Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01011979 - R 12 IN 17 R & W Partnership Planning Appeal Subdivision 5187 Walnut Creek Area 1979 STORED: I AGCY REEL #INDEX # 14Ap # BOX D.M.T. Way & Associates Planning Appeal Subdivision 5187 Walnut Creek Area 1979 STORED:0 n -VLA A)A 9 IA)ir-REEL # 01. INDEX # MAP # BOX # oboes-aq 41 '.00 0 i 0 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California June 5 _F19 7 q In the Matter of Hearing on the Appeal of D,M,T, Way & Associates from County Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Map for Subdivision 5187, Walnut Creek Area, R. & W. Partnership, Owners, The Board on April 10, 1979 having continued to this time the hearing on the appeal of D.M.T. Way & Associates from County Planning Commission denial of the tentative map for Subdivision 5187, Walnut Creek area; and Supervisor R. I, Schroder having stated that it was his intent to return the matter back to the Planning Commission for submittal of a new application to be considered after adoption of the proposed ordinance amending the planned unit ordinance; and Chairman E. H. Hasseltine having noted that a June 14, 1979 letter had been received from Arthur Shelton, attorney representing the applicant, requesting that the hearing be continued pending adoption of said ordinance; and Chairman Hasseltine having declared the hearing open, having asked if there were any persons wishing to speak on the aforesaid proposal, and. having noted that no one in the audience wished to speak; and Supervisor Schroder having recommended that the hearing be closed, that the appeal of D,M,T, Way & Associates be denied without prejudice, and that the matter be returned to the County Planning Commission for resubmission of the application to be considered after the proposed planned unit development ordinance is adopted; IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendation of Supervisor Schroder is APPROVED, PASSED by the Board on June 5, 1979, 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of cc: D.M.T. Way & Associates Supervisors R. & W. Partnership affixed this 5thday of June 19 79 Terry Vinson Arthur Shelton Director of Planning R OLSSON, Clerk By 5Deputy Clerk onda Amdahl H-24 3/79 15M Hand Delivc` d --�� LAW OFFICES ARTHUR M. SHELTON PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION PO,BOX 4486 RECEIVED} LT 2815 MITCHELL DRIVE,SUITE 200 WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94596 JUN 1979 (41S)937-0110 J. 2- OISSOH June 4, 1979 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS C T 06TA CO. Bv.. _-Dopwy r Clerk - Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Subdivision 5187 - Appeal of D.M.T. Way & Assocs. Dear Madam: The above matter is set for hearing on appeal before the Board of Supervisors Tuesday, June 5. The undersigned attorney for Applicant and Appellant respectfully requests that the Board continue this matter to either August 14 or August 21. The reasons for this request are as follows: 1. The undersigned will be out of the County on Tuesday, June 5, and will be unable to appear at the hearing; and 2. The hearing has previously been continued pending adoption by the County of an ordinance for planned unit developments of less than fifteen (15) acres. The subject property involves a 14-acre parcel. It is the opinion of both the undersigned and Mr. Harvey Bragdon of the Planning Department, that adoption of the ordinance would permit a better plan for this development. This should be considered at the time of the appeal. Please bring this to the attention of the Board. I have discussed the matter with the Chairman's secretary. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Very truly yours, ARTHUR M. SHELTON Professional corporation J Arthur M. Shelton Attorney for Applicant and Appellant AMS/mjdl/3 cc: Mr. Harvey Bragdon Mr. Douglas Way AGENDA ITEM d(14 Aiw� toT (date) L F_ In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California April 10 , 1979 In the Matter of Appeal of D.M.T. Way & Associates from County Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Map for Sub- division 5187, Walnut Creek Area. (R. & W. Partnership, Owners) The Board on March 13, 1979 having fixed this time for hearing on the appeal of D.M.T. Way & Associates from County Planning Commission denial of the tentative map for Subdivision 5187, Walnut Creek area; and Chairman E. H. Hasseltine having noted that an April 9, 1979 letter had been received from Arthur M. Shelton, attorney representing the applicant, stating that one of the owners will be out of town on April 10, and requesting continuance of the matter to a later date; and Chairman Hasseltine having declared the hearing open and having asked if there were any persons wishing to speak on the aforesaid proposal; and Peter Unda, 2609 Olympic Boulevard, Walnut Creek, and Don Gideon, 21431 Olympic Boulevard, Walnut Creek, having objected to the proposed delay; and Chairman Hasseltine having noted the absence of Supervisor R. I. Schroder in whose district the subject parcel is located and having recommended that the hearing be continued to June 5, 1979 at 2:00 P.M.; IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendation of Chairman Hasseltine is APPROVED. PASSED by the Board on April 10, 1979. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing Is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of cc: D.M.T. Way & Associates Supervisors R. & W. Partnership affixed this 10thday of April 1979 Terry W. Vinson Arthur M. Shelton List of Names Provided R. 01�=N, Clerk by Planning By Deputy Clerk Director of Planning ro y . Ga H-24 4177 15mrr�c, (0�V r`urr5r LAW OFFICES ARTHUR M. SHELTON PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION P, O,BOX 4486 281SALN MITCHELL CALIFORNIASUITE 200 RECEIVED WALNUT CREEK, ALIFO94596 (415)937-0110 April 9, 1979 APR 9 1979 J. R. OLSSON CLERK BOARD Of SUPERVISORS CONT C STA CO- By. -_..... D-Puty Clerk - Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Subdivision 5187 Dear Sir: The above matter is set for hearing on appeal before the Board of Supervisors Tuesday, April 10th, at 1:30 p.m. One of the owners, Mr. Douglas Way, who is also the architect and engineer representing the ownership group, will be in Washington, D.C. in connec- tion with a veterans hospital which he is designing. It is respectfully requested that the hearing on the appeal be continued to Tuesday, May 1st, or Tuesday, May 8th. A-tom -hS h6 on, Attorney for Applicant and Appellant AMS/mjdl/2 cc: Mr. Harvey Bragdon Planning Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: March 12, 1979 FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesus SUBJECT: Subdivision 5187 Appeal Director of Planni On April 10th, the