The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 05181993 - H.6 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on May 18, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors MCPeak, Torlakson and Bishop _. NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisors Powers and Smith ABSTAIN: None RESOLUTION NO. 93/258 SUBJECT: In the Matter of the Morrison General Plan Amendment (#1-93-EC) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES that: There is filed with this Board and its Clerk a copy of Resolution No. 14-1993 , adopted by the East County Regional Planning Commission, which discusses a General Plan Amendment for the Oakley area (#1-93-EC) . On May 18, 1993 the Board held hearings on the said General Plan Amendment discussed by the East County Regional Planning Commission Resolution 14-1993. Notice of said hearing was duly given in the manner required by law. The Board, at the hearings called for testimony of all persons interested in this matter. After taking testimony, the Board closed the public hearing and APPROVED the General Plan Amendment and directed staff to include the Morrison Homes General Plan Amendment in one of the consolidated general plan amendments as allowed by State Planning Law. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance was prepared on this project. The Board has reviewed the Negative Declaration, concurs with it's findings and adopts the Negative Declaration. Orig. Dept: Jim Cutler (646-2035) I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of cc: Director "o f Community an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Development Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Director of Public Works County Counsel ATTESTED: May 18, 1993 County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator i BY v , Deputy RESOLUTION NO. 93/258 miscaw l/jcmorhms.res H.5 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT MORRISON HOMES • e e f " ID le 17 LI CO CAROL N NORTH _ P I"= 6, RK 1 s 7 to a a n is I tilt, ,• W SH CAN CT SANTA $T P .tl y LI MM AMSURO ST K FERNN'000 = Je III AS E ST ..) e. 86 3 n JJ 77 < _ f MAIN O Jsu ) 1 ML CO , �► MLE DEy0A 1 1 1 PR 7 SH i ML Q V' -- ------------------ s NARDONNAY D a ' W ML 3 0 1'� a es .w 1 O � oe 6 Y aM ASNWOOD DI ----------------------- N. . , V OgMti DR .a. 1A - < LEGEND OUM :53s SV SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-VERY LOW SL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-LOW '` ,a•• ., SH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-HIGH ' _ ML MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-LOW 1 -4485 5SV MM MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM CO COMMERCIAL LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL + SL PR PARKS &RECREATION i2 BEDFORD ��` f CE : ., r 1 1-93-EC MAPA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE 1 I hereby certify that this amend- I hereby. certify. that this amend- ment to the Contra Costa County ment to the Contra Costa County General Plan was Approved General Plan was Adopted by the by the Board of Supervisors on Board of Supervisors on May 1 9 3 . May 18, 1993 Phil 'Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Admi ' tra vey P. ragdon 71 Directorf Community Development By: Deputy MORRISON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT COUNTY FILE #1-93-EC: A request to amend the County General Plan from Multiple Family Residential, Medium Density to Multiple Family Residential, Low Density. Located on the south side of Oakley Road, just west of Empire Avenue. Oakley area. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MAY 181 1993 - 2: 00 P.M. Contra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County M ' FROM: HARVEYE.BRAGDON DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: May 3,1493 SUBJECT: MORRISON HOMES GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (1-93-EC) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Open public bearing and receive testimony on proposed plan amendment request 2. Certify as adequate the Negative Declaration on this project for purposes of acting on the General Plan Amendment 3. Close public hearing and APPROVE the General Plan Amendment as recommended by staff and the East County Regional Planning Commission and to direct staff to include the plan amendment in one of the consolidated general plan amendments for 1993. FISCAL IMPACT Plan amendment costs are covered by a developer fee. BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECONQyIEbMAT10NS The Morrison Homes General Pian Amendment was recommended for approval by the East County Regional Planning Commission, by a unanimous vote, on April 5, 1993. At that meetin , e Regional Planning Commission certified the Negative Declaration and approved the plan amendment as rem staff. