HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04221997 - D9 D. I
Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
TO:
"''A"" County
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON
'v
"DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �''•.. _ - �
oSrA covK'�
DATE: April 22 , 1997
SUBJECT: Hearing on the County Planning Commission recommendation on a request
for Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Development Plan approval (File
#RZ963042 & #DP963023) and Appeals by the Applicant and Neighbors of
the Project on the Commission approval of a related Subdivision
application (File #SD968021) for a residential project in the Walnut
Creek/Saranap area [Braddock & Logan (Applicant) and White Family
Trust, Steven W. White, Trustee (Owner) ] .
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
As recommended by the County Planning Commission, adopt a motion
declaring the Board' s intent to:
1 . Adopt the Negative Declaration as adequate for purposes of
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act .
2 . Approve the rezoning of the site from Single Family
Residential, R-10 to Planned Unit District, P-1;
3 . Approve the preliminary and final development plan with
conditions;
And,
4 . Sustain the Commission' s approval of the vesting tentative map
application for a maximum of 11 lots as conditioned;
5 . Deny the appeal of the neighbors: Carl & Ellen Hutchins,
Robert & Donna Stevens, and George & Bernadette Katsuleres .
6 . Deny the appeal of the applicant .
7 . To continue the review of the project to a suitable date and
direct staff to propose appropriate findings for the Board to
consider for adoption.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE IC� �-
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CO TEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON April 22, 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X
See the Attached Addendum
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT - - - -- TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Bob Drake [ (510) 335-12141
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED April 22, 1997
CC: Braddock & Logan PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
White Family Trust THE BO RD OF SUPERVISORS
Carl & Ellen Hutchins AND C Y ADMI I TRATOR
Public Works Dept . , Eng. Services
County Counsel BY DEPUTY
County File #RZ963042, #DP963023& #SD968021
County Planning Commission Recommendation, and
Appeals of Subdivision Approval
Braddock & Logan (A); White Family Trust (0)
FISCAL IMPACT
None . The adopted fee schedule requires the applicant to pay any
project review time and material expense (including appeals)
exceeding 1200 of initial application filing fee .
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On July 8, 1996, the applicant, Braddock & Logan filed related
applications for an 11-unit residential project located on 2+ acres
at #2563 Lucy Lane in the Walnut Creek/Saranap area. The site is
in a transitional area between apartment complexes to the east and
single family residences on other sides of the property. The site
is designated Single Family Residential - Medium Density (3 . 0 to
4 . 9 units per net acre) on the general plan land use map.
The site contains seven existing older single family residential
structures (all but one on Lot 12 is proposed to be removed) and
several specimen trees . The application was initially scheduled
for hearing before the County Planning Commission on December 10,
1996 with a staff recommendation for approval but subject to
conditions including:
0 approval for only 9 units; and
• restriction of development to single-story residences .
At the request of the applicant, the hearing was rescheduled to a
later date .
Modified Project
The applicant then met with staff, following which the applicant
modified the project to allow for provision for lower income
housing to qualify for an added number of dwelling units under the
County' s affordable housing program and in accord with State
statutes . The applicant ' s proposal was modified to increase the
number of single family residential units/lots from 11 to 12, and
to allow for pre-approval of residential second units on two of the
lots (the applicant subsequently withdrew the proposal for pre-
approval of residential second units) . The existing residence on
Lot 12 and the two residential second units were proposed to be
developed for the affordable housing program.
Modified Staff Recommendation
Staff also revisited the staff analysis on the project and
concluded that some of the restrictions recommended in the initial
staff report were not justified and that the proposed inclusion of
affordable housing would qualify the project for a density bonus
above the standard general plan unit density yield. Accordingly,
the staff recommendation was modified to support the revised
project and to eliminate the single-story development restriction.
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
The revised project was heard by the County Planning Commission on
January 28, 1997 at which time the Commission closed the hearing
and continued the matter. Subsequently, on March 11, 1997, the
Commission voted 5-2 (Commissioners Guncheon and Wong dissenting)
to recommend to the Board of Supervisors the approval of the
proposed rezoning and development plans, and approved the
subdivision application for a maximum of 11 lots (reduction of one
-2-
County File #RZ963042, #DP963023 & #SD968021
County Planning Commission Recommendation, and
Appeals of Subdivision Approval
Braddock & Logan (A); White Family Trust(0)
lot) , and other project modifications . The Commission action also
allowed for the possible elimination of Lot 12, but elimination of
this lot might not occur until after the subdivision had been
recorded. The Commission' s approval of the subdivision was made
contingent on proposed rezoning and conforming development plan
approvals by the Board of Supervisors .
TWO APPEALS OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
Following the Commission action, appeals of the subdivision
approval were filed by both the applicant and neighbors .
Appeal by Neighbors (Hutchins, et al)
In a letter dated March 19, 1997, neighbors of the project are
objecting to the proposed rezoning and development .
Appeal by Applicant
In a letter dated March 20, 1997, the applicant has indicated that
he objects to staff ' s interpretation of the Commission action, and
has attached a marked-up copy of a transcript of the Commission
motion and deliberation in support of his case . The applicant
feels that in allowing for the potential elimination of Lot 12 , the
Commission effectively eliminated the requirement for project
participation in the affordable housing program.
Staff has also more recently received a follow-up letter from the
applicant dated April 10, 1997 (and corrected 4/15/97) indicating
that they are still seeking approval of 12 residential lots .
DISCUSSION
The concerns raised in the appeal by the residents were considered
by the Commission prior to its approval . In weighing the
applicable general plan policies, the Commission felt that the
project should be allowed to develop up to 11 lots; and one of
those lots should be dropped if the converted barn (beneath the
overhead transmission lines) could not be brought up to housing
code standards . Similarly, the Commission felt that it would not
be reasonable to impose on this project a single-story restriction
on this property insofar as other single family residential lots in
the neighborhood are free to build up to 35 feet in height and 2�5
stories .
While the Commission provided for the possible (but not certain)
elimination of Lot 12 , it did not mandate the elimination of the
lot (see COA #3 .B. ) . Further, contrary to the assertion of the
applicant, the Commission did not eliminate the requirement for
project participation in the County' s lower income housing program
(see COA #9) . Indeed the Commission spoke to the appropriateness
of allowing for affordable housing at this site .
Residual Obligation of Project to Participate in Affordable Housing
Program if Lot 12 is Eliminated
However, if Lot 12 is eliminated, it would eliminate the last of
the three original residences proposed to participate in the
affordable housing program. The Commission' s decision did not
leave clear what if any obligation the applicant would have to
participate in the County' s affordable housing program. Also, the
final resolution of the development of Lot 12 is allowed to be
deferred until a relatively late stage of the project, after the
-3-
County File #RZ963042, #DP963023 & #SD968021
County Planning Commission Recommendation, and
Appeals of Subdivision Approval
Braddock & Logan (A); White Family Trust(0)
final map is recorded (i .e . , prior to close of escrow of the sale
of the first residence) . The Board may wish to weigh these matters
further in its review of this project .
c : \wpdoc\rz963042 .bo
RD\
-4-
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.9
April 22, 1997 Agenda
This being the time noticed for the hearing on the recommendation of the
County Planning Commission on the request of Braddock & Logan (Applicants)
and White Family Trust, Steven White, (Trustee), for Rezoning, Preliminary and
Final Development Plan approval (County File #RZ 96-3042, #DP 96-3023);
and Appeals by the Applicants and Neighbors of the Project on the County
Planning Commission's approval of a related Subdivision application (County
File #SD 96-8021) for a residential project in the Walnut Creek/Saranap area.
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department presented the staff report,
and noted that the appeal is only on the Subdivision Map.
Mitch Avalon, Public Works Department, commented on proposed changes in
the Public Works' conditions, and introduced Kathy Ballenger, Public Works
Department.
The following persons presented testimony:
Marshall Torre, representing the applicant, Braddock & Logan, Group;
Joe Rafael, General Manager, Braddock & Logan, Group;
Allan Moore, Esq., Gagen & McCoy, et al., representing several Saranap
residents, 279 Front Street, Danville;
Wayne Fettig, 178 Kendall Road, Walnut Creek;
Donna Stevens, 125 Kendall Road, Walnut Creek;
Merrick Browne, 1375 Boulevard Way, Walnut Creek;
Dorothy Petrice, 2306 Warren Road, Walnut Creek;
Carl Hutchins, Jr., 172 Kendall Road, Walnut Creek;
George Katsulares, 2564 Lucy Lane, Walnut Creek;
Marshall Stine, 1251 Kendall Court, Walnut Creek;
Robert Stevens, 125 Kendall Court, Walnut Creek;
Gail Stevens, 610 Gilbert Avenue, #32, Menlo Park;
Lori Converse, 1230 Kendall Court, Walnut Creek;
Sylvia Deward, 53 Acorn Court, Walnut Creek;
Pamela Herbert, 2596 Lucy Lane, Walnut Creek;
Robert Colwell, 1300 Juanita Drive, Walnut Creek;
Philip Reynolds, 1283 Juanita Drive, Walnut Creek;
Cal Crawford, 163 Pondorone Lane, Walnut Creek;
Robert Nuzum, 1072 Juanita Drive, Walnut Creek;
Robert Pennell, 2 Evergreen Court, Walnut Creek;
Susan Shapiro, 73 Del Hombre Circle, Walnut Creek;
Jon Hendricks, 2547 Lucy Lane, Corporate Interior Services, Walnut
Creek;
Jennifer Russell, 178 Kendall Road, Walnut Creek;
Jim Baird, 20 La Casita Lane, Walnut Creek;
Bob Clark, 1470 Dewing Lane, Walnut Creek.
1
d�
All persons desiring to speak having been heard, the Board took the following
action:
CONTINUED to May 20, 1997, at 6:00 p.m. in the Board Chambers, the
hearing on the recommendation of the County Planning Commission on
the request of Braddock & Logan (Applicants) and White Family Trust,
Steven White, (Trustee), for Rezoning, Preliminary and Final
Development Plan approval (County File #RZ 96-3042, #DP 96-3023);
and Appeals on the County Planning Commission's approval of a related
Subdivision application (County File #SD 96-8021), in the Walnut
Creek/Saranap area.
2
APPEAL
BRADDOCK & LOGAN SERVICES (APPLICANT)
STEPHEN WHITE (OWNER)
COUNTY FILE #RZ963042, DP 963023 &SUBDIVISION 968021
Appeal by Braddock& Logan Services and Stephen White of the County Planning
Commission's decision to approve with modified conditions the Rezoning, Final
Development Plan and Subdivision requests,
AND
Appeal by Carl & Ellen Hutchins, Jr.,Robert W. & Donna Stevens and George &
Bernadette Katsulares of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve with
modified conditions the Rezoning,Final Development Plan and Subdivision requests,
in the Walnut Creek/Saranap area.
Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
April 22, 1997 - 3:00 p.m.
............
oA
Contra
•'f ' •�� Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County
PROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON --
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT c�srd'coiiii�
DATE: April 22, 1997
SUBJECT: Hearing on the County Planning Commission recommendation on a request
for Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Development Plan approval (File
#RZ963042 & #DP963023) and Appeals by the Applicant and Neighbors of
the Project on the Commission approval of a related Subdivision
application (File #SD968021) for a residential project in the Walnut
Creek/Saranap area [Braddock & Logan (Applicant) and White Family
Trust, Steven W. White, Trustee (Owner)] .
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
As recommended by the County Planning Commission, adopt a. motion
declaring the Board's intent to:
1. Adopt the Negative Declaration as adequate for purposes of
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
2. Approve the rezoning of the site . from Single Family
Residential, R-10 to Planned Unit District, P-1;
3. Approve the preliminary and final development plan with
conditions;
And,
4. Sustain the Commission's approval of the vesting tentative map
application for a maximum of 11 lots as conditioned;
5. Deny the appeal of the neighbors: Carl & Ellen Hutchins,
Robert & Donna Stevens, and George & Bernadette Katsuleres.
6. Deny the appeal of the applicant.
7. To continue the review of the project to a suitable date and
.direct staff to propose appropriate findings for the Board to
consider for adoption.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X_ YES SIGNATURE �'t.
RECOMMENDATION. OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CO EE
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.
Contact: Bob Drake [(510) 335-12141
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED
cc: Braddock & Logan PHIL BATCHELOR,. CLERK OF
White Family Trust THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Carl & Ellen Hutchins AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Public Works Dept. , Eng. Services
County Counsel BY DEPUTY
County File#RZ963042,#DP963023&#SD968021
County Planning Commission Recommendation,and
Appeals of Subdivision Approval
Braddock&Logan(A),White Family Trust(0)
FTS�AL TMPACT
None. The adopted fee schedule requires the applicant to pay any
project review time and material expense (including appeals)
exceeding 1201 of initial application filing fee.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On July 8, 1996, the applicant, Braddock & :Logan filed related
applications for an 11-unit residential project located on 2+ acres
at #2563 Lucy Lane in the Walnut Creek/Saranap area. The site is
in a transitional area between apartment complexes to the east and
single family residences on other sides of the property. The site
is designated Single Family Residential - Medium Density (3.0 to
4.9 units per net acre) on the general plan land use map.
The site contains seven existing older single family residential
structures (all but one on Lot 12 is proposed to be removed) and
several specimen trees. The application was initially scheduled
for hearing before the County Planning Commission on. December 10,
1996 with a staff recommendation for approval but subject to
conditions including:
• approval for only 9 units; and
• restriction of development to single-story residences.
At the request of the applicant, the hearing was rescheduled to a
later date.
Modified Project
The applicant then met with staff, following which the applicant
modified the project to allow for provision for lower income
housing to qualify for an added number of dwelling units under the
County's affordable housing program and in accord with State
statutes. The applicant's proposal was modified to increase the
number of single family residential units/lots from 11 to 12, and
to allow for pre-approval of residential second units on two of the
lots (the applicant subsequently withdrew the proposal for pre-
approval of residential second hunits) . The existing residence on
Lot 12 and the two residential second units were proposed to be
developed for the affordable housing program.
Modified Staff Recommendation
Staff also revisited the staff analysis on the project and
concluded that some of the restrictions recommended in the initial
staff report were not justified and that the proposed inclusion of
affordable housing would qualify the project for a density bonus
above the standard general plan unit density yield. Accordingly,
the staff recommendation was modified to support the revised
project and to eliminate the single-story development restriction.
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
The revised project was heard by the County Planning Commission on
January 28, 1997 at which time the Commission closed the hearing
and continued the matter. Subsequently, on March 11, 1997, the
Commission voted 5-2 (Commissioners Guncheon and Wong dissenting)
to recommend to the Board of Supervisors the approval of the
proposed rezoning and development plans, and approved the
subdivision application for a maximum of 11 lots (reduction of one
-2-
County File#RZ963042,#DP963023&#SD966021
County Planning Commission Recommendation,and
Appeals of Subdobion Approval
Braddock&Logan(A);White Family Trust(0)
lot) , and other project modifications. The Commission action also
allowed for the possible elimination of Lot 12, but elimination of
this lot might not occur until after the subdivision had been
recorded. The Commission's approval of the subdivision was made
contingent on proposed rezoning and conforming development plan
approvals by the Board of Supervisors.
TWO APPEALS OF SUBDIVISION_APPROVAL
Following the Commission action, appeals of the subdivision
approval were filed by both the applicant and neighbors.
Appeal by Neighbors (Hutchins. et al)
In a letter dated March 19, 1997, neighbors of the project are
objecting to the proposed rezoning and development.
Appeal by Applicant
In a letter dated March 20, 1997, the applicant has indicated that
he objects to staff's interpretation of the Commission action, and
has attached a marked-up copy of a transcript of the Commission
motion and deliberation in support of his case. The applicant
feels that in allowing for the potential elimination of Lot 12, the
Commission effectively eliminated the requirement for project
participation in the affordable housing. program.
Staff has also more recently received a follow-up letter from the
applicant dated April 10, 1997 (and corrected 4/15/97) indicating
that they are still seeking approval of 12 residential lots.
DISCUSSION
The concerns raised in the appeal by the residents were considered
by the Commission prior to its approval. In weighing the
applicable general plan policies, the Commission felt that the
project should be allowed to develop up to 11 lots; and one of
those lots should be dropped if the converted barn (beneath the
overhead transmission lines) could not be brought up to housing
code standards. Similarly, they Commission felt that it would not
be reasonable to impose on this project a single-story restriction
on this property insofar as other single family residential lots in
the neighborhood are free to build up to 35 feet in height and 2M
stories.
While the Commission provided for the possible (but not certain)
elimination of Lot 12, it did not mandate the elimination of the
lot(see COA #3.B.) . Further, contrary to the assertion of the
applicant, the Commission did not eliminate the requirement for
project participation in the County's lower income housing program
(see COA #9) . Indeed the Commission spoke to the appropriateness
of allowing for affordable housing at this site.
Residual Obligation of Project to Participate in Affordable Housin}
Program if Lot 12 is Eliminated
However, if Lot 12 is eliminated, it would eliminate the last of
the three original residences proposed to participate in the
affordable housing program. The Commission's decision did not
leave clear what if any obligation the applicant would have to
participate in the County's affordable housing program. Also, the
final resolution of the development of Lot 12 is allowed to be
deferred until a relatively late stage of the project, after the
-3-
County File#RZ963042,#DP963023&#SD968021
County Planning Commission Recommendation,and
Appeals o/Subdivision Approval
Braddock&Logan(A),White Family Trust(0)
final map is recorded (i.e. , prior to close of escrow of the sale
of the first residence) . The Board may wish to weigh these matters
further in its review of this project.
c:\wpdoc\rz963042.bo
RD\
i
-4-
RESOLUTION NO. 11-1997
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, COUNTY OF
CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA INCORPORATING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE REQUESTED CHANGE BY
BRADDOCK & LOGAN, L.P. TO REZONE LANDS AND PRELIMINARY
AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL (County File #RZ963042 &
#DP963023) AND APPROVAL OF A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
APPLICATION (Subdivision 8021, County File #968021) IN THE WALNUT
CREEK/SARANAP AREA.
On July 8, 1996,Braddock and Logan,L.P. (Applicant) and White Family Trust, Stephen W.
White, Trustee (Owner) filed related applications pertaining to a project on a 2+acre-site in the
Walnut Creek/Saranap area described as follows:
• To rezone the site from Single Family Residential, R-10, to Planned Unit District, P-1
with a variance to the area requirement(minimum 5 acres) (County File 4RZ963042);
• For preliminary and final development plan approval to allow for an single family
residential project consisting of 11 units (County File#DP963023); and
• For vesting tentative map approval to subdivide the site into 11 lots; and
For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff
determined that the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts, and a proposed
Negative Declaration was posted and noticed as required by law; and
After notice was lawfully given, the project was initially scheduled for hearing before the
County Planning Commission on December 10, 1996 at which time the project applications were
continued at the request of the applicant; and
In a letter dated December 23, 1996, the applicant modified their site plan to increase the
number of proposed single family residences from 11 units/lots to 12 units/lots with one of the units
(Lot 12)intended to qualify for low income housing under state statutes and the County's affordable
housing program;the modification also provided that two of the proposed lots (Lots 1 and 3) receive
pre-approval for residential second units for low/moderate income housing under the County
affordable housing program; and
On January 6, 1997, after determining that the proposed project modifications would not
result in any significant impacts, a second Notice of Negative Declaration was issued on the project
with the modified project description as required by law; and
Resolution No.11-1997
Contra Costa County Planning Commission
County File#RZ963042,#DP963023,and#SD968021
On January 14, 1997,the County Planning Commission continued the hearing to January 28,
1997; and
After notice was lawfully given, the revised project was scheduled for hearing before the
County Planning Commission on January 28, 1997, at which time testimony was taken and at the
conclusion of which the hearing was closed; and the matter continued to February 11, 1997; and
On February 11, 1997, the Commission continued the matter to the February 25, 1997
hearing, and at the February 25, 1997 hearing,the Commission continued the matter to its March 11,
1997 meeting; and
In a letter dated February 4, 1997,the applicant withdrew consideration of the request for two
proposed residential second units on Lots 1 and 3; and -
The County Planning Commission having %lly reviewed, considered and evaluated all the
testimony and evidence submitted in this matter,
RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission:
1) adopts the proposed Negative Declaration as adequate for purposes of compliance
with CEQA;
2) recommends to the Board of Supervisors:
• the rezoning of the site to the:Planned Unit District(P-1) as proposed;
• preliminary and final development plan for a maximum of 11 single family
residences with conditions;
3) approves the vesting tentative map application for a maximum of 11 lots with
conditions; and
Further, the County Planning Commission finds that the recommended rezoning and
preliminary and final development plan actions and the approved vesting tentative map application
conform with the general plan designation for this site and applicable general plan policies; and
Further, the County Planning Commission makes the following findings pursuant to Secions
26-2.1806, 84-66.1606, and 94-2.806 of the County Code:
Page 2
Resolution No.11-1997
Contra Costa County Planning Commission
County File#RZ963042,#DP963023,and#SD968021
1. The proposed rezoning will substantially comply with the General Plan. The site is
designated Single Family Residential-Medium Density(3.0 -4.9 units per net acre) which
allows up to 11 dwelling units to be placed on this site under conventional zoning restrictions.
The approved number of units is consistent with the permitted yield under the general plan.
The project may also provide for lower-income housing which would allow the project to
qualify for a 10% density bonus under state statutes and the County's Affordable Housing
Program. The provision of up to 11 eleven residential units would increase the housing
supply by 5 units above the existing level of development on the property and thus advance
the housing supply development objectives of the General Plan's Housing Element. There
are adequate public facilities (e.g., sewer and water) to serve the project as evidenced by
supportive correspondence from jurisdictions serving the area.
2. The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district
and to uses in adjacent districts The site is generally in a transitional use area with single
family residential uses on three sides and higher density multiple family residential
development to the east. The proposed development is single family residential in character.
The project's lot density immediately adjacent to single family residential properties to the
south and west is reflective of the density on those abutting lots. The project would have
lower building pads than the lots to the west, and the project would be subject to greater
structure height restrictions than would apply to surrounding residential properties. The
project would save a specimen oak tree adjacent to the west property line without any
significant encroachment within the dripline, and several other mature trees.