Boar¢ ss cheduled to hear an appeal filed by A. M. Shelton on behalf of the applicant! or Subdivision 5187. This appeal is from the County Planning Commission's decision of February 6, 1979 which was to deny the subdivi- sion application. In Mr. Shelton's February 20th letter of appeal, he listed two items purported to support his appeal. The first item indicated that neither he nor the applicant received notice of the February 6th hearing. The February 6th hearing was a hearing continued from November 28, 1978. At the November 28th hearing, it was decided by the Planning Commission with agreement from Mr. Shelton and his Client, Douglas Way, who were both present, to continue the hearing to February 6, 1979. The subject of the continued hearing to February 6th was fully discussed at the November 28th meet- ing inasmuch as it was an issue. This verbal notice that was given by the Plan- ning Commission serves all notice requirements. The second item refers to the staff report for the February 6th meeting which included "erroneous factual data". Since this data is unspecified, we are unable to comment at this time. AAD/ral cc: Sub. 5187 County Administrator County Counsel Arthur M. Shelton Douglas Way RECEIVED 1979 QS'A CO. PROOF OF PUBLICN This spocounty Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5 E.C.P.) FILED STATE OF CALIFORNIA MAR 3a 1979 J.R.OLSSON County of Contra Costa d of b I am a citizen c:f the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. Proof of Publication of Notice of Public Hearing I am the Principal Legal Clerk of the Contra Costa Times. A newspaper of general circulation, printed and pub- lished of 2640 Shadelands Drive in the City of Walnut ^, C Creek,County of Contra Costa,94598 And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper � i e of general circulation by the Superior Court of the Coun- ty of Contra Costa,State of California,under the date of r Ti�Mif���4roz? October 22, 1934.Case Number 19764. The notice,of which the annexed is a printed copy(set in i dMrtMw�t �d type not smaller than nonpareil),has been published in i t�ltefer each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not y in any supplement thereof on the following dates,to-wit: March 28, .� all in the year of 19 79. Miitdq+� I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the <, foregoing is true and correct. �Gr9g32 � `r wa.d►2e t4Z9i. Executed at Walnut Creek,California. On this 28 day of March ' 1979 Signature East Bay Newspapers,Inc. nem Contra Costa Times PROOF OF PUBLICATION P.O.Box 5088 Walnut Creek,Ca.94596 (415)935-2525 FOLF ® iAR .2,1, 1979 J.R.OLSSON SU BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNT CLERK BOARD OF� r cot ERVISORS co. CALIFORNIA Re: Notice of Public ) Hearing on the Appeal of ) D.M.T. Way & Associates ) CERTIFICATE OF POSTING from County Plannin ) Commission denial o ten- ) tative 'Map, Subdivision �. 5187, Walnut Creek Area. ) I certify that I am now, and at all times hereinafter mentioned have been, a citizen of the United States and not a party to the above-entitled ratter and not interested therein nor in the event thereof; and that on March 26, 1979 I posted a full, true and correct cony of the attached notice at the following locations: (1) On pole, approximately (600) six hundred feet Southeast of West Newell Avenue, and approximately (50) fifty feet on the South side of King Drive. (2) On stake, approximately (500) five hundred feret Southeast of West Newell Avenue, Walnut Creek area. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: March 27, 1979 , at '?art nez alifornia. VID Y, Clerk Senior Drafts n{ n 000=9 I - 0 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California March 13 19 79 In the Matter of Appeal of D.M.T. Way & Associates from County Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Map for Sub- division 5187, Walnut Creek Area. (R. & W. Partnership, Owners) WHEREAS on the 6th day of February, 1979 the County Planning Commission denied the tentative map filed by D.M.T. Way & Associates for Subdivision 5187, Walnut Creek area; and WHEREAS within the time allowed by law, Arthur M. Shelton, attorney representing D.M.T. Way & Associates filed with this Board an appeal from said action; NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that a hearing be held on said appeal before this Board in its Chambers, Room 107, County Administration Building, Martinez, California 94553, on Tuesday, April 10, 1979 at 1:30 p.m. and the Clerk is directed to publish and post notice of hearing„ pursuant to code requirements, PASSED by the Board on March 13, 1979. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Supervisors CC: D.M.T. Way & Associates affixed this 13thMarchof March 19 79 R. & W. Partnership Terry W. Vinson Arthur M. Shelton J. R. OLSSON, Clerk List of Names Provided ` per, by Planning By 'L . De Clerk Director of Planning Diana M. Herman H-24 4/77 15m NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIiNG BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON A PL.0 KING MATTER Walnut Creek AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday April 10, 1979 at . 1;30 p.m- in k:oom 7 of the County Administration Building, corner of Pine and Escobar Streets, Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: Appeal of D.M.T. Way & Associates from County Planning Commission denial of tentative maD for Subdivision 5187 (R. & W. Partnership, owners). The location of the subject land is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa, State ,of California, generally identified as follows (a more precise description may be examined in the office of Director of Planning, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): ll':25 acres located on the south side of King, Drive; approximately 650 feet southeast of West Newell Avenue, in the Walnut Creek area. - By order of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California. Date: March 13, 1979 J. R. OLSSON, County Clerk and e<, officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California Y Diana M. Herman, Dzputy Cia.'c 00022-9 The Board of.Super4ors Conga COUm GlWka rn count;,Cterk and EX Costa Otdeio Clerk o!u`.a apart . �a . County Administration Building cn.rlee F P.O.Box 911 Countj x415)3rz-z3rr Martinez, California 94553 Tam Powers,tet District Nancy C.Fanden,2nd Dlstriet d!