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: —YES SIG E RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR_RECOMMENDA ON F BO OMMTTT'EE _APPROVE _OTHER SIGNATVRE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _OTHER_ t 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: ABSTAINn MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Staff Contact: Matt Tomas Orig:Community Development Department ATTESTED cc: CAO's Dept of Public Works Resolution No. 14-1993 RESOLUTION OF THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, MORRISON HOMES GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT # 1-93-EC, FOR THE OAKLEY AREA. WHEREAS, a request was received from Bellecci Associates to amend the Land Use Element of the County Gen;ral Plan. The request is to change the Land Use designation on 9.35 acres form Multiple Family Residential, Medium Density to Multiple Family Residential, Low Density. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors authorizes a General Plan study for this area; and WHEREAS, the County staff prepared a Negative Declaration for the General Plan x Amendment study area; and WHEREAS, staff prepared a report recommending changes in the General Plan for the area and circulated it to inter;sted agencies, organization and individuals; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on Monday April 5, 1993, and all that wished to testify were heard and the public hearing was closed; and ..NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the East County Regional Planning Commission accepts the Morrison Homes Negative _Declaration prepared by staff to be adequate to consider this amendment; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the East County Regional Planning Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Morrison Homes General Plan Amendment to the Board of Supervisors as recommended by staff and that the maximum number of units to be considered is 49. 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 Chair of the East County Regional 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 provisions of State Planning Law. Page Two Resolution 14-1992 The instruction by the East County Regional Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was given by motion of the Commission on April 5, 1993 by the following vote:- AYES: ote:AYES: Commissioners - Planchon, Wetzel, Andrieu, Hanson, Maybee, Sobalvarro, Hern NOES: Commissioners - None ABSENT: Commissioners - Non..;- ABSTAIN: on•.ABSTAIN: ' Commissioners - None I, Herbert Hern, Chair of the East County Regional Planning Commission of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing was fully called''and held in accordance with the iaw on Monday, May 3, 1993 and this resolution was fully passed and adopted by the following votes: AYES: Commissioners - Wetzel , Hanson , Planchon , Hern NOES: Commissioners - None ABSENT: Commissioners - Andrieu, Sobalvarrb ABSTAIN: Commissioners - Nome Herbert Hern Chair - East County Regional ► Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: Secretary of the East County Regional Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California a/rTiscnkd CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT- Board EPARTMENT Board of Supervisors Staff Report and Recommentdations Tuesday, May 18, 1993 Agenda Item# Morrison Homes General Plan Amendment (1-93-EC) I. INTRODUCTION: The applicant is requesting to amend the County General Plan from Multiple Family Residential, Medium Density to Multiple Family Residential, Low Density for a 9.35 acre property located on the south side of Oakley Road,just west of Empire Avenue. The proposed amandment would support up to 49 detacched single family homes. The General Plan Amendment area is shown in Figure 1. II. CEQA STATUS: A Negative Declaration (no environmental impact report required) for the plan amendment was issued February 16, 1993. The Initial Study of Envrionmental Significance is attached. Separate environmental review will be conducted on the forthcoming subdivision and other current planning entitlements. III. SITE DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is rectangular in size and located just west of the Empire Avenue(Oakley Road intersection. It is approximately 9.35 acres in size and is located on the south side of Oakley Road. The site is undeveloped and is located in an area which is experiencing urbanization. Recently- approved, single family subdivisions are located on the adjacent property to the west and across the street to the north. IV. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS The 1991 County General Plan applies its Mutiple Family Residential, Medium Density to the plan 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT MORRISON HOMES _- - - a b • • t2 ib li i7. ai • CAROL LN t P A-1 I t { z w u i4 m /• + — ; x SANTA FE ST CAN CT n MSURG- u ST FEWNwOOD BBE ST - ? 177 z 3 a S �C MAtN ST / i t a i a t SITE ' .� ~r APN:041-110-025 tEocEwo� I t ' G ------ # �L f t4 �+ � � NA('ROONNAY v Il �� • tf .w asNw000 of ------- --..---- 1g a wyi - �' I w u IJ '6 F � NORTH {{ b x az ,•o „„ M 1'= 600' — SAUTCRNE MAY wnr x w J C .•W t IIA -- rll1 0 '�{ ; ♦ R z c -PORT` WAY ` a '� ..