roger&Pamela Loar Iraj & Elizabeth Behseresht D;1,id & Rita Little
1360 Sugarloaf Dr 1350 Sugarloaf Dr 1340 Sugarloaf Dr
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507
187 171 032 187 171033,
Michael &Diana Makieve Joseph & Nicki Hobby
1330 Sugarloaf Dr 1320 Sugarloaf Dr
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
187 171 036 187 171 037 .187 171 038
Michael & Esther Chon Anthem & Kelli Durantc \Villi;un N, K;1101 Bush
29 Sugarloaf Ter 35 Sugarlonl'Ter 41 Su arloaf'l e1
Alamo. CA 94507 Alanlo. CA 94507 :\lanai. CA 94507
187 171 039 I S/ 171 040 1x7 1 7 1 10 1
Robert &Rosemaij,Zeman Jack & Wren Taylor ibdjrk .luln;lc:1
68 Sugarloaf Ln 72 Sugarloaf Ln 71 S11g;II10;11'L.n
Alamo. CA 94507 .Alamo. CA 94507 \I;nno. ('A 94507
187 171 042 Is7 171 t)J4
Richard & Shem,Dorfman Cilc,on & Lettc Vcrvais
S0 Sugarloaf Ln ,a Sud;urlo;11'Tcr
Alamo. CA 94507 Akmiu. C'.A 94.50
I87 171 045 IS7 171 040 1.�7 1 1 1)a7
Mansour& Simin Zabetian Lara Bam & Dena Est ad;1 :\11;01 N. Ar11, \\/it
Kimia Zabetian 12 Srlgarloaf Tcr P() Box 3?r
28 Sugarloaf Ter �� Alamo. CA 94507 \V;11nu1 C reek. CA 9459s
Alamo, CA 94507
�D
187 171 0=48
Peter Ostrosky&OSTROSKY ENTER
17 Sugarloaf Ter
Alanio, CA 94507
187 171 051 187 171 (li7
Carl Stephen& Karen Johnson Theodore & Arlene Upland III Valerie Ellmn
61 Sugarloaf Ln 41 Ulmndlcr Blvd
Alamo. CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94i(.)7 N I loll,,%ood. CA 9 100
187 330 009 1 S7 .+.,1) (1111 1\7 11 ()I I
Neil Arlhrlr& Karla S(nilh Ronald Kallllcen Peterson George & Rosa Dclilu;l
1335 Sugarloaf Dr 132i Sugarloal'Dr (.')74 12mg hon Dr
Alamo. CA 94507 ,Alamo. CA 94507 CA 1)4i6S
IN733U017
Ronald Peterson Itodcho c` Carolina Padicrnos
1340 Sugarloaf Dr 4 I ; Itocklord Dr
Alamo. CA 94507 Antioch. CA 94509
c
187 330 020 187 330 027 I N7 330 028
Clement& Anna Choy Miles Sandstrom &Lillian Nemetr. Thonuis& Mate Lamincrs
1345 Sugarloaf Dr PO Box 528. 1309 Lavc-ock Ln
Alamo. CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507
192 240 007 192 240 009 192 '40 n 14
Rlf&Candi Gester Jamcs&Pamela Cooper iIMaximilian & Doina Vlasachc
1251 Laverock Ln 1280 Laverock Ln 1290 Ln crock Ln
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo- CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507
192 240 015 193 240 017 192 250 002
John & Joan Russillo J.isun cl� Gini Renner Lco I I;in "I sclmnicr III
1260 Laverock Lit 12i l I.;ncruck Lit I'a I I..;i\crock Ln
Alamo. CA 04507 Akimo. CA 94507 AL mu. UA 94507
Dr,
14 6o ?
Eric Hasseltine
Alamo Parks &Recreation Committee
3182 Old Tunnel Rd #E P.O. Box 1062
Lafayette,CA 94549 Alamo,CA 94507-9998
Alamo Improvement Association Isakson& Associates,Inc.
