HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA - 12162008 - D.3 Ft L V� ✓
iy
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS , Contra
Costa
County
FROM: CATHERINE KUTSURIS "
DIRECTOR 4<OUN
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2008
SUBJECT: Hearing on the recommendation of the County Planning Commission to
rezone a 25-acre parcel from A-4 Agricultural Preserve District to A-2 General
Agricultural District. The subject site has no address and is located at the end
of Coralwood Drive in the Concord/Clayton area. (James Mangini — Applicant)
(Karen Mangini — Owner) (County File #RZ07-3190) (Supervisorial District IV)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. RECOMMENDATION —After accepting any testimony and closing the hearing:
A. ADOPT the proposed Negative Declaration as adequate for purposes of compliance
with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
B. APPROVE the rezone of the 25-acre parcel from A-4 Agricultural Preserve District to
A-2 General Agricultural District.
C. ADOPT the findings contained in County Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-
2008 as the basis for this decision.
D. INTRODUCE Ordinance No. 2008-34 giving effect to the aforementioned rezone,
waive reading, and adopt the same.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Zg7APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS OMMENDED OTHER
LV I -
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
AUNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
EA ES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON HE DAT SHOWN
Contact: Will Nelson (925)335-1208 ATTESTED � 0 v
DAVID TWA, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: Community Development Division(Orig.) SUPERVIS RS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
DCD—GIs
Public Works Dept., Engineering Services Division
James Mangini—Applicant BY DEPUTY
Karen Mangini—Owner
Board Order
County File#RZ07-3190
December 16, 2008
E. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to post the Notice of
Determination with the County Clerk.
II. FISCAL IMPACT
None; the applicant has paid the necessary application processing fees, and is obligated to
pay supplemental fees to recover any and all additional staff time and materials costs
associated with the application processing.
III. BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
The subject property was formerly part of a 233-acre parcel that was under a Williamson
Act contract until February 28, 1999. In 2006, approval of County File #MS05-0039 allowed
the 233-acre parcel to be split into two lots. The subject property, which is 25 acres, is
Parcel A of the minor subdivision. Parcel B consists of the remaining 208 acres of the
original parcel and was purchased by Save Mount Diablo for permanent preservation.
On February 12, 2007, the applicant filed an application with the Department of
Conservation and Development requesting a rezone of the subject parcel from A-4
Agricultural Preserve District to A-2 General Agricultural District. Parcel B would remain in
the A-4 District. No development is currently proposed.
A. Site and Area
The subject site is not addressed but is located at the end of Coralwood Drive, south of
Aspenwood Court in the Concord/Clayton area. The site is in the vicinity of Shell Ridge
and the Diablo Foothills. The north side of the site is adjacent to the City of Concord's
south boundary. The site is approximately 1 to 1 '/2 miles east of the City of Walnut
Creek and northeast of the Northgate Specific Plan Area. The aforementioned 208-acre
remainder is between the site and the City of Walnut Creek. The site is not within either
city's sphere of influence. The subject site is undeveloped, consisting mostly of grassy
hills, a few oak trees, and natural creeks and drainage systems.
Land abutting all sides of the site except the north is zoned for agricultural uses (A-2
and A-4). The north side of the site neighbors an established single-family residential
development (Crystal Ranch) in the City of Concord, zoned Planned District in the area
of Aspenwood Court and beyond.
B. General Plan and Zoning Consistency
General Plan Land Use Designation
The General Plan land use designation for the site is Agricultural Lands (AL), which
allows a wide range of agricultural uses and limits density to 1 unit per 5 acres. The
proposed A-2 zoning is consistent with the AL General Plan designation.
Applicability of General Plan Land Preservation Policies
The site is outside the Urban Limit Line (ULL). The ULL ensures the preservation of
identified non-urban, agricultural and open space areas by establishing a boundary
2
Board Order
County File#RZ07-3190
December 16, 2008
beyond which no urban land uses can be designated during the term of the General
Plan. The ULL also facilitates the enforcement of the .65/35 Land Preservation
Standard (General Plan 2005-2020, Land Use Element p. 3-8). The 65/35 Land
Preservation Standard limits urban development to 35 percent of the County's land,
and the remaining 65 percent be preserved for agricultural, open space, wetlands,
parks and other non-urban uses (General Plan, Land Use Element p. 3-11).
The General Plan contains no area-specific polices for the portion of the County in
which.the subject property is located. The proposed project is consistent with the
overall goals and policies contained in the various elements of the General Plan
intended for preservation of agricultural lands and protection of open space.
Zoning
The site is zoned A-4 Agricultural Preserve District. The A-4 District is suited for
properties under a Williamson Act contract. Properties under a contract are limited to
the uses specified in the contract agreement. The subject site is no longer under a
Williamson Act contract, thus the current zoning is unnecessary and inappropriate for
the site.
It should also be noted that the A-4 zoning requires a minimum parcel size of either 10
acres or 40 acres depending on the soil type, whereas the A-2 zoning requires a 5-acre
minimum parcel size regardless of soil type. The subject site is required to be at least
40 acres under the A-4 zoning. Thus the subject parcel is substandard under the current
zoning. Implementing the proposed A-2 zoning would correct this inconsistency.
C. Agency/Group Comments
The County sought comments on this project from several potentially interested
agencies and groups on February 22, 2008:The comments most relevant to the project
are discussed below:
1. City of Concord: Stated that it had no comments to the proposed rezoning.
2. City of Walnut Creek: Indicated that the proposed zoning conflicts with their General
Plan designation of "Open Space — Agriculture," which calls for a minimum parcel
size of 10 acres. The city requested that the site instead be rezoned to A-3 Heavy
Agricultural District, which has a 10-acre minimum parcel size.
Staff Response: According to the County's Geographic Information System data
layers, the City of Walnut Creek's sphere of influence does not encompass the
subject property. No property in the vicinity of the site is zoned A-3; the nearest
occurrence of A-.3 zoning is approximately 3.8 miles north.
3. Save Mount Diablo: Stated that it had no objections to the proposed project.
3
Board Order
County File#RZ07-3190
December 16, 2008
D. Environmental Review
For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study and Negative
Declaration were prepared .and circulated for review and comment between September
5, 2007 and September 25, 2007. In the Initial Study, staff concluded that the proposed
rezoning would not result in significant environmental impacts. No comments were
received disputing the adequacy of the environmental review. The County Planning
Commission adopted the Negative Declaration at its hearing on August 12, 2008.
IV. COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING AND DECISION
The County Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the rezoning request on
Tuesday, August 12, 2008. The staff report provided analysis of the project, and also
addressed several points of opposition raised in a letter dated September 24, 2007 that
was submitted by the owners/residents of Aspenwood Court in the Crystal Ranch
subdivision. The Commission accepted testimony from individuals both supporting and
opposing the proposed project. Concerns from the public were mainly regarding potential
loss of open space, the possibility of the site being developed with urban-type uses
including up to 25 houses, and compatibility of the single-family neighborhood with the.
uses permitted in the A-2 zone. A question was also raised regarding the adequacy of the
public notification for the Commission hearing.
Regarding the concern about loss of open space, the Commission determined that
rezoning the property to A-2 would not significantly threaten open space. While the
property owner indicated that they may apply for a subdivision in the future, the
Commission noted that there were no current plans for development and that a subdivision
would require a separate application process which would include an opportunity for public
comment. The Commission also noted that the majority of the original parcel from which
the site was subdivided is preserved as open space.
Regarding the concern about establishment of urban land uses, the Commission
determined that urban-type development of the site was not a possibility. The County
General Plan contains several policies and regulations that prevent the establishment of
urban land uses such as: (1) Urban Limit Line; (2) 65/35 Land Preservation Standard; and
(3) AL land use designation limiting residential development to a maximum of 1 unit per 5
acres.
Regarding the concern about compatibility of residential and agricultural land uses, the
Commission determined that the uses permitted in the A-2 and A-4 zones are roughly
equivalent, so rezoning to A-2 does not amount to a significant change from current
conditions. The Commission noted that most uses allowed in the A-2 zone that are not
allowed in the A-4 zone may only be established upon approval of a land use permit.