3. A community need for this project has been demonstrated. As stated above, this project
would allow for a net increase of 5 dwelling units to the County's housing supply, and may
also contribute a residence to the County's Affordable Housing Program. Both of these
provisions would address the housing problem documented in the County's Housing Element.
4. The proposed preliminary development plan will constitute a residential environment of
sustained desirability, and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood and community. The project would be required to provide landscape
improvements and provide for a new private road to serve the project. The approval would
require that the developer implement measures to assure protection of existing trees on
adjoining properties so as not to cause significant damage to the tree root zones.
Development will be required to provide on-street parking and observe setbacks from
property lines.
5. The proposed preliminary and final development plan is a harmonious integrated plan which
justifies exceptions from the normal application of the zoning code. The project will provide
for a harmonious integrated plan. Lots fronting on Lucy Lane will be required to provide
Page 3
Resolution No.I1-1997
Contra Costa County Planning Commission
County File#RZ963042,#DP963023,and#SD968021
residences that face that road. The required drainage improvements will have to satisfy the
County collect and convey requirement such that all runoff flowing onto and generated on the
project would be conveyed to an adequate natural or manmade watercourse.
6. The applicant intends to start construction within two and one half yearsfrom the effetive
date of this approval. The applicant has indicated that they intend to commence construction
within two and one-half years of the effective date of the proposed rezoning.
7. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is
consistent with the applicable general and specific plans. There is no specific plan that
applies to this site. However,the project as approved is consistent with the permitted number
of units allowed within the general plan designation that applies to this site, Single Family
Residential,Medium Density. The project will be required to install a private road that is 28
feet in width, and convey run-off to an adequate natural or man-made watercourse. The
project is also configured so as to avoid damage to a large oak tree on the property.
Page 4
Resolution No.I1-1997
Contra Costa County Planning Commission
County File#RZ963042,#DP963023,and#SD968021
The decision of the County Planning Commission was given by motion of the Contra Costa
County Planning Commission on Tuesday, March 11, 1997 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Clark, Terrell, Gaddis, Pavlinec, and Hanecak.
NOES: Commissioners - Guncheon and Wong.
ABSENT: Commissioners-None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners-None.
On March 20, 1997, an appeal of the County Planning Commission's approval of the
Subdivision application was received from Carl & Ellen Hutchins, Robert & Donna Stevens, and
George&Bernadette Katsuleres, several neighhbors of the proposed project; and
On March 21, 1997, an appeal of the County Planning Commission's approval of the
Subdivision application was received from the project applicant, Braddock&Logan Services, LLC.
HYMAN WONG
Chairman of the County Planning Commission
County of Contra Costa, State of California.
I,Harvey E. Bragdon, Secretary of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, hereby
certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on March 11, 1997.
ATTEST:
(in Harvey E. Bragdon, Secreta4 of the
Contra Costa County Planning Commission,
Contra Costa County, State of California.
J:\groups\cdadpool\bob\rz963042.res
RD\
Page 5
Findings Map
v
KENC}Al.Ra. R-
�O
L CY LN
0 N.
Cr
Q
o M-2
Q Q Q LL
VY
M-
4
Rezone FromINO To?-I_ ALAUT ` EA a Area
Chair of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission, State of California, do here y certify
that this is a true and cokect copy of
OUNt'y'S t �� 01a1�t� Mho
indicaling thereon the decision of the Contra Costa tCountK Planning ,
Commission in the matter of le ��,,__.���1�Aj _
�?2 �Ic3D4.2
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Contra C sto County
Planning Commission, S ate of Calif.
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN DP963023, P-I REZONING RZ963042 AND
SUBDIVISION SD968021 Per 3/11/97 County Planning Commission
Approval (Braddock & Logan - Applicant; Stephen White, Trustee
Owner)
............
..................... .. .............. .... .
..... .. . ................................................... ........
............... . . .. .............
T-1.1.......... 0",
................
...t d::'
..... .................... it, b
..............
omm ss ra€
..............
.O.W.
ad
IT.
ku"J""
...
FINDINGS
A. Rezoning RZ963042
1. The change proposed will substantially comply with the General Plan.
2. The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the
district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts.
3. Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed.
4. The applicant intends to start construction within two and one-half years from
effective date of zoning change and plan approval.
5. The project will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and
stability and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood
and community.
6. The development of a harmonious integrated plan justifies exceptions from the normal
application of this use.
B. Tentative Map (Subdivision 8021)Finding (Section 94-2.806 of the Ordinance Code)
The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is
consistent with the applicable general plan required by law.
C. Variance to 5-acre minimum lot size in P-1 district for residential use.
I Approval of this variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use
district in which the property is located.
2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size
and shape and location relative to a high voltage power line, strict application of the
2
P-1 district 5-acre limitation is found to deprive the property owner of rights enjoyed
by others in the P-1, Planned Unit District, and the vicinity.
3. The variance authorized substantially meets the intent of the respective land use
district in which the subject property is located.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Approved Project Exhibits - This approval is based .upon the exhibits received by the
Community Development Department listed as follows:
A. Exhibit A - Revised Tentative Map received on December 23, 1996 by the
Community Development Department for 12 lots on the 2.6 acre site, as modified by:
• the Conceptual Site Plan prepared by Luk, Milani & Associates dated
February 7, 1997;
• an untitled preliminary landscape plan prepared by Thomas E. Baak &
Associates dated February 10, 1997; and
0 Exhibit B, dated received by Community Development on March 4, 1997, an
exhibit identifying trees on adjoining properties (Adair and Lamore) and the
modifications to the grading plan to allow for protection of those trees.
B. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Engeo and dated received June
28, 1996 by the Community Development Department.
C. March 3, 1997 Supplemental Tree Evaluation Prepared by Ed Brennan, Certified
Arborist, of Hortscience Concerning two mature trees abutting the site:
• a 29" Coast Redwood Tree at#51 Iris Drive(Parcel No. 185-360-014, Adair)
adjacent to Lot 3; to avoid significant impact to the tree, the report
recommends that the construction of a retaining wall 10 feet into the property
line, giving the tree a radius of 17 feet for root exploration; and
• a 30"Monterey Pine Tree at#1240 Kendall Court (Parcel No. 185-360-031,
Lamore)adjacent to Lot 2;to avoid significant impacts to the tree, the report
recommends that a retaining wall be constructed 20 feet into the subject
property.
March 3, 1997 letter from Braddock & Logan Agreeing to the Tree Protection
Measures in the Arborist Report.
Y
3
. d..
Pi:.::::;.::;<;i;.<:«::.:..;:;::::.;::.;';.;'.;'::::::::::::;::::::::;::::;;::>.:.. ..........I.�. I.u.�.� ... p,lh aPp t
._:::::::::::::::::::::::::..............
:.i:•i:fii:iii::Liii::4iiiiiiii::"':.iii:.iiiiiiii:Miiiiii:^ii:YL•i:4:S:•:'.::ti:::•i:.:::.ii:�':i:.i:.i:.:.i:.i:.i:i:.:'vii:: ::.i:.i:.i'.:�iiiii:•i}:.?•::::::::::::".:::::::::::::.�::::::::.� ':.:::iiiiiiiiiiiiii:
..:::> ::; t ' an: 1 ::. :. :.it r :rai :;: h ::ar
syQQ.:::.:::::::::::::
..............><:.iii>::;:.»»> .::............:::: ..:..:............:................................ ..............:.....................:::
.....................................................................................................
zLflts9 < 3aid »iotfi >a:i:. '»>
.................:::::.x::::::::::::::::..::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::.
..................
:.::sesrns:: et .. < d
0., UYU-e :::::L ax:<:> :: ....::..Me:::>le :::::fi s n� ':»:o ::::Luc. >< ;a e:::>at i:a t<::: 0.:>::l ham:::: as: .:
......:. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::: g : :::Y....::::::::::::::::::::::J::::::::::::: : :::::::::::t r
K.
Vit.. € s r l i . .. l d...a „ �l b as
.............................
... i.....f..............
t�
.............................
.............................
2. Project Time Limits and Contingent Approval of Subdivision - The approval of the
Rezoning/Preliminary.Development Plan RZ963042, and Final Development Plan FDP
963023 shall run concurrently with the time limits of SUB 98021. Approval of Subdivision
8021 is contingent on Board of Supervisors adoption of the requested Planned Unit District
zoning for this site and conforming approval of Final Development Plan File#DP963023.
3. Residential Design Standards - Except as specified in these conditions and the exhibits
described in Condition #1 above, the guide for development shall be the Single-Family
Residential (R-6)District, subject to the Zoning Administrator's review and approval at the
time of issuance of building permits, and the specifications listed in 3.C. below.
A. Prior to issuance of building permits, an overall plan shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Zoning Administrator showing building locations and siting
dimensions, which shall avoid a monotonous, uniform appearing streetscape.
B. Prior to the close of escrow on any lot within this subdivision, the applicant shall
submit evidence acceptable to the Zoning Administrator that the residence on Lot 12
meets current Housing Code Standards.
::;�:: s:::i::::::::i::::::;:;::: ::i:;-r.';:; i ::i'':i''::
xatOr:dettiethyli ..�. ..FOP :riu:::>' :t<Itt: t
PP ..r4 _ a
: i , :.;:.:.;:.;:.;i:.i :.i::.:i:.i:.::.ii:.i:.:::..::::.::.::.:::.:::.::.:>: . ::.:;:.;:.::::..ii;:.i;:;.i:.i..i::.:::.:i:.:
i[ '' s€ ;€1 >` 1i ii lF z sc-01 ..:::_:. 1 >
:......::::::.:::::::::::::::::::..:::::::::::::.�::::::::::...P.:::::::::.:::::::.::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..::::.:::
................i: ::: :i::i: iii5i;r ii:::.:
:'i::i::i:::'iiii:ifiiii:iiY......S':Y ::i :'::i::i:vi:::i:.........................................
:::isi i::::ii::::i::::i.'!: i:::i::Y.i::::i::i::::iy:::::i .'
r. .vf fir.. a-C -M Mat. n:€::' Lct €<:1€ >and:: :mt€:a: e
: ::: :::t.::::::::::: :::::::::::: .::: ::: . ::..._:.
:... . .....:..... ....... ........ ......... :...... ............................. ..... .. ... .
......................
C. Setbacks shall be a minimum of 18-feet with an allowance for a 3-foot projection of
architectural features; no garage door shall be closer than 20-feet from the front
property line. Garage doors shall be of a"roll-up" design, and operated by remote
..................................
.................................
control. 1 Lot 9 may have a 15-foot rearyard.
D. The maximum structure height shall be 30 feet, and shall not exceed two stories.
4
E. The maximum building coverage shall be 40% of the lot area.
F. Each lot shall provide a minimum 2-car garage and a maximum of a 3-car garage. A
:. e; .«::::: tlrrns72fei<.:;: 1$ shall be constructed on Lot 12
::.::1 ............. ....................:::::::::::::..:..:....:........:.:::.::.:::. '
prior to issuance of the eighth residential building permit within the subdivision.
G. No fencing taller than 3 feet shall be installed within the front setback areas (adjacent
to Lucy Lane) ofLots$-Hand 9 `'i '1 '.
,. ,c zrd a d W. r )_ qy
Cheops prva>
4. Approval of Variance for Application of Planned Unit (P-1)District Zoning - A_ variance is
approved to allow a P-1 zoning on a parcel:
A. Less than 5 acres for residential use.
5. Review of Residential Design - The proposed buildings shall be similar to that shown on
submitted plans. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, elevations and architectural design
of the building and building roofing material shall be submitted for final review and approval
by the County Zoning Administrator. The roofs and exterior walls of the buildings shall be
free of such objects as air conditioning or utility equipment, television aerials, etc., or such
features screened from view. The building shall be finished in wood and stucco or other
materials acceptable to the Zoning Administrator.
6. Review of Residential Fenestration Design on Selected Lots (1 2, and 3) - Window
placement on the new homes to be established on Lots 1, 2 and 3 will be subject to the review
and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Additionally, homeowners adjacent to these new
homes will be notified of the pending administrative action by the Zoning Administrator and
shall be given the opportunity to review and comment on the plans.
7. Review of Residential Design -Prior to the issuance of any building permit and/or grading
permit for work on any lot, the proposed grading, location and design of the proposed
residential building to be located on that lot shall be first submitted for review and approval
by the Zoning Administrator. Roof shapes, exterior materials and colors that complement the
character of the surrounding terrain shall be utilized. Colors of roofs and exterior materials
shall not be reflective from a distance, but shall be such as to reduce visibility from the
surrounding area. Building height, setbacks and bulk shall encourage low profile, or stepped-
on-grade structures.
8. Restriction on Residential Density - The overall density shall be between a maximum of 3 -
4.9 units per net acre and a minimum of four units per net acre per the General Plan
designation of Single Family Residential-Medium Density for the site exclusive of any
5
residential units permitted pursuant to affordable housing density bonus policies of the
General Plan Housing Element. The overall density for the development shall not be reduced
below the minimum density allowed by the General Plan designation for the site.
9. Lower Income Housing Agreement - The developer shall execute a Developer's Sales
Agreement and other requirements as stipulated under the Density Bonus program, at least
90 days prior to filing of the first Final Map.
Prior to filing the Final Map, the developer shall submit a plan for the review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator for the purpose of determining which units shall be available as
affordable housing to lower income households. The approved plan shall be incorporated into
the Developer Sales Agreement.
This information can be obtained from the Redevelopment Agency. Please contact Kathleen
Hamm at 335-1257 to make arrangements to obtain this information.
10. Review of Proposed Alternative Street Names-At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map,
proposed street names (public and private) shall be submitted for review by the Community
Development Department, Graphics Section (Phone #335-1270). Alternate street names
should be submitted. The Final Map cannot be certified by the Community Development
Department without the approved street names.
11. Discovery of Archaeological Materials- 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 of Profes-
sional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance.of the find
and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary.
12. Discovery of Cultural Materials-If any significant cultural materials such as artifacts, human
burials, or the like are encountered during construction operations, such operations shall cease
within 10 feet of the find, the Community Development Department shall be notified within
24-hours and a qualified archaeologist contacted and retained for further recommendations.
Significant cultural materials include, but are not limited to, aboriginal human remains,
chipped stone, groundstone, shell and bone artifacts, concentrations of fire cracked rock, ash,
charcoal, shell, bone, and historic features such as privies or building foundations.
13. Discovery of Any Human Remains - In the event of discovery or recognition of any human
remains on the site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any
nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Contra
Costa County has been contacted, per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety
Code.
14. Arborist Report and Grading/Tree Preservation Plan - At least 30 days prior to issuance of
a grading permit or filing of a Final Map, a grading/tree preservation plan shall be submitted
6
for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall identify all trees with
a trunk circumference of 10 inches or more, 4'/ feet above the ground. The trunk size,
species and approximate drip line of each qualifying tree shall be identified on the plan, and
whether the tree is proposed to be removed or preserved. The plan shall be accompanied by
a report from a qualified arborist on the proposed development recommending measures to
protect trees as appropriate during the construction and post-construction stages. The
recommended measures from the arborist shall be integrated into or otherwise attached to the
proposed building plan.
Prior to building, applicant shall provide fencing or other appropriate barriers at least five (5)
feet outside of the drip line of all trees to be retained on the site in order to give grading
contractors proper visual notification to keep equipment out of the area surrounding these
trees. (During grading operations a qualified arborists shall be on site to approve any needed
exceptions to these requirements).
15. Security to Protect Trees to be Preserved During Construction Period - To assure protection
and/or reasonable replacement of existing trees to be preserved which are in proximity to
project improvements,the applicant shall post a bond(or cash deposit or other surety) for the
required work with the Community Development Department. The term of the bond shall
extend at least 24 months beyond the completion of construction. Prior to posting the bond
or deposit, a licensed arborist shall assess the value of the trees and reasonable compensatory
terms in the event that a tree to be preserved is destroyed or otherwise damaged by
construction-related activity. The tree bonding program shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator.
16. Submittal of a Final Landscape Plan - A revised landscaping and irrigation plan for all
common and frontyard areas shown on the plan shall be submitted for review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator at least 30 days prior to final inspection. A cost estimate shall '
be submitted with the landscaping program plan. Landscaping shall conform to the County
Water Conservation Landscape Ordinance 82-26 and shall be installed prior to approval of
final building permit. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and shall
be certified to be in compliance with the County Water Conservation Ordinance.
17. Landscape Plant Standards - California native drought tolerant plant or tree shall be used as
much as possible. All trees shall be a minimum 15-gallon size, all shrubs shall be a minimum
5-gallon size, except as otherwise noted.
18. Street Tree Plan- Submit a street tree planting plan prior to issuance of building permits. A
minimum of 18 15-gallon size trees shall be planted.
19. Review of Project Entrance Signage - The design, color and location of any project sign at
the entrance to the property shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator.
20. Construction Period Restrictions - Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the
following construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements:
A. Restriction on Noise-Generating Construction Activity - Noise generating
construction activities, including such things as power generators, shall be limited to
the hours of 7:00 AM. 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. Restriction on Construction Equipment - 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. Notice to Owners of Nearby Properties Prior to Commencement of Construction
Activity - 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
individuals responsible for noise and fitter control, tree protection, construction traffic
and vehicles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number, shall be expressly
identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of major
grading and construction 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. Dust/Litter Control - 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.
21. Water Conservation Ordinance Compliance - The applicant shall comply with the Contra
Costa County Ordinance pertaining to water conservation. Compliance with the Water
Conservation Ordinance shall be designed to encourage low-flow water devices and other
interior and exterior water conservation techniques.
8
22. Use of Low-Flow Toilets - All toilets shall be low-flow units in accordance with Section
17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code; sinks and showers shall be water conserving units,
in accordance with the California Energy Commission Standards for new residential buildings.
23. Roof Restrictions - All residential buildings shall have fire resistant roofs and exterior
materials.
24. Design of House Numbers-All dwelling units shall have house numbers that are visible from
the street which may require illumination.
25. Erosion Control Plan-Landscape plans for all landscape areas shall be prepared by a licensed
landscape architect(or in the case of the erosion control plan by an experienced plant ecolo-
gist). Plans shall be certified for compliance with the Water Conservation in New Develop-
ments Ordinance (No. 90-59). Proposed shrubs shall be a minimum 5-gallons in size; pro-
posed trees a minimum 15-gallons in size (10'x/0 of the trees may be of a smaller size to
provide for variety in appearance). Prior to submittal to the Zoning Administrator, the East
Bay Municipal Utility District and Public Works Department,Road Engineering Section, shall
be provided an opportunity to review and comment on the plans. Landscaping shall be
designed so as to minimize landscape maintenance costs. Approved landscaping shall be
installed prior to occupancy of the structure.
26. Deed Notification of Proximity to Overhead :Electric Transmission Line - A Condition of
approval will be assigned to the project which requires that where a lot/parcel is located
within 300 feet of a high voltage electric transmission line, the applicant shall record the
following as a deed notification:
"The subject property is located near a high voltage electric
transmission line. Purchasers should be aware that there is ongoing
research on possible potential adverse health effects caused by the
exposure to a magnetic field generated by high voltage lines.
Although much more research is needed before the question of
whether magnetic fields actually cause adverse health effects can be
resolved,the basis for such an hypothesis is established. At this time
no risk assessment has been made."
When a Final Subdivision Report issued by the California Department of Real Estate is
required, the applicant shall also request that the Department of Real Estate insert the above
note in the report. (Mitigation Measure for #17 Human Health)
27. Credit Against Development Impact Fee Obligation for Existing Residences - The applicant
shall receive credit in fees (school, park, AOB, etc.) for the seven (7) existing homes on the
site. New fees shall be assessed to the five(5) new homes that will be established at the site.
9
28. Payment of Supplemental Application Fees - This application is subject to an initial
application fee of$11,959.00 which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and
material costs if the application review expenses exceed 120% of the initial fee. Any
additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of
the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five
working days for file preparation. You may obtain current costs by contacting the project
planner. If you owe additional fees, a bill will be to you shortly after permit issuance.
Public Works Conditions
Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9, and Title 10 of the ordinance Code.
Any Ordinance Code exceptions must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval. Conditions of
Approval are based on the plan submitted September 18, 1996.
Comply with the Following Conditions of Approval prior to Filing of the Final Map.
29. General Requirements:
Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Public
Works Department -Engineering Services Division, along with review and inspection fees,
and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code for the conditions of
approval of this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and
striping plans for review by the Transportation Engineering Division.
30. Roadway Improvements (Frontage):
A. Applicant shall install necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage and street
lighting along the frontage of Lucy Lane.
B. Applicant shall install safety related improvements on Lucy Lane and the access road
to this subdivision (including traffic signs and striping) as approved by the Public
Works Department- Transportation Engineering Division.
31. Specific On-Site Road Improvements
A. Construct "A" Street as a 8.4 meter (28f foot) road within a 9.0 meter(29f foot)
road easement to current County private road standards as shown on the Vesting
Tentative Map. "A" Street shall have a 6-foot public utility easement along the east
side and around the cul-de-sac, and shall have a 5-foot pedestrian access easement
and a 6-foot public utility easement along the west side.
32. Access to Adjoining Property:
Proof of Access/Acquisition
10
A. Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department -Engineering Services
Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits
and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road or
drainage improvements.
Encroachment Permit
B. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Application & Permit Center for
construction of driveways, or other improvements within the right of way of Lucy
Lane and other public roadways.
33. Road Alignment (Horizontal and Vertical Sight Distance/Grades):
A sketch plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department - Engineering Services
Division, for review showing all public roadvnprovements prior to starting work on the
improvement plans. The sketch alignment plan shall be to scale and show proposed and
future curb lines, lane striping details, lighting and cross-sections. The sketch plan shall
extend a minimum of 45f (150-feet) beyond the limits of the proposed work. The sketch
alignment plan shall also include adequate information to show that adequate sight distance
has been provided.
34. Road Dedications:
Applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the right of way necessary for
the planned future width of 15.0 meter(50±feet) along the frontage of Lucy Lane.