P.O.Box 271 Civil Engineering
Alamo,CA 94507 2255 Ygnacio Valley Rd., Ste C
Walnut Creek,CA 94598
City of Walnut Creek
1666 North Main Street
Walnut Creek,CA 94596
PETITION FROM NEIGHBORS
OPPOSED TO THE PROJECT
SUBMITTED OCTOBER 4, 2001
Petition to Board of Supervisors Against Alamo Gardens Rezoning Request
(Contra Costa County File # SD988263, RZ983008,. DP983025)
Partial Listing of Sugarloaf Neighbors Opposed to`'Alamo Gardens
The following Sugarloaf Neighbors (voters) are vehemently opposed to multi-family dwellings on Sugarloaf Drive in Alamo for the
following reasons:
1. It is strongly opposed by the San Pamen Valley Planning Commission, the Alamo Improvemp^.* AFsoriation and
the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). It is the wrong look for this entrance to Alamo.
2. Building high density multi-family dwellings in a small community zoned for single family residences will materially
reduce property values, quality of life and violates Alamo's General Plan.
3. It violates Policy 3-142 of the County General Plan (which precludes clustered housing in established Alamo
neighborhoods) and the Sugarloaf Homeowner Association CC&Rs. The ARC has not approved it.
"!2 y 6 U(2v TT yr
Ul v �� 1� -TSI Jac= � J, oy 2 a
w,on-nvt
s OOc� Afcmo
Lo U I`C ; `-� 3 �R SESfto� .
, CT (.uc 9<�59 LQZ
Lk' �A s� 1`2 1 '6 1 s__ L—c.'-te" c- v1,/I
6 i
a-o Alc-M • Lr-)
�t5cTLdl
�- _ > c� 4 � it -91Z6_1101
f 8d 1 M ir w1c(a Crc
�
P�
to n�a- �X11 Le TrA
C�
-- - - �
TZI
Ten-K -a,
3 90 dVlC 67
. 13 10 Lod e�R o 0- --R-
t m LA o U P � =-- -- — - -- - --
_ 13 k o �-
irieS To
`w,- - -,
............... . .._
eftro
y vio)V J —Ou I c
71
Petition to Board of Supervisors Against Alamo Gardens Rezoning Request
(Contra Costa County File # SD988263, RZ983068, DP983025)
Partial Listing of Sugarloaf Neighbors Opposed to Alamo Gardens
The following Sugarloaf Neighbors(voters) are vehemently opposed to multi-family dwellings on Sugarloaf Drive in Alamo for the
following reasons:
1. It is strongly opposed by the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission, the Alamo Improvement Association and
the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). It is the wrong look for this entrance to Alamo.
2. Building high density multi-family dwellings in a small community zoned for single family residences will materially
reduce property values, quality of life and violates Alamo's General Plan.
3. It violates Policy 3-142 of the County General Plan (which precludes clustered housing in established Alamo
neighborhoods) and the Sugarloaf Homeowner Association CC&Rs. The ARC has not approved it.
r L�' l/n n !7 tl--f e;/o c '' 914 !le 4,1,o-t 6(),n, UJ6' C ,!/ 5..
�.
1
- v ,_iii_
I
-- - I *61
o Board of Supervisors Against Alamo Gardens Rezoning Request
ontra Costa County File # S13988263, RZ983068, DP983025)
f.
artial Listing of Sugarloaf Neighbors Opposed to Alamo Gardens
";;-?ng Sugarloaf Neighbors (voters) are vehemently opposed to multi-family dwellings on Sugarloaf Drive in Alamo for the
f0/1,1(.reason5:
1.,5 strongly opposed by the San Ramon Valley-Planning Commission, the Alamo Improvement Association and
ie Architectural Review Committee (ARC). It is the wrong look for this entrance to Alamo.
2:Building high density multi-family dwellings in a small community zoned for single family residences will materially
reduce property values, quality of life and violates Alamo's General Plan.