/� Robed 1.Schroder.3rd District ' t Surma Wright Mcloeak,4th District Eric H.Haeseltine,Stn District - -- March 19, 1979 CONTTR.A COSTA TIP4ES P.O. Box 5088 2640 Shadelands Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Gentlemen: Re: Purchase Order 40384 Enclosed is Notice of Public Hearing on the appeal of D.M.T. [,lay & Associates from County Planning Commission denial of tentative map, Subdivision 5187 Walnut Creek area which we wish you to publish on March 28, 1979 Please sign the enclosed card and return it to this office. MiMEDIATELY upon the expiration of publication, send us an affidavit of publication in order that the Auditor may be authorized to pay your bill. Very truly yours, To be charged at the maximum rate the Countv J. R. O±.SSON, CLERK may pay for legal ) advertisin set b the ` Board on April 21, 1970. Diana M. Herman Deputy Clerk 00022.9 15.4 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Inter-0"ice Marro Date: I.Iarch 19, 19.79 To: Lon underwood, Elections ' From: Clerk of the Board By: Diana NI, Herman, Deputy Clerk y Subject: Posting Notices of Hearing Please post the attached notices of Fearing in at least two conspicuous places close to the subject property, preferably on public highways at a distance of from fifty to one hundred feet in at least two directions from the subject property (Ordinance Code Section 26-2,2004) no later than Plarch 30, 1979 Please complete the attached certificate of posting and return it to the Clerk of the Board prior to April- 4, 1979 Attachments CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO Clerk of the Board DATE March 16, 1979 Att'n: Vera Nelson FROM Director of Planning SUBJECT Board Hearing on By: H. Fenichel Appeal of Sub.5187 (WAY) The hearing on the subject appeal is scheduled for April 10, 1979. Please add the following person to the list to b e notified of the hearings: Terry W. Vinson. Attorney at Law 2880 Shadelands Dri e Suite 404 Walnut Creek, CA 94 9 SIGNED PLEASE REPLY HERE -� TO DATE ERKBO ED tiYpViSO?S CO. Dr G00��, SIGNED INSTRUCTIONS - FILL IN TOP PORTION, REMOVE DUPLICATE (YELLOW) AND FOR- WARD REMAINING PARTS WITN CARBONS. TO REPLY. FILL IN LOWER PORTION AND SNAP OUT CARBONS. RETAIN TRIPLICATE (PINK) AND RETURN ORIGINAL. FORM MIU3 7 k,i {r.. ' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: March 5, 1979 FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesus SUBJECT: APPEAL, Subdivision 5187 Director of Planni D.M.T. Way s Assoc. - Applicant 111 (Walnut Creek area) Applicant: D.M.T Way & sociates, 1053-A Broadway, San Francisco 94133. Owner: R. S W. Partnership, 1053-A Broadway, San Francisco 94133. Appellant: ArthZr M. Shelton, P. 0. Box 4486, Walnut Creek 94596, represent- the applicant. Previous Action: 11-28-78 Planning Commission hearing - Continued to 2-6-79 meeting. 2-6-79 Planning Commission hearing - Subdivision denied. 2-21-79 Appealed to the Board of Supervisors. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The following people should be notified of your Board's hearing date and time: Arthur M. Shelton D.M.T. Way & Associates P. 0. Box 4486 1053-A Broadway Walnut Creek, CA 94596 San Francisco, CA 94133 R. 6 W. Partnership Edgar Lion III, Planning Director 1053-A Broadway City of Lafayette San Francisco, CA 94133 251 Lafayette Circle Lafayette, CA 94549 (See attached list for additional names) Attachments: Letter of Appeal, Planning Commission Minutes, Staff Report, Map, EIR. AAD:Isw RECEIVED MAR 3' 1979 CLERK wMc OF swERVISM �6L4 CO. Board of Supervisors Page 2 Appeal, Subdivision 5187 V. C. Warren Marena Rhone 170 E1 Dorado Road 171 El Dorado Road Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Pete Unda . M. B. Olson 2609 Olympic Blvd. 210 King Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Don Gideon Lee Maice 2431 Olympic Blvd. 1122 Skycrest Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Mrs. John W. Lydecker 16 Corte Del Contento Walnut Creek, CA 94595 lsw 3-5-79 ®00;�>p LAW OFFICES , �• �^•. ARTHUR M. SHELTON PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION P• O.80% 4486 FEB Z 1 3 35 11,14 119 2819 MITCHELL DRIVE,SUITE 200 WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94596 (415) 937-0110 !' ••,r , •i February 20, 1979 Mr. Anthony A. Dehaesus, Director of Planning Planning Department, Contra Costa County County Administration Building, North Wing Post Office Box 951 Martinez, California 94553 Re: Appeal From Planning Commission Subdivision 5187 Dear Mr. Dehaesus: The Applicant hereby appeals the Planning Commission's denial on February 6, 1979, of its application for Subdivi- sion 5187. Enclosed is a check covering the $200 filing fee for the appeal which is taken for the following reasons, among others: 1. There was no notice of the February 6, 1979 hearing to either the Applicant or their attorneys. Applicant and their attorney had appeared before the Planning Commission the week previously in regard to a proposed amendment to the General Plan for the Saranap area. No mention was made by the staff of any hearing on February 6, 1979, at that time, nor was any written or other notice received. A proper hearing requires notice. Since there was none, the Commission action is invalid. 2. The staff report for the February 6, 1979 hearing, since received, shows that the Commission acted on erroneous factual data which Applicant had no opportunity to rebutt. Since there was no valid hearing, Applicant is paying the $200 appeal fee under protest. It is requested that the matter be referred back to the Planning Commission for a properly noticed hearing and that the fee be returned. If this relief is not granted, the appeal should be regularly set for hearing before the Board of Supervisors. -���2%�� �'S.-�� 7-3,•� Very truly yours. ISSUF� z-z!7,9 �; f Arthur M. Shelton Attorney for Applicant AMS/mjd2/2 Enc. �� ry cc: Mr. Douglas Way 021 Mr. Edward Chan Planning D e n a rt rn e-�tq Cl�rl" 1 LA Planning Commleslon Membe f, �; uWilliam V.Wallon,III Pleasant flill--Chairman County Administration Building, North Wing Co.-'1a Alborg R.Compap0a P.O. Box 951 County FAmrrm•f J,rr Cniurrnso Donald E.Anderson Martinez, California 94553 Mnraga Anthony A.Dehaesus Director of Planning "^ Elton Brombachernichmond Phone: 372-2091 William L.Milano Pittsburg Cnrnlyn D,Phillips lodnn February 7, 1979 Andrew H.Young Alamo Mr. Douglas Way c/o R & W Partnership 1053-A Broadway San Francisco, CA 94133 Dear Mr. Way: On Tuesday, February 6, 1979, the Planning Commission denied your application for Subdivision 5187. Under the provisions of the procedural ordinance, any person dissat- isfied with the action of the Planning Commission may appeal to the Boal"d of Supervisors by submitting an appeal letter stating the rea- sons for appeal and paying a $200.00 filing fee to the County Planning Department within fifteen (15) calendar days after the hearing. Therefore, if no appeal is received prior to 5:00 p.m. , February 21 , 1979, then the action of the Planning Commission becomes final. Sincerely yours, An hon bagsus Di r of Planning Byron Turner Senior Planner BT:lsw cc - Arthur Shelton County Departments File Sub. 5187 �0(€Z • i . �; Nuvondn�r 1"'r' ABSENT: Commissioners Carolyn D. Phillips. rr ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. ��. Motion carried. SUBIILVISIONc PUBLIC 11FAR.ING: ,R--- — xSUBDN SION:#:5187;(D M.T:--..way&'-Associates: Owner77 1Ysp> eis144) A request for approval of 14 single family lots on 11.25 acres in an R-20 Zonil.tj; District located southerly of King Drive, approximately 800-ft.. southensterly c+l', Olympic Boulevard: Walnut Creek area. (CT-3410) - (Parcel #238-040-03) MR. HALVERSON indicated the subject property on thr ^Oning maps. This l.