Bollinger Valley Project Public Hearing Moraga Town Council November 14, 2018
2
3
4
Existing Site 5
Views north and west from upper ridgeline toward Lafayette and County 6
View south from central ridge 7
Mapped Landslides 8
Vegetation 9
Onsite Drainage 10
Slope Map 11
Conceptual Development Plan 12
13
Grading Plan 14
15
Offsite EVA, looking West to East 16
17
Draft EIR Published February 22, 2013 • Addresses the Project and 5 alternatives. • Includes: • o Introduction o Project Description o Summary of Findings o Impact analysis of: • Aesthetics - Noise • Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Population, Housing, • Biological Resources and Employment • Cultural Resources - Public Services • Geology, Soils, and Seismicity - Schools • Hydrology and Water Quality - Transportation • Land Use and Agricultural Resources - Utilities and Hazards o CEQA Required Assessments o References o Appendices • NOP • Scoping Summary Report 18
Six Alternatives No Project (Alternative 1) • 8-lot subdivision (Alternative 2) • 37-lot subdivision (assumed in last G. Plan EIR for analysis • purposes) (1 unit/5 ac) (Alternative 3) 100-lot subdivision (Alternative 4) • 121-lot subdivision (Alternative 5) • 85-lot subdivision (Alternative 6) (added to the 2018 Final • EIR) Proposed project is 126 single-family lots. 19
Alternatives Evaluated in the EIR 85-Lot Alternative 20
Alternative 2: 8 Lots 21
Alternative 3: 37 Lots 22
Alternative 3 with Ridgeline (lower angle of view) 23
Alternative 4: 100 Lots 24
Alternative 4 with Ridgelines 25
Alternative 5: 121 Lots 26
Alternative 5 with Ridgelines 27
Alternative 6: 85 Lots 28
2017 Final EIR • Originally published January 6, 2017 • January 30, 2017 meeting on FEIR delayed per request by applicant • Contents: 1. Introduction 2. Comment Letters and Responses 3. DEIR Text Changes and Errata 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5. Appendices: A. Numbered Comment Letters B. 2014 Traffic Analysis C. Amphibian and Reptile Survey D. San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat Survey E. Special-Status Plant Survey F. Wetlands and Waters Assessment 29
2018 Final EIR • July 18, 2017 - The applicant submits a new alternative for consideration (Alternative 6) • Alternative 6 and submitted materials are evaluated and analyzed • The 2018 FEIR is published on September 17, 2018 • The 2018 FEIR includes: 2017 FEIR o Integration of Alternative 6 into the comment responses, where o appropriate Integration of Alternative 6 into the analysis (DEIR text changes) o Integration of new air quality modeling using CalEEMod o • No change to impact conclusions occurs 30
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Project (126 lots), Alternative 4 (100 lots), and Alternative 5 (121 lots): Air quality (4): non-compliance with plans and increases emissions of • pollutants not currently in attainment Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2): exceeds emissions thresholds • Land Use (1): Inconsistently increases density • Traffic (2): Significantly contributes to traffic on regional routes, and • signalized intersections in Orinda without mitigation implemented by those jurisdictions Alternative 6 (85 lots): Air quality (4): non-compliance with plans and increases emissions of • pollutants not currently in attainment Land Use (1): Inconsistently increases density • Traffic (2): Significantly contributes to traffic on regional routes, and • signalized intersections in Orinda without mitigation implemented by those jurisdictions 31
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Alternative 3 (37 lots): Air quality (2): increases emissions of pollutants not currently in • attainment Traffic (1): Significantly impacts signalized intersections in Orinda • without mitigation implemented by those jurisdictions Alternative 2 (8 lots): Air quality (2): increases emissions of pollutants not currently in • attainment Public Services (3): Fails to provide adequate emergency response • access and safety protections Traffic (1): Increases roadway hazard risk on Valley Hill Drive • Alternative 1 (No Project): Water Quality (1): Existing bank erosion and sedimentation would • persist and degrade downstream surface water quality 32
