Saranap Village: Project Background

Massing of the Original Project vs the Mitigated Plan, RDEIR Figure 6.5-4

Massing of the Original Project vs the Mitigated Plan, RDEIR Figure 6.5-4

INTRODUCTION

In 2013, Hall Equities Group (HEG) submitted applications to Contra Costa County (CCC) requesting approval of its Saranap Village Mixed Use Project.  That Project proposed 235 multi family units, 43,000 sq ft of commercial space (retail/restaurant/fitness) and four buildings ranging in height from 60 feet to 88 feet.  You can view the RDEIR online, see the CCC Saranap Village webpage, and see RDEIR Table 6.5-4 below by clicking on these links.    

Our community vigorously opposed the Project as HEG provided inaccurate images.  The magnitude of the inaccuracies were uncovered in the first review of the DEIR; in response, HEG submitted a smaller project called the “Mitigated Plan Alternative” (MPA).  HEG has stated that it is seeking approval of its MPA.  However, because HEG never withdrew its original Project, the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development can consider either the original Project or the MPA.

The MPA proposes 196 multi family units, 22,261 sq ft of commercial and four buildings ranging in height from nearly 60 feet to over 75 feet. See the RDEIR online and RDEIR Table 6.5-4.


SHO CONCERNS

1.  The Project and MPA are too Tall for our Community

The CCC Department of Conservation and Development has confirmed in writing that the current maximum build heights for the subject parcels in unincorporated Saranap are currently 30 to 35 feet.

Here are the maximum building heights for Walnut Creek, Danville, and Lafayette:

Maximum Building Heights in Unincorporated CCC, City of Walnut Creek, Town of Danville, and City of Lafayette

Our Saranap community is more comparable to Lafayette and Danville than Walnut Creek, but HEG proposes to build well over the current 30 - 35 feet limit in our community.  Recently, both Danville and Walnut Creek have confirmed and maintained their height restrictions, based at least in part on resident uproar. See the following two newspaper articles:

www.eastbaytimes.com/danville/ci_29070688/danville-150-unit-proposed-apartment-complex-called-too
and... 
www.eastbaytimes.com/news/ci_28969170/walnut-creeks-hall-equities-drops-highend-condo-project

Why does HEG tell us that the MPA for building A is only 62 feet tall when it will tower 75 feet above Boulevard Way?  HEG is not following County guidelines that require height to be measured to the highest difference between the roof and the grade at any point.  Standing on Boulevard Way, looking up, Site A will be 75 feet above the sidewalk, towering above the current 35 feet height limit.  See RDEIR Table 6.5-4; we have highlighted the County guidelines for heights above grade in yellow:

Maximum Heights Measures from the Proposed Grade Table 6.5-4

RDEIR Table 6.5-4


SHO continues to support the redevelopment of these parcels with a redesigned and well-planned mixed-use project.  SHO would consider supporting heights above the current height limits of 30 to 35 feet (up to perhaps 40 to 50 feet) if the project is redesigned to lower the height and consider the impact on our Vista Palms neighbors.

2.  The Site A Building Garage has an Unjustifiable Impact on Our Vista Palms

The MPA proposes an aboveground, six-story parking garage on Site A.  The garage will be adjacent (barely twenty feet away) to the living rooms of 15 Saranap families living in the Vista Palms Apartments. See the SHO markup of the MPA.  Our neighbors at Vista Palms will be exposed to noise, odor and fumes emanating from the parked and circulating vehicles, their views will be significantly altered, and they will be deprived of natural sunlight.

While the RDEIR and CEQA do not forbid HEG from building a six-story commercial garage directly in front of living room windows, CCC has also determined that the garage has no significant impact.  This is unconscionable, and we must tell CCC that the garage will have a very significant impact on our neighbors, and the garage must be redesigned or relocated.

In fact, a redesign (without changing the number of units) is possible, and has been drafted by our resident architect.  See the SHO Friendly Neighbor Design.  You will see that the six-story garage abutting Vista Palms is removed and parking is returned to below the residential units.  

With this design, the building on Site A could be shrunk by two stories and 20 feet in height.  This would remove the unjustifiable mass facing our neighbors in Vista Palms and in addition, the Lucy Lane condos and the Casa Linda apartments on Saranap Avenue across from Site A would not be shaded as long before noon.

3.  The Project and MPA are too Dense for our Community

The Contra Costa County General Plan contains a list of land use definitions for all areas within the county. See the Contra Costa County General Plan, page 1-6.  The Saranap neighborhood falls somewhere between the Suburban and Urban definitions since it is comprised of moderate to high-density single family, low to moderate-density multifamily, and neighborhood commercial uses. The height limit for these land use categories is 3 to 4 stories. Comparable neighborhoods are the downtowns in Lafayette and Danville.

