The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 03091993 - H.3 To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �.. � FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: February 11, 1993 SUBJECT: ALLIED INVESTMENTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & RELATED PROJECTS SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Deny the Allied Investments General Plan Amendment County File #7-91, Rezoning #2961, and subdivision #7174 as recommended by the County Planning Commission. 2. Deny the appeals relative to these applications in conformance with the County Planning Commission resolution. FISCAL IMPACT Application fees covered the cost of processing. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On, Tuesday, January 19, 1993 the County Planning Commission denied the These applications on a 4-2 vote on the grounds the ojt was not compatible with the area. If the Board wishes to approve these projects, you will need to accept the Final EIR as adequate on this project, declare your intent to approve the applications and continue this project for a month to allow time for CEQA findings to be prepared. Ultimately, this could be added into the 1st consolidated general plan amendment for 1993 . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEND ION OF O`Altb COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON March 9_. 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the recommendation of the Contra Costa County Regional Planning Commission on the request by Allied Investments (applicant) and Belmont Development Company (owner) to change the General Plan designation on a 7. 12 acre parcel from Agricultural lands to Single Family Residential Medium Density (GPA 7-91-CO) ; a request to rezone 7 .12 acres from General Agricultural District (A-2) to Single Family Residential District (R-10) ( 2961-RZ) ; and a request to subdivide the 7.12 acre site into 17 units (Subdivision 7174) ; and to consider the appeal by Allied Investments and Belmont Development Company (appellants) from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission denying approval of application #GPA 7-91-CO, 2961-RZ, and Subdivision 7174 in the Moraga area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the proposed project and the appeal. Mr. Barry described the site location and commented on the Planning Commission' s actions and he also presented options for Board consideration. The public hearing was opened and the following persons appeared and spoke: John D. Hoffman, 1 Ecker Building, Suite 200, San Francisco, representing Allied Investments, presented a written statement in support of their appeal, and he summarized the appeal. Margaret DePriester, 142 Selborne, Moraga, spoke in opposition. 1 . r w Edward Johnson, 100 Oxford Drive, Moraga, spoke in opposition to the development. Kathryn Carr, 1215 Camino Pablo, Moraga, representing herself and Scott Carr, requested denial of the General Plan Amendment, rezoning, and tentative subdivision map. John Hoover, 1207 Camino Pablo, Moraga, spoke in opposition. Jenifer Wines, 165 Selborne, Moraga, spoke in opposition. Robin Cort, 1876 Camino Pablo, Moraga, urged the Board to deny approval of this project. Sue Noe, 23 La Salle Drive, Moraga, Mayor of Moraga, spoke in opposition. Mr. Hoffman spoke in rebuttal. The public hearing was closed. Supervisor Smith inquired as to whether the Planning Commission considered other zoning and general plan designations for this piece of property other than the one before the Board today. Mr. Barry recalled that the Commission did not discuss explicitly other general plan designation or rezoning options for the property. Supervisor Smith advised that it might be appropriate for the Planning Commission to take policy direction from the Board of Supervisors to consider another alternate general plan designation and zoning requirement along with a potential map along the lines of a single family low density. Supervisor Bishop commented on the urban limit line. Supervisor McPeak inquired whether there had been problems in Sanders Ranch with soils stability, slippage and drainage. Mr. Jay Tashiro, Planning Director, Town of Moraga, responded that because of recent rains there had been a couple of landslides within the Sanders Ranch. Supervisor McPeak raised the issue of affordable housing and clustering of homes. Supervisor Torlakson expressed concerns with buffering and interfacing with the Town of Moraga. Supervisor Smith moved to refer this matter back to the Planning Commission with policy direction to consider other General Plan designations, specifically single family low density, and other appropriate zoning and map. Mr. Westman clarified the motion to include reopening the hearing and referring the subdivision back to the Commission so that they could make further recommendations concerning the subdivision. Supervisor Smith concurred. The Board discussed the matter. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above matters are REFERRED back to the Contra Costa County Planning Commission to further consider a General Plan designation of Single Family-Low Density and appropriate zoning. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: Ti . Tv, -v NOES: TTT ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: T ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Jim Cutler, CCCCDD ATTESTED March 9 , 1993 cc: Community Development PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Public Works THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CAO COUFOM ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel 0 Town of Moraga BY , DEPUTY r ..t RECEIVED MAR -2 M CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. March 1, 1993 Mr. Jeff Smith Supervisor for Town of Moraga area Contra Costa County 805 Las Juntas Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Smith: We are writing about the request by Applied Investments and Belmont Development Company to rezone (2961-RZ) and subdivide 7.12 acres adjacent to the Town of Moraga (Subdivision 7174) . The Contra Costa County Regional Planning Commission has denied this request to change the General Plan. This was in compliance with the desires of the Moraga's Town Council and the many resi- dences in the area that would be negatively effected. There is to be an appeal by the applicant and the owner to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, March 9, 1993, from the decision of the County Planning Commission. We implore you to remain with the lower Commission's findings, and not allow this zone change and subdivision on the unincorpo- rated territory. Thank you for your consideration of this very important matter to us and the community. Sincerely yo s, Donald G. and Sylvia S. Bailes 133 Selborne Way Moraga, CA. 94556 (510) 376-7648 .w•o Copy to: Mr. Tom Torlakson, Chairman Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RECEIVED MAR -31993 1">4r t+ntt��► q i9 j3 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. Da- fir.i6m fti M famf av d T as 6-trove tt v�t—k-d -tie. ice. abo�-r rrt+�ncd ��!:Al aqd we u.r' oa f at.A f A.t the. Bowra b�i� is0,r6 '� filar A `1 (q`l3. P�iu► of out c4a, r` dv�e per+ n �l �-h , ,Y (v`� are W&HAI b4 leap u-A--�de -- the, { IALIV {h r,ez,. U � I {�ez�ti1�A 0 f i Lu taut-a 114,4-- V i#'h i Ie, fa,( { {ylfF)tt l'L 'l11��s1t} G e� �ji�iL� -�t f i5 Cup fart to6 ac(it eaItural ll r� 11' arbib G. fatwl tN , IV. PCI)P't.,ed uxid!) LJVU De 0. czr4z Snu.rde or Wf l i tt a1,40 a5 iC VZ I idi,rE i A -wt;S 1 dQ ��' (x `lGtiv1i fieuac . J) l�al 'L L PrvbitA6-Cam-ov Pablo it, a. �oi -�vmu hfaq, ,KnA iesalr� ver J� '{rev .` (�ro(�a'�P� cold rwt �r4a MVAr Pr, Wn--) M U i., R,* d nvz ,cvz �tS rz:i lt�� b� au Id t� �fhe � fi pve�ci 'v Mvr ,4hr, n Vu ' [ tr ? { A� Zc1 Bf r lt� iLEX �G (a � and awn a��t i►� -h'� p�,ACU ( A �ii�t Q�c��rtim'�Yz U a of � a5Iwai; l ,3) DVW,e,�e T�� rv�s_��t" ma..� Tz�,'i �� rY;le� pe; � i1�u7 c«.1 fh,� (.e Fie P ,U) L:13ra. ) l l i a b to to • , bw+ Oaf of II� Uwr�(§vw ne-. I? TO {a . rw�r� G&4c 2 se�+�i t o t i,�.5 M �rwofirtf� 5&t Oyu�� u��(Irl' vie6! NV- l wae5 br,c;�t r r!-tom p�' Fit, r �, , � el arts�rt . tcedal, Mrd r� ► ru? G,� G.�Sv D �� ct ane Ftra..cr f 5 -(11t; PID r1 t �t I i { `'�1pt l C E4!1�1 cam- r�� t:� s; r7a �"", a t1�5 A)� c��t� al 1� atn�t -the P0 ,7h;�-��., w� r1e �Zrin C� rr� ��e�in ur. � �o U P leap VD0 a t . P P D97MBUTION ` ...V Board Membenc �d td-, et;, Y �Q(t'�! County Adr/wine atrappr Ftcalth Services 1 ! r.,__Community Development fin! Public Works County Counsel :> ,3 ;: ..... ::: .. ed vasgerdsian : :>uN:- .:.:. ...:.:::.:. ...::.........:. E EIVED CONTRACO.CO�SORS Supervisor Jeff Smith 805 Las Juntas Martinez, Ca. 94553 In re: Residential Project County File # 2961-RZ, Sub 7144 Allied Investments February 28 , 1993 Dear Supervisor Smith, As District 2 Representative for the Town of Moraga, I 'm addressing my concern regarding the proposed development known as Allied Investments. In order to reach a just decision you have undoubtedly received numerous facts and information arguing reasons for and .reasons against this development. However, there appears to be many unresolved issues regarding the EIR. As it is in most communities, the growth of Moraga is highly controversial. What makes our situation so unique is the relative size of Moraga as against the. other Cities and Towns in the County. To add to this obstacle, we are a community trying to balance both Agricultural and Suburban lifestyles. What appears to be necessary is an on site visit. Actually seeing the site is the only way you can appreciate our point of view. If you have already seen the site I hope that both the Developer and the Town's interests were represented equally. If not, a fair assessment of the issue could. and can not be made. If an on site visit has not been made I would be happy to do so, as would any member our Town Council. 