Regarding the concern about inadequate notification, the Commission directed staff to
determine if proper notices were sent, and if not, to ensure that they be sent prior to the
Board of Supervisors hearing. Staff reviewed the perjury notice and confirmed that proper
notices were sent to owners of properties within 300 feet of the site. The site's 300-foot
4
Board Order
County File#RZ07-3190
December 16, 2008
notification radius does not encompass the entirety of Aspenwood Court, which explains
one speaker's comment that neighbors did not receive a notice. Staff has included in the
Board hearing notification all residents and property owners who spoke at the
Commission hearing and/or were signatories on the aforementioned opposition letter
dated September 24, 2007.
Ultimately the Commission voted 5-0 (with two commissioners absent) to recommend
Board approval of the rezone. The Commission indicated that the Manginis have been
good stewards of the land, as evidenced by their sale of 208 acres to Save Mount Diablo.
V. NECESSITY FOR ADDITIONAL CONDITION OF APPROVAL
Because the project is subject to the requirements of CEQA, it is necessary for the County
to collect the CEQA filing fee required by the California Department of Fish and Game. The
condition of approval requiring this was inadvertently omitted from the conditions provided
to the Commission. Thus, staff recommends that the following condition be added to the
Board's approval of the application:
Department of Fish and Game Environmental Review Fee
Within four (4) business days of the final action on this project, the applicant is required
to pay the California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) CEQA filing fee of $1,876.75.
Payment of this fee is mandated by Assembly Bill 3158, which became effective on
January 1, 1991. Pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)(3), the project will
not be operative, vested, or final, and any local permits issued for the project will be
invalid until either the fee is paid or a signed No Effect Determination Form is submitted.
Also, if the fee is not paid by the date specified, then the 30-day statutory time limit to
file a legal challenge against the approval will automatically extend to 180 days.
VI. CONSEQUENCE OF INACTION OR DENIAL OF PROPOSAL BY THE BOARD
If the Board of Supervisors denies the rezone, then the subject property will remain zoned
A-4 Agricultural Preserve District, a zoning designation that is unnecessary and
inappropriate given that the property is no longer under a Williamson Act contract.
VII. EXHIBITS
1. General Plan Map and Aerial Photograph
2. County Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-2008, Findings Map, and Ordinance
No. 2008-34
3. Conditions of Approval
4. August 12, 2008 Staff Report for County Planning Commission
5. Pertinent Correspondence and Public Agency Comments
6. CEQA Determination / Negative Declaration
7. Project Site Plan
8. Notification List
5
ADDENDUM
December 16, 2008,Agenda Item D.3
On this day, the Board of Supervisors conducted a hearing on the recommendation of the County
Planning Commission to rezone a 25-acre parcel located at the end of Coralwood Drive in
Clayton/Concord area (No address) from A-4 Agricultural Preserve District to A-2 General
Agricultural District. (James Mangini, Applicant; Karen Mangini, Owner) (County File #RZ07-
3190).
Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation and Development Director, introduced the item.
The Chair opened the hearing; there were no public speakers.
Supervisor Bonilla said she wanted to highlight the good stewardship of the land by the Mangini
family and also to compliment the Mangini family for selling over 200 acres at a price much
below market value in order that it may be preserved as open space by Save Mt. Diablo.
By a unanimous vote of 5-0 with none absent, the Board of Supervisors took the following
actions:
ADOPTED the proposed Negative Declaration as adequate for purposes of compliance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); APPROVED the rezoning of
the 25-acre parcel from A-4 Agricultural Preserve District to A-2 General Agricultural District;
ADOPTED the findings contained in County Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-2008 as
the basis for the decision; INTRODUCED Ordinance No. 2008-34 giving effect to the
aforementioned rezone, WAIVED reading, and ADOPTED Ordinance No. 2008-34; and
DIRECTED the Department of Conservation and Development to post the Notice of
Determination with the County Clerk.
Exhibit # 1
General Plan Map and
Aerial Photograph
RZ073190 General Plan Map
Vim. Crysty�a�h pr Pr'ba0¢�l hipo
r
Woodleaf Ct
Concord -oP
PsQg��ood qs
C^.
i
i
SITE
Walnut Creek
Ridge"stone)Ct}
AL,
`P R
Legend
® site
Parcels
Cl PR N
AL
Map created 6/1812007
Miles by Contra Costa County Community Development,GIS Group
0 0.050.1 0.2 0,3 0,4 651 Pine Street,4th Floor North Wing,Martinez,CA 945530095
37:59:48.455N 122:06:35.384W 5
This map contains copyrighted Information and may not be altered. It may be
reproduced in Its current state if the source is cited.Users of this map agree to read and
accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic Information.
RZ073190 Aerial Photograph
Jf pp 1
-,fit �/ .•�` � -
�' Gane
ts
r,
2p:-
PIP,
it
�y tZ
} w' �
•1" � �t (., !Z'y]. 1. r
Legend
,� � ' r,.,
® Site
Parcels f
. T µ �4
•f rnlee
Feet by Contra Costa Map created 6/18/2007
County Community Development,GIS Group
0 145 290 580 870 1,160 651 Pine Street,4th Floor North Wing,Martinez,CA 94553-0095 Y
37:59:48.455N 122:06:35.384W -
This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be
reproduced in its current state If the source is cited.Users of this map agree to read and
accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information.
Exhibit #2
County Planning Commission
Resolution No . 21 -2008
Findings Map
Ordinance No. 2008-34
RESOLUTION NO. 21-2008
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA
COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING A RECOMMENDATION AND
FINDINGS FOR A REQUESTED REZONE AT THE END OF CORALWOOD DRIVE
IN THE CONCORD/CLAYTON AREA OF SAID COUNTY.
WHEREAS, on February 12, 2007, James Mangini (Applicant) submitted an application
(County File #RZ07-3190) on behalf of Karen Mangini (Owner) to rezone a 25-acre parcel
(Assessor Parcel Number 122-010-017) from A-4 Agricultural Preserve District to A-2 General
Agricultural District at the end of Coralwood Drive in the Concord/Clayton area; and
WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, an Initial
Study/Negative Declaration ("Initial Study") was prepared to determine the project's
environmental impacts and whether an environmental impact report should be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study identified no potentially significant environmental impacts
related to the project; and
WHEREAS, on September 5, 2007, the County published a Notice of Public Review for
a Proposed Negative Declaration, which Notice recited the foregoing facts, indicated that the
project would not result in potentially significant impacts to the environment, and started a
period for public review and comments on the adequacy of the environmental documentation
related to the project that ran to September 25, 2007; and
WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled
before the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, August 12, 2008, whereat all persons
interested in the matter might appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2008, the County Planning Commission fully reviewed,
considered, and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter;
NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission ("this
Commission"):
1. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA
Guidelines and' the County CEQA Guidelines (together "CEQA"), FINDS that the
proposed Negative Declaration is adequate for the purposes of compliance with
CEQA and ADOPTS the Negative Declaration for the project. In support of these
actions and conclusions, this Commission ADOPTS the CEQA Findings. This
Commission adopts these findings specifically for each of the approvals and
entitlements it approves or recommends for approval for the project.
This Commission certifies that it has been presented with the Initial Study and that it
has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study and the
other information in the record prior to making the following recommendations,
determinations, and findings. The Commission further certifies that the Initial Study
reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis, and that the Initial
Study has been completed in compliance with CEQA regulations.
Resolution No. 21-2008
County File#RZ07-3190
James Mangini(Applicant)/Karen Mangini(Owner)
2. RECOMMENDS that the Board of Supervisors APPROVE of the proposed rezone
(County File #RZ07-3190), changing the zoning designation of the property from A-4
Agricultural Preserve District to A-2 General Agricultural District.
3. RECOMMENDS to the Board of Supervisors that it determine whether or not proper
public notices were mailed, and if not, that such notices be sent prior to the Board
hearing on the matter.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission determines that
sufficient evidence has been provided to determine that the proposed project conforms with the
County Growth Management Performance Standards (County General Plan 2005-2020, Growth
Management Element, Section 4.4) and makes all of the findings required by County Ordinance
Code §26-2.1806 to allow approval of the proposed project as follows:
A. Growth Management Performance Standards
1. Traffic: No development is proposed at this time. Thus, there would be no impact to
area streets or intersections and no traffic report is required.