35. Annexation to County Service Area L-100 for Maintenance of Street Lights:
Application for annexation to CSA L-100 Lighting District shall be submitted prior to filing
of the Final Map. No street lights shall be required within the limits of this subdivision.
36. Pedestrian Facilities:
All public and private pedestrian facilities and access ways shall be designed in accordance
with Title 24 (Handicap access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This shall include
all sidewalks, paths, trails, driveway depressions, as well as handicap ramps.
37. Parking:
The applicant shall substantiate that he has provided adequate parking facilities by:
11
A. Providing a minimum of four(4)off-street parking spaces per unit and maximize on-
street parking on Lucy Lane, subject to Public Works Department and Zoning
Administrator review and approval;
38. Utilities/Undergrounding:
All new utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground, including the existing
overhead distribution facilities along the frontage of Lucy Lane. This condition does not
require that the existing P.G.&E. Tower lines be undergrounded.
39. Maintenance of Facilities:
Applicant shall develop and enter into a maintenance agreement that will insure that the
proposed private road will be maintained, and that each lot in this subdivision that t uses the
proposed private road will share in its maintenance.
.........yy.: '��++;;:.;hh.'. � .:[:�.:.y.}�:.:. .ry.��.y.......:/�..:�.y.:#.ap..:i.`..:..:..y:..:::..:::}.�.: ....:.. .> ..>p..> :..:.:�..::.:.:.>':y..;:...:.:::.:.::.::::.:.:..::.:..�.
':FM.:::A{ h ;:'jj 4f.4?!'!�4!::: t'�!:�?: 4F?:4W.�i�!:::.'(:�+'�:..'L..J- +:i ::: ::i:!:+i�: . ..�:-6.y2: �f.::::' p:::(:':':�:
::::::::: :. ::::::::: :::::..3. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::"L k`:::::::::....................................... W!i..::.::: :::.Y..: I I . .,
:.::.;:.; ... .� :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.........................:.>:>:.:>:.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.:
DeN. c Ment: w:aa :' a : ': .>Z;.: ::: <:: ...:.,..,<:.. ... :.
:..:::: .;::: mn.: t hums t r...ntsr:tc
P ::.:1 ::::.;:.;:<.;::.::.; :::::::::::::.:.:.:::::::::: :.:::::::::::::::::::....
. . :: 1 ::::::::::::::..
..... ......... ...............
':.::h .::- �� :<::. <.;:<....<.. etc �x c� ���� ���fifi � �`�CU. � ���s die
ati <:: :::. >: ::: ::: n :::: ::.::: er :th
: :::;: :::`.:.::;:;:;:;:`;: ;:;;: .. :.. ... ..... ....w.. .... ......i. ..................r... .......................
...........................................€ 1€ a :;art c ate:: n:::a ' €—:29� at :>avit ::tlle: ntenance: f
# ::. rime , ::::::.>_<<::>:: >:::<::<<
P:: .::::::::.p:::::::::::::::::.:...:::: nr a 1e pep f� rnxg rodac �afuxal
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
rced::: erne ::: :::# r >: '... ::: ;:I :::m:< i :>s >: ncwrent:.
::.:
40. Drainage Improvements:
Collect and Convey
A. Division 914 of the Ordinance Code requires that all storm waters entering or
originating within the subject property shall be conveyed,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.
B. Applicant shall verify that the downstream drainage system is adequate to convey the
required design storm (based on the size of the watershed) and, if necessary, shall
12
construct improvements to guarantee adequacy. In addition to the immediate
downstream drainage system down to the Blade Court bypass pipe and natural
watercourse system. The applicant shall also show that the culvert under Dewing
Lane is adequate. Inadequate drainage facilities shall be replaced with facilities to
convey the stormwater run-off anticipated from ultimate development of the area.
The applicant may request a reimbursement agreement with the County which would
allow reimbursement of the cost of additional capacity, over and above that required
for this development, based on fees collected from the local area pursuant to the
reimbursement ordinance. The developer shall work with and assist the County in
identifying the parcels in the local watershed to be"tagged" by future conditions of
approval, development potential in the area, contacting affected property owners and
determining the fair share of cost for future development. The developer would also
be obligated to pay the County for administrative costs to prepare the reimbursement
agreement and collecting and paying the:reimbursable funds.
C. Storm drainage facilities required by Division 914 shall be designed and constructed
in accordance with specifications outlined in Division 914 and in compliance with
design standards of the Public Works Department.
41. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements:
A. Storm drainage originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner
shall be prevented from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s).
B. The applicant shall install within a dedicated drainage easement any portion of the
drainage system which conveys run-off from public streets.
Comply with the following Conditions of Approval Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
42. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare
Fee Ordinance for the South Walnut creek Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of
Supervisors for the five new homes. Applicant:shall receive a credit for the seven (7) existing
homes on the site.
Comply with the Following Conditions of Approval Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit
43. Compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES):
The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal, construction and
industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board,
or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay - Region II or
Central Valley -Region V).
13
Compliance shall include developing best management practices (BMP's) in accordance with
the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program for the site's storm water drainage, and
stenciling all storm drains with"No Dumping, Drains to Delta" using thermoplastic tape.
Indemnification of the County
44. Indemnification -Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including
the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra
Cosa County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action,
or proceeding against the Agency(the County)or its agents, officers, or employees to attack,
set aside,void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this subdivision map application,
which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The County
will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate
fully in the defense.
ADVISORY NOTES
PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ADVISORY
NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF
ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO
PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT.
A. The applicant/owner should be aware of the expiration dates and renewing requirements prior
to requesting building or grading permits.
B. Comply with the requirements of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District.
C. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District.
D. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Building permits are
required prior to the construction of most structures.
E. The applicant is required to pay an environmental review fee of$25.00 for the Department
of Fish and Game at the end of the appeal period. Failure to do so will result in fines. In
addition, the approval is not final or vested until the fee is paid. A check for this fee shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department made out to Contra Costa County for
submittal with the final environmental documents.
14
F. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare
Fee Ordinance for the South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Super-
visors.
G. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit for municipal, construction
and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control
Board or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards(San Francisco Bay-Regional II
or Central Valley-Region V).
H. This project is subject to the development fees in effect under County Ordinance as of
September 17, 1996 ,the date the vesting tentative map application was accepted as complete
by the Community Development Department. These fees are in addition to any other
development fees which may be specified in the conditions of approval.
The fees include but are not limited to the following:
Park Dedication $2,000.00 per residence.
Child Care) $400.00 per residence.
An estimate of the fee charges for each approved lot may be obtained by contacting the
Building Inspection Department at 335-1196.
I, 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.
J. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish& Game. It is the
applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish& Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville,
California 94599, of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any
fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code.
K. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the
applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to
determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained.
L. Expiration of Vested Rights: Pursuant to Section 66452.6(g) of the Subdivision Map act, the
rights conferred by the vesting tentative map as provided by Chapter 4.5 of the Subdivision
Map act shall last for an initial period of two (2) years following the recording date of the
final/parcel map. These rights pertain to development fees and regulations. Where several
15
final maps are recorded on various phases of a project covered by a single vesting tentative
map, the initial time period shall begin for each phase when the final map for that phase is
recorded.
At any time prior to the expiration of the initial time period, the subdivider may apply for a
one-year extension. The application shall be accompanied by the applicable filing fee. If the
extension is denied by an advisory agency,the subdivider may appeal that denial to the Board
of Supervisors by filing a letter of appeal with the appropriate filing fee with the Clerk of the
Board within 15 calendar days.
The initial time period may also be subject to automatic extension pursuant to other
provisions of Section 66452.6(g) relating to processing of related development applications
by the County.
At the expiration of the vesting time period, remaining development (i.e., new building
permits)within the subdivision shall be subject to development fees and regulations in effect
at that time.
EAD/DMB/aa
DPHI/3023-96c.EAD
11/12/96
CARL HUTCHINS,JR.
172 KENDALL RD.
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
94595 0113
510 934 5908
March 19, 1997
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Re: Sub Division 8021
Braddock&Logan
White property
SUPERVISORS
Gayle B. Uilkema
Donna Gerber
Jim Rogers
Mark DeSaulnier
Joe Canciamilla
APPEAL FROM DECISIONS OF PLANNING COMMISSION -
MEETING OF MARCH 11, 1997
Submission to The Community Planning department and to The Board c`
supervisors by the following signatories with the support and advise of m �
our neighbors.
S� I I �d OZt�4d LG
CH/ms
3-19-97 8021YA.doc '`
CARL HUTCHINS,JR.
172 KENDALL RD.
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
94595 0113
510 934 5908
March 17, 1997
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Re: Sub Division 8021
Braddock&Logan
White property
EXHIBITS TO THE APPEAL
1. Point by Point response to Findings of 3-11-97.
2. Staff Report 3-11-97
3. Contra Costa Fire Protection transmittal 3-10-97
4. Contra Costa Fire Protection transmittal 3-4-97
5. Carl&Ellen Hutchins letter 3-12-97
6. Petition signed by 73 neighbors
7. Dennis M. Barry letter to Carl Hutchins 2-14-97
8. Carl &Ellen Hutchins letter 2-27-97
9. Carl&Ellen Hutchins letter 2-27-97
10. Findings& Conditions 1-6-97/ 1-15-97
11. Findings& Conditions 1-28-97
12. Carl&Ellen Hutchins letter 2-17-97
13. Carl&Ellen Hutchins letter 2-3-97
14. Carl&Ellen Hutchins letter 11-6-97
CH/ms 3-19-97 8021AXY
Ch/ms
8021X.doc
CARL HUTCHINS,JR.
172 KENDALL RD.
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
94595 0113
510 934 5908
March 19, 1997
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1
Re: Sub Division 8021
Braddock&Logan
White property
APPEAL ON FINDINGS OF PLANNING COMMISSION
We the people of the Saranap Neighborhood seek to preserve and improve
the character and function of our neighborhood.We presented much written
material to include a petition signed by 73 neighbors. Many of us spoke at one
hearing.We sought to prevent the zone change and variance.However, the
Commission voted in favor of the developer.We appeal to you,our elected.
representatives, to reverse the findings of The Planning Commission.
BENEFITS
The present zoning is adequate and has served our neighborhood well.It does not
preclude the owner and developer of the White Tract from development.A change in
zoning is a privilege and not a right.
TRAFFIC
The findings and conditions do not adequately provide for increased traffic.
CHARACTER
The tall Mediterranean homes on small lots will contrast with the lower
California ranch homes on larger lots.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The developer seeks higher density on the basis of providing one such unit.
The probability of compliance in doing so is low because of a PGE easement on
that lot.
UTILITIES
Drainage has not been adequately addressed.
CHANGE
Any change in zoning should be for the benefit of all of the neighborhood and for
very good reason.A change to allow two parties to achieve their financial goals
is not a good reason.
DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPAL
We believe the property owner has the right to develop his property.The present
zoning was established at least 50 years ago and has served well.Any change
should reflect the will of the majority.The planning commission has failed to
recognize that basic fact.
CONSTRUCTION
Extensive grading will change the'contour of the land.This will affect the
surrounding neighborhood.The tall structures immediately adjacent to lower ones
will restrict the use of neighboring properties.
MATURE TREES
Most existing trees will be removed.The replacement trees will not be of
benefit for years to come.The plans to mitigate damage to existing Heritage
trees will likely be only partly successful.
Page two
3-19-97
8021
POINT BY POINT RESPONSE
We have developed a point by point response to Staff report of 3-11-97.
We have been advised by R.Drake that the amendments to the proposed findings
would not be available for review and comment within this document because of a
computer failure in the Community Development Department. See Exhibit item#1.
A check in the amount of$125.00 is included with this filing.
Stamped envelopes are also provided for those properties within 300 feet of the
project.The list of those properties was obtained from the community development
Department.
Calms 3-19-97 8021XYZ
CARL HUTCHINS,JR.
172 KENDALL RD.
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
94595 0113
510 934 5908
March 19, 1997
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Re: Sub Division 8021
Braddock&Logan
White property
SUPERVISORS
Gayle B.Uiikema
Donna Gerber
Jim Rogers
Mark DeSaulnier
Joe Canciamilla.
APPEAL FROM DECISIONS OF PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING OF MARCH 11, 1997
STAFF REPORT OF MARCH 11, 1997
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL WITH MODIFICATIONS MADE
MARCH 4, 1997.
FINDINGS
A. Change of zone RZ963042
1.There have been no authorities cited to indicate compliance with the
General Plan.
2.No authorities cited to support this conclusion that this use is
compatible within the district or adjacent districts.
3.The community need is supposed to be for more affordable housing.
However,this plan would eliminate six units and possibly leave one.
4:What would happen if this developer decides not to proceed or abandons
the project.mid stream!
5.The proposed density and design is decidedly NOT be in concert with the
character.of the surrounding community.The single family houses in the
Most of the neighborhood homes are California Ranch.The proposed are
Mediterranean.The existing lots are approximately 10,000 Sf.The
proposed are much smaller.
6.This plan is neither integrated or harmonious. Multi family housing is
on Boulevard way and Saranap.Single family one.story dwellings on large
lots surround the proposed development of closely set 30 foot structures.
B. There is no authority cited to support the conclusion that the Tentative
map is consistent with any general plan.
C. The Variance sought is from the 5 acre minimum to a 2.7 acre actual.
1.Approval is a grant of special privilege.
2.The parcel is irregular in configuration because of inclusion of lots by
r
page two
the owner.The 115KV PGE transmission line has existed since approximately
19071 The existing easement restricts use of this parcel. However, it also
restricts the use of the property of others in the neighborhood and they
just accept the limitation rather than seeking a variance.
3.The variance does not meet the intent of the land use. The intent is
clearly shown in the lot size and type of single family that presently
exist in the neighborhood immediately adjacent to the proposed
development.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1.The submitted exhibits are all submissions of the developer and make no
mention of the voluminous submissions by the residents of the
neighborhood.
2.We petition the Board of Supervisors;to DISAPPROVE the request for
Planned Unit District zoning and the Final Development Plan#DP9630023.
3.Residential Design standards.should be consistent with the existing
single family dwellings in the.immediate vicinity of the proposed
development.This was accomplished on a infill project at Olympic and
Pleasant Hill Road in Lafayette, California.
A.The issue of permits seems premature and should not be considered
until the issues of variance and charge of zone and approval of the
subdivision are resolved.
B.This condition fails to address the possibility or even a probability
that the residence on lot 12 can meet the following requirements:
1. Comply with housing code.
2. Qualify for a building permit.
3.Add a garage.
4.That it be consistent with and similar to the other units in
the development.
C.The setbacks as described could have the front or rear of a vehicles
at or in the sidewalk.
D.The condition is unclear as to what base elevation is used to
determine the thirty feet.
E.The condition is unclear as to how the 4090 is computed.Further,a.25%
is.more compatible-with the surrounding.neighborhood.
F.Three car garages on 11 units will seriously impact the traffic
situation.Whether or not a garage can be built on lot 12 is not clear
because of the PGE easement and a potential permit problem..This would
limit the builder to 7 units!However,the zoning would remain changed
to P1 and a potential for a further infill project at a later dater
This would still leave the question of which of the eight lots would
be built first.Maybe none would:be built,leaving bare,graded lots!
G.A better solution would be for no fences on the front set back on lots
8, 9,& 10.& 10.
Page three
4.Approval of variance for application of a Planned Unit (P-1) District Zoning.
The variance should NOT be approved for P-1 zoning.
A.The parcel is only barely over half of the prescribed b acres. Even if
the PGE easement did not exist,it should not qualify.The parcel is
only irregular because of the inclusion 7533b&76338 also known by 26
&27 on the Hilldale&Boomer tract map.
b. Review of Residential Design.The proposed buildings should be similar to
existing one story single family residential buildings adjacent to the
project.The submitted plans are for houses that bear no resemblance
whatsoever to those adjacent.The damage to the harmony of the neighborhood
can be best visualized on Lucyl Left to right,a condominium,a one story wood
structure of late twenties or early thirties,then two story stucco
Mediterranean type,back to one story of some type (lot 12) the to one-story
wood!The materials used are not as important as architectural design.
6.Review of fenestration on lots 1,2 and 3.We are concerned that the
home owners adjacent to 1.2&3 would fare no better in the administrative
review than all of us did before the Planning Commission.
7.Review of Residential Design.We are already aware of the planned
structures and have had an opportunity seem them on the ground in addition
to on paper. The buildings are not harmonious or integral with the other
homes in the neighborhood.This appears to be"boiler plate language".
.8.Restriction on Residential Density.If 2.7 is the available acreage.Then
13.23-1=12.23 is the top of the maximum. 8.10-1 = 7.12.7 is the low of the
maximum.It does not appear reasonable to allow the top of the maximum when
so many neighbors oppose that density!
8.Lower Income Housing Agreement.At best only one unit MAY be available for
the Density Bonus program.There is concern that the developer will reap
the benefits of the Density Bonus program and provide no affordable
housing.
The homes that now exist are affordable housing.The findings now state
that H in the event the structure on lot 12 cannot be brought to the
Housing Code and a garage built,it will be demolished.Lot 12 would be
added to lot 1.The result would be NO affordable housing.The developer
and land owner get their P 1 zone.
10.Review of Proposed Alternative Street Names.Our concern is only slight and
would probably not exist but for recent street name controversy in
neighboring San Francisco.
11.Discovery of Archaeological materials.No..concerns
12.Discovery of Cultural Materials.No concerns.
13.Discovery of Any Human Remains. No concerns.
14.Arborist Report and Grading/Tree Preservation Plan.The developer has
submitted a.report and has agreed to"protect"two Specimen Heritage Trees.
However,it is likely that the life of these trees will be reduced. Other
trees on site will be removed! It will be quite barren for years!
Grading under the drip line of a protected tree should be prohibited.
Page four
15. Security to Protect Trees to be Preserved During Construction Period. The
penal sum of the suggested bond is unknown.It may be so low as be of
little concern to the developer if the trees are lost.
16. Submittal of a Final Landscape plan.No real concern.
17. Landscape Plant Standards. Only the 15 gallon minimum for trees concern us.
It will be many years before these trees contribute noticeable size and
oxygen to the community.24"box trees is a better solution.Larger sizes
may be indicated because of the loss of the stand of mature and health
Eucalyptus tree.
18. Street Tree Plan. Only the minimum number and size concern us. -
Street trees should be planted at no greater than 40' intervals.
18. Review of Project Entrance Signage.Temporary Signage during the
construction and sale period do not concern us.Afterwards any Signage
would not be consistent with the neighborhood.There are no other similar
signs.
20. Construction period Restrictions.
A.We believe 8:00 to 4:00 is more reasonable because of the close
by homes.Many of these are occupied by Senior citizens.
B.Restriction on Construction Equipment.All such equipment shall be
muffled as to emit no more decibels;than a standard automobile or
light truck. Same reason as in A.
C.Notice to Owners of Nearby Properties Prior to Commencement of
Construction.The time should be two weeks and notice to owners within
750 feet of the exterior.The other language is acceptable..
Same reason as in A.
D.Dust/Litter control-The developer will respond immediately and
remedy any property damage to adjoining property.The Developer and
General contractor shall make known to all homes within 750 feet,
the name,address and telephone number of the Insurance company and
it's claim office.
21.Water Conservation Ordinance Compliance.No concerns except that it shall
use sufficient water to abate any construction dust.Lucy Lane to be washed
and swept each day during the construction period:
22.Use of Low-Flow toilets.No immediate concerns.
23.Roof Restrictions.The material is acceptable.However,the architectural
design.should be compatible with composition tile,shake or shingle.
24.Design of House Numbers.No concern.
25.Erosion Control.We have concern that the plant size minimums.are too low
and when used with"drought resistant plants will lead to heavy erosion in
a wet winter.
Page five
26. Deed Notification of Proximity to Overhead Electric Transmission Line.
The developer should also include the fact that the lines are 115 thousand
volts. Catastrophic damage to these lines would be very dangerous to life
and property.PGE also has an easement on lot 12. The PGE legal department
should be notified of the planned improvements on tha and nearby lots!
27. Credit against Development Impact Fee obligation. No concerns.
28.Payment of Supplemental Application Fees.No concerns. -
Public Works Conditions
Applicant shall comply....... No concerns.
29. General Requirements
no concerns
30. Roadway Improvements(Frontage):
A.We have great concern in respect dimensions,drainage,parking and
lighting.Elimination of parking on Lucy Lane will deprive at least one
present resident of all on street parking!We have great concern as to
access for heavy emergency vehicles.
B.We have no opportunity to comment on Signage or striping!
31.Specific On-Site Road Improvements.
A.Our concerns are:
The ready access to emergency vehicles.The adequacy of on street
parking for residents and their guests. Children in the street because
of limited lot size,available sidewalks and no nearby open space.
32.Access to adjoining property.
Proof of Access/Acquisition
No concerns.
Encroachment Permit
B.No concerns.
33.Road Alignment(Horizontal and Vertical Sight Distance/Grades):
We are concerned with the perceived width of Lucy Lane and the commissions
findings that it will adequately provide for traffic without impact on
adjoining property owners. Prohibition of parking on the South side will
eliminate on street parking for one resident. that resident has offsite
parking for one vehicle and owns two. Of course any guests will have to go
elsewhere. probably around the corner on to"A" street or to Kendall Road
which has little room for on street parking!
Page Six
34. Road Dedications:
Lucy lane is only two blocks long! It starts at Saranap and stops at
Juanita Lane.Any expansion to the North would seriously impact 5 residents
along the North side.An expansion to the south would reduce the net
acreage for density calculation.
35.Annexation to County Service Area L-100 for maintenance of Street Lights.
We do not understand why this is required if no lights are to be required!
We are concerned they may be added later and have an undesirable impact on
the neighborhood.
36. Pedestrian Facilities.
No concerns.
37.The applicant shall substantiate that he has provided adequate parking
facilities by:
A: "maximize"is vague and ambiguous.
38. Utilities/Undergrounding
No concerns.
39. Maintenance of Facilities:
No concerns.