+ • s7 � � � �b 4 k rta '-i CYPRESS 5485 ID t PON ERo s`= •EDFORO 1-93-EC FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAY amendment area, The vacant property to the east and directly north, accros the street on Oakley Road, is under the same land.use designation,_while_the property which surrounds the site to the west and south is designated as Multiple Family Residential, Low Density, The County General Plan land use designations are shown in Figure 2. The existing zoning for the plan amendment area is A-2 (General Agriculture). Existing zoning designations are shown in Figure 3. V. PUBLIC SERVICES: The site is presently served by all urban services which are needed to support the development. There exists no public service contraints for the proposed density. VI. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REQUIRMENTS: The plan amendment area is already designated within the service area boundaries for required urban services. The forthcoming subdivision will pay parkland dedication fees which will meet park requirements. The County Sherriffs deparment provides police service to the larger Oakley area. The proposed 49 new single family parcels will not require a traffic analysis under Measure C - 1988 requirements since it is well under the 100 unit threshold which triggers that requirement. The project will also pay fees into the County Public Works AOB (Oakley/North Brentwod & East County) program for road improvements, while the Ironhouse District (formerly Oakley Water and Oakley Sanitary Districts) provides water and sanitary sewer services. The Oakley Fire District provides fire protection services in this part of the county. The 65/35 Land Preservation Standard- The plan amendment is in an area which is already slated for urban development. The proposed reduction in density will not affect the 65/35 standard since it does not result in a change from a non-urban land use designation. VII. POLICY ISSUES TO CONSIDER FOR THIS PLAN AMENDMENT: The primary policy consideration for this plan amendment request relates to the proposed decrease in allowed residential density. The project applicant's request for a reduction in density is in response to current market conditions for the housing type which is being proposed. The proposed development concept calls for parcels which range between 3,700 - 4,590 square feet. Although the 2 oee� - eed MIN 11 IHHUI • _ee o • ,.�1fi1111 iiUllitl G� as Am Mo OF, �//��r ■• 111 IIUtN� C�� r / r. j mJ,rouamort oil liq Boom LIN Wd&NPRSial .��'vim+ •��w MIN..I., N' •�/11��1!l1t11 11/t��t��I� �Ea GENERAL PLAN'-AMENDMENT MORRISON HOMES r _ _ - iT R c SANTA F, SL 4 t „i r too ST 1 RI i R•7 P'1 R-8 ' t E06 y� . 1 I1 � R + m- g l i ASNW000 v2 r sr, on � C 2 Pa1 A-2 # SAUTERNE WAY N >< �GUn TREE 4 • ' W LEGEND RRY PCWtT WAY a R-6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(6,000 SQ FT) - R-7 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(7,000 SQ FT) R-10 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(10,000 SQ FT) CYPRESS ap M-29 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL L-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 1 ----�—` P-1 PLANNED UNrr DEVELOPMENT _ — NORTH T-1 MOBILE HOME PARK I"= 600' CEDAR CT A-2 GENERAL AGRICULTURE _ r f� il � ir' 11 ' •i� I} i a i z � P•y d 1-93-EC FIGURE 3 EXISTING ZONING MAP proposed density is within the Multiple Family designation, the project will retain a detattched, single family appearance, which will blend in with the recently-approved subdivisions surrounding the site, The County General Plan also contains other policies for this general area which relate to aesthetics and to the roadways in the area. The design of the actual subdivision should conform, as much as possible, to the policies affecting the Oakley/North Brentwood area. VIII. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution recommending APPROVAL of the General Plan Amendment to designate the area for Mutiple Family Residential, Low Density according to the attached map. MTsMac\GPNs\Mordsion GPA(1-93-EC)\MoMson GPA SR 3 IL 619 M. Liam Mariam.", imi matin! 1111110 III. Hill11�� r IL sign ■ Com: ■ � �. �1 Edi/j PRE '. :.. ;t1IA�� • cam.aram WOR pq E' �i� .1�v; �•, , � .�-�� min SOON ♦ � ;,, � °�, , iu' it• �.. 111 Bili Ni— $ sets 037-110-010 037-110-018 037-110-025 HARRY & SKIGEKO IDE, TRE BEN ROMITI TRE - ELENA CANEPA, TRE 17 VISTA VIA 2100 OAKLEY RD 320 BLUEBERRY DR LAFAYETTE, CA 94549 OAKLEY, CA 94561 SANTA CRUZ, CA 95066 041-110-001 041-110-002 041-110-018 020,022,023 VIRGIL & NORMA CALISESI HILLSIDE PARK PARTNERS MORRISON HOMES RT 1 BX 250 2900 MENDOCINO AVE 2255 COWRA COSTA BLVD 9200 OAKLEY, CA 94561 SANTA ROSA, CA. 95403 PLEASANT HILL, CA 94523 b/up comp planning/ MORGPA OMAC Oakley Water District 4-21/93 William Harvey Jr. 27 Main Street ?"1?