4 . Vasgerdsian 141 selborne gray moraga, ea 94556 510.376.3205 A."rt.sstj 4-o Cher. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - REZONING - SUBDIVISION ALLIED INVESTMENTS (APPLICANT) BELMONT DEVELOPMENT CCMPANY (OWNER) GPA #7-91-CO - A REQUEST. TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION ON A 7,12 ACRE PARCEL FROM AGRICULTURAL LANDS TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY; 2961-RZ - A REQUEST TO REZONE 7.12 ACRES FRCM-GENERAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (A-2) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-10); SUBDIVISION #7174 (UNDER APPEAL) - A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE THE 7.12 ACRE SITE INTO 17 UNITS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CAMINO PABLO ROAD DUE NCRTH OF RANCHO LAGUNA PARK, APPROXIMATELY 660-FT., SOUTHEAST OF THARP DRIVE, MORAGA AREA. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 9 IWCH 15093 - 2:60 P.M. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: February 11, 1993 SUBJECT: ALLIED INVESTMENTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 6 RELATED PROJECTS SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) 6 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Deny the Allied Investments General Plan Amendment County File #7-91, Rezoning #2961, and subdivision #7174 as recommended by the County Planning Commission. 2. Deny the appeals relative to these applications :in conformance with the County Planning Commission resolution. FISCAL IMPACT Application fees covered the cost of processing. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On, Tuesday, January 19, 1993 the County Planning Commission denied the These applications on a 4-2 vote on the grounds the oUtwas not compatible with the area. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEN ION OF O COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Jim Cutler, CCCCDD ATTESTED cc: Community Development PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Public Works THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CAO AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel BY , DEPUTY JQkd alfied.bo vend ALLIED INVESTMENTS GPA & RELATED PROJECTS Page 2 If the Board wishes to approve these projects, you will need to accept the Final EIR as adequate on this project, declare your intent to approve the applications and continue this project for a month to allow time for CEQA findings to be prepared. Ultimately, this could be added into the 1st consolidated general plan amendment for 1993. JC:kd allied.bo 2/miedkd COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT., MAILING LIST - GPA #7-91-00., 2961-RZ & Subdivision #7174 Allied Investments James E. Townsend, Jr. Jenifer Wines 1033 Detroit Avenue 507 Butterfield Place 165 Selborne Way Concord, California 94518 Moraga, California 94556 Moraga, California 94556 Belmont Development Company John & Jacqueline Hoover Malcolm Sproul c/o Ellman, Burke, Hoffman & 1207 Camino Pablo 45 Williams Drive Johnson Moraga, California 9.4556 Moraga, California 94556 #1 Ecker Building, Suite 200 San Francisco, Calif. 94105 John D. Hoffman A. J. Carr, Jr. Allied Investments Ellman, Burke, Hoffman & Johnson 1211 Camino Pablo P. 0. Box 397 #1 Ecker Building, Suite 200 Moraga, California 94556 Moraga, California 94556 San Francisco, California 94105 Kenneth Renz Sanders Ranch Homeowners Assn. Carol Mohan 783 Crossbrook Drive 2 Sanders Ranch Road 161 Selborne Way Moraga, California 94556 Moraga, California 94556 Moraga, California 94556 Karl M. & Janey B. Marszewski Stephen & Donna Kay Mazaika Phylli s Parrill 1898 Camino Pablo - 1209 Camino Pablo 166 Selborne Way Moraga, California 94556 Moraga, California 94556 Moraga, California 94556 Charles Nikkel & Ann Kelly- Trudine M. Mazaika Susan A. Cuneo Nikkel 3706 Sundale Road 107 Oxford Drive 1890 Camno Pablo Lafayette, California 94549 Moraga, California 94556 Moraga, California 94556 Stephen G. Holland Michael W. & Geraldine Mazaika Edward J. Johnson 1882 Camino Pablo 1205 Camino Pablo 100 Oxford Drive Moraga, California 94556 Moraga, California 94556 Moraga, California 94556 Robin Cort Moraga Park & Recreation Gary D. Moline 1876 Camino Pablo . ;.Authority 1890 Camino Pablo Moraga, California 94556 Camino Pablo Moraga, California 94556 Moraga, California 94556 Terrence J. & Ardell A.Callaghan Robin P. Cort & James R. Canter James E. Townsend, Jr. 1863 Camino Pablo P. 0. Box 397 507 Butterfield Place Moraga, California 94556 Moraga, California 94556 Moraga, California 94556 Richard N. Demirjian Kathryn Carr Staenig Demergian 1215 Camino Pablo 1862 Camino Pablo Moraga, California 94556 Moraga, California 94556 Community Development Dept. , Mailing List - GPA #7-91, 2961-RZ & Sub.#7174 - Page #2 Warren & Marion Zee 120 South. Sandingham Moraga, California 94556 Terrance J. & Ardell A.Callaghan 1863 Camino Pablo Moraga, California 94556 Gollinger Canyon Impr. Assn. Don Coffin, President 1091 Bollinger Canyon Road Moraga, California 94556 Planning Director, Town of Moraga 350 Rheem Boulevard Moraga, California 94556 Sue Noe - Mayor of Moraga 23 La Salle Drive Moraga, California 04556 Gail L. Moll 153 Selborne Way Moraga, California 94556 -Borghild Leeds 101 Oxford Drive Moraga, California 94556 Donald L. Baibs 133 Selborne Way Moraga, California 94556 Susan Vasgerdsian 141 Selborne Way Moraga, California 94556 Carla Cross Phillips 10 Donald Drive Moraga, California 94556 Zocchi/Allied Investments: 300 foot Property Owners List Parcel Number Name and Address for Notification 257-240-001 Kenneth Renz 783 Crossbrook Drive Moraga, CA 94556 257-330-001 Carl M. and Janey B. Marszewski 1898 Camino Pablo Moraga, CA 94556 257-330-002 Charles Nikkel and Ann Kelly-Nikkel 1890 Camino Pablo Moraga, CA 94556 257-330-003 Stephen G. Holland 1882 Camino Pablo Moraga, CA 94556 257-330-004 Robin Cort 1876 Camino Pablo Moraga, CA 94556 257-330-005 Terence J. and Ardell A. Callaghan 1863 Camino Pablo Moraga, CA 94556 257-330-006 Richard N. Demirjian Satenig Demergian 1862 Camino Pablo Moraga, CA 94556 257-330-015 James E. Townsend, Jr. 507 Butterfield Place Moraga, CA 94556 258-290-017 John and Jacqueline Hoover 1207 Camino Pablo Moraga, CA 94556 258-290-022 John and Jacqueline Hoover 1207 Camino Pablo Moraga, CA 94556 258-290-023 A.J. Carr, Jr. 1211 Camino Pablo Moraga, CA 94556 258-300-018 Sanders Ranch Homeowners Association 2 Sanders Ranch Road Moraga, CA 94556 Parcel Number Name and Address for Notification 258-500-001 Stephen and Donna Kay Mazaika 1209 Camino Pablo Moraga, CA 94556 258-500-002 Trudine M. Mazaika 3706 Sundale Road Lafayette, CA 94549 258-500-005 Michael W. and Geraldine Mazaika 1205 Camino Pablo Moraga, CA 94556 258-510-001 John and Jacqueline Hoover 1207 Camino Pablo Moraga, CA 94556 258-510-002 Moraga- Park and Recreation Authority Camino Pablo Moraga, CA 94556 fiftocccai.lst January 27,1993 Resolution #5-1993 RESOLUTION OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE ALLIED INVESTMENTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA#7-91-CO), REZONING # 2961, AND SUBDIVISION #7174 IN THE MORAGA AREA. WHEREAS, Allied Investments applied for a General Plan Amendment from Agricultural Lands to Single family Residential Medium Density for an approximately seven acre parcel located in the Moraga area; and WHEREAS, Allied Investments applied for Rezoning #2961 to rezone that same site from General Agriculture (A-2) to Single Family Residential (R-10) and for subdivision #7174 for 17 units consistent with the requested general plan amendment; and WHEREAS, staff prepared an initial study and determined these applications to be environmentally significant; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared, circulated to interested agencies and individuals, and accepted as being adequate for decision making purposes; and WHEREAS, staff reviewed the proposed applications and prepared staff reports on these requests and the staff reports were circulated to interested individuals and agencies; and all hearing were legally noticed; and WHEREAS, public hearings were held on these items on December 8, 1992 and January 19, 1993 and numerous persons spoke both pro and con on the issues; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County Planning Commission finds that the Final Environmental Impact Report is adequate taking actions on these applications; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission RECOMMENDS DENIAL of general plan request GPA #7-91-CO, 2961-RZ and Subdivision #7174; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this recommendation are as follows: 1 . The proposed project is not compatible with the agricultural character of the adjacent areas. 2. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development project. 