2. Water: The subject site currently does not have water service and the County would
not support extending service to the site because it is outside the Urban Limit Line.
Any proposal for future development of the site must comply with Health Services
Department, Environmental Health Division standards for establishment of wells.
3. Sewage: The subject site currently does not have sewer service and the County would
not support extending service to the site because it is outside the Urban Limit Line.
Any proposal for future development of the site must comply with Health Services
Department, Environmental Health Division standards for establishment of septic
systems.
4. Fire Protection: The subject site receives fire protection services from the Contra
Costa County Fire Protection District. As no development is proposed, approval of
the project would not increase the demand for fire protection services.
5. Public Protection: The subject site receives public protection services from the Contra
Costa County Sheriff. As no development is proposed, approval of the project would
not increase the demand for public protection services.
6. Parks and Recreation: Approval of the proposed project would not increase the
population and therefore would not increase the demand for neighborhood parks and
recreation facilities.
7. Flood Control and Drainage: The site is not located in a Special Flood Hazard Area.
The proposal involves no new development and would not require installation of
drainage improvements.
B. Rezone Findings
Section 26-2.1806 of the County Ordinance Code requires specific findings to be made
by the planning agency when a request for change in land use district is made; they are as
follows;
R-2
Resolution No. 11-1008
County File#RZ07-3190
James Mangini(Applicant)/Karen Mangini(Owner)
1. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the general
plan.
Proiect Finding: The Agricultural Lands (AL) General Plan land use designation is
consistent with all agricultural zoning districts. The proposed rezone from A-4
Agricultural Preserve District to A-2 General Agricultural District is consistent with
the intent and purpose of the Urban Limit Line and the 65/35 Land Preservation
Standard because the subject property would continue to be zoned for agricultural
uses. The General Plan contains no area-specific goals or policies for the portion of
the County in which the subject property is located. However, rezoning the site from
A-4 to A-2 is consistent with the overall goals and policies contained in the various
elements of the General Plan, especially those related to preservation of agricultural
lands and protection of open space. For these reasons, approval of the proposed
rezoning would substantially comply with the General Plan.
2. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are
compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts.
Proiect Finding: The subject property is surrounded on three sides by land zoned A-
2 and A-4. A single-family residential community abuts the property to the north.
Many of the uses allowed in the A-2 and A-4 districts are the same or similar. Thus,
the uses allowed in the A-2 zone are found to be compatible with uses authorized in
adjacent agricultural districts.
The A-2 district does allow, by right, some uses that are more intense than those
allowed under the A-4 zoning. Examples include storage buildings for agricultural
equipment, dehydration plants, and granaries. These uses would likely be
incompatible with the residential uses to the north. However, it is highly unlikely that
these types of uses. would be established on the subject property for the following
reasons:
(1) The property is steep and extensive grading would be necessary in order to
establish the required buildingpads;
(2) The property is accessed solely by collector streets that pass through a single-
family neighborhood and these streets do not lend themselves to the type of heavy-
vehicle traffic associated with such uses:
(3) The property is located in an area that is agriculturally unproductive and thus
there is not a demand for such uses; and
(4) Water and sewer service is not available because the property is outside the
Urban Limit Line.
Therefore, the County finds that the uses authorized in the proposed zoning district
are compatible with the residential uses to the north because most of the agricultural
uses are similar to those already allowed, and those that are not similar have a
negligible likelihood of being established.
R-3
Resolution No. 21-2008
County File#RZ07-3190
James Mangini(Applicant)/Karen Mangini(Owner)
3. Required Finding: Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but
this does not require demonstration of future financial success.
Proiect Finding: County File #RZ71-1602 was approved to rezone the subject
property from A-2 to A-4 in preparation for entry into a Williamson Act contract.
There is no longer a need for the property to be zoned A-4 because the contract
expired on February 28, 1999. Approval of the proposed rezoning would simply
reestablish the property's pre-contract zoning designation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the County Planning Commission
will sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of
Supervisors, all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California.
The instructions by the County Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were
given by motion of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Terrell, Wong, Battaglia, Clark, Murray
NOES: Commissioners - None
ABSENT: Commissioners - Gaddis, Snyder
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - 'None
MICHAEL MURRAY,
Chairman of the Planning Commission,
County of Contra Costa, State of California
I, Catherine Kutsuris, Secretary of the County Planning Commission, certify that the foregoing
was duly called and approved on August 12, 2008.
ATTEST:
Catherine Kutsuris, Secretary
Planning Commission
County of Contra Costa
State of California
R-4
Findings Map
�a
0
F y`
`
Cit of ryah'Ra �nch.p6en:o GteoC
a�� � FaW�
Con ord re
o� Woodleat Ct
�P
G14
gW°Od a�
psc °H
Kaiset
paRY Rd
City of
Walnut Creek
A-4 A-2
Rezone from A-4 to A-2 ® Concord Area
I, Michael Murray Chair of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission, State of California do hereby certify that
this is a true and correct copy of pages L-17 & M-17
of the County's 2005 zoning map.
indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission in the matter of
Applicant: Jim Mangini, Owner: Karen Mangini - RZ07-3190
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission, State of California
I
ORDINANCE NO. 2008 - 34
(Re-Zoning Land in the
Concord Area)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows:
SECTION I: Page L-17 & M-17 of the County's 2005 Zoning Map(Ord. No. 2005-03) is amended by
re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s)attached hereto and incorporated herein
(see also Department of Conservation and Development File No. RZ07-3190 )
FROM: Land Use District A-4 ( Agricultural Preserye }
TO: Land use District A-2 ( General Agricultural )
and the Department of Conservation and Development Director shall change the Zoning Map
accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.002.
City of Woodleaf Ct
nco d �,
�Gl A
9
A-4 2
0
d
SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within
15 days of passage shall be publishgAonce with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in
the Jnr ie(� rc6 t a a newspaper published in this County.
PASSED on by the following vote:
Supervisor 6Xe No Absent Abstain
1. J. Gioia ( ) ( ) ( }
2. G.B. Uilkema ( ) ( ) ( )
3. M.N. Piepho ( ) ( ) ( )
4. S. Bonilla ' O O ( )
5. F.D. Glover ' ( ) ( ) ( )
ATTEST: David Twa, County Administrator
and Clerk®f thAApard of Skpervisors
Chairman of the Board
B Dep. (SEAL)
ORDINANCE O N 2008 - 34
RZ07-3190-Applicant:Jim Mangini,Owner:Karen Mangini
Exhibit #3
Conditions of Approval
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #RZ073190, JAMES MANGINI
(APPLICANT) /KAREN MANGINI (OWNER)
1. This application is subject to an initial application fee of $2,500.00 that was
paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the
application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee. Any additional fee
due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to
exercising the permit, whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through
permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant may
obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If the applicant owes
additional fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance.
2. Within four (4) business days of the final action on this project, the applicant is
required to pay the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) CEQA
filing fee of$1,876.75: Payment of this fee is mandated by Assembly Bill 3158,
which became effective on January 1, 1991. Pursuant to Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(c)(3), the project will not be operative, vested, or final, and any
local permits issued for the project will be invalid until either the fee is paid or a
signed No Effect Determination Form is submitted. Also, if the fee is not paid
by the date specified, then the 30-day statutory time limit to file a legal
challenge against the approval will automatically extend to 180 days.
ADVISORY NOTES
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL
REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH
THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT.
A. Notice of 90-day opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservation, or other exactions
pertaining to the approval of this permit.
This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section
66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservation,
and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is
limited to a 90-day period after the project is approved.
The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition
of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by the approved permit, begins on
the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to
Government Code Section66020 and delivered to the Community Development
Department within the 90 days of the approval date of this permit.
COA-1
Exhibit #4
August 12, 2008 _
Staff Report to
County Planning Commission
Agenda Item # 3
Department of Conservation & Development Contra Costa County
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2008, 7:00 P.M.
I. INTRODUCTION
JAMES MANGINI (Applicant) / KAREN MANGINI (Owner), County File #RZ073190: A
request to rezone Parcel A of County File #MS0500039, a 25-acre parcel, from A-4
Exclusive Agricultural District to A-2 General Agricultural District. The subject property is
not addressed but is located at the end of Coralwood Drive, south of Aspenwood Court in the
Concord area. (Zoning: A-4) (ZA: L-17) (CT: 3553.01) (GP: AL) (APN: 122-010-017)
II. RECOMMENDATION
A. For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
adopt the attached Negative Declaration.