3. It violates Policy 3-142 of the County General Plan (which precludes clustered housing in established Alamo
neighborhoods) and the Sugarloaf Homeowner Association CC&Rs. The ARC has not approved it.
q 13ilo
CY
vr'�p
5-- 0 7c—(twl�o0
Volt,,;
- / i
�.. -f
I e.1 10 tc1L
C c,, C$zvc�L.
I
Petition to Board of Supervisors Against Alamo Gardens Rezoning Request
(Contra Costa County File # S13988263, RZ983068, DP983025)
Partial Listing of Sugarloaf Neighbors Opposed to Alamo Gardens
The following Sugarloaf Neighbors (voters) are vehemently opposed to multi-family dwellings on Sugarloaf Drive in Alamo for the
following reasons:
1. It is strongly oppoc_d ty the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission, the N--mo improvement Association and
the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). It is the wrong look for this entrance to Alamo.
2. Building high density multi-family dwellings in a small community zoned for single family residences will materially
reduce property values, quality of life and violates Alamo's General Plan.
3. It violates Policy 3-142 of the County General Plan (which precludes clustered housing in established Alamo
neighborhoods) and the Sugarloaf Homeowner Association CC&Rs. The ARC has not approved it.
/��Q�ratl
r ? ' "ffllll�
_ "
' ROOM
'.e• .sem-•.._ _3F• ti;�' � ..,�. :..
�Ja+c=`:s:. .tiv�?SYyi-_YSi-• �.5c'Ca. 'v aF
f
(4_4AL Lc�) F �34AL
C1D C
10 NJ
11"'./afTLfii_f
'J 1/ 20 Aka��;
May-A01 C
7A�
_.......... - - - _ _ - - -- ---- -- - ---- - --
Petition to Board of Supervisors Against Alamo Gardens Rezoning Request
(Contra Costa County File ## SD988263, RZ983068, DP983025)
Partial Listing of Sugarloaf Neighbors Opposed to Alamo Gardens
The following Sugarloaf Neighbors (voters) are vehemently opposed to multi-family dwellings on Sugarloaf Drive in Alamo for the
following reasons:
1. It is strongly opposed by the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission, the Alamo Improvement Association and
the Ai c;iitectural Review Committee (ARC). It is the wrong iuuk for this entrance to Alamo.
2. Building high density multi-family dwellings in a small community zoned for single family residences will materiall
reduce property values, quality of life and violates Alamo's General Plan.
3. It violates Policy 3-142 of the County General Plan (which precludes clustered housing in established Alamo
neighborhoods) and the Sugarloaf Homeowner Association CC&Rs. The ARC has not approved it.
S arloaf, e 'h o Pr t etA�ddress; rine gna ur[e Date
i m 1- ol . n"3+ZA
[
A,44
301 v a D!
05/04/00 C:\WIND0W5\Temporary Intemet Files\Conten[.[E5\NVI3GRRH\sugarloaf°/o20nb%20petition%20against°/o20alamo%20gardens%209%2d22[tJ.doc
APPEAL
PETER OSTROSKY (OWNER AND APPELLANT)
COUNTY FILES: SD988263, RZ983069, DP983025
Hearing on the appeal by Peter Ostroksky (Owner) of the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission's denial of the Tentative Subdivision Map and
Development Plan to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acre site into 3 single family
residential homesites and an 8 unit cluster development.
in the Alamo area.
Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
October 9, 2001
11:30 A.M.
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM �
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing the Board. -
• Name: �75Wa-W Z2 a9 AAA/ Phone: L 9,34-1/400
Address: aVA-/L City:YL1,4LN07 r�flL
I am speaking for myself or organization: tJ5;��y�
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # 42- 4 Date: /0- 9. 0/
My comments will be: general for -)� against
• GL=NEaia L //✓G0gm4770"— / .4M T/-IL?
I wish to speak on the subject of ;42GW/rEGT Fcuzyao)�4&
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
i
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your, agenda •
item is to be considered.