3. That the project is not consistent with the County General Plan. Resolution#5-1993 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all written and graphic material developed for and pertaining to these proceedings are made part of the record; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairwoman and Secretary of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission respectively sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the provision of the Planning Law of the State of California. The instruction by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission to prepare this resolution, incorporating the above and aforementioned, was given by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on Tuesday, January 19, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Clark, Sakai, Gaddis, Frakes NOES: Commissioners - Terrell, Accornero ABSENT: Commissioners - Woo ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None I, Helene Frakes, Chairwoman of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing was duly called and held in accordance with the law Tuesday, February 2, 1993 and this resolution was duly passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners -TERRELL, kcORNERO, Woo, GADDIS, CLARK, SAKA I, FRAKES NOES: Commissioners - ;ONE, ABSENT: Commissioners -NONE. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - ;ONE. Chairwoman of the Planning Commission Contra Costa County, State of California ATTE T: S cr to of tra Costa County Pla Hing Comm s n, State of California. Findings Map g� A,2 _ I + + + i '•� A-2 Rezone From A•Z To tit- to MOYtOtC-A Area I, }-1v!-UTEc T fiQA k.r-i Chair of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, State of California, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of 'PA&-E --r j.L o 171,4 AAA-,o indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission in the matter of Chair of the Contra Costa County Planning Comm ission,State of California ATTE tary of*eCqAtra Costa County Planning Commiston, State of Calif. E. Community Contra Harvey of ommun Director of Community Development Development Costa Department County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 .• 646-2031 Phone: V rr,�-ciiiir<`� January 28, 1993 John D. Hoffman Ellman, Burke, Hoffman & Johnson One Ecker Building, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94105 Dear Mr. Hoffman: This letter acknowledges receipt of your letter of appeal dated January 27, 1993 for application #GPA 7-91, 2961-RZ and Subdivision 7174, which was denied by the County Planning Commission on Janauary 19, 1993. Your appeal will be heard by the Board of Supervisors. You will be notified by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors when the appeal has been scheduled for hearing before the Board. You should be aware that you or your representative should be present at the hearing. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Candida Wensley at 646-2031. Sincerely yours, /r'� , Mary Fleming Chief of Land Development M F/df L3:7174.bos cc: File Allied Investments Public Works Attn: Mitch Avalon Leonard Vecchi ELLMAN, BURKE, HOFFMAN & JOHNSON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ONE ECKER BUILDING,SUITE 200 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105 TELECOPIER (415) 495-7587 TELEPHONE (415) 777-2727 January 27, 1993 w " C_ Via Federal Express N =, c.' q Contra Costa County �.7 Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, North Wing - 4th Floor N Martinez, CA 94553 71 Re: County File No. GPA7-91; County File No. 2961-RZ; Subdivision 7174 Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter constitutes the appeal of the applicant, Allied Investments, and the property owner, Belmont Development Company, from the decision of the County Planning Commission on January 19, 1993, denying approval of a tentative map (proposed subdivision 7174) to subdivide a 7. 12-acre site located on the east side of Camino Pablo Road, due north of Rancho Laguna Park, approximately 660 feet southeast of Tharp Drive, into 17 units. If an appeal is required, this letter also constitutes the appeal of the applicant and owner from the decisions of the Planning Commission on January 19, 1993 to deny General Plan Amendment 7-91 and Rezoning No. 2961-RZ for the subject property. The grounds of this appeal are as follows: 1. The existing general plan designation of Agricultural Lands does not permit the owner and applicant to make viable economic and beneficial use of the subject property. The Contra Costa County Community Development Department January 27, 1993 Page: 2 Proposed general plan designation of Single Family Residential Medium Density is consistent with the use and development of other lands in the vicinity of the subject property, and the subject property may be used in accordance with the requested designation in a manner that complies with other policies and principles of the general plan. 2 . The existing zoning of General Agricultural (A-2) does not permit the owner and applicant to make viable and economic and beneficial use of the subject property. 3. The proposed zoning of Single Family Residential (R- 10) is consistent with the use and development of other lands in the vicinity of the subject property, is consistent with the proposed general plan designation. of Single Family Residential Medium Density, and with other provisions of the zoning ordinance. 4 . Proposed subdivision 7174 is consistent with the use and development of other lands in the vicinity of the subject property, is consistent with the proposed general plan designation of Single Family Residential Medium Density and the proposed zoning of Single Family Residential (R-10) , and complies with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the county subdivision ordinance applicable to the subject property. Enclosed is our firm's check in the amount of the $500.00 appeal fee. Also enclosed in accordance with the appeal instructions distributed at the January 19, 1993 meeting of the Contra Costa County Community Development Department January 27, 1993 Page: 3 Planning Commission are stamped envelopes, without return addresses, addressed to each property owner within 300 feet of the project. Please advise the undersigned if you require anything further in order to process this appeal. We respectfully request that the appeal not be set for hearing before the Board of Supervisors on February 22, 1993, because of conflict with a previous commitment of the undersigned. Thank you very much. Sincerel , 010 ohn D. Hoffman ,��_c:r'rf•''i �`�� ..708070 Contra Costa County Community Development Department Contra Costa County Planning Commission Staff Report & Recommendation ALLIED INVESTMENTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Agenda Item # I INTRODUCTION A request was received from Allied Investments to amend the County General Plan on 7.12 acres of land in the unincorporated area near the southern boundary of the Town of Moraga. The requested plan amendment is from Agricultural Lands to Single Family Residential Medium Density. That would allow for a project at 3.0 to 4.9 dwelling units per net acre. The requested plan amendment covers the Land Use Element of the County General Plan; it is shown on Map 1. II CEQA AND RELATED PROJECTS An Environmental Impact Report on this project was prepared and was determined to be adequate by your Commission. This General Plan staff report draws on information found in the EIR and is related to its findings. If the requested General Plan amendment is approved for this site as requested by the property owner, rezoning#2961 form A-2 to R-10 and subdivision#7174 which calls for 17 residential lots (21 were analyzed in the DEIR) will be brought to hearing. Map 2 shows that subdivision map. III PROJECT SETTING The project site is just west of an intermittent stream that drains into San Leandro Reservoir and it is approximately 0.5 miles north of the Alameda/Contra Costa County line. The Orinda and Lafayette interchanges of Highway 24 are approximately six (6) miles northwest and north of the site, respectively. The site can be further identified as Contra Costa County Assessor's Parcel (APN) 258-500-044. Historically, the site and adjoining lands have been used for grazing cattle. There are no buildings on-site. The project was a part of the Carr Ranch until sold to a relative and optioned by the applicant. From the ranch complex shown on Map 3, the Carr's 1 have grazed the project site and lands north of the project site. They also graze watershed lands to the east and southeast which are owned by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). The Carr Ranch also includes Williamson Act Lands located approximately 0.5 miles east of the site. Lands immediately to the east are dwellings and agricultural buildings on Carr Ranch. The residential subdivision to the west of Camino Pablo consists of residential lots in the Town of Moraga. Lots on the valley floor in this part of Moraga range from 10,000 to 17,000 square feet. South of the site is the Town's Rancho Laguna Park. The Site is covered by grassland vegetation. There are no trees, brush or wetlands on the site. Just south of the site, Camino Pablo becomes a narrow, two-lane roadway. Approximately 100 feet south of the park, EBMUD has installed a gate to prevent unauthorized vehicular access to its Upper San Leandro Reservoir property. The topographic setting of the site indicates that it is bounded on the west and south by existing roadways, and a short distance east of the site is the channel of an unnamed intermittent stream that conveys surface runoff to the King Canyon arm of the Upper San Leandro Reservoir, which is owned and operated by the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD). Runoff from the site, as well as from developed lots in Moraga Valley, drain into the