40. Drainage Improvements.
Collect and Convey
A:We have serious concern that adequate drainage can be provided.The
recent winter rains demonstrated that the drainage system could not carry
the water adequately.Examples are at Kendall Road (2) and at Dewing.
41.Miscellaneous drainage Requirements:
We have serious concerns that the drainage will be adequate and expect only
minimum compliance.
Comply with the following conditions of Approval Prior to the issuance of
Building Permits
42. No concern
Comply with the Following Conditions of Approval prior to Issuance of
Grading Permit
Page seven
43.We are concerned with damage to property or injury to persons during and
after the grading process.
Indemnification of the County.
44. It is an axiom in indemnity agreements that the agreement is only as good
as the willingness and ability of the Indemnitor to perform.
We are concerned that the area environmental review is inadequate
ADVISORY NOTES
We question as to how The planning department and or the planning commission can
be informed that items A to L are complied with.
Note:These points are in response to the 14 page Staff Report available at the
Meeting for March 11, 1997 and with"rev. 3/4/97-rd
CH/ms 3-19-97 8021%C.doc
11RADDOCK & 1..O(iA.N1 S1-J,\1JCJ'S. 1j.('
BU11.DF.RS-DIA F[,()PF1,S
VSCAMASHH) 194,
Ty 1'.O. BOX 53,00
DANVIIAA_`. CALIFORNIA 9-15'(1
-1
97 N 2 3: 2 3 NIF.TVIATHO1>10,7',0-4000
FACSINHIA:(510) 716-403 1
T ,)T
March 20, 1997
Dennis Barry,
Deputy Director
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
RE Lucy Lane#RZ 963042,
DP 963023,SD 968021
Dear Dennis:
The 3-11-97 Planning Commission motion approving the Vesting Tentative Map for the Lucy Lane
Project and recommending Board approval for the related rezoning and development plan eliminated one
of the proposed 12 lots and provided Braddock&Logan Group the discretion to eliminate another lot,Lot
12.
Proposed Lot 12 is the lot that includes the only non-market rate home within the project, an existing
older home which we propose to be improve to Housing Code standards and sell to a person of low
income. As a result the County is obligated to provide a twenty-five percent (25%) Density Bonus, or
other incentives of equal value, over and above the maximum density permitted under the General Plan.
Staff determined the maximum density of the site under the General Plan is 11 units. A 25% Density
Bonus would yield an additional 2.75 units,round to 3 units,or 14 units.
We did not believe that a 14 unit project was appropriate for this site and therefore a one unit density
bonus was requested. In other words the Density Bonus-was for Lot 12,the affordable unit.
The Planning Commission, by eliminating one market rate lot, denied the requested Density Bonus and
rightfully provided us with the discretion to eliminate Lot 12 and along with it the considerable expense
needed to bring the existing home up to code,install a garage,driveway,landscaping and fencing.
The Commissions' action was reasonable because the Density Bonus was denied and hence no need to
provide the affordable home.
Staff has interpreted that the Commission did not eliminate the conditions related to the affordable unit.
Therefore, if we decide to eliminate Lot 12 one of the remaining 10 market rate units would have to be
sold as low income,in spite of the fact that our Density Bonus request was denied.
Dennis Barry,
Contra Costa County
March 20, 1997
Page 2
We do not believe this interpretation is fair or equitable and it appears that the Commission action to deny
the Density Bonus may be contrary to the provisions of state and local laws. Significant incentives are
supposed to be provided to builders agreeing to provide affordable housing.
There is no choice but to appeal the action of the Commission in order to preserve our rights. This letter
and the attached Check No. 20349 for$125.00,the appeal fee,shall serve as such.
The foregoing issues should be thoroughly reviewed during Board consideration of this project.
Thank you and please do not hesitate to contact,me if you have any questions.
Yours very truly,
Braddock&Logan Group,L.P.
Marshall I Torre
Land Acquisition
MJT/rf
cc: Stephen White
MAR-19-1997 09:45 CONTRA COSTA-CDD 510 335 1222 P.02
0'b rXt-W t,) b( GuS T7Q 6 C/'�' lM4%i % Sfroti
Commissioner Clark: I move that we approve the adoption of the
Negative Declaration as adequate. I had some doubts about that,
but since our last meeting I have had an opportunity to move this
status. That we recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they
approve the proposed rezoning of the site to a P-1 planned Unit
District, that we approve the final development plan with
conditions allowing 11 single family houses, you might note the
phrase 11, I propose that we eliminate Lot 10 and spread the
surface of the area of Lot 10 over Lots 9 and 11 so that there
are two units there facing on Lucy Lane. And that we approve the
proposed subdivision with conditions conditioned upon the
approval by the Board of Supervisors of the rezoning with the
conditions that staff has proposed to us this evening including
being contingent on a one car garage of a depth of approximately
1.2 times the depth of the garages in the other units be built to
be associated with, and by that I mean either connected or not
connected as appropriate, if Unit 12 is constructed and if Unit
ix-- so the motion includes that;-_.recommendation to the
Board of Supervisors that they approve the proposed subdivision
with the conditions of approval changed, for example, 3 .F. to
include a one car garage for Unit 12 so that each lot shall
provide a minimum two car garage and a maximum of three car
garage except Lot 12 which shall be provided a one car garage and
that garage be 1.2 times the depth of the other garages in the
other units and a provision in. the appropriate condition, z think
its 012 , but I am not sure, staff can figure that out, Qat if
Unit 12 that the applicant decides to eliminate Unit 12 from he
_ roaect that it be re ov entirel [1d_ that the land assigned to
pro o.se 1. 12 be assigned to proposed Lot 1.
Commissioner Hanecak: Friendly amendment in regards to the, if I
understand it right, there are 11 units proposed instead of 12.
commissioner Clark: Correct.
Commissioner Hanecak: OK.
commissioner Clark: Lot to is eliminated.
Commissioner Hanecak: Lot 10 is eliminated on Lucy Lane and now
there are two rather than three.
Commissioner Clark: OH! I remember what the other thing was that
I was going to say. So it would be eliminating Lot 11 but there
will be two instead of three, one of them facing on the private
street, one of them facing Lucy Lane. OK. end thenLot 12 is
an affordable housing unit it would not participate for -
the first 15 years an cos _ass Gated wait maintaining t e
pr `v 'Le roac . ,.�
Commissioner Hanecak: Thank you.
Commissioner Wong: Is there a second to the motion?
MAR-19-1997 09:45 CONTRA COSTA-CDD 510 335 1222 P.03
2
Commissioner Terrell: Chairman, I second the motion and I am
willing to make a motion including the staff recommendation to
the sizes.
Commissioner Clark: Yes, I did by reference to the conditions of
approval in tonight's staff report as described and amended
during staff's presentation in the beginning. If I had my way I
would say no fences on Lucy Lane except open fences but I don't
have my way.
Commissioner Pavlinec: I need clarification. Are you saying that
Lot 9 is oriented towards the private street rather than Lucy
Lane?
Commissioner Clark: Correct. Which would mean that its entry, it
driveway is going to be on to the private road and then it would
have to turn out to get unto Lucy Lane rather than having an
extra driveway on Lucy Lane. It also means then that it would
part of the lot burdened by the cost of maintaining Lucy Lane.
Commissioner Pavlinec: OK. Is it the side oriented or side of
the house will be oriented toward Lucy Lane.
Commissioner Clark: In what respect? I want the front of the
house oriented towards. Oh yes, the side of the house towards
Lucy Lane. Correct. The front of the house oriented toward the
private road. Actually, let me re-explain that. I don't care
which way the front of the house faces. I care that the driveway
go onto the private road. Mr. Rafael can face the house any way
he wishes as far as I'm concern. But the driveway will go onto
the private road.
commissioner Pavlinec: Can I make a proposal and amendment that
the orientation of the house be in character with the other
houses and be oriented toward Lucy Lane. I don't care about the
driveway but.
Commissioner Clark: OK. With the driveway onto the private road?
Commissioner Pavlinec: Absolutely.
Commissioner Clark: If that's OK with Commissioner Terrell who I
believe seconded, but I not sure. The second that wasn't a
second.
Commissioner Terrell: I seconded the motion and I understand what
her concerns are is that you have/
Commissioner Clark: So do you except them or not?
Commissioner Terrell: Yes. I need to look at the blueprints and
see what she is talking about.
MAR-19-1997 09:46 CONTRA COSTR-CDD 510 335 1222 P.04
3
Commissioner Clark: Fine. Appreciate your input.
Commissioner Wong: Any other discussion.
Commissioner Guncheon: I think we are moving in the right
direction. I still think that it is too dense and I would like
to have what you did to 9, 10 and 11 be done with 6, 7 and 8, and
I'm not proposing as an amendment I just suggesting that.
commissioner Clark: Your comments are understood and appreciated
and sincerely respected, but I have given this a lot of thought
and if this doesn't pass then we can try another motion.
Commissioner Guncheon: I appreciate that.
commissioner Clark: I's trying a nice way to say that, I don't
mean to be, if you don't like the motion don't move for it.
Commissioner Guncheon: Maybe I misunderstand, but we're
discussing your motion.
Commissioner Clark: Right and I'm just saying that I am not
interested at point in entertaining a friendly motion to that
effect.
commissioner Guncheon: I'm not offering. I'm simply indicating
that how I am going to vote on your motion and why.
commissioner Terrell: I do not recall whether staff went along
with the developer's proposal to move the houses up on 3 , 4 and
5.
Commissioner Clark: Staff acknowledged the comments by the
applicant but said that they didn't include it in their
recommendation and nor do I . I rather. have the houses further
back on the lot. I don't think the impact on the adjoining
property owner is sufficient to balance against the impact on the
neighbors having the houses that much closer together. That's
way we have sideyard setbacks.
Commissioner Guncheon: I just want to finish my comments.
Regardless on how you feel about them I do feel that 6, 7 and 8
are pretty much the most dense of those that are in this project.
I can understand the irregular configuration of 3, 4 and 5 and
thus not going after those but 6, 7 and 8 are just too narrow and
to iffy mind represents a type of density that is not
characteristic of this neighborhood, and I would suggest that
should we turn down the motion that we revisit with the condition
that 6, 7 and 8 be merged into two lots.
Commissioner Pavlinec: I not sure if this is correct. But could
we make a condition of approval added on to this.
MAR-19-1997 O9:46 CONTRH Ub IH-(-llU
4 •
Commissioner Clark: You can suggest it and we can second it or
consider it.
Commissioner Pavlinec: OK. I would like to make a condition of
approval that Lots 9 and 10 gets special design consideration at
the final review by the Zoning Administrator that those two
specific lots have special considerations that they fit in
somehow more than the others to the character of the
neighborhood. That their orientation.
Commissioner Clark: I think that's a lovely idea, if I had any
idea what it meant. In the sense that it is so subjective and
knowing the Zoning Administrator, I'm not sure that one person
who happens to be sitting as Zoning Administrator one day is
going to have the same standards or views, certainly we would
have gotten two different products under that if Harvey were
sitting or if Catherine Kutsuris was sitting, and the times I
have seen this Commission fall short the most is when we have
tried to design things. That's a lovely idea though. I wish we
could do it.
Commissioner Wong: Are there any other discussion?
Robert Drake: Mr. Chairman before you take a motion I would like
to get clarification so that I understand the Commission. There
is before the last comment there was a comment by Commissioner
Pavlinec that, as I understood was accepted by the motion and
second and it was not quite clear to me what comment was.
Commissioner Pavlinec: That both lots 9 and 10 would have their
orientation towards Lucy their main- orientation the front
orientation towards Lucy Lane although on Lot 9 the driveway
would be off of the private road.
Commissioner Clark: We just don't want vehicles entering Lucy
Lane from the driveway on 9 when we can have it entered only the
private street and then use the same entrance. You have two cars
pulling out at the same time.
Commissioner Wong: Any further discussion. Call for roll for the
motion:
Commissioner Hanecak: There was just discussion about 9 and 10
being oriented. Is 10 eliminated or is 11?
Commissioner Clark: There is going to be two lots were not there
are three.
PPR-19-1997 09:47 CONTRA COSTA-CDD 510 335 1222 P.06
5
Commissioner Hanecak: OK. I just wanted to be clear on that. In
regards to this I think the concerns that I have seen voiced in a
number of these about the two stories, the impact of those with a
number of these now being setback far from Lucy Lane with
additional foliage that's there I think this strikes a nice
balance.
Commissioner Wong: Mr. Drake would you share with us the motion
as you understand it before we vote.
Robert Drake: Basically, the motion is to approve the staff
recommendation with Modified conditions including a restriction
to reducing the number of lots to 1-1 and merged Lots 9, 10 and il
into two lots. Those lots would be oriented to face Lucy Lane
but with access to the corner lot with driveway access would be
off of the private road. There would be a one car garage on Lot
12 which would have an approximately depth of 1. 2 times the depth
of other garages and
commissioner Clark: I don't remember approximately. Do you
remember approximately Marvin?
Commissioner Terrell: There is a normal size for one car garage
and it's usually 12 x 18 or 12 X 16.
commissioner Clark: Whatever he makes the other garages, this
should be 1. 2 times deep exactly.
commissioner Terrell: A standard two car garage is 22 x 24.
commissioner Clark: So you want a 24 feet deep.
commissioner Terrell: Now 24 feet is normally a two car garage.
commissioner Clark: How deep Marvin do you want it. How long. We
want it longer than normal so that were will be storage
available.
Commissioner Terrell: I would say 16 x IS feet then would he the
length.
commissioner Clark: We are not talking width. The standard one
car width. How deep is the standard one car garage?
commissioner Terrell. It's usually 1.2 x 14 is the standard.
commissioner Clark: So the motion is 12 x 18 is that OK.
Robert Drake: 12 x IS foot garage. If it turns out that the
residence on Lot 12 is not buildable that the structure be
removed and as I understand the motion that Lot 12 would be
merged with Lot 1 to form one consolidated parcel, and that if it
MAR-19-199? 09:47 CONTRA COSTA-CDD 510 335 2224 r.e�
6
turns out the residence on 12 does work that the owners of that
property would not participate for 15 years in the maintenance of
the private road.
Commissioner Clark: And any costs associated with that.
Robert Drake: any costs associated with the maintenance.
Commissioner Clark: So it's my understanding then the burden of
maintaining the road would fall on Lots 1 through 9 , so that
there will be two lots that would not be included. The last lot
to the east. - northeast will be 10 or 11 depending what we decide
and 12 . Those two lots would not participate. After 15 years 12
would participate but 11 or 10 would not because it doesn't use
the road.
Commissioner Gaddis: Question. Did we change that?
Commissioner Clark: No. I just clarified it. _ .
Commissioner Wong: Every one understands the motion.
Robert Drake: Called the roll: Commissioner Clark - Yes;
Commissioner Terrell - Yes; Commissioner Gaddis - Yes;
Commissioner Guncheon - No; Commissioner Pavlinec - Yes;
Commissioner Henecak - Yes; and Chairman Wong - No.
The motion passes on a 5 to 2 vote.
RHD/aa
Ce Minutes.RO
TOTAL P.O?
zed -idloi
!i I!\i1f>il<'K K ! i)r{.\n .il
Nl.'Ii.i)iiRti•I l.\; )I'I Itl
i•Sl'\ill lii�:_h 1"-
P.U WA c
DA ILLI.. C I H
FSC"�i.'Jli.l.
Supervisor Joe Canczanmilla April 10, 1997
300 East Leland Road, Suite 100
Pittsburg, CA 94565
Corrected 4-15-97
RE: Lucy Lane Appeal
12 Home Subdivision
Dear Supervisor Canciamilla:
We have been advised by Staff that the Board of Supervisors will be considering the Lucy Lane
Project appeals at its 4-22-97 meeting. Separate appeals were filed by neighbors and Braddock &
Logan Group.
We respectfully request that the Board approve the proposed 12 home project which includes
eleven (11)new two story market rate homes and one(1) existing two story home to be sold to a
qualified low income person/family. We believe that this project implements applicable �eneral
Plan policies including those related to infill projects, affordable housing, neighborhood
enhancement. The General Plan permits eleven (11) homes on the site. The twelfth h6me, an
existing home to be improved to the Housing Cale, is a low income far sale unit and r>rquires a
Density Bonus pursuant to State and County regulations. By providing the low income unit a three
(3) unit Density Bonus could have been requested under the aforementioned regulations. We did
not believe that fourteen(14)units on-this property was appropriate.
During the course of the Planning commission hearing process we had numerous meetings with
interested parties in order to address concerns. As a result the project includes mitigation measures
that reduce impacts including retention of the 60" oak tree, special design features that eliminate
potent w impacts an two large,mature off-site redwood and pine trees;use of grading technpques to
significantly reduce impacts of proposed two story homes on existing adjacent one story homes;
drainage, off and on street parking, landscaping fencing; privacy for adjacent homes; design
review approval requirements including mailed notices to adjacent neigtibors;lower building height
regulations than those of adjoining single family residential areas; restrictions on construction
activity, provisions for tree removal mitigations; fencing; lowering and eliminating retaining walls.
A Negative Declaration was posted and adopted for the project.
Currently the site contains seven (7) single family homes. The project replaces six (6) of the
existing units with eleven (11) new homes and retains the existing two story home. Average lot
size for the new homes is about 8,700 square feet. The project site is located in a transitional area
of various land uses and is bounded by 2 and 3 story apartments and condominiums on the east and
single family homes on lot sizes that vary from about 5,900 to 12,000 square feet on the vilest and
south. A mixture of one and two story homes exist on the site and within the immediate
neighborhood
Supervisor Joe Canciamilla
April 10, 1997
Page 2
By way of background 1 have included the following letters and other documentation that will
provide the Board with a pertinent facts related to the project and a historical perspective.
1. 3-20-97 letter to Dennis Barry regarding Braddock & Logan appeal of 3-11-97
PlaMU19 Corrunission derision including meeting transcript of Motion to approve
an 11 home project.
2. 3-11-97 Staff Report to be provided by Staff.
3. 3-10-97 letter to Supervisor Ulikema re: Infill Projects. -
4. 3-7-97 letter to Planning Commission regarding existing lot sizes in neighborhood,
mitigations for off-site trees, additional setbacks and separation between proposed
homes and existing homes, new garage for existing home to be retained as an
affordable unit and Density Bonus issue.
5. 3-6-97 letter to Planning Commission from Stephen White,property owner.
6. 3-3-97 letter to Dennis Barry and Arborist's Report on Off-site Tree Mitigation.
7. 2-20-97 letter to Planning Commission regarding mitigations for traffic,
pedestrians, street lighting, fencing, landscaping, tree removal, drainage, lot sizes,
two story homes, privacy,justification of P-1 zoning, Density Bonus and General
Plan Compliance.
S. 2-4-97 letter to Planning Commission regarding mitigations for retaining walls,
fencin, retention of trees, site planning issues,window placement and justification
of P-1 zoning and Density Bonus.
9. 1-6-97 letter to Dennis Barry regarding setback mitigations.
10. 1-2-97 letter to Dennis Barry regarding mitigations for on and off-site parking.
11. 12-23-96 letter to Elizabeth Dunn of Community Development regarding
affordable unit,window placement,on and off street parking mitigations.
12, 12-10-96 Staff Report can be obtained from Staff.
13. 12-9-961etter to Dennis Barry regardiig factual corrections for the 12-10-96 Staff
Report prepared by Elizabeth Dunn, Density Bonus, affordable unit to be retained
and General Plan policies pertaining to the twclve(12) unit project.
b0'd �d101
YY -
Supervisor Cancianulla
April 10, 1997
Page 3
14. 9-30-96 letter to Elizabeth Dunn regarding mitigations for drainage, street
improvements and parking.
15. 1-12-96 later to Dennis Barry and Jim Kennedy regarding Density Bonus for
affordable housing.
16. 11-30-95 letter from Jim Kennedy regarding Density Bonus and copy of .
regulations.
Also attached are copies of the Vesting Tentative NL-ip,- the Landscape Plan, Existing Site
Conditions Map (sliows seven (7) existing units and out buildings, topography and trees),
Conceptual Site Pian (shows relationship of proposed neve homes to existing adjacent homes) and
floor plans and architectural elevations for the proposed homes to be constructed.
The proposed twelve (12) home project reasonably trutigates impacts on the neighborhood,
implements the General Plan including density, infill projects and affordable housing policies and
provides a single family residential transition from higher density and intensity land uses on the
east (2 -3 story apartments and condominiums)to the single family residential area west and south
of the site including lot sizes consistent with those of existing adjoining single family residences.
Staff reconunendod that the Planning Commission approve the 12 home project. The proposed
conditions found in the 3-11-97 Staff Report are acceptable to Braddock & Logan Group. Thank
you for consideration of our request.
Yours very truly,
Braddock& Logan Group, L.P.
Marshall I Torre
Land Acquisition
MUT/rf
cc: Board of Supervisors
Dennis Barry
Stephen White- Property Owner
A.LCJSTA
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
97 APR 10 PH 4: 1$ CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS
ON PLANNING MATTERS
GOP NUN►T Y
DE VELOOMENT 10EPT WALNUT CREWSARANAP AREA
NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday,Auril 22. 1997 at 3:00 p.m.in Room 107
of the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),
Martinez, California,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to
consider the following planning matters:
Recommendation of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the requests by
Braddock& Logan Services(Applicant),and Stephen White(Owner,Trustee) to rezone approximately
2.6 acres of land from R-10, Single Family Residential to P-1,Planned Unit District, and a request for
variance permit approval to allow the application of Planned Unit District zoning for a proposed
residential development on an area that is less than 5 acres (County File RZ#3042-96); and for
Preliminary and Final Development Plan approval for 12 single family residential lots (County File DP
#3023-96),in the Walnut Creek/Saranap area, and,
Appeal by Braddock&Logan Services(Appellant and Applicant), and Stephen White
(Appellant, Owner and Trustee) from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission
on the application to rezone approximately 2.6 acres of land from R-10, Single Family Residential to
P-1,Planned Unit District, and a request for variance permit approval to allow the application of
Planned Unit District zoning for a proposed residential development on an area that is less than
5 acres(County File RZ 43042-96); and for Preliminary and Final Development Plan approval for
12 single family residential lots(County File DP#3023-96), in the Walnut Creek/Saranap area, and,
Appeal by Carl and Ellen Hutchins,Jr.,Robert W. and Donna Stevens, and George and
Bernadette Katsulares, (Appellants), from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning
Commission on the application to rezone approximately 2.6 acres of land from R-10, Single Family
Residential to P-1,Planned Unit District, and a request for variance permit approval to allow the
application of Planned Unit District zoning for a proposed residential development on an area that is
less than 5 acres (County File RZ#3042-96); and for Preliminary and Final Development Plan
approval for 12 single family residential lots (County File DP#3023-96), in the Walnut Creek/Saranap
area.