(- Route 1 Box AA285 Oakley, CA 94561 4 � Oakley, Ca 94561 Oakley Knightsen Fire District lronhouse Sanitary Oakley Union School District 123 Main St. P.O. Box 1105 501 Norcross Lane Oakley, CA 94561 Oakley, CA 94561 Oakley, CA 94561 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING You are hereby notified that on Monday, March 1, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. in the Antioch City Council Chambers, 3rd and H Streets, Antioch, California, the East County Regional Planning Commission will consider a general plan amendment for the following project: .i Morrison Homes General Pian Amendment (1-93-EC) : This is a request for an amendment to the County General Plan's Land Use Element for a 9.35 acre site (APN: 041-110-025). The proposed change is from Multiple Family Residential, Medium Density (12.0-20.9 units/net acre) to Multiple Family Residential, Low Density(7.3-11.9 units/net acre), which will result in a decrease in the allowed residential density. Subject property for the above refernced projects is approximately 9.35 acres in size and located on the south side of Oakley Road and west of Empire Avenue in the Oakley area. (CT: 3020.00; APN:041-110-022;-023). For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), a Negative Declaration (no environmental impact report required) has been issued for this project. If you challenge the project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. For further details contact the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, North Wing - Fourth Floor, Martinez,California, or phone Matt Tomas at (510) 646-2035. Harvey E. Bragdon, Director Contra Costa County Community Development Department The East County Regional planning Commission continued this item to their April 5, 1993 meeting. inns space iti iui uuui ny n o ,army 01- PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Contra Costa I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen years,and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. 93-73 Proof of Publication of NOTICE OF I14TEI-IT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE I am the Principal Legal Clerk of the California Delta News- DEECLARATION / .MORRISON FOMES papers,Inc.A newspaper of general circulation,printed and 1 published at 1650 Cavallo Road in the City of Antioch, NOTICE.OFINTENTTO s•ADOPT A NEGATIVE County of Contra Costa,94509. DECLARATION Morrison Homes Gen- eral eo-eral Plan Amendment (1-93-EC): This is a re- quest for an amendment to And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of the COUnty General Plans Land Use Element for a 041- general circulation b the Superior Court of the County of 110 acre site pro used g y Pe ty 110-025). The proposed change is from Multiple Contra Costa, State of California,under the date of March Family Residential, Medi- um Density(12.0-20.9 Lm- its/ m- I 26, 1870. Case Number 7467370. Famamilt acre) to Multiple Fily Residential, Low Density(7.3-11.9 units/net acre),which will result in a decrease in the allowed res- id The notice.of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in Sutial j bdensity. ett property for the above referenced projects is type not smaller than nonpareiq, has been published in _approximately 9.35 acres in size and located or the each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in south side of Oakley Road and west of Empire Avenue in the Oakley sea. (CT: any supplement thereof on the following dates,to-wit: 3020.00; APN: 041-110- 022;-023). JAN. 15 Project Descriptio and Location The proposed project is all in the year of 19 93 about 9.35 acres in size and is located on the south side of Oakley Road just west of Empire Avenue in the Oak- ley area. The surrounding I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the fore- area is designated for urban development which could going is true and correct support both commercial and residential uses. The Lucky commercial retail Executed at Antioch,California. center is located on the east 15 JAN. 9 3 while two nof ewir subdivisions On this day of 19 have been recently ap- proved adjacent to and near the proposed project- The applicant is seeking a general plan amendment Signature / to reduce the allowed resi- dential density in order to. develop up to 49 single fam- ily parcels,which range in California Delta Newspapers,Inc. size from 3,700 - 4,590 Daily Ledger • Post Dispatch and Brentwood News square feet the develop- P.O.Box 2299 ment concept will retain a dettached Antioch,CA 94531-2299 housing single family p hg product which is (510)757-2525 consistent with the other approved single family de- velopments rear the site. The project entitlements,at this time,include a General Plan AmendmeaL Separate, future CEQA review wig be conducted on a rezoning ap- plication to allow for a Planned Unit Development; a Final Development Plan; and Subdivision application. Interested persons may contact Mr.Matt Tomas of the Contra.Costa County, Community Development Department,directly by let- ter to convey any concerns or comments that have about the review for this project DO later than Tuesday,Feb- ruary 16,1993 at 5:00 p-m to: Mr. Matt Tomas 1 Contra Costa county Community Development j Department 651 Pine Street 4th Floor/North Wing This space is for County Clerk's Filing Stamp PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C-C-P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Contra