reservoir. Topographically, the site is at the south terminus of a ridge which swings easterly when traced to the north. Total relief on the site is approximately 60 feet, ranging from an elevation of more than +600 feet to less than +560 feet. IV URBAN SERVICES The site is within EBMUD boundaries, however, LAFCO has placed the site outside of its proposed urban water Sphere of Influence (SOI). The land is outside of the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District and its SOI. According to LAFCO this site is outside the Moraga and all urban service district's SOIs and is currently not planned by that agency for urbanization (see Map 4). The SOI line East the Moraga incorporation boundary were set to protect the Carr Ranch and to keep it as available agricultural operation. For sewer services to be provided to the property, LAFCO would need to modify its SOI policies in the area. Moraga is concerned that should this project be approved in the County, that it would 2 be the de facto provider of urban services such as police protection. V EXISTING GENERAL PLAN The Land Use Element of the County General Plan currently designates the site as Agricultural Lands. As defined in the General Plan, the purpose of the "agricultural lands" designation is to preserve and protect lands capable of producing, and generally used for production of food, fiber, and plant materials. Watershed lands near the site are owned by East Bay Municipal Utilities District to safeguard public water supplies. Urban uses are not permitted in watershed areas. Land Use Element policies promote the preservation of agricultural lands by minimizing conflicts with urban land uses (Policy 3-11) and buffering agricultural land (Policy 3-12). The General Plan also promotes cooperation between the County and cities to preserve agricultural land (Policy 3-13). It also directs that residential densities shall decrease as the natural slope increases, but does not provide specific criteria (Policy 3-28). Within the Land Use Element, the General Plan defines an Urban Limit Line (ULL). The associated text states that all urban development must occur within the ULL. The subject property is within the ULL. The General Plan also stresses that compliance with the voter-approved Measure C - 19901 prevents development of all lands within the ULL. With regard to lands inside the ULL, only 50% of the currently undeveloped lands in the unincorporated area can be developed. In the southern portion of Moraga, the ULL and the Town's corporate limits coincide everywhere except for a 70-acre area bounded by Camino Pablo and Sanders Drive. (See Map 5 for the ULL in the vicinity of the site.) The project site is located in the extreme southwest corner of this area. Furthermore, the Town's sphere of influence ends at the Town boundary, so the entire 70-acre area that is within the ULL is outside Moraga's sphere of influence. A supplemental listing of relevant General Plan policies taken from the DEIR is shown as Table 1. The Town of Moraga General Plan does not show land use densities outside of the existing city boundaries. According to city staff this is because they prefer and presume this area will remain rural. The DEIR describes town policies for lands within the city on pages 19 through 21. VI COUNTY ZONING 3 The site is currently zoned A-2. The existing county zoning for the amendment area is shown on Map 4. VII SITE CONSTRAINTS The site is best described as rolling hills treading northwest to southwest. Along the northern boundary are four areas which exceed 26% slope. The development approach required to build at the densities of Single Family Residential Medium Density is to grade the site to yield developable lots. While this can be accomplished technically, such an effort needs to be analyzed in the context of General Plan policies, especially dealing with slopes in excess of 26%. The General Plan discourages this unless to accomplish other valid policy goals found in the General Plan such as increased housing supply. A second main constraint is the provision of an acceptable subdivision access road on the south side of the property. The existing driveway provides access to this site and the Carr Ranch buildings beyond. Upgrading this road will provide impacts on the trail which abuts the west side of the site and could impact the ranching operation, depending on how it is designed. The road will impact the perception of the area from the park to the south. (This can be seen on the air photo shown on Map 4) VIII POLICY CONSIDERATIONS IN THIS REQUESTED PLAN AMENDMENT There are many policy issues which an amendment request such as this brings up; the main issues are discussed below: • Impact on the Carr Ranch In a rapidly suburbanizing county such as ours, many ranchers sell out and move their operations to an area with less conflicts between ranching and suburban areas. Contra Costa County is blessed with several ranching families which appear committed to staying for the long haul. This five acre site was part of the Carr Ranch which has been optioned out to Allied Investments by a member of the family. Whether this sale is an indication of the balance of the family's long term commitment to agriculture is not known at this time. The site is located immediately west of the main ranch operation as shown on Map 4. The Draft EIR on page 27 states "approval of the project may make continued agricultural operations on the Carr Ranch more difficult, which suggests the project may conflict with Conservation Element Policies 8-29, 8-32, 8-33, 8-34, and 8-36. These policies require protection of agricultural uses." 4 History has shown that bringing new suburban homes up to the edge of a working ranch will create conflicts over noise, cats and dogs, odors, and trespass. The County is considering a "right to farm: ordinance that would alert prospective purchases that an active working ranch is nearby. • Moraga Concerns Moraga is concerned with the ability of' the County to service this small residential area with police and other municipal type services since this would be the only unincorporated subdivision in this portion of the County. This is a valid concern.since the site is distant from other portions of the Sheriffs beat serving the area. A proposed condition of approval would be for the property owner to vote the property into a special policy district to pay for police services. This is now a standard condition for all subdivisions within the unincorporated area of the County. • LAFCO SOI Concerns Moraga is largely flanked to the south by EBMUD Watershed lands. When the Town of Moraga was incorporated, the city boundaries were established to place all development lands within the city. The Carr Ranch and the large parcel to the west across Camino Pablo were left out of the town because they were felt not to be either developable or were a part of the Carr Ranch. -This LAFCO policy reinforced existing County land use plan policy in the area which placed developed or planned urban areas within the Town and excluded the planned agricultural areas. • AN ENLARGED DEVELOPMENT AREA The DEIR in the alternative section on page 101 examined the prospect of if a larger, more logical development area could be fashioned on a 70 acre area (this site and the 63 acres to the north). As the graphics on the 105 and 106 of the Draft EIR indicate, a larger geographic area could be developed through the use of extensive topographic modification techniques. However, the end result would be even greater impacts on the Carr Ranch. • REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVES It would be possible to development lower density alternatives for the site. The current request is for 3-5 dwelling units per acre which allow 16 to 26 units on the site. The revised application for 17 units conforms with this designation. A plan density of Single Family Residential Low Density would allow 7 to 16 units on the site. A single Family Residential Very Low Density would allow 1 to 5 5 MAP 1 ALLIED INVESTMENTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Land Use Element of the County General Plan Hoop . OS r �r - ,. R Y A I a w ' ' rr, . �a •. I ICY 1 M . • O _ a • � M i5A 61 Orr � O i A N � f a y .+ r ., r • LEGEND ear • r 1 SV Single Family Residential-Very Low SL Single Family Residential-Low '°1r► w !r �� 01 � ernY 1 PS Public/Semi-Public PR Parks & Recreation Its .w �. - _ OS Open Space U ,� AL Agricultural Lands Iw • ' , ; i,`" :" WS Watershed IN ,, �~Iw M �� Y Project Site n !M Iw�la• ` f + � • r.\ � Ir a r� r• r a a a a{, tt .w AL WS s .r w x r " w . /I 0 j - r a - Requested Change '• t "UP 1324,11 from Agricultural Lands + to Single Family Residential- ... Medium Density. r. in — w .. w o North 1"=600• AL PR �\ WSAd r t IL q, Ile Ile a . �, t r ' ' •l f�l•1 f r S �• V yw .' as ` - • .A.- 4p w r •t IL . •yam\ ..� �_ �..._� 1p t`• ' 1 as em ��,;, �ice, � � .�t •._ � '';�, x �!�".-- ...; _ r +.��.. - .^Imo' r. ... - .. ~,t+.1>{.. .• �, r-.. �•rT_� '_=,".°_"1^s� '� r t: -� _ :;}., �. mss..Y:..s„{ 4'49;"�'!P`'.". -r ..!, i'"�, -^�„'u�.- -.. .t• �' �':a. max`,* ft:, � .,• - ,• - f T +3 i• r .. '. - - ��, i-."• •"rte iC•'i-•• -- .. •° '�. •� 'S- 4. „"`,:" ': '. - +~'ice ter+ y..T.yr�'a�1"y. �a '�f: ,''..::•';::., a Agenda Item # /?Z/3 Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1993 -3:30 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION ALLIED INVESTMENTS (Applicant) - BELMONT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (Owner) - This project consists of the following related applications: General Plan Amendment 97-91: A request to change the General Plan Designation on a 7.12 acre parcel from Agricultural Lands to Single Family Residential-Medium density. 