B. Adopt a motion recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt a motion to rezone
Parcel A of County File #MS050039 from A-4 Exclusive Agricultural District to A-2
General Agricultural District.
III. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. General Plan: Agricultural Lands (AL)
B. Zonine: A-4 Exclusive Agricultural District
C. CEQA Status: A negative declaration was posted September 5, 2007. The comment
period expired September 25, 2007. No comments have been received which dispute the
adequacy of the environmental review.
D. Previous Applications
1. RZ71-1602: Approved rezone from A-2 to A-4.
2. LP79-2112: Approved land use permit for a commercial antenna and receiving
station.
3. MS 43-87: Application for a minor subdivision that was withdrawn.
4. MS05-0039: Approved 2-lot minor subdivision creating a 25-acre parcel with a 208-
acre remainder. The remainder was purchased by Save Mount Diablo for the purpose
of permanent preservation.
SR-1
ri
E. Regulatory Programs
1. Active Fault Zone: The subject property is not located within an active fault zone.
2. Flood Hazard Area: The subject property is not located within a flood zone.
3. 60 dBA Noise Control Zone: The subject property is not located within a 60 dBA
noise contour zone.
IV. SITE/AREA DESCRITPTION
The subject site is in the vicinity of Shell Ridge and the Diablo Foothills, as identified in the
County General Plan's Open Space Element. The north property boundary abuts the City of
Concord and the site is approximately 0.45 mile east of the City of Walnut Creek's city limit.
A portion of the aforementioned 208-acre remainder parcel lies between the subject site and
the City of Walnut Creek. The site is not within either city's sphere of influence. The subject
site is undeveloped, consisting of rolling, oak-spotted hills (its major physical characteristic),
and natural creeks and drainage systems.
Land abutting the east, south, and west sides of the site is zoned for agricultural uses (A-2
and A-4). An established single-family residential development (Crystal Ranch) zoned
Planned District is located immediately north of the site, in the area of Aspenwood Court and
beyond.
V. PROPOSED PROJECT
The applicant is requesting approval of a rezoning of the 25-acre parcel from A-4 to A-2 due
to the fact that the property is no longer covered by a Williamson Act contract.
VI. AGENCY& PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. City of Concord: Stated that it had no comments on the proposed rezoning.
B. City of Walnut Creek: Indicated that the proposed zoning conflicts with their General
Plan designation of"Open Space — Agriculture," which calls for a minimum parcel size
of 10-acres. The city requested that the site should instead be rezoned to A-3 Heavy
Agricultural District, which has a 10-acre minimum parcel size.
Staff Response: Staff notes the city's comment. However, according to the County's
Geographic Information System data layers, the City of Walnut Creek's sphere of
influence does not encompass the subject property. Thus, the County cannot•find a nexus
for rezoning the site in a manner that would conform to the city's land use designation.
In addition, no A-3 zone is located in the vicinity (the nearest one being approximately
3.8 miles north).
SR-2
C. State Lands Commission: No comments were received on the proposed project.
D. Save Mount Diablo: Stated that it had no objections to the proposed project.
E. Owners/Residences of Aspenwood Court in Crystal Ranch Subdivision (located in the
City of Concord): A letter was submitted in response to the Notice of Negative
Declaration, dated September 24, 2007. The comments presented in the letter did not
dispute the adequacy of the CEQA document. The letter indicated the following
concerns: (1) if the property is rezoned to A-2, then the property owner may further
subdivide the property, leading to properties that could individually keep horses; (2) the
residents of Aspenwood Court would be exposed to an increase in traffic, unacceptable
views of barns, offensive odors, flies, and rodents; and (3) Aspenwood Court would be
exposed to an increase in horse trailer traffic and heavy on-street parking.
Staff Response: The current project is a rezoning and the County has not been presented
with a proposal to further subdivide or otherwise develop the property. If a subdivision
was proposed, the process would require a separate environmental review, public
notification, and a public hearing, during which all concerns could be voiced.
The properties south of Aspenwood Court are zoned A-2 and A-4, both of which allow for
establishment of a variety of agricultural uses. In both zones, barns may be constructed
and horses may be kept by right. Thus, approval of the proposed rezoning by itself could
not lead to an increase in exposure to horses, horse-related buildings, horse-related
nuisances such as odors,flies, and rodents, or horse-related traffic.
VII. STAFF ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
A. Appropriateness of Proposed Rezoning
County File #RZ71-1602 was approved to rezone the 233-acre mother parcel of the
subject site from A-2 to A-4 in preparation of the property entering into a Williamson Act
contract. A Williamson Act contract is a contract entered into between a property owner
and the County wherein the owner agrees to utilize the land for those uses specified in the
contract and in return the County taxes the property at a lower rate. The A-4 zone is
compatible with lands that are under a Williamson Act contract because it specifies that
all uses agreed to in the contract are permitted uses. The A-2 zone lacks this provision.
The property came out of its Williamson Act contract on February 28, 1999 and was
subdivided in 2006 into two parcels. The 208-acre parcel now owned by Save Mount
Diablo is not part of the proposed rezoning and would continue to be zoned A-4. Land
immediately east, south, and west of the subject site is zoned either A-2 or A-4. The
proposed rezoning of the subject site to A-2 is appropriate because the site is no longer
covered by a Williamson Act contract and no other zoning designation is consistent with
the other agricultural zones located south of the Concord city limit.
SR-3
It should be noted that the A-4 zoning requires a minimum parcel size of either 10 acres
or 40 acres depending on the soil type, whereas the proposed A-2 zoning requires a 5-
acre minimum parcel size. The subject property is required to be at least 40 acres due to
the soils types present. Thus, implementation of the proposed rezoning would also correct
an existing inconsistency with zoning standards.
B. General Plan Consistency
Land Use Designation
The , Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject property as
Agricultural Lands (AL). The AL designation allows for a wide range of agricultural uses
and limits density to a maximum of 1 unit per 5 acres. The proposed A-2 zoning is
consistent with the AL designation in terms of density as well as general uses allowed.
Urban Limit Line
The purpose of the Urban�Limit Line (ULL) is twofold: (1) to ensure preservation of
identified non-urban agricultural, open space and other areas by establishing a line
beyond which no.urban land uses can be designated during the term of the General Plan;
and (2) facilitate the enforcement of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard (County
General Plan 2005-2020, Land Use Element p. 3-8).
The subject property's northern boundary coincides with the ULL, with the property
being located outside the ULL. Because of this, the property could not obtain a General
Plan Amendment to re-designate it to an urban land use, nor could it be provided with
sewer or water service, even though those services are located immediately north along
Aspenwood Court. The property could not be subdivided to a density greater than the 1
unit per 5-acre maximum allowed by the existing AL land use designation and
development would be limited to the agricultural and residential land uses allowed under
the A-2 zoning and AL land use designation. Thus, approval of the proposed rezoning
would not conflict with the purpose of the ULL.
65/35 Land Preservation Standard
The 65/35 Land Preservation Standard limits urban development to no more than 35
percent of the land in the County, and requires the remaining 65 percent of all land to be
preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks and other non-urban uses (County
General Plan 2005-2020, Land Use Element p. 3-11). Implementation of the proposed
project would not compromise the County's ability to achieve this standard, as the site
would continue to be zoned for agricultural uses.
Goals and Policies
The General Plan contains no area-specific goals or policies for the portion of the County
in which the subject property is located. Rezoning the site from A-4 to A-2 is consistent
SR-4
with the overall goals and policies contained in the various elements of the General Plan,
especially those related to preservation of agricultural lands and protection of open space.
C. Site Plan Analysis
The subject property is vacant. The site plan dated March 1, 2007 shows no existing
improvements or plans for development. The plan does show several protected oak trees
of different sizes in various locations, along with existing utility easements and an
unimproved access easement extending off Coralwood Drive. The existing use of the
property is general grazing, which according to the applicant would remain the case after
the proposed rezone.