- a rat.lior steep,approaeh. to this area being n hillside and i.hen n1ohlnL; down to I'ltc development. ' It is an area in which you reccntl,• crnlsiderod n ehnn!-v hi I.hc Grri� rn.l Plan to an open;space catagory and this would then be a 5 nerd minimlun per Jot .i:•- velopment. The. lots on -this proposal would range from about 20,000 sq, i'L., up to about, 37,"OO st. ft. There has been d9::cussion with the Applicant's aLLalrncy Lo the effoel, th:ii, it should,be withdrawn because the general plan proposed for Ltlis area would uol. fit for the area. Therefore, ill-t.lte s La f f vov i ow of tills ton to t i vo nutp, we rr,•c,munow l Lha L i l; o i l.1„ r' be denied or held over until there is a detcrnt.illat.ion Ott Itho roll n1l. 1t1.An_1*ol. 111i:: area. MR. DEHAESUS: I.1r. Chairman, in this ease, I would suggest. if the applicant be asi.ed . if }le would agree to a 90=day extension on the basis that we would expect. that. Ghe Saranap General Flan review, which has been referred baek to t-he Ccrmtission Board of Supervisorswould be. reported back to the ROard within t}l.+:x :111.1 the Board could maltc, a tivol;i.orl cni Llie Sart 111A11 Uener:ll I'I:ut :uul 1I.�i+on,11t,1• „u l►c,t decision, this Commission would be in a postion to make a determination_on this tentative map. CHAIRMAN WALTON: Thank you. Is the applicant present? ARTHUR SIUMTON: I represent the applicant. We have one ot.hev ::porker but I wollI(I . first like to address myself to Mr. Dehaesus' question; but, I would like to make a presentation on his application first. CHAIRMAN WALTON: That will be fine; but, you should know that we don't have an;; documentation before its from the Staff. M. SHELTON: Air. Clinirnt:ln, if C could ozlti::t;v like to (it) :;o at Lhi t..imc. CHAIRMAN WALTON: All right. Proceed. But, .you are .speaking about, the cont.innar.^e, is that correct? MR. SHELTON: Only---I'm asking for approval. and I want 1,o arruc that point 1'i1::L. CHAIRMAN YI'ALTON: 'then, I will say this again. We have not been supplied wiLh flay r� • materials by staff; and based on that, I for one would not be ready to make a decis- ion tonight because of that. So, you are going to be making two presentations, tonight and some other night. i1IR. SHELTON: 'I Understand that. 000;?,;29 1071 COMMIS SIONfelt AN1)ER,"l1N: Mr. GliaLrmatl, I(I l ike Lu ;:11Y Llr.iL wc:'VI"'I�unc: cwin• 1.11 h; property and this :11•cr1 I'or Lho ;arnrlalt Crncrnt 1'1:111 r(:v;rer. 1 t.li;nl: ,you'ro aecerl• of iour prior rccommonda Li on so if* you vr,t n t. tt) go through i.h i:: Lt•n i Leh L, you u i l i be making other lire:;cnLat.lons here on this matter. Maybe vrc could in Lhc mcanl.ime L--; study this information you're given each of us and you are aware of our previous recommendation to .the Board of Supervisors: NIR. SHE,LTON: Well, your prior decision was made without nny notice to.,my client so he didn't appear here before you and you didn't hear frons him and your prior decision was made on erroneous information furnished to.you and I would like to clarify that point as a starter. As you know, in August of this year, you recommended Lo i.ho l4oa rd rt' that they adopt an amendment to 1.11c goneva.l p1:111 'in Lluv "InCtcnap :error wllioh wctniti" blanket the subject property with an open spaoc designation which wuuLd me:u1 that either one or two units only could be built, on Lhc properLy. This land h.: zoned R-20. Now, the bass:; L'or your ueL.ion in A111,W- , of' 1,10h, your vvi:, it t:l.aV' report that was submitted to you that said in essence that there were large land slides on the property and that the soil was unstable. That is not true. There are no landslides on this'property. . The land is stable. There is a specific geological and soils report that was submitted with this application in September 11977 that deals with this specific property. If ,you will look It the materials` that you have in front of you attached. to my letter is declaration ,hal, was filed with the Board of Supervisors when they heard this general plan amendment. The last document attached to that declaration of Mr. Way is that. specific geologic and soils report. This was in possession of the staff IL ttho time: 1.110Y Irade their recommendation to you. The staff report is at odds with this. 1 per"""?11:11I,V believe that 'the staff report was bnnetl cm ;;unto I;anc>ra l goo l ogy rt' 1-ho :I rra Hvi t S. r•cports. 'There is a 1,iuds.l:ide; buL, it':; aoL ott Oil,, shows up on the II.S.G. property or in the immediate vicinity of this property. The prior owner lins cul. y into this property, if you've looked at it, Mr.. Anderson, which exposes Llic. type of strata that runs throughout the subdivision. It's on solid sandstone. Now, the people.that I represent are not neophytes. One of the partners is knowledgeable on this subject being a registered Civil Engineer and a licensed architect. Ile has designed a very handsome project. lie does not propose to do any massive grad- ing and he needs .only to grade out the road. Each home will be developed and tailored to the individual lots. No variances are required in this subdivision, none whatever., .Now, ,the applicant has been caught in a Catch 22 and I'd like Lo get into .that just a little bit. As I said, this application was filed in Septninber, Septcmbor 12, 1.977. 11.1:; .1 straight forward-application. The-appitcrmion w.i:. cotut;lc:.l.c whoa it. vno; 1'I lt•d, Nothing further was required by the County Planning Department excepting an HIR. When there was delay on the project, my client asked why and the reason given was that the environmental section was busy, was overloaded with work and I;ei.ting out the EIR wns it.. Ile was told 11' he would pay roll. rut ou tsidr c oleo-Ii i i.- ant, Lhat would expedite the process. They paid $3,500 40 Lhc: Ctrunl;J ;iiid I',ot fill outside EIR. Thr1t was completed and circulated in Jwic. 1.1 the very :;nine lnon'.,h, ,you were ronsidcrinit Lhc (*enernl plan anlandment., my clirnt was ininwnrc 1.11:11, Lhi:: wns hcfore ,your C0nnai':.--ion. If(,. wns nnawnrr•hc:cnu:.c' lie did 11,11. 