2 . You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4 . Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
support documentation if available before speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid •
repeating comments made by previous speakers.
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all
persons may be heard) .
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing the Board.
•
Name: \_ b (�7.1 T LA c-,G L Phone: Cg �SyZ(o '7 ZOb
Address: 2 �C P.rJ L3 w,2K City: llgz&� O
I am speaking for myself _ or organization:
' (name of organization)
CHECK ONE: '
J)� I wish to speak on Agenda Item TJ 4 Date: LP�l I/n
My comments will be: general for against
• I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
SPEAKERS
.1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda
item is to be considered.
•
2 . You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3 . Begin by stating your name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
support documentation if available before speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers. •
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all
persons may be heard) .
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM (�
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) 91 /
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: Aelge -5 Phone: 1,66/
Address: q,11d.)&Vy—l[/F 61u/J City: d
I am speaking for myself or organization:
' (name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: 10 -9-a001
My comments will be: general f=r - against
• I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse slide) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda
item is to be considered.
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium`
3. Begin by stating your name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
I
4 . Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
,•.sbgpbrt documentation if available before speaking. ,
5. Limit yourpresentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers. •
(The- Chair may limit length of presentations so all '
persons may be heard) .
I
I
I
I
I
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing the Board.
• Name Phone:
Address: ,1`7eZ`J� C4AIyo,y Z- ti City: YY
I am speaking for myself or organization: B'tE
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # T Date: /a - 9-
My comments will be: general —X against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
SPEAKERS
;
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your :agenda
item is to be considered.
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please..speak into the microphone at..the, podium.
;
3. Begin by 'stating your name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
;
4 . Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
support documentation if available before speaking. :
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers.
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all;
persons may be heard) .
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM
THREE 3 MINUTE LIMIT
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing the Board.
•
Name: �[<A,1--) 4'1D A) Phone: IZ S 7 6 � �p
Address: f qqq ��t�vl `� City: /4 /,4IM D
I am speaking for myself or organization: -et-cc� �Sf�dSk
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # �' Date:
My comments will be: general for against
a
• I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
i
SPEAKERS
i
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda
item is to be considered.
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
i
3'. Begin by stating your name and address and whether ,
you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
support documentation if available before speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers. •
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all
persons may be heard) .
i
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM
2)_Y,—
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing the Board.
• Name: '�=��`� I� lid Phone:` --�3
Address: � /�V 61� ``� '"''�- City:(*Iw ��eez
I am speaking for myself or organization:
-�
( me of organization)
CHECK O s
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: �to1 C)
My comments will be: generalfor � against
• I wish to speak on the subject of rw d!a f"11^t/s�
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
SPEAKERS
i
i
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda
item is to be considered.
2 . You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
i
3 . Begin by stating your name and address and whether i
you are speaking for yourself or as the i
representative of an organization.
4 . Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
support documentation if available before speaking.
i
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers.
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so. all ' •
persons may be heard) .
i
i
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing the Board.
ciy 5
• Name: �5 , ( 1 Phone: `�`-�3-2-��-�
Address: 5`ti Ti S ^f �� City• ��✓�O (�
I am speaking for myself or organization:
' (name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: _lO- -O
My comments will be: general against
• I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda
item is to be considered.
2 . You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please .speak into the microphone at the podium.
3 . Begin by stating your name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4 . Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
support documentation if available before speaking. ;
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers. •
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all ;
persons may be heard) .
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM
MINUTE(THREE (3) NT E LIMIT) �
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before -adddressing the Board.
Name: 1Je� -Se - r�¢-S �1 Phone: 2S-LSA-��SS
Address: 1350 City:--A
I am speaking for myself _� or organization:
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
V I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date:
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
i
SPEAKERS
i
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse ,side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your, agenda
item is to be considered.
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
support documentation if available before speaking. '
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers.