VIII. CONCLUSION
The subject property was at. one time zoned A-2 zoning but was rezoned to A-4 when it
entered into a Williamson Act contract. With the Williamson Act contract terminated, the A-
4 zoning designation is unnecessary and inappropriate for the property. The proposed A-2
zoning is consistent with the property's AL General Plan land use designation and with
relevant General Plan policies, and is also consistent with the zoning of nearby agricultural
properties that are not covered under Williamson Act contracts. Therefore, staff recommends
the County Planning Commission adopt a motion recommending that the Board of
Supervisors approve the rezone of the subject property from A-4 Exclusive Agricultural
District to A-2 General Agricultural District, as well as adopt the attached Negative
Declaration.
8N�
GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\RZ073190SR.doc-JIS
SR-5
Exhibit #5
Pertinent Correspondence
and
Public Agency Comments
1 c�
r 17rp P „
Ile
jN C/z �STL %CSC SU 'l�i r/e�5i a
Rer p/2o P e5 eD R EZ;�9-4yl N 4 y2b7LVrrc75( 1�4/4) Tr f-:4 �Wz
0 7 190
1�1f 9- -.9 !t Z X)(� L S C-- z" �iaf'2 v
.,
62vP02 riC-s
ter' fV 2lif� ' " vis 1Ujw �
u/ r v .R/ ,� E rZS T f1 .'t/ 6¢� c �/�U2e-n✓ T
C�f_ L.l.�0 r/L I> �Z Cm. - . 7-64f
710
`��v5 ZLf-t s U✓v �J c� �o r v.t/Gr7 c=-x-P� s E
v r5
12 rl
4
/z DCS; FL f.L=S D
dl/�7v2G--
4f= Gd cJlLr -71`.P�GZ y
�h�2� w� .v r� po � rya �- •tel '
S v;7-/�73 L x
T2aCfc-/�2I.C-
i f f-� CD v2 6,0 Gf7�C17c- ff�
y✓f1`�-T � /2�uJ .�lf�-tV / dy-=-l/,S°` �o' ,�Uf ch'9�iNl
Oil/ Thos 1i9727irvZ- /,'It (f0c )i2%
53
C2 v 2
oc
/AV y
'Tff�
G 7-4z%
12- tll71,-zo1,;l C-12Ti C11--s
-2, °? fps
S
TJ
c2
AJ
-5 3� l
5 LZ
u,S 533 �S�
b roC 56Sq s? �svav ct.
�1OL4
oW� l.u�cEw S 3$7 5—,
cf
5375 AS,AW
4lk. 4+� .
Christian Lend To <jstam@cd.cccounty.us>
<cclenci@msn.com>
.. cc Robyn Hetland<rhetland@hbmcorp.com>,Harvey Tilkin
09/25/2007 04:59 PM <htilkin@hbmcorp.com>, Melanie Gantt
<mgantt@hbmcorp.com>
bcc
Subject Mangini Ranch Rezoning from A-4 to A-2#RZ073190
September 25, 2007
Mr. Jamar Stamps
Community Development Department
Country Costa County
651 Pine Stree, North Wing, 4th Floor .
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Jamal,
Thank you for taking my phone call this afternoon discussing the proposed rezoning of the Mangini Ranch
1222-010-107 from District A-4 to A-2. The Crystyl Ranch Homeowners Association ("Association"), which
owns the.property immediately north of the property in question, also represents the four hundred and
fifty-four homeowners in Crystyl Ranch. Several of these homeowners who reside on Aspenwood Court
are very concerned about the proposed rezoning and the impact on traffic, after-hours loitering, and
crime. The Association shares these concerns.
The Association desires that any zoning modifications with our neighbors support and complement the
standards and harmony of the adjacent neighborhood,,which consist solely of upscale single-family homes
and open space. We trust that any future rezoning decision recognizes these important considerations
and limit future development to only include these types consistent with the community and Urban Limit
Line regulations. .
The Association requests that it be added to any and all public correspondence related to our nearby
neighbors, be it the Manginis, Save Mount Diablo, CSU East Bay, or potential changes to the Lime Ridge
Open Space. Our address is:
Crystyl Ranch Homeowners Association
c/o Homeowners Business Management, Inc.
1855 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 340
Concord, California 94520
(925) 685-1855
We thank you for your consideration of this letter and look forward to future communications regarding
this application.
Regards,
Christian Lend
President, Crystyl Ranch Homeowners Association
Can you find the hidden words? Take a break and play Seekadoo! Play now!
F"
i
saveM • U N T . I A B L •
Board of Directors
Malcolm Sproul
President March 8, 2007
Arthur Bonwel]
Allan Prager Jamar Stamps, Project Planner
Vice Presidents CCC Comm. Dev. Dept. r-
:71-
David
:7 David Trotter County Administration Building r
Secretary 651 Pine Street
-Q
Frank Varenchik 4th Floor,North Wing -a O
Treasurer Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Burt Bassler s`
Don de Fremery Re: RZ 07-3190 (MS 05-0039 Parcel A,
Dana Dort
Charla Gabeabert 122-010-014 (Portion), 25 acres)
Claudia Hein
Scott Hein Dear Mr. Stamps,
Michael Hitchcock
David Hosted
John Mercurio Save Mount Diablo is the adjacent property owner to this parcel.
Amara Morrison
David Ogden We have no objections to the proposed rezoning.
David Sargent
Sharon Walters
Directors However, please notice us about the planning steps,public hearings and approvals
Staff for this application and parcel.
Ronald Brown
Executive Director Thi you,
Seth Adams
Director, Land Programs Sincerely
Monica E.Oei
Finance&Adminisirative
Manager
Julie Seelen Seth Adams
Special Events Director of Land Programs
& Volunteer Coordinator
Cc: Karen Mangini, 5484 Pine Hollow Rd., Concord, CA 94520
Mailing Address Jim Mangini, 1607 Highland Ct., Fairfield, CA 94534
1901 Olympic Blvd.,#220
Walnut Creek,CA 94596
Tel: (925)947-3535
Fax: (925)947-0642
Website
www.savemountdiablo.org
Founders
Arthur Bon well
Mary L. Bowerman
1 �
u
save MOUNT DIAB L • _
Board of Directors
Malcolm Sproul
President September 6, 2007
Arthur Bonwell
Allan Prager, Jamar Stamps, Project Planner
Vice.Presidents CCC Comm. Dev. Dept.
David Trotter County Administration Building
r
Secretary _ 651 Pine Street
Prank Varenchik.
4th Floor,'North N'Virig.
Tredsurer Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Burt Bassler
Don de Fremery Re: RZ 07-3190 (122-010-017, 25 acres)
Dana Donisife
`Charly caber[
Claudia Hein Dear Mr. Stamps,
Scott Hein
Michael Hitchcock Save Mount Diablo is the adjacent property<owner tw s pafcel ^
David Hosted ` '„r
John Mercurio
Amara Morrison We have no ONection_s to the proposed rezonina 4r,adopti6iiofthe Nezative
David Sargent Declaration.
Sharon Walters
Directors
However, please notice us about the planning steps, publihearings arld aliprovals
Staff
for this application and parcel.
Ronald Brown
Executive Director
T
Seth Adams hank you,
Director, Land Programs
Sincerely, ..
Monica E.:Oei
finance,&, Administrative
Manager
Julie Seelen
Special Events Seth Adan-is -
S Volunteer Coordinator Director of Land Programs
Harding Address 9 -
Cc: Karen Mangini, 5494 Pine Hollow Rd.,-Concord, CA 4520
1901 Olympic Blvd..#220 tim Mangini, 1607 Highland Ct., Fairfield, CA 945A
Walnut Creek,CA 94596
Tel: (925)947-3535
Fax: (925)947-0642
Wehsite ”
www savemountdiablo.org
Founders
Arthur Bonwell
AfarvL. Bowerman
�r t, 23 1' 4.11
C I. T Y O . F .
WALNUT
1
CREEK
March 27, 2007
Jamar Stamps
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA.94553
Re: Review submittal RZ07-3190 (Portion of APN 122-010-014)
Dear Mr. Stamps:
The City of Walnut Creek appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comment on the above
application, which is located within the City's Planning Area. I have reviewed the application materials
and have the following comment:
1. The land use designation specified by the City's General Plan 2025 is Open Space — Agriculture,
which calls for a minimum lot size of 10 acres. Consequently, the application to rezone the subject
property to the A-2, General Agricultural District (5-acre minimum lot size) is inconsistent with our
General Plan, and the property should instead be rezoned to the A-3, Heavy Agricultural District
(]0-acre,minimum lot size).