1-novivc± 1111,y opt i ifs,: notice and that'a why he wasn't here to Lail you about it when you vol,ed on I.1ty —, general plan. In fact, just two or three weeks prior to the time you were acting on this, towards the end of August of this year, he was in Supervisor Schroder"', office who was asking slim and other developers in the a*roar t.o ccmntributc t,� t.ho solution of a drainage. problem there and my client vJas snrloiisly t.nte taininl the Count.,y's, 10c1110.i4 Lo rrnl.rihua :1'',3:>,000 Ltt Mint projool_ All fit' I.hnf. Wnl.t•rhil is attached 'to this declare Lion of tiv. Way which I refer you to. The reason L sound>a little hot about this is that there's nothing that. my, client did'to delay 1072 0®02.9 • 28 november .19711'-1 this thing. Nothing whatever. It wa: delayed by the s f for the sole and'oniy reason that they knew that someplace eff in the future, they were, going to be c.,j9_ ducting a review and propose an amenftent of the general plan in the Saranap area. The point I want-to make with each of ,you is this: In 1977, in the same month that this application wn. filed, August 1077, the Stnt.e 1,ogisl:it.uro Celt voinrrllod f to act, to pass a lwx regarding the review and approv:ll of davofopi:;ent, lelotoyt :, ;r, ; that's Goverlunent Code 659110 and follow.i ng A.B.;8 Now, Mint because of the very kind of thing I'm addressing you to tonight., Projects get delayed at the `will, `at the whim of the staff. This. law was passed that says you can'tdelay a .project for more than one year. That's' the maximum time once the application is filed in proper form. It happens that this one it; dated Jclnunt;y 1, 1979, because the statute didn't become effective until January 1, 1978; but, the point is, staff knew at the time this application was filed that they were.. ; under a legislative mandate to promptly process this application. They didn't d ,' so not because it lacked merit but because they wanted to lump all of the land into open space. Now, that's not fair; that's not proper and I don't think that this Commission_ should make itself a party to that sort of dilatory treatment. Now, you're the end of the line. I£ you don't net, the subdivision is nutomatjv- ally approved as of January 1. 1979, that-'s it' You 401111 to di lNi•ovo It, that's where we are at this point. There's no public i ppo::'i t.i inn Lo t.hi::. You will hear from Mr.. Way. lie's built houses before and has;one (.1) 111111or coluil.riletJkn1 11"Vil in Orinda on:much more difficult terrain than this. I' simply suggest that unless you are not willing to follow that Legislative mandate, you ought to seriously consider approving this. It. is zoned R=110 and it doesn''t require nny vilrihTil:c::.� Why don't you take a look at it. Why don't ,you continue this -to the 19t.h. Now, I know that the subdivision section in the Planning Department that looked at looked at it in'terms of 7 to 11 units rather -.Ilan the id that are requested here. I tried to get .the staff to sit down and say all right; -let's have the normal -kind of conference that we have and thrash out the number of units. That wasn't done. Everything was put off and that's not right and I think that.i've gotten my poilll. across to you and I don't think you should be a party to it. CHAIMUN l9ALTON: Are you speaking to the 90-day continuance? IAR. SHELTON: It was sugge>ted to me by Mr. Arnold Jon=,, wl.!.h wholil I met,' tll:l1. t r might stipulate to this 90-dny continuance so that we could mecl, ill n conferenev to thrash this out so the staff could say what kind.of subdivivion they would approve in there.' You know that even though the start. is opposed to' development comes up with conditions being directed to do so by this Commission indicating how many units they would approve. I wanted to sit down with them and engage 'i1l that kind of discussion; so did my client; but, naturally, -,IC we do that, we have to have some assuance then that the staff will at least recommend to you that since this subdivision is otherwise okay, we would exempt that from our reconmlen- dation in connection with the general plan. That was taken, as I enders Land i1., by Mr. Jonas to Mr. Dehaesits and Mr. Jonas called me back rind said that Mr. Deh,nerus would not lin willing ti's ent.er into such a. commit.mont.t so, .t.tint.'; whore weir into Catch 44. Oil. tho Coll t.illn[11100, i f we (10 tha l , 1.11011 yotl wl t 1 1.1, .'or :i.iorin! itle' general plan all iendment. w i i.hou 1. hav irlgy vv011 110W 1.111:; i".. :l 0:110o should have been approved a long time ago so it, wouldn' t even be a part o tllis general plan Consideration. C01,91ISSIONER'ANDERSON: Was your client at the Board of Supervisors' hearing when the general plan.w3s referred hack to this Collllnission? MR. SHELTON: lie learned' of that hearing not. by notice except by a letter which is attached to his declaration about 10-days before hand. He did go to the Board hearing largely because of the declaration that he filed tllrre that .this matter was referred:back ;Lo:,you to Mart, out again with proper. notice. 1073 y ' COMMISSIONER ANI)El?tUN: WoIL, t t'tud ►a hit. (lit'1'iruis. I.c, hs•II,-Vo. Thvae ax:s:. n ;treat devil of publJolty aboul, this plan 'wit'nslsnrnl, hrai•it►;t ill ,July nn't Augu:,t when we hnd ocvorn.l he:ariuf;:; oil i1.. We hnsl w:,ll-1...-s:nll I,. ssl>Ls hrry a1, all those hearing,. I fail to understand why your client., a land owmer -in this area would have missed all that! Isn't that right, Mi llehaesur? £C. ;xv MR. DEHAESUS: Yes, we even had several .T.V., coverage on those hearings.: COMMISSIONER ANDER,",ON: And, it is my per:urn:►L opinioii thal. 1,11h, it: -I unaquc Ilics:t� of property that needs special handling. Again,that Is my, personal opinion. As'has been indicated earlier, we have viewed this on field trip; _vie went up ,into a portion' of your client's property and it ,just seems to me that: "tbe c.onti.nuance is nrprtlprint. here especially in light of the fact that. wo have ttoth.inf- froill tho ^i.nt'f on tlli::. matter. But,, there seemed to have bccn p l oll I.y of' no t.i ce (A' 1411'!to hon r i ng.t. hiR. SHELTON: Well, the notice was published in a legal. new::}>ape_r. I dont known what newspaper it was, probably the Morning Now:, (3a nLte, of ldarti.ne:c. My cli.ont even though they had an application on rile did not receive nny :specific w.riLt-on notice and they were unaware of the proceedings before`the` Planning Commission. Now, it's germain, Mr. Anderson, only because the informntion that: you acted 'un in terms of the stability of this_ property and ltv geology Awa.