The location of the subject land is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra
Costa, State of California, generally identified below(a more precise description may be examined in
the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building,Martinez,
California):
A 2.6 acre site is identified as 2563 Lucy Lane,Walnut Creek/Saranap area.
If you challenge this matter 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.
Prior to the hearing,Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday,
April 22, 1997,at 2:00 p.m.in Room 108,Administration Building,651 Pine Sheet,Martinez,to meet
with any interested parties in order to (1) answer questions; (2) review the hearing procedures used by
the Board;(3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to
identify, resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this
meeting with staff,please call Bob Drake,Community Development Department,at 335-1214 by
12:00,Monday,April 21, 1997,to confirm your participation.
Date: April 8, 1997
PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and County Administrator
By
BARBARA S NT,DEPUTY CLERK
NOTIFICATION NAMES & ADDRESSES A APPEAL OF BRADDOCK & LOGAN - :.-96-3042, DP#96-3023 & SUB496-
8021.
-1-
BRADDOCK & LOGAN WHITE FAMILY TRUST OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY
4155 BLACKHAWK .PLAZA CIRCLE STEPHEN W. WHITE, TRUSTEE 3000 CLAYTON ROAD
4201 2458 PADDOCK DRIVE CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94519
DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94506 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583
LUK; MILANI & ASSOCIATES ROBERT STEVENS LORI CONVERSE
1465 ENEA CIRCLE, #788 125 KENDALL 1230 KENDALL COURT
CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94520 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595
STEPHEN W. WHITE, TRUSTEE JENNIFER RUSSELL PHILIP E. REYNOLDS
2790 LYON CIRCLE . 178 KENDALL ROAD 1283 JUANI�TA DRIVE
CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94518 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
94595
BRADDOCK & LOGAN SERVIES, LLC MARSHALL STINE WAYNE FETTIG
P. 0. BOX 5300 1251 KENDALL COURT 178 KENDALL ROAD
DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595
ATTN: MARSHALL J. TORRE
HARRY & ZONA MARKS TERRY & RANDY HARTSHORN
101 KENDALL ROAD 50 IRIS LANE KEN KI
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 1250 KENDALL COURT
NER
WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595
GEORGE KATSULERES ROBERT N. COLWELL
2564 LUCY LANE 1300 JUANITA DRIVE GENE STAGE
COACH DRIVE
WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 WALNUT. CREEK, CALIF. 94595 3394 STC
LAFAYETTE, CALIFORNIA 94549
MARK STILLMAN KAREN KERSEY
NS
311 BUCKEYE COURT 1200 KENDALL COURT MICHAEL
LAFAYETTE, CALIF. 94549 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 118 KENDAALLLL ROAD
WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595
CLEO HENDRICKS HARRY MARKS BERNICE STILLMAN GREENE
44 MARIPOSA COURT 101 KENDALL ROAD 1375 ARROYO WAY
DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94596
JON HENDRICKS CARL HUTCHINS, JR. JIM & LINDA CHANGARIS
2547 LUCY LANE 172 KENDALL ROAD 131 KENDALL ROAD
WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595
RZ#96-3042, DP#96-3023 &
SUBDIVISION 496-8021 - PAGE #4 MARK TENNISON, FLORA J. CANEJA
8201 CAMINO MEDIA 1305 BOULEVARD WAY 206
BAKERSFIELD, CALIF. 93311 WALNUT CREEKS CALIF. 94595
JOAN BARBARA BRANN CARL & ELLEN R. HUTCHINS, JR. STEPHEN W. WHITE
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 204 172 KENDALL ROAD 2458 KENDALL COURT
WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595
WAYNE M. FETTIG PAMELA HERBERT ARTHUR & CAROL LAMORE, JR.
178 KENDALL ROAD 2596 LUCY LANE 1240 KENDALL COURT
WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595
SHEILA A. HILLSTROM MILDRED C. URBIZTONDO CARL L. & LESLIE L. OSTERHOLM
106 KENDALL ROAD 1305 BOULEVARD WAY 102 1210 KENDALL COURT
WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94595
JAMES A. BOLSTAD ELIZABETH D. CLARK. ROBERT W. & YVOHNE WILKINS
P. 0. BOX 1164 1305 BOULEVARD WAY 105 1211 KENDALL COURT
LAFAYETTE, CALIFORNIA 94549 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595
JACOB I. WAXMAN JEAN E. ALLISON RIDGE J. & CARLA K. LIPOVAC
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 104 3512 MORAGA BOULEVARD 1241 KENDALL COURT
WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 LAFAYETTE, CALIFORNIA 94549 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94595
CRAIG & CHERIE PLUMLEE BARBARA REED WEST DAVID M. & SHEILA. MCNAMAR
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 107 1305 BOULEVARD WAY' 111 21 IRIS LANE
WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595
BETTY J. ROBERTSON REORIENTED SUFISM JON M. HENDRICKS
2149 HARDEN ROAD 1615 MANCHESTER LANE 2547 LUCY LANE
WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94596 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20011 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595
LEATRICE J. & GREGORY F. GOEP- DEVOON OF CALIFORNIA, INC. ELIZABETH J. & LOUIS L..FARRELL
PERT 1470 NORTH BROADWAY 2616 LUCY LANE
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 113 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94596 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595
WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595
DAVID NIAL BUTTS MARY E. MCWHIRTER JESSE & FLORENCE GORDON
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 116 1305 BOULEVARD WAY 203 113 KENDALL ROAD
WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595
RZ#96-3042, DP#96-3023 & SUB. 'JAMES A. & BETTY J. DODGE JO ANN MC GINNIS
#96-8021- PAGE #5 173 KENDALL .ROAD 2538 LUCY LANE
WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595
SCOTT A. ROBERTS CRICKTOWN ASSOCIATES JOHN B. & SUSAN NICELEY
2532 LUCY LANE 1375 LOCUST STREET 179 KENDALL ROAD
WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94596 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595
CHESTER T. & MARY HAMILTON KEN D. KISNER
1260 KENDALL COURT 1250 KENDALL COURT
WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595
LORI CONVERSE CLARICE A. MAC KENZIE
1230 KENDALL COURT 48 RIDER COURT
WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595
JOHN R. & KAREN S. KERSEY GLORIA J. PAEZ
1200 KENDALL COURT 1201 KENDALL COURT
WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595
DAVID W. & DANA E.. JAMIESON_ KATHLEEN E. WHITEMAN
1221 KENDALL COURT 1231 KENDALL COURT
WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 WALNUT CREEK;: CALIF. 94595
dUL.IE L. ROGOWAY FRANK E. & ANNA SCHOOLMASTER .
1251 KENDALL COURT 2601 LUCY LANE
WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595
STUBBS FAMILY PARTNERS BIRCHWOOD & FLORA, LTD.,
41 BAYWOOD AVENUE 1375 ARROYO WAY
SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94596
ERNEST A. & JEAN E. PETERSON DAVID R. & JEAN WILCOX
2545 LUCY LANE 1330 JUANITA DRIVE
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595
HARRY & ZONA S. MARKS ALBERT P.I. & MILDRED R. BREWER
101 KENDALL ROAD 107 KENDALL ROAD
WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595
Agenda Item #/0 /+/
Community Development Contra Costa County
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10. 1996 - 7:30 P.M.
L INTRODUCTION
BRADDOCK & LOGAN (Applicant) - STEPHEN WHITE, Trustee (Owner), County File
#DP963023: The applicant requests approval of a Final Development Plan to establish 11
parcels on a 2.57 gross acre parcel. The subject property fronts for approximately 250 feet
on the south side of Lucy Lane, and is addressed as 42563, 92569, #2595 Lucy Lane in the
Saranap area of Walnut Creek. (R-10) (ZA: N-1"3) (CT 3410) (Parcel 185-360-026, -027 and
-028).
BRADDOCK & LOGAN (Applicant) - STEPHEN WHITE ,Trustee (Owner), County File
#RZ963042: The applicant requests approval to rezone a 2.57 gross acre parcel (where 5-
acres is required) to P-1, Planning Unit Development, in order to create 11 lots for single
family residential use. The subject property fronts for approximately 250 feet on the south
side of Lucy Lane and is addressed as 42563, 4"2569, 42595 Lucy Lane in the Saranap area
of Walnut Creek. (R-10) (ZA: N-13) (CT 3410) (Parcel 4185-360-026, -027 and -028).
SUBDIVISION 968021 (Applicant: Braddock & Logan) (Owner: Stephen White, Trustee):
The applicant requests approval of a vesting tentative map to create 11 parcels on a 2.57
gross acre parcel. The subject property fronts ;:or approximately 250 feet on the south side
of Lucy Lane, and is addressed as #2563, 42569, 92595 Lucy Lane in the Saranap area of
Walnut Creek. (R-10) (ZA: N-13) (CT 3410) (Parcel 9185-360-026, -027 and -028).
II. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Rezoning 963023, Final Development Plan DP963042 and the
Vesting Tentative Map for Subdivision 8021 be approved for 9-lots with the attached
Conditions of Approval.
Adopt a motion that:
A. Accepts the environmental documentation prepared for this project as being
complete and adequate, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project.
B. Recommends to the Board of Supervisors that the land described in RZ963042 be
rezoned from Single Family Residential District (R-10) to a Planned Unit Develop-
ment (P-1), together with the approval of Final Development Plan DP963023 with
the attached conditions.
S-2
C. Approves Subdivision 8021 with the attached Conditions of Approval.
III. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. General Plan Land Use Designation: The subject parcel is designated Single Family
Residential-Medium Density(SM) in the Contra Costa County General Plan adopted
in January, 1991.
B. Zoning: The subject parcel is in the R-10 Zoning District.
C. CEQA Status: A Negative Declaration was posted from October 9, 1996 to October
30, 1996. As a requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
a notice was mailed to the adjacent property owners informing them of the
development proposal and that the Negative Declaration was available-for review.
Correspondence has been received regarding the merits of the project, though none
of the letters address environmental issues as discussed within the Negative
Declaration. These letters are attached as Exhibit 1.
D. Other Regulatory Concerns: This proposal must comply with the County's Tree
Protection and Preservation Ordinance.
E. Prior Applications: Land Use Permit 2133-84, was approved to allow a fourth
residence on the site.
IV. SITE DESCRIPTION
The approximately 2.6 acre property consists of three parcels that, generally, create a
rectangular shaped grouping of parcels. Seven single family homes, which .are to be
removed from the property, exist on these three parcels. The land has a north-to-south
orientation with a Pacific Gas &Electric easement running through the northwestern portion
of the largest parcel. A 10-foot wide sewer easement that spans the width of the proposal
is to the south of the power line easement. Nine mature trees exist on the three parcels. A
58" diameter valley oak, on proposed "Lot 2", is to be preserved. Two other trees, a white
mulberry and a silver maple, on proposed "Lot I", are to be retained. The remaining six
trees, which includes three eucalyptus trees, two Monterey pines and one Siberian elm, are
to be removed.
V. AREA DESCRIPTION
This area is dominated by one-story, single family residences. To the east of the site at the
intersection of Lucy Lane and Saranap Avenue, higher density housing including apartments
and condominiums exists.
S-3
VI. PROPOSED PROTECT
The proposal is to rezone the site fi-om the existing R-10 zoning district to P-1, Planned Unit
Development, in order to establish I I new single family homes.
VII. AGENCY CONMMNTS
A. Archaeological Inven!Mr There is a low possibility of historical resources. Further
study for historical resources is not recommended.
B. Building Inspection Department: There are drainage problems that exists on the site.
A grading permit, soils and geotechnical report, as well as on-and-off site grading
and drainage plans are required.
C. City of Lafayette: It is outside of the Sphere of Influence of the City of Lafayette.
As described, the project is consistent with the County's General Plan. Assuming
all applicable development standards are met, the City would not respond further.
D. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District: Compliance with the Fire District
regulations and ordinances is noted in an Advisory Note following the Conditions
of Approval.
E. Darwin Myers, Consulting Geologist: A geotechnical report was submitted as part
of the subdivision request. According to the report, "the primary geologic hazards
on this site are limited to strong ground shaking and expansive soils. The site is
nearly level, so slope stability is not a hazard,- there is no evidence of liquefiable soils
and no active faults are through this property. The data support the conclusion that
geologic/seismic/grading issues are such that they do not warrant preparation of an
EIR." Based upon the consultant's review of the geotechnical report, no further
geotechnical studies are required prior to the recording the final subdivision map.
F. East Bay Municipal Utility District: The subject property currently has four water
service meters located off of Lucy Lane. A water main extension will be required
to serve the development at the applicant's expense. Off-site pipeline improvements,
also at the applicant's expense, may be required to meet fire flow requirements set
by the local fire department. The applicant should contact EBMUD's New Business
Office to request a water service estimate to determine costs and conditions of
providing additional water service to the development. Engineering and installation
of water mains often requires substantial lead time, which should be accounted for
in the applicant's development schedule.
S-4
G. Pacific Gas & Electric: Adequate gas and electric facilities exist in the area to serve
the project. The facilities will be extended to serve the project under the appropriate
and electric tariffs on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time
a request for service is made by the developer. Should any relocation of our facilities
become necessary, they will be done at the developer's expense. Our land
development would like to review the tentative tract and improvements plans before
they are approved as there is concern regarding the placement of the homes in
relation to our easement.
H. Public Works Department - Engineering Services Division: The attached conditions
of approval, based on the Vesting Tentative Map received on November 5, 1996,
include road and drainage requirements. The applicant shall comply with the
Ordinance Code requirements as they pertain to this development. The following
issues should be carefully considered with this project:
ISSUES:
1. Drainage: Stormwater from this site flows downstream to an inadequate
downstream drainage system. The applicant will be required to collect and
convey to an adequate man-made drainage facility near Blade Court. A
drainage facility which has been installed near Blade Court is adequate. The
applicant will also be required to determine the adequacy of the culvert under
Dewing Lane, and construct necessary improvements. Required drainage
facilities may be costly-
2. Lucy Lane: Curb and gutter has been installed along the sough side of Lucy
Lane along the frontage of this property and pavement has been constructed
to a width of approximately 30-feet. The width is reduced to approximately
a 25-foot width south of this project site. The additional widening to a 32-
foot pavement width along the frontage of this property could be provided in
the future by the property owner on the north side of Lucy Lane. The
restricted road width to the south of this property may reduce available
parking along the southerly frontage of Lucy Lane.
3. "A" Street Public Road Access: The applicant is showing "A" Street as a
28-foot road easement with a 6-foot public utility easement on the east side
and around the cul-de-sac, and a 5-foot pedestrian access easement and a 6-
foot public utility easement on the west side, up to the cul-de-sac. The
applicant has indicated that this road will be developed as a private roadway.
1. Health Services Department - Environmental Health Division: No comments.
J. The following agencies did not respond to the distribution for comments:
S-5
*Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
*Sheriff-Coroner, Administrative & Community Services Division
*State Department of Fish & Game.
VIII. PUBLIC CONINIENTS
To date, six letters have been received which address the proposal. As shown in Exhibit 1,
the issues addressed in these letters include the number of proposed lots, added automobile
traffic and a threat to the safety of the pedestrian traffic and two-story homes not being in
character with the area.
IX. STAFF ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
A. Appropriateness of Use: The proposed subdivision of the subject property-into 11
parcels that vary in size from 4,994 square feet to 18,589 square feet is an-appropri-
ate request when coupled with the P-1 zoning application.
B. Site Plan Analysis: The proposal to establish an 11 lot subdivision on 2.6 acres has
four issues that need to be discussed: (1) the size of the lots and the resulting
proposed density; (2) compliance with the:County's Tree Protection and Preservation
Ordinance; (3) the off-street parking requirements as it relates to the design of the
internal private cul-de-sac; and (4) variance to the requires 5-acre minimum to
rezone to P-1, Planned Unit Development.
1. Proposed lot sizes and the resulting proposed density:
Eleven new single family homes are proposed on an approximately 2.6 acre
parcel. Seven small bungalow style homes exists on the property which are
to be removed. Proposed"Lot V is the largest parcel, at 18,589 square feet,
due primarily to the PG&E easernent for the overhead transmission lines that
cross the northwest portion of this parcel. This easement also crosses
approximately one-third of"Lot 9" and the northwest corner of"Lot 11".
Proposed "Lot 2" is the second largest in square footage in order to retain the
58" diameter valley oak that exists on this proposed parcel. The remaining
nine lots are, on average, 8,557 square feet in size. The setbacks for the lots
within the subdivision generally use the R-6 development standards as a
guidelines. The setbacks for this P-1 proposal using the R-6 guidelines and
the existing R-10 zoning differ in only one way: the R-6 sideyard setback
requires a minirnum of 15-feet for both sides, the R-10 sideyard setback
requires a minimum of 10-feet per side. No common open space has been
provided. A landscaping plan has been submitted which illustrates that a 6-
foot tall solid wood fence is to exist on the property line of the lots that face
Lucy Lane. This fencing ends as it follows the private street into the
subdivision.
S-6
The density proposed by the applicant is 4.9 dwelling units per acre. While
this complies with the range of 3.0 to 4.9 dwelling units per acre for the
Single Family Residential-Medium Density (SM) of the General Plan, staff
feels that this density of 4.9 units per acre is inappropriate for this area and
that the resulting lot pattern is too tight for this clustering of parcels. Staff
is recommending that Lots 6 through 11 be redesigned so that there are four
lots instead of six as proposed by the applicant. As shown in Exhibit 2, the
staff study illustrates the new orientation of"Lot 9" with access from the
private internal road. This would alleviate some concerns from the residents
that additional automobile traffic would impede the pedestrian access in this
area with the applicant's proposal to have three driveway cuts along Lucy
Lane. One lot would receive its access from Lucy Lane.
2. Compliance -*vith the County's Tree Protection and Preservation
Ordinance:
Nine mature trees exist on the three parcels. A 58" diameter valley oak, on
proposed"Lot 2", is to be preserved. Two other trees, a white mulberry and
a silver maple, on proposed "Lot 1", are to be retained. The remaining six
trees, which include three eucalyptus trees, two Monterey pines and one
Siberian elm, are to be removed. The applicant must comply with the
replacement of lost trees as stated in the Tree Protection and Preservation
Ordinance. Staff recommends that for every tree that is to be removed, three
are to be replaced. Should the landscape plan submitted with this proposal
not reflect this ratio, it must be revised to accurately compliment the Tree
Protection and Preservation Ordinance.
3. Off-street parking requirements and the design of the internal private
cul-de-sac:
The original proposal consisted of a public road that incorporated both the
hammerhead and cul-de-sac design. This has been revised to create an
internal private street "A" which consists solely of a cul-de-sac. As a
Condition of Approval, the Public Works Department is requiring that six
parking spaces (on- and off-street) per unit be provided resulting in a total of
66 parking spaces for the development. The applicant proposes to provide
four off-street parking spaces per unit (44 spaces for 11 homes) with 12 on-
street parking spaces on the west side of the cul-de-sac along the frontage of
the two largest lots. Four on-street parking spaces would be provided from
Lucy Lane. Of the 60 spaces provided for the original proposal of 1 1 homes,
six on-street parking spaces have not been provided. However, as staff is
S-7
recommending that nine homes be approved, a total of 54 on- and off-street
parking spaces would be needed. As the applicant can provide a total of 60
on-and off-street parking spaces, the Public Works Department requirement
that a total of six on- and off-street parking spaces has been met.
4. Variance to the required 5 acre:minimum to rezone to P-1, Planned Unit
Development:
The 2.6 acre proposal is less than.the minimum size of 5 acres required under
Section 84-66.602 of the Zoning Ordinance. A variance can be granted to the
minimum acreage required where the variance is consistent with the General
Plan and the findings of County Code Section 26-2.2006 are met. These
findings are:
a. That any variance authorized shall not constitute a granl-of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the
vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject
property is located.
b. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject
property because of its size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning
regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed
by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use
district.
C. That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and
purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject
property is located. Failure to so find shall result in a denial.
As there are constraints on the property resulting from the overhead electrical power
transmissions lines and the preservation of a 58" valley oak, staff recommends that
the variance be approved.
As stated in Section 84-66.204, the intent and purpose of the P-I District, Planning
Unit Development, "provides an opportunity to cohesive design when flexible
regulations are applied". Additionally, the P-1 District is "intended to allow
diversification in the relationship of various uses, buildings structures, lot
sizes...while insuring substantial compliance with the general plan..." Staff is of the
opinion that this development proposal follows the intent and purpose of the P-1,
Planned Unit Development, District.
C. Compatibility with Re<,ulatow Programs: As proposed, this development complies
with existing regulatory programs.
S-8
D. General Plan/Zoning Compliance: The existing R-10 zoning allows 3 - 4.9 dwelling
units per acre. Rezoning the three parcels to P-1, Planned Unit Development, using
more flexible zoning requirements complies with the General Plan designation of
Single Family Residential-Medium Density. As proposed, this subdivision would
be consistent with the Single Family Residential-Medium Density (SM) General Plan
designation.
E. Response to Agency/Public Comments: There has been a request by neighbors (in
the letters in Exhibit 1) to limit the height of the proposed new residences to a single
story. This is an appropriate request for this older area of Walnut Creek which
should retain the character of this neighborhood. As staff agrees with this request,
a Condition of Approval will be assigned to this project which addresses this height
limitation. This shall apply to all homes that are built within this proposed
subdivision.