Again, thank you for considering our comments in your review of this application. The City is interested in
staying involved in this project as it proceeds through the County's review process. Please keep me
informed on the project's progress and all major changes.
Sincerely,
Andrew M. Smith
Senior Planner
(925) 943-5899 x213
asmith chi walnut-creek.org
cc: Phillip Woods
Principal Planner
City of Concord, Planning Division
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
Post Office Box 8039, 1666 North Main Street,Walnut Creek,CA 94596
tel-925943.5899 wwwci.walnut-creek.ca.us
printed an recycled paper
CITY OF CONCORD CITY COUNCIL
PERMIT CENTER - - Mark A.Petersen,Mayor.
ITW Parkside Drive s; ,j A 'Y C rr t, i William D.Shinn,Vice Mayor
a �J1 ;,
Conceld,California 94519-2578
'p HelenM.Allen
Michael A.Chavez
Telephone: (925) 671 °454 *\ Laura M.Ho(tmelster
n
]ax: . (925) 671-3.81
Mary P.ae l.chrnnn,Cin Clerk
e ThomasJ.Wending,Citi Treasurer
Lydia E.Du Borg,City Manager
March 30, 2007
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
County Administration Building
551 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 94553-0095
Attn: Jamar Stamps
RE: Comments on RZ07-3190 (Portion of APN 122-010-014)
Dear Mr. Stamps:
The City of Concord has reviewed the proposed application for a zone change from A-4
to A-2 (Application RZ07-3190) for a 25 acre parcel (portion of 122-010-014) located in
the County. The City at this time does not have any comments. However, the City
would like to be informed and notified of future planning actions for this property.
ery t yo r
W
P 'lhp Woo S
Principal Planner
City of Concord
e-snail: cityinfo@ci.concord.ca.us runhlile: www.eityofconcord.org
:RY OF CONCORD ...CITY COUNCIL'
'ERMn'CENTER
k A Teterson Mayor.
1959,Pnkeidc Brive yi'illiam Shinn Vice Mayor
-Concord.Cahtozma 94b19-2zi7 = �w ,} .. -.
1 ��a a Aeien M Alien. - -
�jfi, Gn}.S Baerke'
Telclitume; (425)&71 M54 _ ktr j? -
Lauri 4 Hoff
inetz[er -
Fax: {y2.,} 671-3381 - -- --- ` - _ -.
i ="_e_f Maty RaeLchaiaazt Cn1'Gletk
_ n1Nentlen,, Cit} Tieasn e6
'; .<. -.
eilr
Lydi Y I3uIYolbicy�vlal�age�.'�.c
October 2; 2007,
Jamar I. Stamps
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
4"'.Floor,North Wing .
Martinez, California. 9455370095.
RE: City of'Concord's Comments 60,00Ciis ,County Application RZ0731"
Dear Mr. Stamps:
The City pf Concord has reviewed the proposed application (Application RZ(773190);t
rezone a 25-acre parcel (APN 122-010-017) fi-pm Agricultural Preserve District (A-4),fo
General Agricultural District (A-2).' The City-at this time does not-have any eommenf :
However, the City,would like to.be informed and notified,of future planning actions'fors`
this"property.
V lAds
"
Phillip W
Principal Planner
City of Concord
r-znazt: cityinfaaci.cunu�rd:ca.us -� .z+tabxile: www.citeofconc<xd.org -
E xhibit #6
CEQA Determination /
Negative Declaration
18
the habitat of a fish and wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history
or prehistory? X
b. Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
(Cumulatively considerable' means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects .of
probable future projects)? X
C. Does the project have environmental
effects that will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? X
SUMMARY: no impact
a) The proposed project would have no foreseeable significant impacts that may degrade the
quality of the environment.
b) The proposed rezone would not have impacts that are individually or cumulatively
considerable.
C) The subject property is currently agriculturally zoned. The current zoning allows for
heavier agricultural production activity, which may result in adverse effects on human
beings with regard to health, safety and public nuisance. The proposed zoning provides
for less intense agricultural uses. The allowance of less intense agricultural production
activity would serve well for the general area since the property is located near a
residential neighborhood.
G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Environmental Review\Initial Studies\RZ0703190initialstudy.doc
17
environmental effects? (Sources: 4)
X
C. Require or result in the construction
of new storm water drainage
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant
environmental effects? (Sources: 4)
X .
d. - Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from "
existing entitlements and resources,
or are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (Source: 4) X
e. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider that
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing
commitments? (Source: 4) X
f. Be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's waste
disposal needs?(Source: 4) X
g. Comply with federal, state and local
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?(Source: 4) X
SUMMARY: no impact
a) The proposed project would not exceed any applicable wastewater treatment
requirements
b-d) The proposed project would not require new, or expansion of any existing utilities or
services to the subject site.
e) No element of the proposed project would require an increase in demand for services to
the subject site.
f) The proposed rezone would not increase demand for waste disposal services or generate
an increase in landfill capacity.
g) The proposed project would not generate a significant increase in solid waste that would
violate any federal, state or local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
16
a. Cause an increase in traffic that is
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e. result in a substantial
increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections?(Source: 4) X
b. Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
(Source: 4) X
C. Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial
safety risks?(Source: 4) X
d. Substantially increase hazards due to
a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm
equipment)? (Source: 4) X
e. Result in inadequate emergency
access?(Sources: 4) X
f Result in inadequate parking
capacity?(Sources: 4) X
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans
or programs- supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?(Sources: 4) X
SUMMARY: no impact
a-g) The proposed rezone would not generate any change in traffic patterns. Therefore, no
impact to any of the above items in the traffic/transportation section of this environmental
assessment would occur.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater, treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board? (Source: 4) X
b. Require or result in the construction
of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of.
which could cause significant
15
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of
the public services?(Sources: 4)
I: Fire Protection? X
2. Police Protection? X
3. Schools? X
4. Parks? X
5. Other public facilities? X
SUMMARY: no impact
a) 1-5) The proposed project would have no physical impacts that would require the
need for new or physically altered governmental facilities.
XIV. RECREATION
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?(Source: 4) X
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities
that might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment? (Source:
4) X
SUMMARY: no impact
a) The proposed project would not increase the use of any existing parks or recreational
facilities.
b) No development is proposed with this project. No element of the proposed project would
require the construction or expansion of any existing recreational facilities.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—Would the project:
14
SUMMARY: no impact .
a) The Contra Costa County General Plan describes what levels of noise exposure are
appropriate for different land use categories. The subject site is located in an area that
.consists of mainly agricultural uses and some single-family residential development in
close proximity. The proposed rezoning would not generate additional noise, and
therefore would not exceed the applicable noise exposure standards.
b) No element of the proposed project would create any additional noise that would result in
ground borne vibrations.
C) The proposed project would not generate any noise.
d) The proposed rezoning would not lead to increases in noise levels above what the
existing zoning may produce.
e) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a
public airport.
f) The proposed rezoning would not generate any additional noise and therefore would not
contribute to any existing noise levels.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING—Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth
in an area, either directly '(for
example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads
or other infrastructure)?(Source: 4) X
b. Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (Source: 4) X
C. Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?(Source: 4) X
SUMMARY: no impact
a) The proposed rezoning would not induce substantial population growth by any means.
The allowable density for the Agricultural Lands General Plan designation is one unit per
5 acres, which is consistent with the proposed rezoning and would not be considered a
potential substantial increase in population. No road way improvements or other
infrastructure are proposed.
b-c) The proposed project would not displace any people or existing housing and therefore
would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing.
13
land use plan? (Source: 2, 6) X
SUMMARY: no impact
a-b) The proposed project would not require any excavation or physical land disturbance that
would result in a loss of a known mineral resource of state or local value.