>; 'I-'►n pursunded, you will conclude to he wrong when ,you hoar it ttgain and laic.re,,Ln rrtrouiu1i ical report' respecting this property that's been on file, uince ;;optember 12, ,19,'11 and.was never even brought to your attenion. So, in`respec to the continuance, my client is happy-to stipulate to that and to the 90-day thing if he can only understand that the Pla:ulinq Staff will sit. down with him an,i ilei! ith hir► rn this subdivision: as they do on any other application where you :?i L dotal nild Ito over the map and you I.hrec:h out I,lte nuillbor ul' uuil.:: :ural V41:11, 011, s•11iulil.iola: nrL., going to be so that this -thing can then be in a form where you could approve 'it, Vi if you don't include this land in the general plan amendment;. If we ,just agree I.- the 90-day continuance,nu�tncc, yc�u're going to csm►c tali blind --th i iej hnve to be s oir;i d- ered in companion---or ,you're going to come up blind when ,you ac t, on the rener:l I. plan then that goes .trottinf, back 1,0 the Hoard of Supervlvor:., it fretr.fretapprovod and' the ball game is, over bei'ore my client has ever had a chance to get to bat. He's never been 'able to sit down and process this as subdivisions are .norma•i.l v 1wo- cessed in this County and if you tell the staff to do that ill that "90-day pot•i(141, I will reconnend to my client that lie do continue it for tho 90-days provided 1).y statute from January 1, 19'19; but, .I want Plat. kind of d tree tion I'i•ora this; L"omn►a ion to that staff otherwise it's going to limbo again all the way. Now, Mr. Way,has something to say to you. CHAIRMAN WALTON: .Well, all right; but, again I say the meri is of Ilii;; thing; arc: not really gei•main to our discussion here. I don't think that vie are going- to.make : a decision tonight. We have not been supplied by staff' with anything to make,n decision' on. I.think the only thing germain at this_ poin1. is the continuance the length of the continuance and whether there should be a cont.inunnce. MR. DOUGLAS WAY: " With all due respect, the Cact that you dor►'t. have nny inrorma t:i oii on 1,11Ls applA.cal,ic;>i eertninly in not due to our i':ull't.. Vorhnp:: you ;-hisuld 1oolt L,, the staff for h;il, Ii►[biu>at.ion. CHAIRMAN WALTON: Right, we don't have it before us at this point. MR. WAY: In regard to this application, I certainly have things I :could like to :J discuss and bring to your attention before we terminate thismatter because .I feel at this point fit would be very valuable information for ,you to ltnve In forimi lating any decision on `this proposed general plan amo,►citt►eut. CHAIMIAN WALT0 : Again, my comment to you is that I don't think we're going to he voting on that matter tonight. The only vote tonight wou continuance and I W6U7129 1074 'I3 Novomboi- 19 assume rrty fellow commissioners agree with that, is that corect? (Several Conuni..s lonersanswered that they were in agreement). Novi, if you want to talk about the contiI?uanee, that's ;?re: but. rr+, you will have your chance to discuss on the date we colitAillio i t. at; far as the �Jt merits of the project itself. MR. SHELTON: Mr. Chairman, my recommendation to my client is to agree to that 90 day statutory extension requesting this Commission to direct the staff to deal -with the subdivision during that 90-day period so that ,comes up at the same time in proper form. AIR. DEHAESUS: Mr. Chairman, I think this is precisely what I :aid at the out,sot of this hearing; that if the applicant would ngree to the:90-day inten;;:ion, w1urt.0 he requests will be done. You have to make n battle policy dft,-tslon in Hie frnertl. 1).1tu i fot' l,ttls tire^:i rash] that has to deal ti.ith this property. . This is a difficult- p:iere o!' property re- gardless of what my good friend Ur. Shelt6n says. It has some.slide problems. They have even been'talking about some 20-ft: , retainlnl; vrcri.I n to bo rah l t, 1.0 -1.1111,r buildings in there and that kind of thing. They will have a full fledged hearing on the general:plan for Saranap on January" 301t,h and 'if you with, you can also schedule this subdivision map for public hear- ing and.the staff will provide a recommendation to you at that hearing. 1would also like to point out that A,i?. 884 tvnt: not: a i mrd at. 0.1 1. 1 oc;tl E;rwet't}-- ment does. I heard more things about t.ha t bill ^:a it t 011 i gh t me and. frankly, a bit amusing; but, 884 lead more to do wit.li State agencies, rathor than with local goverlurient. Again, sometimes it's amusing to me what we hear at these public hearings ,as to what supposedly is going on in the minds of the staff! Anyway, ,the applicant has to agree to this 90-day extension. If he Saes not. then.you have to net before the end of the year :and If Ontlit! slit,; ��:a ;��, i roi­1r!rootlit' that the application be denied. There are certain delays thtit took place herr_ ana there are some good reasons for that. That's my statement to you on this matter. CHAIRMAN WALTON: Thank you, Ah•. Dehaesus. Before we go any 'further, I would liko to. hear from the Commission what it wishes. Do you wish to hear testimotay vita" regard to the 'merits of this application or do you wish to hear testimony with regard to.the continuance. COMMISSIONER i3ROMBACHER: Mr. Chairman, ,may I make a motion? CHAIRMAN WALTON:. Yes. Upon motion ol`Coihsrl:aloiiel' by Corural:;ido!w-r Anlvrsr,t, i iuoved that the, public hearing oil SubdIvIulun V51%7, bo CONTINUED 6u the: 11100tAtil." ol'. February 6, 1979. COMMISSIONER MILANO: Mr. Chairmani I'm agreeable to the 90-day extension; but, i.t isn't going to,-accomplish a thing unless we give some direction to the staff as to what's going to happen in this 90-days. I think the staff should make time' available to this applicant and boil this thing down to'sumething workable. '. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Ithink Mr. Dehaesus said that's what they are going to do and I think it's `implicit-in the motion. COMMISSIONER BRU4BACHER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I made my motion on the basis that I thought both parties said they wanted the .90-days to work on this. That's the in- 1075 000229 f tent of my motion. c ^ CHAIHtatAN WAL'lON: Okay, I have the feeling of what they Collu;u;:oioll is thinking. 