2961-RZ: A request to rezone 7.12 acres from General Agricul- tural (A-2) to Single Family Residential (R-10). SUBDIVISION 7174: A request to subdivide the 7.12 acre site into 17 units. The subject property is located on the east side of Camino Pablo Road, due north of Rancho Laguna Park, approximately 660 feet southeast of Tharp Drive, in the Moraga area. (A-2) (ZA: T-12) (CT 3521.02) (Parcel #258-500-004) II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission follow their recommendation on the General Plan Amendment #7-91. 1111. HISTORY This project was continued from the December 8. 1992 Planning Commission hearing. The project was continued at the request of the applicant. IV. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: The subject parcel is currently designated as Agricultural Lands. General Plan Amendment #7-91 proposes that the designation be changed to - Single Family Residential-Medium Density. B. Zoning: The site is currently zoned A-2. C. CEQA Status: An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and determined to be adequate by the County Planning Commission. D. Site Description: The project site is just west of an intermittent stream that drains into San Leandro Reservoir and it is approximately 0.5 miles north of the Alameda/Contra Cosa County line. The Orinda and Lafayette interchanges of Highway 24 are approximately six (6) miles northwest and north of-the site, - respectively. The site can further identified as Contra Costa County Assessor's Parcel #258-500-004. Historically the site and adjoining lands have been used for grazing cattle. There are no buildings on-site. The project was a part of the Carr Ranch until sold to a relative and optioned by the applicant. From the ranch complex shown on Map 3, the Carr's have grazed the project site and lands north of the project site. They also graze watershed lands to the east and southeast which are owned by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). The Carr Ranch also includes Williamson Act lands located approximately 0.5 miles east of the site. Lands immediately to the east are dwellings and agricultural buildings on Carr Ranch. The residential subdivision to the west of Camino Pablo consists of residential lots in the Town of Moraga. Lots on the valley floor in this part of Moraga range from 10,000 to 17,000 square feet. South of the site if the Town's Rancho Laguna Park. The site is covered by grassland vegetation. There are no trees, brush or wetlands on the site. Just south of the site, Camino Pablo becomes a narrow, two-lane roadway. Approximately 100 feet south of the park EBMUD has installed a gate to prevent unauthorized vehicular access to its Upper San Leandro Reservoir property. The topographic setting of the site indicates that it is bounded on the west and south by existing roadways, and a short distance east of the-site is the channel of an unnamed intermittent stream that conveys surface runoff to the King Canyon arm of the Upper San Leandro Reservoir, which is owned and operated by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). Run-off from the site, as well as from developed lots in Moraga Valley, drain into the reservoir. Topographically, the site is at the south terminus of a ridge which swings easterly when traced to the north. Total relief on the site is approximately 60 feet, ranging from an elevation or more than +600 feet to less than +560 feet. V. DISCUSSION Current Planning staff is recommending that the Commission's decision on the subdivision and the rezoning be dependnt upon the Commission's decision on the Genral Plan Amendment. 3 If, after reviewing this staff report and Comprehensive Planning's staff report, the Commission chooses to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they approve the requested General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Subdivision, staff has included conditions of approval (attached) as well as a discussion of how these conditions of approval relate to. the EIR and the mitigation measures described in the EIR (see below). VI. REVIEW OF EIR MITIGATION MEASURES The following is a summary of identified potential significant impacts and mitigation measures from the project EIR. The summary of EIR impacts and mitigations are based on the 21-unit site plan originally submitted with the application. The applicant has revised the project to include 17 rather than 21 lots. Because of this reduction in lots, the project impact fee calculations (school district, park dedication) are no longer current. A. Plans. Ordinances and Policies: 1) Land Use and Policy Consistency: Impact: Project grading appears to conflict with General Plan policies for development of steep slopes. Project approval may make continued agricultural operations on the Carr Ranch difficult, and it could be considered incompatible with the adjacent residential area. EIR Mitigation: Grade project topography at a 2.5:1 slope ratio. Consider slope as a determinant of holding capacity of site. The EIR proposes a relationship between slope and lot yield that results in a holding capacity of 11 lots. Revised Plan: While the revised 17 lot plan does reduce the number of lots on the site, it does not reduce the number of lots to the number recommended by the EIR 0 1 lots recommended). In addition, there is still a substantial amount of grading proposed on the revised site plan. Staff Comment: The EIR mitigation has been made a requirement in the conditions of approval (COA 1 & 2). 2) 65%/35% Land Preservation Standard: Impact: This project will reduce remaining developable lands under 65/35. EIR Mitigation: The amount of acreage devoted to urban usage must be subtracted from the amount under 65/35 calculations which could still be developed. This will be done by Comprehensive Planning. 4 3) Camino Pablo Improvement: Impact: Widening of Camino Pablo Road conflicts with rural character of area. EIR Mitigation: Widen Camino Pablo to minimum width necessary to provide access to project. Staff Comments: The Public Works Department conditions of approval regarding road improvements, include widening requirements which address this impact and mitigation, accordingly. 4) Local Agency Formation Commission: Impact: Project annexation into utility district spheres of influence may encourage development of area remaining within the ULL. EIR Mitigation: LAFCO review of annexation request should comprehen- sively examine the 70 acre ULL area. Staff Comment: The EIR of this project has been sent to LAFCO and reviewed by a LAFCO representative. It is anticipated that LAFCO's review of the annexation request will examine the 70 acre ULL area.. 5) Agricultural Lands Impact: The project at the density proposed presents obstacles to long term viability of adjacent agricultural lands. EIR Mitigation: A statement notifying future owners of adjacent agricultural uses should be recorded on the deed for each lot (COA #26). B. Public Agencies and Utilities t) Schools Impact: Using the formula in the EIR, the 17 unit project will generate 11.9 elementary and intermediate school students and 3.23 high school students. EIR Mitigation: School impacts will be mitigated by school fees. The Moraga School District fee is currently $1.37 per square foot of new residential development. Staff Comment: School fees are payable at the building permit stage. (Advisory Note A.) 5 2) Water Service Imaact: Project requires approximately 15,750 gallons of water per day and extension of nearby water main. Mitigation: Applicant is required to fund construction of water facility improvements upon annexation approval by LAFCO. 3) Water Quality Impact: Project adds to the cumulative increase in surface run-off, short-term soil erosion, and suburban contaminants into the Upper San Leandro Reservoir. EIR Mitigation: The routine County procedures require an erosion control plan at the time that the grading permit is processed. Currently, cities and counties are required to secure a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board which addresses mitigation of water quality effects of urban run-off. - Staff Comment: The EIR mitigation is incorporated into the Conditions of Approval (COA #18). 4) Sewage Service Im ac : Project adds to cumulative demand on sanitary treatment plant capacity. EIR Mitigation: Include low-flow toilets and other water-conserving facilities to reduce sewage flow from project. Staff Comment: The EIR mitigation has been made a requirement in the Conditions of Approval (COA #4). 5) Police Services Im ac : County Sheriff response to site does not meet response time standard for urban areas. EIR Mitigation: The owner of the property will be required to either participate in a police services district or enter into a contract, which would state that Moraga would provide police services to the project. Staff Comment: The EIR mitigation has been made a requirement in the Conditions of Approval (COA #5 and Advisory Note B). 6 6) Fire Protection Imoact: Project is not within one and one-half miles of a fire station. EIR Mitigation: Install automatic fire sprinkler systems subject to approval by Moraga Fire Protection District, and construct residences according to measures recommended by the Fire District. Staff Comment: The Conditions of Approval include this mitigation (COA #6 and Advisory Note C). 