The MPA proposes six stories of higher density multifamily housing. This density can only be found in the downtowns of major Contra Costa cities such as Walnut Creek and Concord, and at the Pleasant Hill BART station area, each of which is classified in the County’s General Plan as a Central Business District/Major Commercial Center. Our neighborhood is nowhere close to a major downtown or a BART station and the densities of both the Project and the MPA at 235 and 196 units, respectively, are too high. On the image below and the one at the top of this page showing Site A, you can see that the MPA, while slightly lower in height than the originally proposed Project, masses larger in the upper stories.


This Diagram Shows the Larger Massing and Footprint of the Upper Floors of the MPA:

Comparison of Project and MPA footprints
Bulk Footprint Increase Calculations Table

4.  Either the Project or the MPA would Set a Precedent for All Future Development in Saranap 

SHO is concerned that if either the Project or MPA is approved, the entire stretch of Boulevard Way could become a long stretch of tall buildings.  Saranap is in desperate need of a Specific Plan (a detailed plan designating future development), but it is a costly and time-consuming process that cannot be completed prior to consideration of HEG’s Project or the MPA.

5.  The Proposed Improvements to Boulevard Way Are Not Enough

HEG has proposed improvements to Boulevard Way immediately adjacent to its Project. This leaves the majority and remaining portions (to Olympic Blvd and Mt. Diablo Blvd) completely unimproved. What good are improvements for pedestrians and bicycles that only run immediately adjacent to the Project?  

Boulevard Way is currently dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists, but with the proposed Project or the MPA there will be significant increased traffic (up to 4,998 new trips per day for the Project, or 3,885 for the MPA, See DEIR page 6-35). Our kids will be unable to safely ride their bikes to Parkmead School, Walnut Creek Intermediate, or Las Lomas High, to the Dewing Pool, or to downtown Walnut Creek.



Return to Top of this Page

A FRIENDLY NEIGHBOR DESIGN — AN ALTERNATIVE

FIRST, LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT A MARKUP OF THE MPA The following markup by SHO of the MPA Building Site A shows the parking garage backing up against our neighbors at Vista Palms Apartment; this is unjustifiable. Here you can see the apartments outlined in blue backing against a 6-story open parking garage:

MPA Building Site A showing parking garage and Vista Palms Apartment building

Here you can see a side view showing how the 6-story garage levels overwhelm the apartments, shown in blue at the left. The Lucy Lane condos and the Casa Linda apartments that face Saranap Avenue across from Site A will not see sun until late in the morning; this will be a particularly significant factor during the winter months.

Side view elevation of Site A and Vista Plams Apartment building

Here are the details of the MPA approach:

Height and unit counts of MPA as porposed by HEG

NOW, LET'S LOOK AT THE FRIENDLY NEIGHBOR DESIGN The garage must be moved so it’s below the residential units.  Below is an example of a friendly neighbor redesign prepared by our resident architect.  You will see that the six-story garage abutting Vista Palms is removed and parking is returned to below the residential units.  With this design, the building on Site A could be shrunk by two stories and 20 feet in height.  In addition, it would remove the unjustifiable massive parking garage facing our neighbors in Vista Palms and the Lucy Lane condos and the Casa Linda apartments across from Site A on Saranap Avenue.  The garages are now underground.

Friendly Neighbor Design plan showing units (and not garage) and Vista Palms Apartment building

The side view from Saranap Avenue shows that there are apartments in Site A facing the apartments in Vista Palms, not the garage. A much healthier environment for the residents of the apartments. Site A is a more reasonable 4-story building. Again, the Vista Palms apartments are shown in blue at the left.

The Lucy Lane condos and the Casa Linda apartments facing Saranap Avenue across from Site A will have the sun blocked in the morning, but not for as long a time after sunrise as would be the case with the much taller MPA Site A.

Friendly Neighbor Design side view elevation of Site A and Vista Plams Apartment building

Here are the details of the Friendly Neighbor Design:

Friendly Neighbor Design Height and unit counts of MPA

Return to Top of this Page

REQUIREMENTS TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN

The findings that the County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors must make in order to grant a General Plan amendment (GPA) and rezoning to planned development (PUD) are as follows. Additional findings may be required for design review, grading, subdivision approval, etc. Note that ALL findings must be made in order to grant approvals. 

General Plan Amendment:

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65358(a), “If it deems it to be in the public interest, the legislative body may amend all or part of an adopted general plan.” 

Each GPA must also be consistent with the rest of the General Plan (i.e., an amendment cannot cause the General Plan to become internally inconsistent).

P-1 Rezone/Preliminary Development Plan/Final Development Plan:

84-66.1406 — Evaluations.