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all'
persons may be heard) .
i
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM
G
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing the Board. C�
Name: �a r1k) <SYrs A Phone:
Address: /�J S 5 G O•r I(74,� yr i G City: Alamo
I am speaking for myself or organization:
i (name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # �I Date: _ I U D
My comments will be: general for againsty
• I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
SPEAKERS
i
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda
item is to be considered.
2 . You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3 . Begin by stating your name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
;
4 . Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
support documentation if available before speaking. ;
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers. •
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all;
persons may be heard) .
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM
G
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers
rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: Phone: qac 9�-3
Address: ' ar O fi • /, City: A/amo
I am speaking for myself or organization:
i (name of organization)
CHECK NE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: 1 n q
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
SPEAKERS
I
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda
item is to be considered. j
2 . You will be called on to make your presentation. !
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
I
3 . Begin by stating your name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the j
representative of an organization.
4 . Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
support documentation if available before speaking. !
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid i
repeating comments made by previous speakers.
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all'
persons may be heard) .
I
i
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM �}
�✓J
(THREE (3) MINIITE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: I OPL4AJD Phone: —9V 3
1 �
Address: �/ "� U I-w City:
I am speaking for myself _ or organization:
i (name of organization)
CHECK ONE: '
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date:
My comments will be: general for against 7�
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your :agenda
item is to be considered.
2 . You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4 . Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
support documentation if available before speaking. ;
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers. •
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all
persons may be heard) .
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) �3
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: � � Z/1Z/-nCJ"N Phone:
Address: J �� �''I�dd� ex, city: 4:'-'Arh4J*A^
I am speaking for myself or oreasw n:
.r IR ,Er N� sit
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # ' Date:
My comments will be: general for against
• I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse s'ide) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your ;agenda
item is to be considered.
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please, speak into the microphone at -the- podium.
3 . Begin by stating .yodr name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4 . Give the Clerk a, copy of your presentation or
..support documentation if available before speaking. '
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers. •
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all
persons may be heard) .
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing the Board. Q -
• Name: UGC C�N1LL Phone:
Address: / 3 &-S- City: A44,40
I am speaking for myself _ or organization:
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE: 'n
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # � Date:
My comments will be: general for against
• I wish to speak on the subject of � .
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
i
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda
item is to be considered.
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
support documentation if available before speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid •
repeating comments made by previous speakers.
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all
persons may be heard) .
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum befo a addressing the Board.
Name: Phone: 9 V 7—Ot
Address: City: ( –(
I am speaking for myself. ,// or organization:
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # �� Date: (9,4,
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject -of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
I -
i
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse ;side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda
item is to be considered.
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4 . Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
support documentation if available before speaking.;
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers.
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all
persons may be heard) .
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM
17L/,
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum b fore addressing the Board.
Name: ffiaPhone:
Address: �a� � L � �p— City:
I am speaking for myself or organization:
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: Zd `19' 25�XJ/
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your; agenda
item is to be considered.
2 . You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4 . Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
support documentation if available before speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers.
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all
persons may be heard) .
/ 7
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum be f a address �ghe Board.Name: rVN Phone:
Address: / 3`�" � City:
I am speaking for myself or organization:
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
r� I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date:
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse .'side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your. agenda
item is to be considered.
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3 . Begin by stating your name and address and whether ;
you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4 . Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or .
support documentation if available before speaking.
5. .` Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers.
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all
persons may be heard) .
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) t
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing the. Board.
• Name: a-t����o_ Cc�c��n Phone:
Address: k cA c1 cl 1-A"c-r- City: -
I am speaking for myself or organization:
(name of organizat f �
CHECK O
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # L Date: too G
My comments will be: general for ✓ against
I wish to speak on the subject of -
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda
item is to be considered. k,
2. You will b.6-,,;,called on to make your presentation.
I - Please• speak •;into the microphone at the podium.
\3. 'Begin' by stating your name and address and whether
you'� are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
support documentation if. available before speaking. ;
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers.
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all; •
persons may be heard) .
I,