7) Parks and Recreation Impact: Project increases use of Rancho Laguna Park. EIR Mitigation: The applicant's park dedication fee should be reserved for the Moraga Parks and Recreation Department. Staff Comment: This mitigation measure is a Condition of Approval for this project (COA #7 and Advisory Note D). 8) East Bay Regional Park District Im ac : The project poses impacts to (a) visual quality, (b) safety, (c) drainage and stability, and (d) fencing. EIR Mitigation: The applicant shall be directed to work with the EBRPO to ensure that trail-related issues are resolved to the satisfaction of the district. Staff Comment: This mitigation is incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project (COA #8). 9) Mosquito Abatement District Impact: The project could increase the mosquito population. EIR Mitigation: Erosion control plans and drainage plans should be referred to CCMAO before they are approved by the County. Staff Comment: This mitigation has been made a requirement of the Conditions of Approval (COA #9). 7 C. Ceologv, Drainage and Soils 1) Seismic Shaking Impact: Project is located in a seismically-active area. EIR Mitigation: The applicant will be required to submit a preliminary geology, soil and foundation report which proposes measures to minimize the risk of earthquake damage. Staff Comment: This mitigation is incorporated into the Conditions of Approval (COA #10). 2) Soils Impact: Loss of agriculturally-productive soils on site. Development of the site will impact operations on the Carr Ranch. EIR Mitigation: None. Loss of agricultural productivity is a significant unavoidable impact. Staff Comment: Because this impact cannot be mitigated, approval of the revised project will require adoption of an over-riding consideration. 3) Drainage impact: Tentative map does not indicate how run-off will be collected and conveyed to a natural drainage channel. A poorly designed project could create run-off or erosion problems on graded slopes in the project and impact downstream property of owners. EIR Mitigation: Require applicant submit a drainage plan to (a) convey roof gutter water in closed conduits: (b) construct a concrete lined brow fill slope over-looking Camino Pablo: (c) construct lined brow ditch on top of slopes along north and east perimeters of site: and (d) collect and convey run-off from Camino Pablo frontage to out-fall point for project run-off. Staff Comment: This mitigation measure is a Condition of Approval (COA #11). 4) Slope Stability and Foundation Conditions Im ac : Project located on slope of poor stability. EIR Mitigation: Reduce slope gradient to 2.5:1 in areas of severely weathered rock, claystone/siltstone and all fill slopes. Top of all cut slopes should have a gradient of 3:1. 8 Staff Comment: This mitigation measure is a Condition of Approval (COA #12). 5) Retaining Walls Impact: Design details for retaining walls have not been specified. Walls may pose aesthetic impacts. EIR Mitigation: Wails more than 3 feet high should be constructed with non-wood materials. Landscaping should be incorporated to reduce visual impact of walls. Elimination of lots and reducing pad size could avoid/minimize the need for retaining walls. Staff Comment: This mitigation measure has been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval (COA #13). 6) Expansive Soils Impact: Expansive soils can damage foundations, concrete slabs and roadways. EIR Mitigation: Use drilled pier foundations that extend through zone of shrinking and swelling. Staff Comment: This mitigation is a recommended Condition of Approval for the project (COA #14). 7) Fills Impact: Differential settlement could damage structures built upon fill that is poorly designed, compacted and drained. EIR Mitigation: , Fill design should include over-excavation, greater compaction at-depth or special foundation design. Staff Comment: Mitigation is included in Conditions of Approval (COA #15). 8) Implementation Impact: Minor errors in grading could cause slope failure in the future. EIR Mitigation: Ensure proper implementation of grading code by (a) documentation of all grading procedures by project geologist and (b) review and inspection of grading by the County. Staff Comment: Mitigation is included in COA #16. 9 9) Maintenance Imaact:- Poor maintenance of surface and subsurface drainage improve- ments may reduce long-term stability of graded slopes. EIR Mitigation: All slopes, drainage terraces and subdrains should be maintained by the property owners according to plan and schedule approved by the County. Staff Comment: Mitigation is included in Conditions of Approval (COA #17). 10) Erosion and Sedimentation impact: Project construction increases erosion, sedimentation and surface run-off. EIR Mitigation: Conduct all grading, excavation and filling during dry season. Revegetate all exposed soils. Require erosion control plan prior to issuance of grading permit. Staff Comment: This mitigation is addressed in Condition of Approval #18. D. Visual Quality and Design 1) Visual Access Im ac : The western portion of the site is considered to have "high" visual access and the balance of the property is in the "moderate" category. EIR Mitigation: Areas of "high" visual access would best be left free of development. If grading is allowed, it should be subject to design review and approval for land form blending and revegetation. Staff Comment: Mitigation is incorporated into Conditions of Approval (COA #19). 2) South and West Frontage impact: Graded slopes along the south and west facing frontages will pose a significant visual impact. Steepness of 2:1 slope gradient, composition of compacted fill, and exposure will make revegetation difficult. 10 EIR Mitigation: Incorporate 3:1 gradients on cut or fill slopes along Camino Pablo and south property line, and reduce the proposed width of Camino Pablo. Revegetate slopes with California native plan species. Reduce size of the graded pads for lots along Camino Pablo. Construct fences of a uniform design at the top of the slope. Maintain this slope area with a lighting and landscaping district. Staff Comment: See Condition of Approval #19 & #20. 3) Grading Concept Impact: Large pads on steep slopes results in many angular, engineered- appearing slopes. EIR Mitigation: Utilize flatter slopes, design custom homes on steeper hillside areas that conform to the terrain and reduce lot yield. Staff Comment: The mitigation measures are included in the Conditions of approval (COA #19 & 20). 4) Light and Glare Impact: Units in the project will be silhouetted against the skyline, as viewed from the park and Camino Pablo. EIR Mitigation: Require that street lighting be consistent with Town of Moraga requirements. Staff Comment: The mitigation measure is included in the Conditions of Approval (COA #21). E. Traffic and Circulation 1) Cumulative Impact Impact: The total amount of traffic from the project is well below the threshold (100 trips per hour) that would be considered a significant traffic impact. EIR Mitigation: The applicant, like all other applicants, will be required to pay an Area of Benefit fee for the Lamorinda area. The fee at the time the application was deemed complete was $2,300 per home. Staff Comment: The Conditions of Approval include this mitigation (Advisory Note #E.). 11 .2) Internal Circulation System impact: The EIR states that the internal road that starts out at the north property line could have growth inducing impacts and does not provide an adequate turnaround for vehicles. EIR Mitigation: The revised site plan eliminates these impacts, there- fore, there is no longer a need to mitigate. 3) EBRPD and Town of Moraga Impact: The proposed widening of Camino Pablo and road at the south boundary of the site will require realignment of the trail, encroachment easement; safety measures and temporary access measures during construction. EIR Mitigation: The County shall refer road improvement plans for pertinent roads to EBRPD and Town of Mbraga for review and comment prior to approval by the Director of Community Development. Staff Comment: This mitigation measure is included in the Conditions of Approval (COA 1122). P. Biotic Resources 1) Removal of Existing Vegetation lm ac : Project removes existing vegetative cover of the site (site does not include rare or unique species). Site access during construction may encourage unauthorized vehicle and motorcycle activity along the undeveloped ridgeline north of the site. EIR Mitigation: Re-establish grassland cover following grading prior to unit construction. Limit grading boundaries of the site. Project landscaping should emphasize native•plant species. Block access to undeveloped areas north of the site during construction. Staff Comment: The mitigation measure is included in the Conditions of Approval for the project (COA Mll. 2) Wildlife Habitat Impact: None. Impact on wildlife is a minor cumulative impact. EIR Mitigation: Project alters existing pattern of wildlife use on the site, replacing habitat with suburban development. I 12 3) Special Status Taxa Impact: None. Project site does not contain special-status plant or animal taxa and will not have significant adverse impact on identified taxa. EIR Mitigation: None required. VII. ROAD AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS The attached conditions of approval based on the October 7, 1992 revised tentative map include road and drainage requirements. The applicant should be fully aware of the County Subdivision Ordinance Code requirements as they pertain to this development. Because the fronting roads are in the Town of Moraga, all road and drainage improve- ments shall be subject to review and approval of the Town, and all Offers of Dedication for the roads shall be to the Town. Conditions of approval regarding the roads within the Town are subject to revision pending review by the Town Engineer. CW/aa RZIX/2961-RZ.CW 11/30/92 12/30/92 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 7174 1 . The request to subdivide the 7.12 acre parcel is approved for 11 lots subject to the Revised Vesting Tentative Map dated received by the Community. Development Department on October 7, 1992. Unless otherwise noted, the following conditions shall be complied with before filing the Final Map. 2. At least 60 days prior to filing the Final Map, the applicant shall submit a revised vesting tentative map which reflects the 11 unit subdivision, which addresses all of the conditions of approval (Mitigation for Impact A.1). 