Costa _ am a-citizenof the United States and a-resident of the — County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen years,and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter- 93-153 Proof of Publication of NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING I am the Principal Legal Clerk of the Cal'domia Delta News- papers,Inc.A newspaper of general circulation,)l)rinted and MORRISOi:v H0i1ES GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT published at 1650 Cavallo Road in the City of Antioch, NOTICE OF A County of Contra Costa, 94509. PUBLIC are HEARING noncehereby that on Monday, March 1, 1993 at 730 pm in the Antioch City Coal And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of Chambers, �d H the East County Regional general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Planning Commission will consider a general plan Contra Costa,State of California,under the date of March amendment for the follow- ing project= Morrison Homes Gen- 26, 1870.Case Number 7467370. eral Plan Amendment (1-93-EC): This is a re- quest for an amendmee to the County General Plin's Land Use Element for a The notice,of which the annexed is a printed copy(set in 9.35 acre site(APN:041- 110-025). The proposed I type not smaller than nonpareio, has been published in change is from Multiple Family Residential, Medi- each regular and entire issue of said news um Density to Multiple an- each Paper and not in its/net acre) to Multiple Family Residential, Low any supplement thereof on the following dates,to-wit: Density(7.3-11-9 nmisslnet acre),which will result in a FEB., 15 decrease in the allowed res- idential density. Subject property for the all in the year of 19 9 3 above referenced projects is approximately 9.35 acres in size and located on the south aide of Oakley Road and west of Empire Avenue I certify(or declare) under penalty of perjury that the fore- in the fey area- (CT: 3020.00; APN: 041-110- 022;-023). going is true and correct. For purposes of comph- ance with the provisions of Executed at Antioch.California. the California Env111on!nen- 15 FEB. 93 tal Quality Act (CEQ.4),a On this' day of 19 Negative Declaration (no environmental impact re-i port required)has been is- sued for this propect. If you challen$e the loo-, ject In Court,you may be Si natur limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or California Delta Newspapers,Inc. in written correspondence Daily Ledger • Posh Dispatch and Brentwood News delivered to the County at, P.O.Box 2299 or prior to,the public bear- ing. Antioch.CA 94531-2299 For further eletals oon- (510)757-2525 tact the Contra Costa County Community De- velopment Department, 651 Pine Street, North Wing-Fourth Floor,Marti- nez, California, or phone Matt Tomas at(510)646- 2035. Harvey E. Bragdon Director Contra Costa Courcy NOTICE OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Morrison Homes General- Plan-Amendment (1-93=ECS: This is arequest for an amendment to the County General Plan's Land Use Element for a 9.35 acre site(APN: 041-110-025). The proposed change is from Multiple Family Residential, Medium Density (12.0-20.9 units/net acre)to Multiple Family Residential,Lo w Density (7.3-11.9 units/net acre),which will result in a decrease in the allowed residential density. Subject property for the above refemced projects is approximately 9.35 acres in size and located on the south side of Oakley Road and west of Empire Avenue in the Oakley area(CT:'9020.00; APN:041-110-022;-023). Project Decription and Location: The proposed project is about 935 acres in size and is located on the south side of Oakley Road just west of Empire Avenue in the Oakley area. The surrounding area is designated for urban development which could support both commercial and residential uses. The Lucky commercial retail center is located on the east side of Empire Avenue,while two new subdivisions have been recently approvedadjacent to and near the proposed project. The applicant is seeking a general plan amendment to reduce the allowed residential density in order to develop up to 49 single family parcels,which range in size from 3,700-4,590 square feet. The development concept will retain a dettached single family housing product which which is consistent with the other approved single family developments near the site. The project entitlements,at this time,include a General Plan Amendment. Separate,future CEQA review will be conducted on a rezoning application to allow for a Planned Unit Development;a Final Development Plan;and Subdivision application. Interested persons may contact Mr.Matt Tomas of the Contra Costa County,Community Development Department,directly by letter to convey any concerns or comments that they may have about the envrionmental review for this project no later than Tuesday,February 16, 1993 at 5.00 pm to: Mr. Matt Tomas Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street 4th Floor/North Wing y Martinez,CA 94553 (510)646-2035 Harvey E. Bragdon, Director Contra Costa County Community Development Department Please publish this notice once in the Legal Section of Ledger/Dispatch on Friday, January 15, 1993. s + E Illlliiiiij� -tt tt• M. LOVE p�� LIQ �t��.