When approving and adopting the rezoning application, the preliminary development plan or the final development plan, the planning commission and/or board of supervisors as the case may be, shall be satisfied that:

  1. The applicant intends to start construction within two and one-half years from effective date of zoning change and plan approval;
  2. The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the county general plan;
  3. In the case of residential development, it will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community;
  4. In the case of the commercial development, it is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed, and that traffic congestion will not likely be created by the proposed center, or will be obviated by presently projected improvements and by demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper entrances and exits, and by internal provisions for traffic and parking, and that the development will be an attractive and efficient center which will fit harmoniously into and will have no adverse effects upon the adjacent or surrounding development;
  5. In the case of proposed industrial development, it is fully in conformity with the applicable performance standards, and will constitute an efficient and well organized development, with adequate provisions for railroad and/or truck access service and necessary storage, and that such development will have no adverse effect upon adjacent or surrounding development; and 
  6. The development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions from the normal application of this code.

84-66.1402 - Design objectives.

To achieve design and aesthetic quality for large-scale integrated developments and/or general plan special areas of concern, the following design objectives shall be met:

  1. Building bulk, height, land coverage, visual appearance from adjacent land, and design compatibility with existing adjoining development and land which will remain, shall be considered and controlled
  2. A development's design should successfully integrate individual buildings and building groups with the surrounding development, other physical features in the area, and existing development which will remain;
  3. The design of structures should provide for harmonious composition of mass, scale, color, and textures, with special emphasis on the transition from one building type to another, termination of groups of structures, relationships to streets, exploitation of views, and integration of spaces and building forms with the topography of the site and the urban or suburban character of the area. 
  4. Provisions are to be made for an efficient, direct and convenient system of pedestrian circulation, together with landscaping and appropriate treatment of any public areas or lobbies.
  5. Off-street parking and loading areas should be integrated into the overall vehicular circulation system.

Requested General Plan Amendment:

It’s important to understand that there currently exists a discrepancy between the County General Plan and the County zoning ordinance for the Saranap area. The County General Plan’s height limits for this area are between 30 feet to 35 feet, whereas the zoning ordinance allows up to 50 feet on a few parcels.

Whenever there are discrepancies between the General Plan and zoning requirements, the General Plan requirements govern. This has been confirmed by the County’s planner. In the County’s General Plan, the maximum height for a residential development is 30 feet; the maximum height for a commercial or mixed use development is 35 feet. Typically, this translates to a two or three story building.

The “scaled back” Hall proposal (the MPA) continues to exceed these limits as follows:

Maximum height allowed in CCC General Plan versus HEG MPA

Another deviation from the General Plan is the maximum allowable residential density, which means the number of homes per acre. The General Plan allows up to 21.9 dwelling units per acre. The density in revised Hall proposal is double that allowed in the General Plan. This equates to double the traffic envisioned in the General Plan.

SHO has preliminarily reviewed the County General Plan and has identified the following goals and policies that the revised Hall proposal conflicts with. Further study is underway.

The Project violates the following goals of the County General Plan:

3-C. To encourage aesthetically and functionally compatible development which reinforces the physical character and desired images of the County.

The Project is not aesthetically compatible with the desired semi-rural character of Saranap. The proposed buildings are twice to nearly three times the height of adjacent buildings.

3-E. To recognize and support existing land use densities in most communities, while encouraging higher densities in appropriate areas, such as near major transportation hubs and job centers.

The Project neither supports nor respects current residential densities of 20+ du /acre. The residential density of the Project is more than twice the allowable density; the residential density of Site A is nearly four times the allowable density. Boulevard Way is not near a major transportation hub and does not serve as a job center. It is a neighborhood-serving commercial area.

3-I. To coordinate effectively the land use policies of the County General Plan with those plans adopted by the cities and special service districts.

The development standards proposed in the Project are incompatible with, and exceed standards in Walnut Creek and Lafayette. The Project lies within Walnut Creek’s sphere of influence (SOI). Walnut Creek’s height limit adjacent to Saranap is 50 feet, Lafayette’s is 35 feet and the Project proposes buildings of 80+ feet in height – a 60% and 129% increase respectively over what is allowed in Walnut Creek and Lafayette.

The County’s General Plan establishes height limits of between 30 and 50 feet for the parcels within the Project. This is consistent with the development standards of nearby jurisdictions and should be honored.

3-J. To encourage a development pattern that promotes the individuality and unique character of each community in the County.

By proposing buildings of 80 feet and six stories, the Project destroys, rather than promotes, the individuality and unique character of Saranap.

3-15. The design of new buildings and the rehabilitation of existing buildings shall reflect and improve the existing character of the commercial districts in the County.

By proposing buildings of 80 feet and six stories, the Project significantly and unavoidably alters the character of neighborhood-serving commercial Boulevard Way and if approved, will establish a precedent for further altering the character of the neighborhood.

3-28. New residential development shall be accommodated only in areas where it will avoid creating severe unmitigated adverse impacts upon the environment and upon the existing community.

The Project will create significant, unavoidable and unmitigable impact on the character of Saranap in terms of its visual, traffic, and parking impacts. It therefore should not be accommodated.


Return to Top of this Page

PROJECT LINKS


Return to the top of this page 


Follow SHO's saranapupdate on Twitter 


SiteLock