1 ` will ask the applicant if he wishes to make any further statements? Oz ?AR. SHELTON: Yes. The 90-day extension is agreeable to us so long as we call normally process this subdivision with the staff during- that period so this all comes back to you'_done at the end of the 90-days. CHAIRMAN WALTON: All right.. Is there anyone else. in the audience who would like. to make comment on this continuance? MR. PETER. UNDA.. 2609 Olympic Boulevard, Walnut Creek, Cali.l'nrnin; I'm wi t.h tho Sun Valley Improvement Assooiat.ion. I was at your Auguol. :'titii woofing :in ttiue•u .,4 ing this property. . Our improvement association is against, the expansion of ing.on.hillside areas. ' We are in agreement with this Commission's recommendation for open.space in this area. You are not just talking about this one isolated parcel of •land. You' are talking about a whole specific area with two different subdivsion devel.opinonts. The-nre:, he has reall doesn't. bsvo nli.de problem::; but, lust br,l.ow i m, Wier i:; 8,11de areas,. slnml; .17-ca)1nd oil l:hr_ other ide of It., there are :d tilf. .1vo.1111c;�,sc�rdanl - .Lu ,your geological report. The thing we're concerned with is the' fact that this: l�a'nd.is-very,-very, •steep and it exceeds the percentages i:hatyour'staff has �6i�bmmended.. They,recommended nothing; over '10,51. The other poi;tt. i:, that we a terrific amoiunt of water that. is run-off water from th:i: hilb-zide and tvi t.h Hit' cutting into the hill fcwr homosit:os and the mads, .i:1,':: t•e>:�i'l� t;�,in�T t.�� � r :►tti havoc. You are having that tight, now hi I.he ::eranap arein; bul., 1 Wollid 111tt_1.b4 applicant to know that vie are in opposition to the development as such with 14 homes. We would go along with open space of 1 home per 5 acres of land or some- thing like that; but, .anything more, we wouldn't be able to absorb`it.- Thank yuu. MR. DON GIDEON, 24311 Olympic Boulevard, Walnut, Creek. Calif.- T'm n. direcl,ur n!' the Sun Valley Aasocintion and I concur wltii Mr. Und:•i, :100,`%. . '1'linnls ,you. tall. HARDY MILLER, 21.6 Onk Knoll Loop, Wal nut Creels, Calif. -This land is a vet;r steep and visible hillside. The R-6 advisory commi#.tee still does not favor W;': subdivision.' We 'support the proposed general plan amendment. No-one else appeared to speak in opposition. MR. WAY re-appeared-to speak in rebuttal. Lo the stnt.eine11L.. mado. 1 t.':: `Vii; y di,1'11 cult for me to address those questions without getting intu 'Life busies of the. tyro= posed general'plan amendment, which refers back to the general geology of the area., Basically, to summarize and explain to the Sun Valley Association, the site tl ,founded on a very massive sandstone formation; so, although it-, is n steep sl U, and exceeds thc� County ibrmuln---llnwcvrr,t.hat. 1:1 hared, cn' if: 11,'.: b.'10Yii eu; nnv treological. Cormul:ii or ca;l.il.in:;---bu1. Lhc fae:t i::, I'llorr `i.: !I formation since vonlc of Wie weathered rot,-I( up I.hore ii;Jies;etea !•lial. :ung e:en:::Idor- ing the geology of' -the nits and the soundnet-ul of 1,ie, of La,` i L':: vrry AnbTe l'ov building pads. In regards to the'run-off water, every effort has been done to work with the County, t Supervisor Schroder in resolving this flooding problem Ithat exists at, Tice and Olympic every`ieinter The owners have suggested that we pay money and contribctc to the improvement of the culvert that County is proposing to connect that intor- section with Las .Trampa s CvoeR to resolve the fluocii{►t; hrob"I.rnt. I hope at this point that, we do make some arrangements with the staff so we can resolve this situation with this subdivision. Thank you. ' 22 1076 CHAIINAN WUTON: We 1mva a notion an apse (Jour LhaL this wnUcr be continued Vol- 90-days, to Foprunry 6, 1979. And, if I'm not misLakon, narr is diroKed W work wi Lh Lho appi ivanh ooLo work on! their differenees. TThatis the motion no I undory0nd !! . Aro ilyro mraws my inLerpraLatian? (No coumpuLs from the Commissio"ors). old A roll-call vote was taken; following is the Commission's recorded vote: AYES: Commissioners - Brombacher, Anderson, Milano, Compaglia, Young, Walton. NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - Carolyn D. Phillips. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. Motion carried. 000229 SUBDIVISION 5167 - R & W Partnership I. INTRODUCTION SUBDIVISION 5187: (Owner: R & W Partnership) (Engineer: D.M.T. Way & Associ- ates) A request for approval of a tentative map to subd vide 11.25 acres into 14 lots in a Single Family Residential District (R-20). 'Subject property is located on the south side of King Drive, approximately 650 feet southeast of West Newell Avenue, in the Walnut Creek/Lafayette area. (CT 3410) (Parcel No. 238-o4o-03) 11. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Existing Zoning: Single Family Residential District R-20. B. General Plan Designation: Saranap General Plan Amendment approved by the Planning Commission January 30, 1979 - Low density, single family residential 0-1 DU/AC. C. Existing & Proposed Land Use: Undeveloped hillside site with trees and undergrowth. Proposes development for single family residences on 14 lots. D. Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: Residential development to the north with R-10 zoning. Some vacant lots on King Drive. To the east are vacant lands with R-10 zoning. To the west is recently approved minor subdivision of 4 parcels on 19 acres with R-20 zoning. To the south contiguous with the property is the City of Walnut Creek and the Rossmoor development having residential units at the ridge overlooking the subject site. Golden Rain Road borders a portion of the south boundary and is part of the Rossmoor development. E. E. I.R. -Status: An environmental impact report has been prepared for this proposal. 111. SITE DESCRIPTION & DEVELOPMENT A steep northfacing hillside with an average slope of 52% and minimum natural slope of 40% with elevations ranging from 275 to 525 feet. There are smaller north-south downslope ridges and gullies. Tree and brush growth extend across the entire site. This is a proposal to subdivide 11.25 acres into 14 lots ranging in size from 20,000 to 47,300 sq. ft. Access is from King Drive by the extension of a cul- de-sac street approximately 1,000 feet along the face of the slope with a grade of about 10%. Retaining walls are utilized for the proposed road to minimize grading, with a retaining wall adjacent to Lot 2 having a height of 10 feet. Subdivision 5187 Page 2 Lot slopes at the building site locations are as follows: Approximate Percent Lot No. of Lot Slope 1 45 2 45 3 35 4 50 5 60 6 50 7 60 86o 9 50 10 50 11 50 12 70 13 70 14 60 Schematic drawings submitted with the tentative map show probably building locations with setback variances indicated, and a typical cross-section of lot development which has possible variances for building height of 3-story residences with parking at the first floor level. Driveway and garages are shown at street level . The geologic report for the site concludes that the property is suitable for development. The report further states that the closest potentially active fault is approximately one mile east of the site and there is no indication of the presence of any active fault traces across the property. The prelimi- nary grading plan shows that the proposed access road, Rubio Way, follows an existing trail area with cut and fill minimized by the use