Impact Comparison 73 Impact Questions Analyzed Project 1 2 3 4 5 6 No Impact 9 68 9 10 9 9 9 Less than Significant 16 4 29 23 16 16 16 (LTS) LTS with Mitigation 39 0 29 37 39 39 41 Significant and 9 1 6 3 9 9 7 Unavoidable 33
Comparisons Alternative 1 (No Project): • Least impact, but existing water quality impacts persist. • General Plan implementation program IP- K7 isn’t completed. • Development goals are not met. Alternative 2 (8 lots): • 2 unavoidable impacts from air emissions. • Remaining 4 unavoidable impacts due to impaired access for both regular and emergency traffic. • Much less impact as compared to the Project. • Impacts mostly reflect existing access deficiencies. Alternative 3 (37 lots): • 3 unavoidable impacts related to air emissions and traffic impacts in neighboring cities. • Note: Applicant indicates most improvements assumed are economically infeasible 34
Comparisons Alternative 4 (100 units): 9 unavoidable impacts. • Same impacts as the Project, but on a smaller scale/ reduced degree or • extent as compared to the Project (26 fewer lots) and Alternative 5. Alternative 5 (121 units): 9 unavoidable impacts. o Same impacts as the Project, but on a smaller scale/ reduced degree or o extent as compared to the Project with 5 fewer lots. Alternative 6 (85 units): 7 unavoidable impacts related to air impacts, traffic, and density o Impacts occur to a reduced degree or extent as compared to the Project o (41 fewer lots), and Alternatives 4 and 5. 35
General Plan Amendment Findings The Project is not consistent with the General Plan Per Govt. Code Sec. 65300.5, the General Plan and parts thereof comprise an • integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies. Guiding Principle 1 of the General Plan Preserve the Town’s natural setting and environmental resources, including its • undeveloped ridgelines and open space areas. Community Design 1.1 Location of new development should be concentrated in areas that are least • sensitive in terms of environmental and visual resources. Areas of flat or gently sloping topography outside flood plains or natural • drainage areas. Community Design 1.5 Protect ridgelines from development. In hillside areas, require new developments • to conform to the site’s natural setting, retaining the character of existing landforms, preserving significant native vegetation, and encourage building sites so that visual impacts are minimized. 36
General Plan Amendment Findings Open Space 2.9 Preserve or substantially maintain in their present form certain tree-covered • areas, especially with respect to their value as wildlife habitats, even if development in those areas is permitted. Bollinger Canyon is specifically mentioned in this policy. • Public Safety 1.3 and 1.4 These policies call for the minimization of development density in areas • prone to geologic hazards, and prohibit development of those areas defined as “high risk” and avoid building in “moderate risk” areas. Public Safety 3.3 Provides a maximum emergency response driving time of 3 minutes, and/or • a travel distance of not more than 1.5 miles from the closest fire station. Public Safety 3.6 Provide access for fire-fighting vehicles to all new developments in • accordance with fire access standards of the MOFD and Town of Moraga Ordinance. 37
Zoning Amendment Findings • Findings required before making a change in zoning classification (MMC Sec. 8.12.100). o Zoning must be consistent with the General Plan. o Rezone must be compatible with the land use district which is proposed. o A community need must be demonstrated. o Rezone would be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practices. 38
Conceptual Development Plan Findings • Summary of Findings required before approving a Conceptual Development Plan (MMC Sec. 8.48.100). o Development conforms with the General Plan. o Development can exist as an environment of sustained desirability and stability and will not be detrimental to present and potential surrounding uses. o Street proposed is suitable and adequate to carry traffic. o Areas surrounding the development can be planned and zoned in coordination and compatibility with proposed development. o Utilities will be adequate for the densities proposed. 39
CEQA • CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15270(a) o CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. o The Town Council should take no action to certify the EIR. 40
Recommend
More recommend