XI. NOISE—Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies? (Source:
2, 4) X
b. Exposure of persons to, or
generation of, excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels? (Source: 4) X
C. A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (Source: 4) X
d. A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project? X
(Source: 4)
e. For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise
levels?(Source: 2,4,7) X
f. For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise
levels?(Source: 2,4, 7) X
12
death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?(Sources: 4, 7) X
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?(Sources:4, 7) X
SUMMARY: no impact.
a j) The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards, deplete ground
water, or be detrimental to any existing drainage facilities. The subject property is not
within the 100-year flood hazard area.
IX. LANA USE AND PLANNING—Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community? (Sources: 4, 7) X
b. Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or the regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to
the general plan, specific plan, local .
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (Sources: 5,
7) X
C. Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
(Source: 2, 4) X
SUMMARY: no impact.
a-b) The proposed project would not divide an established community, or conflict with any
specific plan or related policies.
C) The subject site is not located in any specific habitat conservation area.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES—Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?(Source: 2) X
b. Result in the loss or availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other
a. Violate any water quality.standards
or waste discharge requirements?
(Source: 4) X
b. Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a .net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
(Sources: 4) X
C. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a
manner that would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site? (Sources: 4) X
d. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface run-off in a
manner that would result in flooding
on-or off-site? (Sources: 4) X
e. Create or contribute runoff water that
would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff? (Sources: 4) X
f. Otherwise substantially degrade
water quality? (Sources: 4) X
g. Place housing within a 100-year
flood hazard area as mapped on a
Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
(Sources: 4, 7) X
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures that would impede or
redirect flood flows?(Sources: 4, 7) X
i. Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
to
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Source: 4) X
d. Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65862.5
and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?(Source: 2,4, 11) X
e. For a project located within an
airport land use.plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area. (Source: 4) X
f. For a project within the vicinity of a
private .airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?(Source: 2, 4) X
g. Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
(Sources: 2,4) X
h. Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with
wildlands?(Source: 2, 4) X
SUMMARY: no impact.
a-d) The proposed rezone would not result in any significant hazards to the public or the
environment. The subject site isnot located in an area with any hazardous land uses.
e-f) The subject site is not located within an airport influence area.
g) The proposed project would not interfere with the implementation of any adopted
emergency response,plan
h) The subject site is not located within a wildland area, and therefore would not expose people
or structures to any significant risk.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—Would the project:
9
C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?(Sources: 7) X
d. Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building ' Code (1998),
creating substantial risks to life or
property? (Source: 7) X
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste disposal systems
where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater? (Source:
7) X
SUMMARY: no impact.
a) 1-2. The subject site is located in an area consisting of hard marine sandstone and
bedrock as indicated by the Generalized Geology Map (Figure 10-1) in the Contra Costa
County General Plan, Safety Element. These elements create good stability reducing the
subject properties susceptibility to strong ground shaking or ground failure.
3-4. The subject property is located in an area of generally low liquefaction potential as
indicated by Figure 10-5 of the Contra Costa County General Plan, Safety Element. The
site is also not within a geologic(landslide)hazard area.
b) The proposed rezoning would not result in a loss of topsoil or soil erosion.
c-e) The subject site is not located in an area with any significant unstable geologic
conditions.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS—Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use or disposal
of hazardous materials?(Source: 4) X
b. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?(Source: 4) X
C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances or waste within X
8
b. Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
15064.5?(Source: 2, 4, 10) X
C. Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geological feature?
(Sources: 2,4) X
d. Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?(Sources: 2, 4) X
SUMMARY: no impact.
a-b, d) The Contra Costa County General Plan, Open Space Element identifies areas of
Archeological Sensitivity. The subject property is classified as being located within a
largely urbanized area and publicly owned lands excluded from archeological sensitivity
survey. Based on the information provided by the above mentioned source, the proposed
project would not cause a substantial adverse change in any significant historical or
archeological resource.
C) The subject properties location with reference to the Major Parks and Open Space Map
(Figure 9-3) in the Contra Costa County General Plan, Open Space Element, the subject
property is located within the Lime Ridge Open Space Area. However, the project as
proposed would not directly or indirectly destroy any unique resources of the existing
open space facility.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS—Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
1. Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42. (Source: 1, 7) X
2. Strong seismic ground shaking?
(Source: 7) X
3. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?(Source: 7) X
4. Landslides?(Sources: 7) X
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil? (Source: 4) X
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Sources:2,4) X
C. Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?(Sources: 2, 4) X"
d. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites? (Sources: 2, 4) X
e. Conflict with any local policies.or
ordinances protecting biological
-resources, such as tree preservation
policy or ordinance? (Sources: 2,4) X
f. Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional or state habitat conservation
plan?(Source: 2, 4) X
SUMMARY: no impact
a-b, e-f)The project as proposed would not create a substantial adverse effect directly or
indirectly. The Contra Costa County General Plan, Conservation Element (January
2005), identifies "Significant Ecological Areas and Selected Locations of Protected
Wildlife and Plant Species Areas". The subject property is not within any of these
special designated areas.
d) The proposed project would not create any substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES—Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in Section
15064.5 (Source: 2, 4, 10) x
6
exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?(Sources: 4,9)
X
d. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Sources: 4, 9) X
e. Create objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people?
(Sources: 4, 9) X
SUMMARY: no impact
a) The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) periodically prepares and
updates a plan to achieve healthy air. An air quality district would be required to prepare
such a plan if it is in "exceedance" or violation of California Clean Air Act requirements.
The San Francisco Bay Area violates state standards, and therefore prepares a Clean Air
Plan with triennial updates.
A Clean Air Plan (CAP) relies on local planning agencies development activities to
establish control strategies that would achieve and maintain regional compliance.with
state requirements. According to the CAP,projects that are consistent with the applicable
General Plan are found to be consistent with air quality requirements. The proposed
rezoning would not change the capabilities and general uses described in the Agricultural
Lands General Plan designation. Therefore, the proposal would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
b) The proposed rezoning would not violate any air quality standard or substantially
contribute to an existing projected air quality violation.
C) The proposed project would not create any new source of pollutant or emissions that
would be detrimental to ambient air quality standards or create a situation that would
exceed any quantitative thresholds.
d-e) The project as proposed would not create any significant level of pollutant
concentrations, and therefore would not expose irritants to sensitive receptors.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES—Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, . or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Sources:2,4) X
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
5
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
(Source: 2, 4, 7, 8) X
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act .
Contract?(Sources: 2, 3,4; 7) X
C. Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which due to their
location or nature, could. result in
conversion of farmland, to non-
agricultural use? (Sources: 4, 8) X
SUMMARY: no impact
a) The applicant's proposal to rezone the subject site from Exclusive Agricultural District
(A-4) to General Agricultural District (A-2) would not substantially alter the uses
allowed. The 2002 Contra Costa County Important Farmland Map dated 2002 indicates
that the subject property is considered "grazing land", land on which the existing
vegetation is best suited for the grazing of livestock. The proposed zoning would not
alter what this land is best suited for.
b) The proposed zoning change to the A-2 district would not create a conflict with the
existing A-4 zoning. The properties Williamson Act Contract was terminated after the
subject property was subdivided from the 208-acre remainder owned by Save Mount
Diablo.
c) No development is proposed with this application, essentially leading to no impact on any
existing natural or agricultural features on or surrounding the subject site.
5'
III. AIR QUALITY - Where available; the significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (Sources: 4, 9) X
b. Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected
air quality violation?(Sources: 4,9) X
C. Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is a non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
4
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
1. AESTHETICS Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista?(Sources: 4) X
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?(Source: 4) X
C. Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?(Source: 4)
X
d. Create a new source of substantial
light or glare that would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?(Source: 4) X
SUMMARY: no impact
a) No development is proposed with this project. The scenic vista would not encounter any
substantially adverse effects as a direct result of the proposed rezoning of the subject
property.
b) The proposal would not damage scenic resources. The intended uses for the subject
property would remain consistent with those allowable by the current zoning and the
County General Plan. The subject site is not located within proximity of a state scenic
highway.
c) The proposed rezoning would not degrade the visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings. The A-2 district allows for uses that have low aesthetic impacts on the
land(general farming,grazing, etc.).
d) No development is proposed with this project, and therefore would not produce
substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES —In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation
as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
3
SOURCES
In the process of preparing the Checklist and conducting the evaluation, the following references (which
are available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine
Street 5th Floor-North Wing, Martinez)were consulted:
1. Contra Costa County Resource Mapping System—Quad Sheet Panel—CA
2. Contra Costa County General Plan (January 2005)
3. General Plan and Zoning Maps
4. Project Description
5. Public Agency Comments
6. Contra Costa County Code—Title 8(Zoning)
7. Contra Costa County Geographic Information System Data Layers
8. Contra Costa County Important Farmland Map, 2002
9. Bay Area Air Quality Management 2005 Ozone Strategy,January 2006
10. Planning&Zoning Laws 2007
11. California Environmental Quality Act 2007
2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources _ Geology& Soils
Hazards& Hydrology& Land Use&
Hazardous Materials Water Quality Planning
Mineral Resources Noise. Population &Housing
Public Services _ Recreation _ Transportation/Circulation
Utilities& Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this Initial Study:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
X NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
,one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in.this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EK including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed u roposed project.