3. Cut slopes on the site shall not exceed 2.5:1 (Mitigation for Impact A-1 and Impact C.4). 4. A. All toilets shall be low-flow toilets in accordance with Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code. B. Water-conserving sink, shower, and lavatory faucets, in accordance with the California Energy Commission standards for new residential buildings, shall be installed in all residences (Mitigation for Impact B.4). 5. At least 60 days prior to filing the Final Map, the applicant shall either vote the property into a police service district or present the County with a contract between the County, the Town of Moraga, and the applicant, which states that Moraga will provide police services to the project. If the police services district option is chosen, the owner of the property shall participate in the provision of funding to maintain and augment police services by voting to approve a special tax for the parcels created by this subdivision approval. The tax shall be the per parcel annual amount (with appropriate future CPI adjustment) then established at the time of voting by the Board of Supervisors. The election to provide for the tax shall be completed prior to the filing of the Final Map. The property owner shall be responsible for paying the cost of holding the election, payable at the time that the election is requested by the owner (Mitigation for Impact B.5). 6. The residential units shall be constructed with the fire protection measures recom- mended by the fire district and all residences shall have building sprinkler systems (Mitigation for Impact B-6). 7. Park dedication fees for this project shall be paid to the County Trust Fund and specifically marked for the Town of Moraga Parks and Recreation Department (Mitigation for Impact B.7). a. A. At least 60 days prior to recording the Final Map, the applicant shall submit documentation to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval, which ensures that trail-related issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of the East Bay Regional Park District (Mitigation for Impact 8.8). r 2. B. Graded slopes for Lots 1 through 5 shall have a 3:1 gradient. Topsoil shall be placed on the graded slopes and they shall be planted with drought tolerant species, as specified on Page 77, Item 2 of the EIR. C. A crosswalk and stop sign control.shall be installed at the intersection of the proposed subdivision road and the trail. D. A 140' wide scenic easement shall be provided along the Camino Pablo frontage of the site. E. The developer shall reach an agreement with EBRPD for continued public trail use during the construction period. The intent of this mitigation is to avoid trail closure for more than a few days, and to trigger construction of an interim trail, if needed. F. The developer, EBRPD, Town of Moraga, and Contra Costa County shall investigate the feasibility of constructing a trail segment on the west side of Camino Pablo. This segment, which is not a frontage improvement, is needed to complete the trail. The cost of any off-site trail construction shall be credited against the park dedication fees paid by the developer (Mitigation for Impact B.8). 9. Erosion control and drainage plans submitted to the County shall be accompanied by a stamp or letter from the Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District, indicating that the plans are acceptable to CCMAD (Mitigation for Impact B.9). 10. At least 60 days prior to recording a Final Map,the applicant shall submit a preliminary geology,soil,and foundation report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report. This report shall propose measures to minimize the risks of earthquake damage. The use of permanent retaining walls in lieu of cut slopes and deep foundations (i.e., piered foundations) and minimization of height and gradient of cut slopes to a maximum grade of 2.5:1 (Mitigation for Impact C.1). 11. The applicant shall prepare a drainage plan that includes the following elements: A. Convey roof gutter water in a closed conduit to storm drains in the proposed project streets. B. Construct a concrete lined brow ditch at the top of the proposed fill slope that overlooks Camino Pablo. 3. C. Construct concrete lined brow ditches at the top of slope along the north and east perimeters of the project. D. Collect run-off carried by gutters on the Camino Pablo frontage of the site and convey it to the out-fall point for project run-off (Mitigation for Impact C.3). 12. The top of all cut slopes shall have a gradient of 3:1 (Mitigation for Impact CA. 13. At least 60 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or filing a Final Map, the applicant shall submit a retaining wall program for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The program shall provide for the following: A. Design and construction of retaining walls in such a manner that long-term stability is not compromised. B. Permanent (non-wood) construction is required for walls more than three feet high. C. The design of the wall shall be aesthetically pleasing and if walls pose aesthetic concerns, it may be feasible to stack them (i.e., provide two or more parallel walls), with the areas between heavily landscaped (Mitigation for Impact C.5). 14. Residential foundations shall be drilled pier foundations that extend through the zone of shrinking and swelling. 15. Fills shall be designed and constructed to minimize the potential for differential settlement. Design might include over-excavation (so as to provide consistent fill depths beneath graded pads), greater compaction at-depth, or special foundation design (Mitigation.for Impact C.7). 16. In order to ensure proper implementation of the grading code, all grading procedures shall be reviewed by both a project geologist and reviewed and approved by the County Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department (Mitigation for Impact C.8). 17. All slopes, drainage terraces and subdrains shall be maintained by the property owners. A plan for maintenance shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval. The maintenance plan shall either be part of the codes, covenants and restrictions for the subdivision or if there is no homeowners association,the obligation to maintain drainage facilities shall be called to the attention of home buyers through an advisory comment on the deed (Mitigation for Impact C.9). I 4. 18. The construction stage erosion control plan shall provide for the following: A. All grading, excavation and filling shall be conducted during the dry season (May 1st through October 1st) only, and all areas of exposed soils shall be replanted to minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October 1st, only erosion control work shall be allowed by the grading permit. B. A revegetation plan prepared by an experienced plant ecologist (not landscape architect) shall be submitted as part of the erosion control plan. The plan shall emphasize use of drought tolerant native species and plants that are adaptive to conditions in this portion of Moraga. Ideally, the plan should include a mix of grasses, shrubs and trees. The plan shall provide for revegetation of all rearyard cut slopes. Hydroseeding and hydromulching would not be adequate for this purpose. If necessary for survival of young plants, the plan may call for the use of a temporary drip irrigation system (to be abandoned after 2-3 summer seasons). The developer shall bond with the Community Development or Building Inspection Departments the landscape improvements for a period of not less than two years. C. Hydroseeding and hydromulching are not considered adequate on 2:1 slopes that are more than 18 feet in height. D. The erosion control plan shall show the location of proposed temporary detention basins, silt fences and straw bales, along with revegetation of all graded areas. It shall also contain provisions for: 1) Performing maintenance during the winter rainy season, as necessary. 2) Regular inspections by the project engineer during the winter rainy seasons. 3) Spot inspections during/immediately following severe storms. 19. A 140 foot wide scenic easement shall be placed along the western edge of the property. The easement instrument shall provide that no grading, or development activity may occur in that area without the prior written approval of the Zoning Administrator (Mitigation for Impact 0.1). 