F. Environmental Issues: A Negative Declaration was posted from October 9, 1996 to
October 30, 1996. As a requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), a notice was mailed to the adjacent property owners informing them of the
development proposal and that the Negative Declaration was available for review.
Correspondence has been received regarding the merits of the project, though none
of the letters address environmental issues as discussed within the Negative
Declaration. These letters are attached as Exhibit 1.
The following Mitigation Measures have been incorporated into the Conditions of
Approval:
1. The applicant will be required to comply with the provisions of Section 914
of the County's Subdivision Ordinance that addresses on- and off-site
drainage(collect and convey) to an adequate drainage facility. Additionally,
a Condition of Approval will be assigned to the project which requires the
applicant to determine the adequacy of the culvert that crosses Dewing Lane
with a hydraulic analysis of this culvert. The applicant will be required to
construct any necessary improvements to this culvert. This completed
analysis will need to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department prior to the recordation of a final map. (93 Water and 916
Utilities)
2. Information received fi-om the Public Works Department indicates that the
applicant should be required to widen Lucy Lane to a 16-foot half width so
that this roadway will have pavement for a width of 28-feet. Widening Lucy
Lane to 28-feet would allow for on-street parking to be accommodated.
S-9
There is one internal roadway with two sections: Road "A" which ends in a
cul-de-sac and Road "B" which starts from the end of the cul-de-sac and
terminates in a hammerhead turnaround. The cul-de-sac, Road "A", needs
to provide a 35-foot curb radius within a 44-foot right-of-way so that there
is sufficient emergency vehicle access to these lots as well as sufficient room
for residents and guests entering and leaving the property.
Road "B", the hammerhead, needs to provide at least 28-feet road width to
provide private circulation with parking along one side of the street.
Additionally, a 3-foot buffer should exist between the curb face and road
easement so that motorists are not steering into road obstructions such as
fences. (#13 Transportation/Circulation).
3. A Condition of Approval will be assigned to the project which requires that
where a lot/parcel is located within 300 feet of a high voltage electric
transmission line, the applicant shall record the following as a deed
notification:
"The subject property is located near a high voltage
electric transmission line. Purchasers should be
aware that there is ongoing; research on possible
potential adverse health effects caused by the
exposure to a magnetic field generated by high
voltage lines. Although much more research is
needed before the question of whether magnetic fields
actually cause adverse health effects can be resolved,
the basis for such an hypothesis is established. .At this
time no risk assessment has been made."
When a Final Subdivision Report issued by the California Department of
Real Estate is required, the applicant shall also request that the Department
of Real Estate insert the above note in the report. (917 Human Health)
G. Summary: Staff feels that the proposal to construct new single family residences
should be approved; however, staff recommends that the density be reduced from 11
units, as requested by the applicant to nine units which is more appropriate for this
older Walnut Creek neighborhood.
EAD/AA
DPIII/3023-96.EAD
11/12/96
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Walnut Creek District
1535 Bonanza Street
Walnut Creek,CA 94596
August 16, 1996
Contra Costa County
Community Development Dept.
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Attention: Ms. Elizabeth Dunn
Re: T-8021
Walnut Creek
Gentlemen:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above project.
We have adequate gas and electric facilities in the area to serve the project. The
facilities will be extended to serve the project under the appropriate gas and electric
tariffs on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time a request
for service is made by the developer.
Should any relocation of our facilities become necessary, they will be done at the
developer's expense. Also, our land department would like to review the tentative
tract and improvement plans before they are approved. There is some concern on
the location of the homes in relationship to our easement.
If you have any questions, please call meat (510) 674-6540.
Sincerely,
W
JIMNG
Sr. New Business Representative
JW:le
p REVIEW IF AGENCY PLANNING APPI "ATION
EeMuoTHES IS NOTiA PROPOSAL T4 PROVI . WlATkR S RVICI~
The technical data supplied herein is based on preliminary information,is subject to revision and is to be used for planning purposes ONLY.
< ;�1
_ ......._..... ... _ . .. . .... . _: ... _ :. ..: 5
DATE 7/25/96 EBMUD MAP(S) 1542 B 510 EBMUD FILE S-5588 �i'}� °ij(+J Y
AGENCY Contra Costa County AGENCY FILE DP963023 ❑TENTATIVE MAP
Community Development Department
® DEVELOPMENT PLAN
ATTN: Elizabeth Dunn ❑REZONING/GPA
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095 ❑OTHER
APPLICANT Braddock & Logan Group, L.P. OWNER White Family Trust
4155 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 201 Stephen W. White, Trustee
Danville, CA 94506 2458 Paddock Drive
San Ramon, CA 94583
..::.::.;::.:..... :
;'. i76VEktJPlVIEfF7.f7�TA..........................
LOCATION Fronting 250 feet along the south side of Lucy Lane, approximately 100 feet east of Kendall Court, Walnut Creek .
TOTAL ACREAGE 2.6 ±
NO. OF UNITS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT -
11 ® Single Family ❑ Multi-Family ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Other
Residential Residential
....... .. ..: .
r';tNATEE�S£EtY£C£:C)A CR......:::....
PROPERTY: ELEVATION RANGE OF STREETS ELEVATION RANGE OF PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED
® In EBMUD ❑ Requires 230 ' - 245 230 ' 240 '
Annexation
® ( ALL, X PART) ® ( ALL, X _PART) ❑ Water service would require construction
of development may be served from of development will be served by of major facilities
EXISTING MAIN(S) MAIN EXTENSION(S)
LOCATION
LOCATION OF ❑ RESERVOIR
OF MAIN(S) Lucy Lane EXIST. MAINS) Lucy Lane ❑ PUMPING PLANT
❑ TRANSMISSION MAIN
El
Other
PRESSURE ZONE SERVICE ELEVATION PRESSURE ZONE SERVICE ELEVATION
RANGE RANGE
Coloradcs Colorados
(E3A) 250 ' 450 (E3A) 250 ' -450 '
The subject property currently has four water service meters located off of Lucy Lane. A water main extension will be required to serve the
development at the applicant's expense. Offsite pipeline improvements, also at applicant's expense, may be required to meet fire flow
requirements set by the local fire department. The applicant should contact EBMUD's New Business Office to request a water service
estimate to determine costs and conditions of providing additional water service to the development. Engineering and installation of water
mains often require substantial lead time, which should be accounted for in the applicant's development schedule.
FOR INFORMATION REGARDING:
-THIS REVIEW •CHARGES &OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE
Contact The EBMUD Water Service Planning Section (510) 287-1026 Contact The EBMUD New Business Office (510) 287-1008
® Water Service Planning ® City/Town/County
® New Business Office ® Applicant FIRM "JOq, SENIR CIVIL ENGINEER
MDB �1�� Owner
WA SER ICE PLANNING SECTION
® ®
f
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
APPLICATION AND PERMIT CENTER
DATE: July 31, 1996
TO: Elizabeth Dunn, Community Development Department
FROM: Johnny C.H. Young, Fire Service Representative
SUBJECT: DP963023
RZ963042
S D968021
Lucy Lane,Walnut Creek
We have reviewed the development plan, rezoning, and subdivision plot applications to establish an
eleven-unit single family residential project on 2.6 acres. This project is regulated by codes,
regulations and ordinances administered by the Contra Costa County Fire District. We wish to make
the following comments on this application:
1. The applicant shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire
protection with a minimum fire flow of 1,000 GPM. Required flow shall be
delivered from not more than one hydrant while maintaining twenty pounds
residual pressure in the water main. (903) LTFC
2. The applicant shall provide minimum one hydrant of the East Bay type.
Hydrant location(s) will be determined by this office upon submittal of two
copies of a tentative map or site plan. (903.2) UFC
3. Provide access roadways with all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20
feet unobstructed width, and not less than 13'-6" of vertical clearance, to
within 150 feet of travel distance to all portions of the exterior walls of every
building. Access roads shall not exceed 16% grade, shall have a minimum
outside turning radius of 32 feet, and must be capable of supporting the
imposed loads of fire apparatus 20 tons. (902.2) UFC
Note:
• Access roads of 20 feet unobstructed width shall have "NO
PARKING" signs posted and curbs painted red.
• Roads 28 feet in width shall have "NO PARKING" signs
posted and curbs painted red, allowing for parking on one side
only.
• Roads 32 feet in width allow for parking on both sides.
l
DP963023,RZ963042,SD968021
Page 2
When conditions prevent conformance with items above, the Chief
may permit the installation of fire protection systems, provided such
systems are not otherwise required by this or any other code.
4. Dead-end fire department access roads in excess of 150 feet long shall be
provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire department
apparatus. (902.2.2.4) UFC
5. Access roads and hydrants shall be installed and in service prior to
construction. (901.3) UFC
6. Approved premises identification shall be provided. Such numbers shall
contrast with their background and be readily visible from the street. (901.44)
UFC
7. A pro rata fee of$300 per house shall be assessed to partially offset initial
expenditures for additional necessary fire service resources. (CCC Ord.87/98)
8. The applicant shall provide roof coverings with a minimum Class C rating.
Untreated wood shake or shingles are not allowed.
It is requested that a copy of the conditions of approval for the subject project be
forwarded to this office when compiled by the planning agency.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the Fire Service
Representative.
cc: Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
Applicant
File
lucy.lan
IWANAWK & 1.()(.;AN SI:RVi('I'.S. LI.(
IWILDHIS-DINFIJ)PH's
FSTARIAS111:1) P)1_11
1)2\.\\ CALWORNIA
ITIATHONI:0101 73t1000
FAC.S1\111-1:(5 101 7,36-1031
Elizabeth Dunn December 23, 1996
Community Development Dept.
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: Subdivision 968021
DP963023 and RZ963042
Dear Elizabeth:
As promised at our 12-19-96 meeting with Jim Kennedy and Dennis Barry, I have enclosed hereN'-_Vi th 110
stamped legal sized envelopes to be used in re-noticing the subject property.
My understanding of the agreement reached at the aforementioned meeting is as follows:
I The public notice for the subject project will be republished for the 1-14-96 Planning
Commission Meeting for 12 lots including one low income unit.
2. Staff will support 12 lots including one existing low income unit, the existing home under the
P.G.E. power lines, and with a provision for two(2) pre-approved second units for low/moderate
income on Lots I and 3, subject to compliance with County regulations as determined
administratively by the Zoning Administration(ZA).
3. Homes on lots 1, 2 and 3 will be subject to administrative ZA approval for window placement.
Adjacent homeowners would be notified of the pending administrative action by the ZA and be
given an opportunity to review the plans.
4. On and off-street parking as proposed is acceptable and one proposed parking space on Lucy
Lane will be deleted due to conflict with driveway for existing house to remain.
Yours very truly,
Braddock&Logan Group
Marshall I Torre
Land Acquisition
MJT/rf
cc: Joe Raphel
Jeff Lawrence
Stephen White
Agenda Item 4
Community Development Contra Costa County
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1997 - 7:30 P. M.
I. INTRODUCTION
BRADDOCK & LOGAN (Applicant) - STEPHEN WHITE, TRUSTEE (Owner), County
File#RZ963042: The applicant requests approval to rezone a 2.57 gross acre parcel to P-1,
Planned Unit Development, in order to create 12 lots for single family residential use.
BRADDOCK R LOGAN (Applicant) - STEPHEN WHiTE, TRUSTEE (Owner), County
File #DP963023: The applicant requests approval of a final development plan-to establish
12 parcels on a 2.57 gross acre parcel. The existing residence on proposed "Lot 12" is to
remain and be made available to a low-to-moderate income household. Additionally, Lots
1 and 3 shall be designated to allow second units that will have deed restrictions to allow
low-to-moderate income households to occupy these units. Future owners of"Lots 1 and
3" will have to apply for the second unit under the Second Unit provision of the Zoning
Ordinance.
SUBDIVISION 978021 (Applicant: Braddock & Logan) - (Owner: Steven White, Trustee).
The applicant requests approval of a vesting tentative map to create 12 parcels on a 2.57
gross acre parcel. The existing residence on proposed "Lot 12" is to remain and be made
available to a low-to-moderate income household. Additionally, Lots I and 3 shall be
designated to allow second units that will have been restrictions to allow low-to-moderate
income households to occupy these units. Future owners of"Lots 1. and 3" will have to
apply for the second unit under the Second Unit provision of the Zoning Ordinance.
The subject property for the above referenced projects fronts for approximately 250 feet on
the south side of Lucy Lane, and is addressed as #2563, 92569, #2595 Lucy Lane in the
Saranap area of Walnut Creek. (R-10) (ZA: N-13) (CT 341.0) (Parcel 9185-360-026, -027
& -028).
IL RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Rezoning 963023, Final Development Plan DP963042 and the
Vesting Tentative Map for Subdivision 8021 be approved for 12 lots with the attached
Conditions of Approval.
Adopt a motion that:
A. Accepts the environmental documentation prepared for this project as being
complete and adequate, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project.
B. Recommends to the Board of Supervisors that the land described in RZ963042 be
rezoned from Single Family Residential District (R-10) to a Planned Unit
Development (P-1) together with the approval of Final Development Plan DP963023
with the attached conditions.
C. Approves Subdivision 8021 with the attached Conditions of Approval.
III. DISCUSSION
This proposal was originally scheduled to be heard at the December 10, 1996 County
Planning Commission. However, the developer had concerns that primarily centered on the
density of nine lots suggested by staff as well as Condition of Approval #6 which restricted
the height of the new homes to one-story. In subsequent meetings with the developers, the
proposal has been revised with the following changes found within this supplemental staff
report:
A. Include the house that exists under the P.G.&E transmission lines and establish this
parcel as "Lot 12" (see Attachment 1). This residence would be marketed to lower
income households and have a deed restriction that maintains the affordability of this
unit at this income level. This revised proposal complies with Contra Costa
County's Density Bonus Policy for Affordable and Senior Citizen Housing (see
Attachment 2). "Lower income" is defined as households earning 80% or less of the
current median household income for Contra Costa County as defined in Section
50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code (attachments to the Density Bonus Policy
have not been included as the median income figures are updated yearly. The
developer should contact the Redevelopment Agency for the most recent data which
will be incorporated into the attachments for the Density Bonus Policy)?
As outlined in Section IV of Attachment 2, single family residential developments
over 5 units are eligible to participate in this program. Additionally, a proposal with
an affordable housing unit component shall be processed through the P-I1 Planned
Unit Development, zoning. Section V, "Process", of Attachment 2 outlines the level
of affordability that is being achieved (10% of the units for lower income households
or one unit for this proposal) and the expected sales price of the unit (within a range
of$125,000 to $130,000). As described in the second paragraph of Section V, the
calculations for determining a density bonus are generally taken from the high end
of the range of the General Plan designation. As it relates to this proposal, the high
end of the Single Family Residential - Medium Density (SM) General Plan
designation is 4.9 units per acre or 1 1 units for the 2.2 net acre development.
The residence on "Lot 12" is to be brought up to current housing code.
B. "Lots 1 and 3" have been designated to have second units that would provide
additional affordable housing opportunities as these units would also be restricted for
low-to-moderate income households. Should these second units ever be established,
the owners would have to apply for a land use permit and comply with the Second
Unit provisions of the Zoning Ordinance prior to establishing this use. Nothing in
the designation of"Lots 1 and 3" to allow a second unit for low-to-moderate income
households pre-approves nor requires that either second unit be established.
C. Revise Condition of Approval #6 which restricted the height of the new homes to
only one story. All existing homes in the R-10 zoning district in which this proposal
is located have a height limitation of 2.5 stories or 35 feet. As the P-1 rezoning
request uses the R-10 zoning district as a guideline, this same height limitation
Should be attributed to the new homes that would be created as a result of this
proposal (the applicant indicates on the plans that the maximum height of the
residences will be 30 feet). There is concern regarding privacy issues from neighbors
that are adjacent to the western property line of this proposal. For this reason,
Condition of Approval 96 shall be revised to read: "Window placement on the new
homes to be established on "Lots 1, 2, and 3" will be subject to the review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator. Additionally, homeowners adjacent to these
new homes will be notified of the pending administrative action by the Zoning
Administrator and shall be given the opportunity to review and comment on the
plans".
D. As a Condition of Approval, the Public Works Department is requesting that 6 on-
and-off street parking spaces per unit be provided, resulting in a total of 66 parking
spaces for the development (the residence that will remain is exempt as it exists).
Community Development Department staff feels that 6 on-and-off street parking
spaces per lot is excessive. Instead of this requirement, it is suggested that the
applicant provide a minimum of 4 off-street parking spaces per unit (44- 66 spaces
for 11 homes depending whether two-or- three car garages are established). Two
(or three) of the parking spaces must be outside the setbacks, two (or three) can be
on the apron of the driveway. Additionally, it will be required that a minimum of 20
feet between the edge of the sidewalk and garage door be maintained for the off-
street parking spaces. The applicant proposes to provide 12 on-street parking spaces
on the west side of the cul-de-sac along the fi-ontage of the "Lots 12, 1 and 2" 'the
apphcanfi should ana nn�ze Qn street p�tirk�ng oia Lucy Lane, subleet to PubItc f,XOV.s
revtewandomng Admtnstrato°approval
E. Modifications have been made to Condition of Approval 96, 14, 21, 23, 37, 38, and
42. Condition of Approval 924 and 25 have been deleted. New Conditions of
Approval are highlighted. These changes are reflected in the revised Conditions of
Approval which are attached. The l` t is witlmmiles; of a ;#'ire stttor
sprnnl�lei s wtkl not b:e i eq�Ired fio nlent`the Growth Ivlana ement Element staff daa d:
for toe; roteetton:
4
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
With the deletion of Conditions of Approval -24 and 25, the following Mitigation Measures
have been revised:
1. Based upori �nforiation provided by the` jplcant tegardit� the exsttn strut
rnprov. .. . s, and changes tg the ;te�itat ue n�ap� the Coun.y -P WQrks
.
Depart i�enr i ecolnmend elimmatioin of Item Z
2.
shetilld be i-eqtiii-ed te widen huey hane to a 16 feet half width se that this Feadway
will have pavei-fletit fet- a width F�8 feet. Wideniti- 1:;uey Lane to 9 feet WouldJ
allow for on stfeet J
to be fteeemijfleelffted-
"A"
sae and Road "B"
hanaiwnefhead tuFtiftfound. The eul de sae, Read "A",
n 35 feet euFb
J 1=11
aeeess to these lets as Nvell as stifliep�ent. irpeei;n feF residents and guestJ
leavimJ
the propetir.
Read "B",
J
Additionally, a 13 feet buff;Em- should exist betN-,-een the euFb f�ee and Fead
J
fenees. (41'n
3. A Condition of Approval will be assigned to the project which requires that where
a lot/parcel is located within 300 feet of a high voltage electric transmission line, the
applicant shall record the following as a deed notification:
"The subject property is located near a high voltage electric
transmission line. Purchasers should be aware that there is
ongoing research on possible potential adverse health effects
caused by the exposure to a magnetic field generated by high
voltage lines. Although much more research is needed before
the question of whether magnetic fields actually cause
adverse health effects can be resolved, the basis for such an
hypothesis is established. At this time no risk assessment has
been made."
5
When a Final Subdivision Report issued by the California Department of Real Estate
is required, the applicant shall also request that the Department of Real Estate insert
the above note in the report. (#17 Human Health).
V. SUMMARY
Staff feels that the proposal to construct new single family residences should be approved.
Staff revises its original recommendation for approval of 9 lots to 12 lots since the
developer is providing a viable residence on "Lot 12" for much needed housing for lower
income households.
EAD/DMB/aa
RZ1/3042-86.EAD
1/6/97
1/15/97
AZTACBMENT #1
® 3
FY Rr � � � ,ag Y-� Y 49 . " Ile
' �a• �Y p'
. e p a tR4h'�, t e
pp gg a EE ag �1 p g g ¢ g k
l K ° a a ppaKq @��bf t=e Y Y 9tFnKj •:.,
n aY a'�R aaE �1 ?iEpypr$ .
�k
s° R d g 9e @��
g y § $ 8 a e S �� ° � � s Q �r°e s; IAN
�
�. �,} gg �g !6 dkd pk� 4 �[; gg �@ g�,� a �•I�. K 3 � � )9& •YK4,€�ep°S� ��ge�asgg���',
I+ ... i i pFEp�3a3�� 1 IJlC•-1 3nN34Y dYNYHYS
C • 'ca-5sr- F - � Y1-- tttl I---
i n�7 AI p V 58
(� �I'`.4 � 16`:' 'i',�! :, � ,1�,/,. . I \f,�1 J!.:>> I�r. I!'•Y ; ` �' I I j ���I ��1 -� Q�. 9�'�,.
6adi
Ione I.f�,./r /t Il� I�f f..�i5d �2.:1 <� j �I, a O `U^ -mi"�•, 16 eeeP �I
I_, a
r r '
L
00(43
ey Y
a---1e,[01
��4{ r_���: \>> ���,,�, i is •� _._... �j a I� �-. I, a-?� '� 6 •� b'
`�, Y ,til Ifs' I I` � 8 :. .,� ., r! 1��;• \ = r �� !
w I i� I � �A�`9 J r /71RC11 1 j Jr l�� b°R •� `I iO, � pl '!
610-09f-3PIG{ 7
1 101 [ (
�l
Adopted: '4122M. ......:.:,::
Amended: 6/15/93
ATTACMAENT #2 Page 1 of 10
PROCEDURES TO INIPLEIVIENT DENSITY BONUS POLICY
FOR AFFORDABLE AND SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING
I. PURPOSE
In order to implement the Housing Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan
regarding the provision of a balanced housing supply and to implement California
Government Code Sections 65915 and 65913, Contra Costa County shall allow for
higher density residential development in the unincorporated area of the County under
certain specified conditions, as set forth herein.
H. STATE REQUIREMENTS
Section 65915 of the California Government Code requires that local agencies provide
density bonuses or other incentives of equivalent financial value where a housing
developer proposes to provide 25% or more of the total units in a development for Low
to Moderate Income Households or 10% or more of the total units for Lower-Income
households or 50% or more of the total units for Senior Citizen Households.- In the
case of density bonuses, an increase of at least 257a over the otherwise maximum
residential density permitted under the existing zoning and General Plan designation
would be provided if the Below Market Rate units were included in the project and
reserved for Lower Income, Low to Moderate Income or Senior Citizen Households.