�► ■tom ,�+� •� �illiliii! �iilllllii�iilitl�i ®�vt mum SITE - tib= !�► _ �!!!t�!■��■�� • st*n m 015 APN:041-110-025 ■ ++ u �� ■ ! r. ®• Bdl Y11 4 ■ � .��.�'a�I"� �+ �� W �� .., .� , MIN WE Zo ititE��` �,�, X111► s .`MIT)l ItoNOME �" �� ,� � � �►� �. Em IR ow El it 1 : CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM & INITIAL STUDY I. Background 1. Name of Proponent: Belleci Associates. 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponents: 2290 Diamond Blvd. Concord. CA (510) 685-4569 3. Date Checklist Submitted: January 21, 1993. 4. Name of Proposal,if applicable: Morrison Homes General Plan Amendment(1-93-EQ Quad Sheet: Zoning: Brentwood Existing. A-2 Proposed: P-1 Parcel #: General Plan: 041-110-025 Existing. Multiple Family Res.Medium Density Proposed: Multiple Family Res,Low Denim II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all significant, (S),answers are required on attached sheets.) 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: S I a. Unstable earth conditions or changes ingeologic substructures? b. f Disruptions, displacements,compaction or vercovering of the soil? l_ C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? f d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? ' e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? ✓ f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation,deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay,inlet or lake? Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes,landslides, mudslides,ground failure,or similar hazards? V �.�c �sFor-1SEs 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deteriorationof ambient air quality?. b. The creation of objectionable odors? C. Alteration of air movement,moisture,or temperature,or any change in climate,either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course ofdirection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? ✓ b. Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or the rate and amount of surfacerunoff? C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? ✓ d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ✓ e. Discharge into surface waters,or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature,dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ✓ g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,either through direct additions or I or through interception of an aquifer-by cuts or excavations? ✓ h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ✓ i. Exposure of people or property to waterrelated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? ✓ 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species,or number of any species of plants(including trees,shrubs, grass,crops,and aquatic plants)? ✓ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area,or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ✓ 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species,or numbers of any species of animals (birds,land animals including reptiles,fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? ✓ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? .I ✓ C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area,or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ✓ d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? ✓ 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? ✓ b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ✓ 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. - Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides,chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? ✓ b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ✓ 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,distribution,density,or growth rate of the human population of an area? AE. "sPQ•.s s s `� 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,or create a demand for additional housing? ✓ Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant 1 3. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: _ a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ✓ b. Effects on existing parking facilities,or demand for new parking? ✓ C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns ofcirculation or movement of people and/or goods? ✓ e. Alterations to waterbome,rail or air traffic? ✓ f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: ::2c�to-s��a tcds a. Fre protection? b. Police protection? C. Schools? ✓ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ✓ e. Maintenance of public facilities,including roads? ✓ f. Other governmental services? ✓ 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems,or substantial ✓ alterations to the following utilities: 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? ✓ b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? `r 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public,or will the proposal result in the creation of an Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ✓ 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ✓ 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare orendangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? / b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more peparate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) f d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly indirectly? Ill. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation See attachments. Please Vote: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant IV. Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: • 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on anlattached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. • 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on 1 find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. i Signature' Dat4 Reviewed By Date Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant Response to the Environmental Initial Study Morrison Homes GPA (1-93-EC) These are staffs responses to.a proposed Negative Declaration per the environmental initial study for the Morrison Homes General Plan Amendment (1-93-EC). The General Plan Amendment is seeking a policy change to allow a lower amount of residential development. Future, related project entitlements which include the rezoning, development plan and subdivision will require separate envrionmental review. This initial study only addresses implications related to the proposed decrease in density. General Plan & Growth Management Issues Pertinent to CEQA Land Use Density - The project is a proposed decrease in the allowed residential density in an area which is planned for residential development. Two new residential subdivisions have recently been approved on the property adjacent and just west of the site and on another parcel to the north. The existing land use designation is Multiple Family Residential, Medium Density (12.0 — 20.9 units/net acre). The proposed 49 unit subdivision will result in a density of about 8+ units/net acre, which technically, requires achange in the land use designation to Multiple Family Residential, Low Density (7.3 — 12.0 units/net acre). The proposed density is a reduction to the next level down in the density range and is not considered to be a significant environmental affect under CEQA definitions. Measure C- 1988 Considerations - The site is located in an area which is designated for urban development at suburban densities and is located within all needed urban service districts. The proposed 49 units does not trigger Measure C - 1988 requirements for a mandatory traffic study since the project is well below the 100 unit threshold for that requirement. The County General Plan traffic model analyzed the traffic impacts of this area using the higher Multiple Family Residential, Medium Density and foresaw no problems associated with the higher density. The proposed project will lead to an overall lower volume of traffic from what was studied by the County General Plan traffic modeling effort. County Growth Management Standards - The County adopted, as part of its new General Plan, a growth management program which establishes minimum levels-of-service for the primary urban services which are typically needed to support urban development. As stated earlier, the site is within all planned service areas of the major utility districts. A primary theme of the County Growth Managment program is a "pay as you grow" philosophy. Although the general plan amendment is needed to grant the proposed reduction in density, the other project entitlements, which include the 1 Response to the Environmental Initial Study Morrison Homes GPA (1-93-EC) rezoning, development plan and subdivison approvals, will be conditioned to ensure that the project provides any;needed infrastructure to support it. Respones to the Initial Study 1g) The overlay system also reveals that the Brentwood fault, which has scattered micro-sensitivity associated with it, is located to the west of the site. The site is already designated for urban development. Seismic studies are typically required for projects which are located near faults. This issue will be investigated further during the rezoning, development plan and subdivision process. 8) The County General Plan anticipated a higher residential density on this site, but the proposal will lead to a slight decrease in residential density, which is not significant as it relates to CEQA. 11) The resulting decrease in density will have a similar effect on the resulting population, but is not significant under CEQA definitions. 13a) The project proposes to create up to 49 residential parcels, which is below the Measure - C 1988 threshold of 100 units for a traffic study. 14) The project site is within the service districts for all urban services and will meet all standards per the County's Growth Management Program. The developer is typically required to provide all needed infrastructure needed to support the devleopment. MacHD\GPA's\Morrison EIS Responses 2