�f 2v�7
Si re Date
Jamar I. Stamps, Project Planner
Contra Costa County Community Development Department
1 .
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Mangini Rezone
County File#RZ073190
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Community Development
Department
651 Pine St.,2nd Floor—North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jamar I. Stamps, Project Planner, (925)335-1220
4. Project Location: Clayton, CA 94517
APN: 122-010-017
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: James Mangini (Applicant)
1607 Highland Ct
Fairfield, CA 94534
Karen Mangini (Owner)
5484 Pine Hollow Road
Concord,CA 94520
6. General Plan Designation: Agricultural Lands(AL): 0.2 units per net acre.
7. Zoning: Agricultural Preserve District (A-4): 40 acre minimum
parcel size for non-prime agricultural land/10 acre
minimum parcel size for prime agricultural land.
8. Description of Project: The applicant proposes.to rezone a 25 acre parcel from
Agricultural Preserve (A-4) to General Agricultural (A-
2).
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The subject site located in the rural area of Clayton. The
subject property is directly adjacent to the Agricultural
Preserve and General Agricultural districts. Parcel sizes
range from 5 acres to 200 acres. Directly adjacent to the
North and approximately 0.5 miles due West of the
property are the Cities of Concord and Walnut Creek
respectively.
10. Other public agencies whose
approval is required (e.g. permits,
financing, approval, or
participation agreement): None
r � �
r
A possible date for adoption of the proposed Negative Declaration has not been
determined.
Sincer ,
amar Stamps
Project Planner
cc: County Clerk's Office (3 copies)
Community Costa myn!qDlave 5pffibl\t 0 rector
Development Contra
Department County --P 0 4 2QQ7
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
K.
Fourth Floor, North Wing N �v -RK
SLVEIR COU, CLE
Martinez, California 94553-1229
CONTRA COSTA "MUNTY
!,
5EP10.
Phone: BY-
(925) 335-1220 ---U- D=: Neptember 5, 2007
NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
County File #RZ073190,
Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the "Guidelines for
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to
date, this is to advise you that the Community Development Department of Contra Costa
County has prepared an Initial Study on the following project:
JAMES MANGIM (Applicant) KAREN MANGINI (Owner), County File #RZ073190:
The applicant requests approval to rezone a 25-acre from Agricultural Preserve District
(A-4) to General Agricultural District (A-2). The subject site is not addressed but is
located at the end of Coralwood Drive, south of Aspenwood Court in the Clayton area.
(Zoning: A-4) (Zoning Atlas: L-17) (Census Tract: 3553.01) (Assessor Parcel Number:
122-010-017).
The proposed development will not result in significant environmental impacts.
A copy of the negative declaration and all documents referenced in. the negative
declaration may be reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department
and Application and Permit Center at the McBrien Administration Building, North Wing,
Second Floor, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, during normal business hours.
Public Comment Period - The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the
environmental documents extends to 5:00 P.M., Tuesday, September 25, 2007. Any
comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address:
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street,North Wing, 4th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Attn: Jamar Stamps
(over)
Exhibit #7
Project Site Plan
c
07 MAR - 1 Pi i1. 08
0.
z
IL a W U
z
! N
oil
�
PD
Nmo R .¢
0 4
00 osae , 3.as,GC.WN �
ZO
cn
S ri•- �N'4 _•1..... 1� � ` Ili `'y, "'".w..,,� �. `*.� 'q ^a. , '�...._. '."."*•+...,,
39
-
�,��o .......... W"..,,,,.�,�` to
C4 to
cn4!/ Ar,,"'•�'"�6,.. C)'fit b
u e �\9 � �j � y{ � fV `Y•
dtk
OD
eta
00
�2 w. e�"+.,n,.y,..+^». � r Oro \Y�� Y � ^Y 4n`^•
on wuwq
cn
52 �
a
q
Nauw. �
� N
till
j
k
t
Exhibit #8
Notification List
121070025 121070032 121350015
TRACT 7815-COMMON AREA COMMON AREA TRACT 7815 SMITH RICK E&JEANNE T TRE
4021 PORT CHICAGO HWY 4155 BLACKHAWK PLAZA CIR#201 5355 ASPENWOOD CT
CONCORD CA DANVILLE CA CONCORD CA
94520 94506 94521
121350014 121070028 121070022
LUNACEK VLADAN&MARGITA TRE TRACT 7815-COMMON AREA WEST COAST HOME BUILDERS INC
5359 ASPENWOOD CT 4021 PORT CHICAGO.HWY 4021 PORT CHICAGO HWY
CONCORD CA CONCORD CA CONCORD CA
94521 94520 94520 r
121350030 121350016 121350008
BECKER JERRY JR&LYNETTE MOLGAARD PETER&PAULA RESTANI RICHARD P&TERRI TRE
5390 ASPENWOOD CT NEWTON 5381 ASPENWOOD CT
CONCORD CA 5351 ASPENWOOD CT CONCORD CA
94521 CONCORD CA o 94521 °
94521
121350007 122010017 121350013
GASH JACQUELINE S TRE MASON JEANNIE HOWARD TRE BROOKS TED&CAROLYN
5385 ASPENWOOD CT 5484 PINE HOLLOW RD 5363 ASPENWOOD CT
CONCORD CA CONCORD CA CONCORD CA
94521 94521 94521
121350012 122010004 122010013
LAL SHARAD K&JESSICA HERBERT DONALD S TRE BORJESSON BRUCE&THERESA
5367 ASPENWOOD CT 1557 TRIMINGHAM DR 5518 PINE HOLLOW RD
CONCORD CA PLEASANTON CA CONCORD CA
94521 4 94566 94521
121350028 121350011 121070029
FARGAS ANTONIO R&ANN S MIYASAKI ROGER&CATHRYN TRE CRYSTYL RANCH HO ASSN
5386 ASPENWOOD CT 5371 ASPENWOOD CT 4021 PORT CHICAGO HWY
CONCORD CA CONCORD CA CONCORD CA
94521 94521 94520
121350029 122010018 121350027
SYVERSRUD DONALD L&KAREN A SAVE MOUNT DIABLO HALLER CLAYTON F III&LAURA K
5388 ASPENWOOD CT 1901 OLYMPIC BLVD#220 5382 ASPENWOOD CT
CONCORD CA WALNUT CREEK CA CONCORD CA
94521 ° 94596 94521 �-
121350010 121350009
SCHICK GREGORY C&KRISTINE J DEAN GEORGE III&BEATRICE TRE —
5375 ASPENWOOD CT 5379 ASPENWOOD CT
CONCORD CA CONCORD CA
94521 r 94521
J
Crystyl Ranch Homeowners Assoc:
James Mangini Karen Mangini c/o Homeowners Business Management,
1607 Highland Court 5484 Pine Hollow Road Inc.
Fairfield, CA 94534 Concord, CA 94534 1855 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 340
Concord,CA 94520
Seth Adams Phillip Woods Andrew M. Smith
Save Mt. Diablo, Principal Planner-City of Concord Senior Planner-City of Walnut Creek
1901 Olympic Blvd., Ste. #220 1950 Parkside Drive 1666 North Main Street
Walnut Creek, CA 94.596 Concord, CA 94549-2578 Walnut Creek;CA 94596
Jewel Johl Sherman Meh 'Diana&Mike English
5387 Aspenwood Ct 5389 Aspenwood Ct. 5391 Aspenwood Ct.
Concord,CA 94521 Concord, CA 94521 Concord, CA 94521