2-\ Section 65913 of the California Government Code requires that local agencies provide
incentives to housing developers that agree to provide 20% or more of the residential
units in a housing development to Lower-Income households. The incentives may be
in the form of a density bonus or in the reduction of development standards, zoning
requirements, architectural design requirements, other financial accommodations or in
the approval of mixed use zoning where the provision of a non-residential use would {'
reduce the cost of the housing portion of the development. j
III. DEFINITIONS
Affordable Rents - Low to Moderate Income/Senior Citizens: A monthly rent which
is no greater than the lesser of market rents payable for any comparable unit in the
project or one hundred percent (100%) of the Section 8 Existing Program Fair Market .
Rents, established in accordance with 24CFR Part 882, effective at the time of
occupancy, less the utility allowance then in effect.
Affordable Rents - Lower Income: A monthly rent which does not exceed an amount
determined by calculating 30% of 50% of the Contra Costa Median Income adjusted
as follows: in the case of a studio unit, for a one person household; in the case of a
one-bedroom unit, for a two person household; in the case of a two-bedroom unit, for
a three person household; in the case of a three-bedroom unit, for a four person
household.
Page 2 of 10
Affordable Sales Price - Low and Moderate income: A price determined pursuant to
Appendix D (or Appendix F for developments being considered pursuant to Section X
herein), taking into account unit size and Prevailing Interest Rates.
Affordable Sales Price - Lower Income: A price determined pursuant to Appendix C
(or Appendix E for developments being considered pursuant to Section X herein),
taking into account unit size and Prevailing Interest Rates.
Lower Income Households: Households earning 80% or less of the current median
household income for Contra Costa County as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health
and Safety Code. (See Appendix A).
Low to Moderate Income Households: Households earning between 80% and 120%
of current median household income for Contra Costa County as defined in Section
50093 of the Health and Safety Code. (See Appendix A).
Median Income: The median income for the Oakland Primary-Metropolitan Statistical
Area as most recently determined by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
under Section 8(f)(3) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, or if
programs under said Section 8(f)(3) are terminated, median income determined under '
the method used by the Secretary prior to such termination.
Prevailing Interest Rate: The then current rate for 30 year fixed rate loans insured by
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to Section 203(b)
and (i) of the National Housing Act of 1934, otherwise known as FHA 203(b) federal
mortgage insurance.
Senior Citizen Households: A household in which the head of household is 62 years
of age or older, or 55 years of age or older in a senior citizen housing development.
Qualified Project Period means the period beginning on the first day on which ten
percent of the dwelling units of a rental project are occupied and ending on the later of
(i) date which is at least fifteen years after the date on which fifty percent of the
dwellings in the project are occupied; or (ii) the date which is a qualified number of
days after the date on which any of the dwelling units in the project is occupied,
whichever is longer. For purposes of clause (ii), the term "qualified number of days"
means, with respect to any financing involving the issuance of tax exempt bonds, fifty
percent of the total number of days comprising the term of the bonds with the longest
maturity.
Senior Citizen Housing Development: A residential development that is available only
to households in which the head of household is 55 years of age or older which consists
of at least 150 dwelling units.
2.
Page 3 of 10
IV. GENERAL INTENT
It shall be the intent of the County to provide guidelines that will expedite the review }
process. All developments shall be processed through the P-1 (Planned Unit) zoning
to allow maximum flexibility in design and to allow variances to standard zoning
requirements for setbacks, sideyards, parcel sizes etc. Development on less than five
acres will still require_a variance. of th
It shall be the intent the County to provide for e
additional units consistent with maintaining the quality of the living environment for that
development.
It will be the responsibility of the applicant to provide complete information to the
County in a timely manner. County staff shall provide input into development concepts
early in the process and shall inform the applicant of how it will comply in providing
a density bonus or other incentives within 90 days of receiving a written request with
a development proposal. The intent is to provide, through discussions and negotiations
�L between staff and the applicant, a proposal that is acceptable to the applicant and-which
^U meets county housing and design objectives. Single family and Multifamily residential
developments of over five.units are eligible to participate in the program. The program
may be used on sites with a single-family or a multiple-family residential General Plan
designation. Sites with other General Plan designations will be considered on an in-
dividual basis.
V. PROCESS
In order to accomplish the foregoing the developer shall submit a preliminary,
conceptual development proposal to the Community Development Department. The .
proposal shall indicate the existing zoning and General Plan designations; gross acreage
of the site; area required for streets, drainage channels, and any non-residential uses;
the net acreage of the site (area remaining and available for residential development);
the range of units allowed by the General Plan; the number of units requested with a
density bonus; whether the developer proposes to provide 25% of the units to Low and
Moderate Income Households, or 10% of the units to Lower Income Households, or
50% of the units to Senior Citizen Households; the expected sales price or rent of all
units including those below market rate units and an estimated cost of development
under the base case and bonus conditions. The affordable units shall be placed
throughout the development and representative in size, quality an ocation of the entire
project. The applicant shall provide information on any site constraints that might
reduce the ability of the site to accommodate the maximum allowable units (i.e.
topography, soil stability, shape of parcel, etc.) and describe the surrounding
development.
Calculations for determining density will be based on the range allowed by the existing
General Plan designation. Staff will generally calculate from the high end of the range
in order to maximize the provision of affordable housing.
3.
Page 4 of 10
The County staff shall review the preliminary plan for acceptability of the general
design concept, access and urban services availability and consistency with General Plan
Policy. The County shall also determine which type of affordable housing best meets
the needs of the area in which the project is located.
Current Planning, Community Development and. Housing division staff and Public
Works staff will then meet with the applicant to determine the amount of any density
bonus to be allowed which exceeds the 25% specified by State law (see VII
"Supplemental Bonus Allowance), the type of Below Market Rate units to be provided,
and necessary project revisions. Fee waivers, waivers of some development standards
(i.e. setbacks, parking, etc.) or other financial accommodations could be provided in
lieu of a portion of the density bonus where that option is more appropriate due to site
or other constraints.
The meeting will serve the following purposes:
A. review any site constraints and/or design issues;
B. determine what revisions will be necessary in the proposed development plan to
obtain a suitable design for the site that is compatible with existing development,
takes into account site constraints, provides a desirable living environment, and
is expected to result in a recommendation by staff for approval assuming no new
information on constraints.
C. determine the amount of the density bonus and/or fee waiver or other financial
incentives.
D. determine the amount and type of housing affordable to Lower Income or Low
and Moderate Income to be provided that is acceptable to the County.
The applicant would then submit a Development Plan and application for rezoning the
site to P-1. The process can be expedited at this stage if the application includes- a
Final Development Plan based on the requirements of the Community Development
Department and the Public Works Department. The project planner shall be responsible
for keeping the applicant informed of any additional requirements that may be placed
on the project by other agencies during the review process.
It will be the intent of County staff to submit a development plan and staff report to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for
approval with conditions. One of the conditions will be either (a) or (b) below:
(a) that the developer of a Multi-family project shall execute a Regulatory
Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants with the County at
least 90 days prior to the issuance of Building permits, or
�(b) that the developer of a single family project shall execute a Developers
JSales Agreement at least 90 days prior to filing of a Final Map.
4.
Page 5 of 10
Prior to filing a Final Map the developer shall submit a plan for the review and
approval of the Director of Community Development for the purpose of determining
which units shall be available as housing affordable to Lower Income or Low and
Moderate Income Households. The approved plan shall be incorporated into the
Developer Sales Agreement.
VI. DENSITY INCREASESIAFFORDABILITY LEVELS
A summary of density increases and required affordability levels, as described below,
are summarized in Table 1.
A. For-Sale Projects
Any ownership project that includes below-market rate units in the following.
ratios would receive a 25% density increase if the project is approved.
1. Lower-Tncome units: Ownership units in the amount of 10% of the units
allowed by the General Plan affordable to, and occupied by, Lower-
Income Households for a minimum period of 30 years or 15 years if
occupied continuously by the same Lower Income Household.
Affordable sales price shall not exceed the maximum allowable sales price
for the appropriately sized home as determined by the table in Appendix
C for lower income households based on family size.
2. Low to Moderate-Income units: Ownership units in the amount of 25%
of the units allowed by the General Plan affordable to, and occupied by,
Low to Moderate-Income Households for the lesser of: a) 30 years; or b)
15 years if occupied continuously by one Low and Moderate Income
Household.
Affordable sales price shall not exceed the maximum allowable sales price
for the appropriately sized home as determined by the table in Appendix
D for Low to Moderate Income Households based on family size.
. 3. Senior housing: Ownership units in which at least 50% of the units
allowed by the General Plan will be sold to and occupied by low and
moderate income households in which the head of household is 62 years
of age or older, or 55 years or older in a Senior Citizen Housing
Development. The units shall be reserved for seniors for a minimum
period of 30 years.
5.
Page 6 of 10
C
R ca
cu W
E E
4-
cz
cn cn cn
rn
cm
va
W cm C4 4
+ + + +tR +
tbR
N0 0
C14 C4 in in
eUE
Ln
C4
EG.
>
C to
0 w
00 00 00 &n
Page 7 of 10
B. Rental Proiect
Any rental project that includes below market rate units in the following ratios
would receive a minimum 25% density increase if the project is approved.
Developer must agree to maintain 100% of the units as renter occupied for the
Qualified Project Period.
1. Lower Income units:. Rental units in which 10% of the dwelling units
allowed by the General Plan are units affordable to, and occupied by,
Lower Income Households for a period of at least 15 years.
Applicant shall agree to enter into a contract which guarantees a monthly
rental rate on the Below Market Rate units which does not exceed an
amount determined by calculating 30% of 50% of the Contra Costa
Median Income adjusted as follows: in the case of a studio unit, for a one
person household; in the case of a one-bedroom unit, for a two person
household; in the case of a two-bedroom unit, for a three person
household; in the case of a three-bedroom unit, for a four person
household, etc.
2. Low to Moderate Income units: Rental units in which 25% of the base
density are units affordable to, and occupied by, Low to Moderate Income
Households for a minimum period of at least 15 years.
Applicant shall enter into a contract which guarantees the monthly rental
rates on the Below Market Rate units such that they do not exceed the
lesser of 1) rents on the market rate units; or 2) Section 8 Fair Market
Rents, less the utility allowance then in effect for the appropriately sized
unit.
3. Senior Citizen Units: Rental developments in which 50% or more of.the
base number of units are available only to households in which the head
of the household is 62 years of age or older, or 55 years of age or older
in a Senior Citizen Housing Development. The units shall be occupied by
Senior Citizens Households for a minimum period of 30 years.
VII. SUPPLEMENTAL BONUS ALLOWANCE
In order to encourage the production of rental units a supplemental bonus over the 25%
described above can be obtained by the provision of additional below market rate units.
Supplemental bonus units over the 25% would be allowed at the following rates.
7.
Page' 8 of 10
A. Three bonus units may be granted for each additional unit with a guaranteed
monthly rent not exceeding an amount determined by calculating 30% of 50% of
the median monthly household income for the appropriately sized family for that
unit. The rental guarantee shall be for at least 15 years. In the case of
supplemental bonuses granted because units will be for senior citizens, the
affordable units shall be selected from among the units assigned to senior citizens.
B. One bonus unit may be granted for each additional unit with a guaranteed monthly
rent not exceeding the lesser of 1) rents on the market rate units; or 2) the Section
8 Fair Market Rent, less the utility allowance then in effect. The rental guarantee
shall be for at least 15 years.
C. Guarantee the monthly rental rates of some units at a lower rent level and/or for
a longer or shorter period than specified above, with the exact number of units,
rent levels and time periods negotiated on a project-by-project basis, such that the
total package of discounts is comparable to the above approach.
VIII.CALCULATING DENSITY INCREASE
The amount of the density bonus will be based upon the maximum number of units
allowed under the General Plan less the area needed for street networks, drainage
channels and other non-residential uses (for initial calculations this amount can be
assumed to be approximately 25% for single family developments and 20% for multiple
family developments). Consideration will be given to a lesser or greater amount for
such needs if it can be shown that the actual need varies significantly from the above
ratios.
Ownership and Rental Developments
Applicant shall determine base density using the General Plan maximum multiplied by
75% of the site acreage for a single family development, or by 80% for multi-family
developments. If sites are reserved for below market rate units in the ratios indicated
earlier, the applicant may increase the total number of units by 25% (or more if
supplemental units are included).
Example:
Assume a 40 acre parcel with a General Plan designation of Single Family
Medium Density. General Plan Single Family Medium Density allows 3-5
dwelling units per acre. Developer proposes a for-sale project.
8.
Page 9 of 10
40 acres
10 acres (25% of site for streets, etc.)
= 30 acres net developable area
30 acres with 3 to 5 dwelling units per acre result in a General Plan allowance
of from 90 to 150 dwelling units.
If applicant agrees to provide one of the following, a density bonus will be
granted:
% reserved for # reserved for Below Household
Below Rate Units Market Rate Units Income
(for this example)
10% 15 units Lower Income
25% 38 units Low to Moderate Income
50% 75 units Senior Citizens (62+)
50% 75 units Senior Citizen over 55
years of age if project
is a Senior Citizen Development
Applicant is allowed a bonus of 25% or 38 dwelling units in this example for a
total development of 188 dwelling units.
IX. AFFORDABILITY CONTROLS
Control of the continued affordability of housing units shall be maintained through
recorded deed restrictions on for-sale units and/or recorded regulatory agreements on
rental projects which will be utilized to establish resale procedures and to preserve
rental housing stock for a specified period of time at affordable prices and rents.
A contract executed between the developer/Owner and the county in the final stage of
the development review process would establish purchase price and rent limits, as well
as resale controls, which would be translated into deed restrictions. These would
include requirements that:
- Lower-Income ownership units be occupied by Lower-Income households for a
minimum of 30 years or 15 years if occupied continuously by one lower-income
household.
- Lower-Income rental units be occupied by Lower-Income households for a
minimum of 15 years at affordable rents.
- Low to Moderate-Income ownership units be occupied by Low to Moderate
Income households for a minimum of 30 years or 15 years if occupied
continuously by one Low to Moderate-Income household.
9.
Page 10 of 10
Low to Moderate-Income rental units be occupied by Low to Moderate Income
households for a minimum period of 15 years at affordable rents.
Senior Citizen housing ownership units be occupied by Senior Citizen Households
for a minimum of 30 years
Senior Citizen housing rental units be occupied by Senior Citizen Households for
a minimum of 30 years at affordable rents. If at the end of the 30 years the
property owner desires to convert to a non-senior-use, a plan must be developed
with the County to prevent the eviction of any senior tenants.
X. HIGH COST AREASIHIGH COST PROJEC'T'S
Should the foregoing requirements result in a financial return of less than a developer
could obtain without a density bonus the developer may petition for and the County may
consider modification of the price/rent requirements of Section VI to any level.up to
but not in excess of the following:
For Sale Projects Rental Projects
Lower Income Units Appendix E Rent determined by
calculating 30% of 70% of the
Contra Costa County median
income, adjusted as per Section
VI(B)(1)-
Low & Moderate Income Units Appendix F Rent determined by calculating
30% of 100% of the Contra Costa
County median income, adjusted as
per Section VI(B)(2).
KWJb/d-tYb-.bsg
10.
i
7 .
January 6, 1997
Dennis 13arry,
Deputy Director
Community Development
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street
Martinez,CA 94553
RP: DP 963023,RZ 963042
and Sub 958021-
ILAnd3 of White
Dear Dennis:
Pursuaut to our 1-6-97 discussion we formally request that the proposed setbacks for the cited project be
modified as follows:
1. sots 1 11 Side yard setback S'minimum
2. Lot 9 Rear yard IS'minimum
3. Lots 1- 11 Front yard 18'minimum
The resulting homes will be five feet wider and will significantly lessen the impact of the garage doors on
the streetscape. Lot 9.will have a large front and side yard due to the PGE easement and the 5'reduction
in the rear yard is warranted. The minimum 18'front yard setback is being utilized on a widespread basis
and will facilitate additional architectural flexibility.
It is my understanding that the project will be re-noticed for the Planning Commission meeting of 1-28-
97. Please contact me if you have any questions or continents.
Yours very truly,
Braddock&Logan Group
0W--Z_W —��
Marshall J.Torre
Land Acquisition
MJT/rf
cc: Stephen White
Jeff Lawrence
4.
UK /�a nrG nrr irNa eilxn4aNvxq wu nn fi Nnpl i. -a -t1�r
Y
Community Conti a Harvey E. ommun
Director of Community Development
Development Costa
Department COUnt)/
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 94553-0095
Phone:
335-1210 i2
r .
February 14, 1997
Mr. Carl Hutchins, Jr.
172 Kendall Road
Walnut Creek, CA. 94595-0113
Dear Mr. Hutchins:
This is in reply to your letter of February 3, 1997, recieved by our office on February 5, 1997.'-As
requested, I am enclosing both staff reports concerning Subdivision 8021, Rezoning RZ963042
and Development Plan 963023, a 12 unit residential development on 2.57 acres at 2563 Lucy
Lane, in the Saranap Area of Walnut Creek.
While I appreciate your views regarding the merits of this proposal, and encourage your
continuing participation in the hearings before the Board of Supervisors, there are a few points in
your letter in need of correction.
Please be advised that Elizabeth Dunn prepared both the original and supplemental staff reports,
as project planner. That supplement was prepared in response to the modification proposed by
the applicant, consistent with the County Procedures to Implement Density Bonus Policy for
Affordable and Senior Citizen Housing, which was adopted initially on April 22, 1987 and
revised June 15, 1993. These procedures implement California Government Code Sections
65913 and 65915. In addition, neither the Director of Community Development nor I concurred
that the restriction to one story dwellings was warranted, given the lack of any such restriction on
the surrounding properties.
Robert Drake, a Senior Planner from the Community Development Department sat to my left
during the hearing before the Planning Commission. The applicants' representative sat in the
audience about half way back on the left side of the chamber.
As Mr. Drake informed you by telephone on February 10, 1997, the applicant requested, and the
Commission allowed a continuance of the closed hearing from February 11, 1997 to February 25,
1997. Separate hearings will be scheduled and noticed before the Board of Supervisors for the
final decision on this project.
Since the Applicant has the burden-of proof, they are given the right of rebuttal to points raised in
opposition. The Commissioner comments to which you refer were made after the close of the
public hearing. This is the appropriate time for such comments and in no way signifies any
partiality on the part of the individual commissioners.
While the foregoing clarifies some of the points in your letter, it is not intended in any way to
diminish the importance of the remaining views which you have expressed. I am sure that both
the County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors will give their full consideration
to the substantive issues you have raised in your objection to the proposed project.
If I can be of any further assistance, please call.
Sincerely yours,
Dennis M. Barry, IC
Deputy Director
Attachments
cc: Members, Board of Supervisors (w/o att.)
Clerk of the Board - Better Gov't File (w/o att.)
Members, County Planning Commission (w/o att.)
Robert Drake (w/o att.)
File Sub 8021, RZ963042
Agenda Items 92 - 4
Community Development Contra Costa County
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 1997 - 7:30 P.M.
I. INTRODUCTION
BRADDOCK & LOGAN (Applicant) - STEPHEN WHITE, TRUSTEE (Owner)
The subject project consists of the following related applications:
A. County File#RZ963042 - A request for rezoning approval to rezone 2.57 gross
acres to Planned Unit (P-1) District with a variance to allow for a rezoning of less
than 5 acres in area.
B. County File #DP963023 - A request for final development plan approval to
establish 12 residential lots on a 2.57 acre parcel. The existing residence on
proposed Lot 12 is proposed to remain and be made available for a lower income
household.
C. Subdivision 8021 (County File#SD968021) - A request for vesting tentative map
approval to create 12 residential lots on a 2.57 gross acre parcel.
The subject property is addressed as 92563 Lucy Lane in the Walnut Creek/Saranap area.
(R-10) (ZA: N-13) (CT 3410) (Parcel#185-360-026, -027 & -028)
IL RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion providing for:
A. Adoption of the Negative Declaration as adequate.
B. Recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to:
1. Approve the proposed rezoning of the site to the Planned Unit (P-1)
District.
2. Approve the final development: plan with conditions allowing 12 single
family residences.
C. Approve the proposed subdivision with conditions including being contingent on
adoption of the rezoning and final development plan by the Board of Supervisors.
File#RZ963042,DP963023,SD968021
III. BACKGROUND
This project was initially scheduled on the Commission's December 20, 1997 agenda and
has been rescheduled or continued_several times since then. On January 28, the
Commission conducted a hearing on a revised project that provided for twelve lots
including some lots which would be used for the County's affordable housing program
pursuant to County General Plan Housing Element policies. After taking testimony, the
Commission closed the hearing and continued the matter to February 11, and again
continued the matter to February 25. At the February 25 meeting staff described several
changes proposed by the applicant to try and address concerns of the neighborhood. The
Commission also received a number of letters on the project from nearby residents, and
elected to continue the matter again to this meeting.
IV. ARBORIST REPORT ON MATURE TREES ON ADJOINING PROPERTIES
Attached is an Arborist report dated 3/3/97 reviewing possible project impacts on two
mature trees on adjoining properties (Adair, #51 Iris Lane; and Lamore, #1240 Kendall
Court). The report indicates that the project grading could damage the roots of these
trees and recommends that the grading plan be modified to allow for root exploration on
the project site.
The applicant has agreed to install retaining walls and reduce grading in the vicinity of
these trees in accord with the report recommendations.
V. REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The attached conditions have been modified to reflect recent changes proposed by the
applicant in response to concerns posed by nearby residents. These include provision for:
• the reduced retaining wall adjacent to the Hendricks property along the boundary
of Lot 11 (refer to COA#I.A. identifying the 2/7/97 Luk, Milani Conceptual Site
Plan);
0 protection of existing mature trees on adjoining Adair and Lamore properties
(refer to COA#1.C. referring to the 3/3/97 report from Hortscience and letter
from Braddock&Logan);
S-2
Braddock&Logan(A);Stephen White, Trustee(0)
Tuesday,March 11,1997, County Planning Commission
• specification that residential development would be limited to a maximum of 30
feet in height and no more than 2 stories (refer to COA#3.D.);
• elimination of provision for low-to-moderate housing on Lots 1 and 3, and also
elimination of the provision for second residential units on those properties, and
provision for lower income housing on Lot 12 only in accord with the County
Affordable Housing policies (refer to COA#9);
Additionally, the revised conditions provide for the standard indemnification language for
which it is County policy to require on the approval of all subdivisions.
VI. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN TO MAXIMIZE STRUCTURE SEPARATION ADJOINING
LOTS TO THE SOUTH
Residents to the south of the project have expressed concern about the compatibility of
the project with their use of the land. The applicant has indicated that structure separation
on Lots 3 and 4 from nearby residences could be increased if the County were willing to
allow for a reduced sideyard setback requirement on these lots. The existing
recommended design restrictions require a minimum of 5 feet on one side, but an
aggregate sideyard (total of both sideyards) of a minimum 15 feet. The radial
configuration of these lots is a limiting factor in trying to provide more separation.
The applicant has indicated that if the sideyard setback could be reduced to a minimum'of
10 feet, the structure setback from.the adjoining properties could be maximized. He has
also indicated that in this circumstance, the only area of the lots that would be subject to
the reduced sideyard setback requirement would be closest to the project's street.
If the Commission feels there is merit in this approach, then listed below is suggested text
that could be added to Condition #3.
3.G. Prior to issuance of building permits on Lots 3 and 4, the applicant shall
submit residential plans for the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator. The aggregate sideyard setback for these lots shall be
reduced to a minimum of 10 feet. However, the structure setback from
these residences to adjoining lots on Kendall Court and Iris Lane shall be
maximized. The area of the reduced aggregate sideyard setback shall
apply to those portions of the lots closest to the project's access road.
CApdoc\dp963023,rpt
RD\
S-3
t .
,i
a _
� s
1
•
t �(
to �
MrA
/A
��}T,,,,i t �°,ti!t �Il�a�d� �. + a t i � i�k..�a ,�f.:a -k`It •� ?Y��I. l .w`
' � ra+.w 4i s` ,`i��r r•.ar A 4� �,S i„ s t"t"`'�ti k 1=�,� �.��+,.�L ,� f;r k t 't � YA p��� �'
..
�, �. + �h 7 Ea•,
� ���. � *�;�3y� _ .',; nr'�V '� �.t u�.1.V.ib.�.�i�l�.`�..tLa`s:tic"�+.�f "�_r � �� .p � ..-• � i, ��y
:t��6,s p ` { {` o ,ata' .�,� t a• qS ,may t v� r e a t �,.. .
S+4w•t�M+w$ef�'s�wi 4Y�t�4� � �' 'C 4
x
Ino w �Fy ; ,`'�.::` Y...,::•�'.�.. -
a o
vy
-... ..LUCY_.. _ LANE
/
CD
lco
�/ et W � P w� � � NBv•ae't 29].Ze
J w 11
�I `/� r Z � c., � /•J1 �4v�� Q� __.,_._. 3.._ Z__.-.._. __,_..__.4Ze'.-ttT...- ._....._.._. -_—... �•�I�
4
al
O:0t
8:' A G $ t^rs I I .t.J N• fTl -
+ g O N
mw'0 V 8 I 9
lk
.._ ._ >,
� 111111 m,
In
It
F \
� D
4\1
t •1 f
• .Y. . ..� ..., w �, ate.ov
•1fplfCiiM7ta CbCYY�Y
I •
no •C
• March 3, 1997
Marshall Torre
The Braddock&Logen Group
4155 Blackhawk Plaza Cirole, Suite 201
Danville CA 84509
Subject:Supplemental tree evaluation, Lucy Lane,Contra Costa County
Dew Mr. Torre:
a
The Braddock b Logan Group Is planning to develop the subleot property neer
Walnut Creek.You were concerned that the proposed grading on the site may
affect the health of two trees on adjacent properties.You requested that
HonSclence, Inc.review grading plans,inspect the trees,and evaluate the
Impacts of grading activity and Its affect on the health and structure of the
trees. I visited the site on February 27.This tetter summarizes my
observations and evaluations.
I y
Obsorvatlone
Assessment of tho trees were made visually from the sub;ect property. Tree
diameters and other measurements were estimated.
6rac�ina clans 4
Grading plans call for reducing the elevation of the existing grade on lot 3,
beginning one foot from the property line on the south and west sides.A 2:1
slope will extend down to the building pad eievetion approximately eight feet
below the wdsting grade. j
i
A coast redwood(Sequoia sempervlrens)was located approxknatety eeven
teat south of the existing fenoe on the south side of lot three, It had a single
29' diameter trunk.A large,upright limb was growing on the west aide of the
crown,beginnirg IS above the ground,with a narrow attachment. I
Branches in the lower two-thirds of the crown were unusually long for a l
redwood.Foliage on the tree was thin.The kumbineticn of the long branches i
and thin foliage gave the tragi a'rangy"appearance.
I
i
I
i
I
i
a PA sari+
•Icaro%u94U6 i
ft4m 310 W 0211
i
c x:6w 44 S�z
I
l
_ q
Braddock&Logan Group.Lucy Lane site Hon8dence, Inc.
ott•ette tree evatuatlon Page 2
Pine tract
A Monterey pino (Pinus rad/afa)was located just over the exlsbng fence on
the west side of lot 3.The trunk was In contact Qh the fence.The pine
tree had a single 30" diameter trunk, which divided into two codominant
segments at a height of 36'.The trunk had a slight lean toward the east.
The pine trot was moderately healthy,with good foliage color.A majority of
the foliage grew over lot 3, extending 35'in some cases.
Eva/u&tion o/ Impact&
Tree roots are most often found in the upper one to two fact of loll.The affects
of the proposed grading on tot 3 would be substantial.The building pad
elevation would no 8'below the sxisting level.You plan to begin the cut T
from the property Gne, and follow a 2:1 elope to the final grade.
The affect of grad:W on the two trees would be significant.For the coast
redwood,approxirn6ttety 2S%to 30%of the area below the canopy would be
alfeotod.Since the tree le already In a non•vtgorou.s eondWn,root damage of
this magnitude could eauso symptoms of Increased fotlar decline,Including
branch death and stunted growth. i
To avoid damaging the roots of the redwood tree,a,wall might be built to
retain 5oll 10' into the subject property, giving the tree a radius of 17' for
root exploration.
i
i
For the Monterey pine,the affects of grading would be more severe.The
proposed cut would begin within 2'from the trunk and remove up to 50%of
the tree's root system. I believe the tree would either decline in heeith or fall
at the bass. Because of the lean it is likely that the tree would tall Into lot 3.
To reduce the root damage to the Monterey pine,consider building a wall to
retain soli 20' Into the subject property. If that were done, tfte resulting sol
volume could sustain the health and stability of the tree indefinitely.
Please contact me If there are any questions regarding my observations or
evaluatlona.
Sincerely,
Ed Brennan
CerWled Arborist WC-0105
l
1,T11,n
n7Sn f L.'1 n'� ^ •
• - ` , lap- `
y � \
sit
d
it
7 AS
X104 ':�:.�-•• '"`'.,� � � �.�"' ���� � �, ,^.
i
x } a J .W3
It
t 1� 1 1 ry
.. "'� X�.{ i��`-•,,, p
It
TWAL P-02
Lt� � Lh g
Nti
• �!rew Rmr4 N WALL 'S
: G►
Ll M � 't`S df R�pt 4
�J►tn'+� 4+F. Q Ccc % e h y
Opt
Mi hp I IONE
March 3, 1997
Dennis Barry
Deputy Director
Community Development Dept.
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street
Martinez,California 94533
RE: PC: DP963023-RZ 963042
and Sub 968021
Lands of White
Dear Dennis:
As promised, enclosed is a copy of the 03/03/97 Arborist's Report by Hortsciences, Inc.
for two off site trees that could be affected by project grading
We agree to implement the mitigation and will do so by retaining the existing topography
as specified in the Report.
Yours very truly,
Braddock&Logan Group,L.P.
Marshall 1.Torre
Land Acquisition
MIT/hrh
Enclosure
RM LH Glq 'ON XVI SNONNUO lid H:E NON LG-E AM
3
1i
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
o�
Fire Chief
ALLEN LITTLE
/+ _{ / TRANSMITTAL
TO:I..Olt/�f-f} �05l.A (A(/U�y C ►ylbDATE:
PI>a S-tr�,e-t Harr- AV.-7"1 RE:
ATTN: Yh)�2 Gf/9 Lwn G C��L
F.D. Project #.
WE ARE: [ ] RETURNING [ j PLANS (Sheets dated )
] RETAINING [ ] SPECIFICATIONS/CALCULATIONS
THE PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND ARE: [ ] APPROVED AS SUBMITTED
[ ] APPROVED AS NOTED
[ j RETURNED/LACKING INFO./RESUBMIT
APPROVAL IS FOR INSTALLATION ONLY.
[ ] PRIOR TO CEILING TILE/SHEETROCK INSTALLATION, CONTACT THIS OFFICE FOR AN OVERHEAD
SPRINKLER INSPECTION.
[ ]. THE SYSTEM SHALL BE HYDROSTATICALLY TESTED AT 50 P.S.I. OVER THE STATIC
PRESSURE FOR 2 HOURS AND WITNESSED BY THIS OFFICE.
COMMENTS: A copy of the approved plans and transmittal shall be on site at time-of
ins ection.
s%lv ,Ahlnge A) U 0,-j 3-11- ?'7. A /u Dt) '(_ve A
P d dine O d au s s
So si Of u c Go A.e A �D.✓L�iw
A' /k) ,4.S 4 flWN OaJ % .�4 y}g c lkwoe•
wle- Do.-x,i LL e_4rX)& OA! ,bOA 9/ 0-C O� Lucy LA/t,12 D`Ovi �[ 3.:2 A"20-
0- or 4 b.
FINAL APPROVAL SUBJECT TO: [ ] FIELD INSPECTION [ ] FUNCTIONAL TESTS
[ ]
48-HOURS NOTICE FOR INSPECTION AND/OR TEST IS REQUIRED. CALL 930-5500.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CONTACT THE UNDERSIGNED.
cc:
f�7T�GI jy,� FIEL
ENG.004 SPR FINAL
Rev. 2/95 DATE:
❑ 2010 GEARY ROAD • PLEASANT HILL, CALIFORNIA 94523-4694 • TELEPHONE ( 10) 930-5500 • FAX 930-5592
❑ 4527 DEERFIELD DRIVE • ANTIOCH. CALIFORNIA 94509 • TELEPHONE (51 0) 757-1303 • FAX 754-8852
❑ WEST COUNTY AREA - TELEPHONE (510) 374-7070
Y
•
j
� 1
• : M1
V\
l ep n, ,ss P
1A2 0� �QY e o ell -s f
0
% �tJ qOS(• 6z7 IVI • //i
+1 VV d
„Ft
r
.�, �, �• TUNNEL • � � i�
v 11Y'L•'. ,..... .�. .w Lt N to-�A r iuu.W.►�3L.11i='.."'."'33�'► - _•• -- i%''/-' .�%` "
73
104- .n
114
94
ti e ,t 1 Q) � t°s aao
s DE` NG
149 �� 1140 o a .r bb
145 t! t9 Z 14
151 ,tb1 It $ al a3 .�
/a,/ 140
•� 96 p, Ito
156 1 t7} t o
tiD 179 w h 04
172 c 1172 -W 90
119 , ,7e
113 Q fit N LP
01109 `T,
107 N j180 pQQ
101 ��J • 1
x � llas 0 � ~ •
Y
.619 0 1190 : 119. - 140 125 tt0
.a t731 Its 1 3 0 5 13j6 I♦' « + �l H \
7 t It .n 5 « \
13i2 1314 K « �\ �� 10 Q w \
.� n 130 v.o 15110
+ o Q
p p «a 13308 1!5 155
166 n. y "� Z 5° a 10 X20 05 ���! t e0
60 N '� 40 ji0 LN
t
`j 9 95 \\-Y 161 ^ n
I!) 134! �� 75 j7 .�'.
tt54 � 0� p + 65R w
1 30 60 5- .�
124 9 t4 5040 r i
0
11 O a '� o
4 t 41 4 0 ZO
All
w Q
2;6 3
1 t a p0
V t0 .,
its24 tl y a r o
it. if
4
V- Itla
'Z `
California Environmental Quality Act
NOTICE OF
Completion of Environmental Impact Report
xxx
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
651 Pine Street North Wing - 4th Floor- Martinez, California 94553-0095
Telephone: (510) 335-M2 Contact Person ELIZABETH DUNN
Project Description and Location:
BRADDOCK AND LOGAN(Applicant)-STEPHEN WHITE.TRUSTEE (Owner), County File#RZ963042: The
applicant requests approval to rezone a 2.57 gross acre parcel to P-1, Planned Unit Development,in order to
create twelve (12) lots for single family residential use.
BRADDOCK AND LOGAN(Applicant)-STEPHEN WHITE.TRUSTEE(Owner), County File#DP963023: The
applicant requests approval of a final development plan to establish twelve parcels on a 2.57 gross acre
• parcel. The ebsting residence on proposed"Lot 12"is to remain and be made available to a tow-to-moderate
income household. Additionally, Lots 1 and 3 shall be designated to allow second units that will have deed
restrictions to allow low-to-moderate income households to occupy these.units. Future owners of"Lots 1 and
3"will have to apply for the second unit under the Second Unit provision of the Zoning Ordinance.
SUBDIVISION 968021 (Applicant: Braddock & Logan) - (Owner: Steven White, Trustee), The applicant
requests approval of a vesting tentative map to create twelve parcels on a 2.57 gross acre parcel. The existing
residence on proposed"Lot 12"is to remain and be made available to a low-to-moderate income household.
Additionally,Lots 1 and 3 shall be designated to allow second units that will have deed restrictions to allow low-
to-moderate income households to occupy these units. Future owners of"Lots 1 and 3"will have to apply for
the second unit under the Second Unit provision of the Zoning Ordinance.
The subject property for the above referenced projects fronts for approximately 250 feet on the south side of
Lucy Lane,and is addressed as#2563,#2569, #2595 Lucy Lane in the Saranap area of Walnut Creek. (R-10)
(ZA: N-13) (CT: 341 u) (Parceis 4 135-"360-0266,-0t1&-026) EAu
THIS IS A NOTICE OF STAFF'S DETERMINATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE
ABOVE PROJECT. YOU WILL BE FURTHER NOTIFIED OF THE PROJECT'S HEARING DATE
WHERE YOU CAN COMMENT ON THIS DETERMINATION AND THE PROJECT IF YOU WISH.
The Environmental Impact Report or Justification for Negative Declaration is available for review
at the address below:
• Contra Costa County Community Development Department
4th Floor, North Wing, Administration Building
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553-1229
Review Period for Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration: /-6- F7
thru /-27- 7
AP 9 R 12/89 By
Community Development Department Representative
N S F
CONSIDER WITH
ACS1 V,!
Supervisor Joe Canciamilla April 10, 1997
300 East Leland Road. Suite 100
Pittsburg, CA 94565
Corrected 4-15-97
RE: Lucy Lane Appeal
12 Rome Subdivision
Dear Supervisor Canciamilla:
We have been advised by Staff that the Board of Supervisors will be considering the Lucy Lane
Project appeals at its 4-22-97 meeting. Separate appeals were filed by neighbors and Braddock&
Logan Group.
We respectfully request that the Board approve the proposed 12 home project which includes
eleven (11) new two story market rate homes and one (1) existing two story home to be sold to a
qualified low income person/family. We believe that this project implements applicable General
Plan policies including those related to infill projects, affordable housing, neighborhood
enhancement. The Cioneral Plan permits eleven (11) homes on the site. The twelfth home, an
existing home to be improved to the Housing Code, is a low income for sale unit and requires a
Density Bonus pursuant to State and County regulations. By providing the low income unit a three
(3) unit Density Bonus could have been requested under the aforementioned regulations. We did
not believe that fourteen(14)units on this property was appropriate.
During the course of the Planning commission hearing process we had numerous meetings with
interested parties in order to address concerns. As a result the project includes mitigation measures
that red= impacts including: retention of the 60" oak tree, special design features that eliminate
potential impacts on two large,mature off-site redwood and pine trees; use of grading tediniques to
significantly reduce impacts of proposed two story homes on existing adjacent one story homes;
drainage, off and ori street parking, landscaping, fencing, privacy for adjacent homes; design
review approval requirements including mailed notices to adjacent,neighbors;lower building height
regulations than those of adjoining single family residential areas; restrictions an construction
activity; provisions for tree removal mitigations; fencing; lowering and eliminating retaining walls.
A Negative Declaration was posted and adopted for the project.
Currently the site contains seven (7) single family homes. The project replaces six (6) of the
existing units with eleven (11) new homes and retains the existing two story home. Average lot
size for the new homes is about 8,700 square fed. The project site is located in a transitional area
of various land uses and is bounded by 2 and 3 story apartments and condominiums on the east and
single family homes on lot sizes that vary from about 5,900 to 12,000 square fed on the west and
south. A mixture of one and two story homes exist on the site and within the immediate
neighborhood.
Supervisor Joe. Canciarulla
April 10, 1997
Page 2
By way of backgound i have included the following letters and other documentation that will
provide the Board with a pertinent facts related to the project and a historical perspective.
1. 3-20-97 letter to Dennis Barry regarding Braddock & Logan appeal of 3-11-97
Planning Commission decision including meeting transcript of Motion to approve
an 1 l home project.
2. 3-11-97 Staff Report to be provided by Staff.
3, 3-10-97 letterto Supervisor Ulken-ta re: Infill Projects.
4. 3-7-97 letter to Planning Comnussion regarding existing lot sizes in.neighborhood,
mitigations for off-site trees, additional setbacks and separation between proposed
homes and existing homes, new garage for existing home to be retained as an
affordable unit and Density Bonus issue.
S. 3-6-971ctter to Planning Commission from Stephen White, property owner.
6. 3-3-97 letter to Dennis Barry and Arborist.'s Report.on Off-site Tree Mitigation.
7. 2-20-97 letter to Planning Commission regarding mitigations for traffic,
pedestrians, street lighting, fencing, landscaping, tree'removal, drainage, lot sizes,
two story homes, privacy,justification of P-I zoning, Density Bonus and General
Plan Compliance.
S. 2-4-97 letter to Planning Commission regarding mitigations for retaining walls,
fencing, retention of trees, site planning issues, window placement and justification
of P-1 zonintr and Density Bonus.
9. 1-6-97 letter to Dennis Barry regarding setback mitigations.
10. 1-2-97 letter to Dennis Barry regarding mitigations for on and off-site parking.
11. 12-23-96 letter to Elizabeth Drum of Community Development regarding
affordable unit,window placement, on and off street parking mitigations.
12. 12-10-96 Staff Report can be obtained from Staff.
13. 12-9-96 letter to Dennis Barry regarding factual corrections for the 12-10-96 Staff
Report prepared by Elizabeth Dunn, Density Bonus, affordable unit to be retained
and Creneral Plan policies pertaining to the twelve(12)unit project.
S'rn'r1 NHrJ❑1 E Ji❑OQQH�IR S'GI:�Z L66Z—SZ—zldtl
ro.d 10101
ter,•-�
Supervisor Canciatnilla
April 10, 1997
Page 3
14. 9-30-96 letter to Elizabeth Ihuun regarding mitigations for drainage, street
improvements and parking.
15. 1-12-96 letter to Dennis Barry and Jim Kennedy regarding Density Bonus for
affordable housing.
16. 11-30-95 letter from Jim Kemedy regarding Density Bonus and copy of
regulations.
Also attached are copies of the Vesting Tentative Map, the Landscape Plan; Existing Site
Conditions Map (shows seven (7) existing units and out buildings, topography and trees),
Conceptual Site Plan (shows relationship of proposed new homes to existing adjacent homes) and
floor plans and architectural elevations for the proposed homes to be constructed.
The proposed twelve (12) home project reasonably mitigates impacts on the neighborhood,
implements the General Plan including density, infill projects and affordable housing policies and
provides a single family residential transition from hig)ier density and intensity land uses on the
east(2-3 story apartments and condominiums)to the single family residential area westand south
of the site including lot sizes consistent with those of existing adjoining single family residences.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the 12 home project. .The proposed
conditions found in the 3-11-97 Staff Report are acceptable to Braddock & Login Croup, Thank
you for consideration of our request..
Yours very truly,
Braddock& Lagan Group,L.P.
Marshall I Torre
Land Acquisition
V1JT/rf
cc: Board of Supervisors
Dennis Barry
Stephen White- Property Owner
04/11/1997 12: 58 5109349399 CARL HUTCHINS JR
PAGE 01
CARL HUTCHINS,JR.
172 ALL RD
WALNUT CREEK,.CALIFORNIA CONSIDER WITH_
94895 0113
510 934 6908
April 11, 1997
BO ARA OF SUPERVISORS
Re: Sub Division 8021
Braddock&Logan
White property
SUPERVISORS
Gayle B. Uilkema
Donna Gerber
Tim Rogers
Mark DeSaulnler
Joe Canciamilla
APPEAI,FROM DECISIONS OF PLANNING CQMMISSION
MEETING OF MARCH 11. 1997
rww►rr+ wMrrw�rrvswsrwrr»,�rwrww•►w+�wwwww*www*rww«wwwwM*wwy*Mww*Nww
Hearing Tuesday April ^2, 1997. 3:00 P.M.
We plan to attend the hearing as presently scheduled.We ask to be placed on the
agenda for those persons wishing to speak.I will speak in behalf of myself and
my wife.
;Ell
a I H itchine Jr.
n R. Iutchins
cc Barbara S. Grant
Deputy Clerk
cc Dennis M. Barry
Deputy director
cc Bob Drake
Planning Department
CH/ms
4.11.97
6021 vh.do•-