5. If grading, in order to accommodate widening of Camino Pablo, is necessary, this grading shall be kept to a minimum. Any cut or fill slopes shall have gradients of 3:1. Topsoil shall be placed on the finished surface and shall be planted with drought tolerant landscape plants, preferably California natives. Building pads on lots adjacent to Camino Pablo shall be reduced in size and fences of a uniform design shall be placed at the rear of the pad (not on the slope). The slope area along Camino Pablo shall be maintained by a special district (e.g., lighting and landscaping district) (Mitigation for Impact D.2 and D.3). 20. In general, homes shall be built to conform to the existing terrain. Interval slopes with vertical heights of five (5) feet or less shall have a 2:1 gradient or flatter. Higher slopes should have gradients of 2.5:1 or flatter. Split level pads are encouraged and internal slopes more than 10 feet high are discouraged (Mitigation for Impact D.3). 21 . At least 30 days prior to obtaining building permits, the applicant shall submit a conceptual street lighting, fencing, and landscaping plan to facilitate further evaluation of light and glare. These submittals shall include the following elements: A. Street lighting consistent with the Town of Moraga requirements. B. Fencing design at the rear of building pads. C. Profiles extending from the west edge of Camino Pablo to any proposed two- story residences on Lots 1 through 7 and Lot 14 (to evaluate possibility of second story windows being a source of light and glare). D. Landscape plan for slopes along the west and south edges of the property. 22. The applicant shall refer road improvement plans for Camino Pablo, and the road along the southern property line to EBRPD and the Town of Moraga for their review and comment, prior to approval by the Zoning Administrator (Mitigation for Impact E.3). 23. Grassland cover shall be re-established following grading and prior to unit construction. Grading shall be limited. to the boundaries of .the site. To the extent possible, landscaping shall emphasize the.use of drought tolerant, native plant species. Native plant species commonly used for landscaping which would be suitable for use on the site include coast live oak, valley oak, California buckeye and toyon. The applicant shall block access to undeveloped areas north of the site during construction, in order to discourage vehicles and motorcycles from driving off-road on the site (Mitigation for Impact F.1). A 6. 24. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading,trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. 25. 22. Comply with the following construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements: A. Noise generating construction activities, including such things as power generators, shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on State and Federal holidays. The restrictions on-allowed working days may be modified on prior written approval by the Zoning Administrator. B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible. C. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of the individual responsible for noise and litter control shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be reissued with each phase of major grading activity. A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the community Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed. D. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Any violation of the approved program or applicable ordinances shall require an immediate work stoppage. Construction work shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate construction bond has been posted. i i 7. E. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood.traffic flows. Prior to issuance of building permits, the proposed roads serving this development shall be constructed to provide access to each lot. This shall include provision for an on-site area in which to park earth moving equipment. 26. In accordance with the child care ordinance, the applicant shall pay a child care fee of $400 per lot, prior to the issuance of certificates of final occupancy for the residences. 27. The following statement shall be recorded at the County Recorder's Office for each parcel to notify future owners of the parcels that they own property in an agricultural area: "This document shall serve as notification that you have purchased land in an agricultural area where you may regularly find farm equipment using local roads; farm equipment causing dust; crop dusting and spraying occurring regularly; burning associated with agricultural activities; noise associated with farm equipment and aerial crop dusting and certain animals and flies may exist on surrounding properties. This statement is, again, notification that this is part of the agricultural way of life in the open space areas of Contra Costa County and you should be fully aware of this at the time of purchase." (Mitigation for Impact to be added to page 32 of the DEIR, according to the response document.) (Mitigation for Impact A.S.) 27. The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road, and utility improvements will require the review and approval of the Public Works Department: A. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. Conformance with the Ordinance includes the following requirements: 1) Constructing road improvements along the frontage of Camino Pablo, subject to the review of the Town of Moraga and the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Constructing curb, four-foot six-inch sidewalk (width measured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and necessary pavement widening along the frontage will satisfy this requirement. The face of curb shall be 20 feet from the ultimate centerline of the road. 8. 2) Constructing a paved turnaround at the end of the proposed private road. 3) Undergrounding of all utility distribution facilities, including the existing distribution facilities along the Camino Pablo frontage. 4) Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the subject property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. 5) Designing and constructing storm drainage facilities required by the Ordinance in compliance with specifications outlined in Division 914 of the Ordinance and in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department. The Ordinance prohibits the discharging of concentrated storm waters into roadside ditches. 6) Installing, within a dedicated drainage easement, any portion of the drainage system which conveys run-off from public streets. 7) Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer, payment of review and inspection fees, and, security for all improve- ments required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions of approval for this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the County Public Works Department,. Road Engineering Division, and the Town of Moraga. 8) Submitting a Final Map prepared by .a registered civil engineer or licensed'land surveyor. B. Convey to the Town of Moraga, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on Camino Pablo as required for the planned future width of 84 feet. C. Construct an 18 foot half-width roadway on-site along the southerly boundary of the property as shown on the tentative map, and convey to the Town of Moraga, by Offer of Dedication, the corresponding right of way. That portion of the roadway which lies between Camino Pablo and the project access shall be 24 feet wide. The southerly edge of pavement shall be constructed with a two-foot rock shoulder to allow for possible future widening, and the northerly edge of pavement shall be curbed. The southerly edge of pavement shall be considered the future centerline of the road and shall coincide with the southerly boundary of the subject property, or as directed by the Town. D. Relinquish abutter's rights of access along Camino Pablo, including the curb return. 9. E. Construct a 32-foot paved private roadway to County private road standards, within a 40-foot easement, to serve ail parcels in this proposed subdivision. F. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a concen- trated manner, from draining across the sidewalk and driveways. G. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary of permanent, drainage improvements. ADVISORY NOTES A. Comply with the requirements of the Moraga School District fees at time of issuance of building permits. B. The applicant is advised that the tax for the police services district is currently set by the Board of Supervisors at $200 per parcel annually (with appropriate future Consumer Price Index [CPI) adjustments). The annual fee is subject to modification by the Board of Supervisors in the future. The current fee for holding the election is $800 and is also subject to modification in the future. The applicable tax and fee amounts will be those established by the Board at the time of voting. C. Comply with the requirements of the Moraga Fire Protection District (Mitigation for Impact B.6). D. The applicant shall comply with the Park Dedication Fee Ordinance,which requires that the applicant pay a fee of $2,000 per lot at the time a building permit is obtained (Mitigation for Impact B.7). E. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the south County Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. F. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPOES) for municipal, construc- tion and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Walter Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay- Regional II or Central Valley-Region V). CW/aa RZXIX/7174C.CW 11/25/92 1/5/93