of retaining walls. Grading, includes cuts to 15 feet and fill 4 to 8 feet for the road. The applicant has indicated that building foundations will be of a type requiring little or no grading with possible use of pole construction. With the excep- tion of trees removed for road construction, trees will be preserved wherever practical. IV. DRAINAGE There are no adequate drainage facilities in the area of the proposed subdi- vision. The Public Works Department has recommended that the subdivider be required to collect all storm water runoff originating with the subdivision and convey it in an adequate drainage facility to Las Trampas Creek. Addi- tional development such as this proposal which does not provide for adequate drainage facilities will increase the flood probability which presently con- centrates at Olympic and Tice Valley Boulevards. The area is designated Drainage Area 15-A consisting of approximately 305 acres and drains from west to east without any natural watercourse except Las Trampas Creek at the east end of the watershed. Every two or three years homes in the vicinity of Tice Valley Boulevard, Panoramic Way, Alder Avenue and Willow Avenue are inundated to various degrees, and furnaces, foundations and other improvements are damaged by storm waters. 000229 Subdivision 5187 Page 3 On July 11 , 1978, the Board of Supervisors adopted a policy concerning the drainage requirements inthis vicinity of strict adherence, without excep- tions, to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance regarding drainage. This policy will remain in effect until an assessment district is formed or other suitable method of funding is provided to ensure the installation of the necessary drainage facilities. Drainage plans have been proposed several times in the past, but because runoff has to be taken the full length of the watershed to Las Trampas Creek, the estimated construction costs have been in excess of $1 .5 million. As a result, there has been no local support for additional assessments. The Public Works Department has proposed a drainage fee ordinance of around $4,700 per acre for the area, which would provide a third of the cost. At the present time, there appears no possibility of additional funding for this solution. Public Works has further prepared a minimum cost drainage system that would allow most of the area to develop while meeting the ordinance requirements for drainage at an estimated cost of $400,000. It is likely that individual developments cannot support the cost of this system but it appears that a sufficient amount of land remains undeveloped that they could collectively install the needed drainage system. U. PLANNING The Planning Commission, on January 30, 1979, approved a General Plan Amendment for Saranap. The area of this subject site was designated low density, single family residential,0 to 1 dwelling units per acre. The development as proposed by the tentative map of 1.4 units per acre is not consistent with this designa- tion. The 1975 Safety Element of the General Plan considers a number of physical hazards including geologic hazards. Geologic hazards arise mainly from unsta- ble hillside slopes and areas are mapped according to the presence of landslide deposits and slope steepness. No landslide deposits exist on the site and while the site does fall into a slope steepness category of 30% and over, the geologic structure is generally favorable from the standpoint of slope stabil- ity. If the Slope Density Combining Ordinance initiated by the Orinda Planning Commission ,and recently approved by the Board of Supervisors were applied to the property, approximately 3 lots would be permitted on the site. A. Walnut Creek The property is presently within the sphere of influence of the City of Walnut Creek. The City's 1971 General Plan designates the upper two-thirds of the site for a minimum of one dwelling unit per acre in an Open Space category. The lower one-third of the site is shown for 1-2.5 residential units per acre. No Open Space was provided at the ridge area with the Rossmoor development shown on the City's General Plan as high density 4-7 residential units per acre. The City's plan indicates a proposed riding and.hiking trail through the area at the upper portion of the site. This trail is also proposed by the R-8 Park and Recreation District although not part of the County's Recreation Element. 0002.21) Subdivision 5187 Page 4 B. Lafayette The subject site and adjacent area is proposed for annexation to the City of Lafayette and will be considered by the City on February 26, 1979, with the result that the annexation could be denied, referred for vote by people in the area, or annexed to the City of Lafayette. If annexed, the sphere of influence in the area would be modified. The City General Plan provides for open space allowing ,for very low density residential at the site and the City's Slope Density Ord!-ance would be applied. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUAAIARY Significant environmental impacts posed by the project and potential mitigation measures are summarized below: 1. General Plan: The project is in conflict with the draft Saranap General Plan amendment. The existing General Plan for this area shows single family low density; the proposed amendment shows the steeper portion of the hillside (i.e. , two-thirds of the project site) as Open Space as does the` General Plan of the City of Walnut Creek. This northfacing hillside is the only remaining open land of significance in the Saranap area. Mitigation: . No mitigation measures suggested. A redesign of the project would be the best feasible method to minimize most significant impacts. The redesign would include reducing the number of lots to a total of 4-5 one-acre lots. Redesign of the project would include a reduction of Rubio Way. to 16 feet in width with wider parking bays at selected spots. If the number of lots served by Rubio Way were to be reduced, then the street width could likewise be diminished, thus eliminating much of the grading and,lowering the height of retaining walls. 2. Drainage: The already 'inadequate drainage system at. the Olympic Boulevard- Tice Valley Boulevard intersection would be adversely impacted by the current design of the project: as described in the tentative map, water from tIW hillside would be conveyed into the drainage ditch on the south side of Olympic Boulevard. Flooding, both at the Olympic Boulevard-Tice Valley Boulevard intersection and the Dewing Park neighborhood can be expected to increase due, to more impervious surface area. Mitigation: Drainage improvements necessary to eliminate flooding prob- lems include provision of outfalls to Las Trampas Creek (about 1/2 mile north of Olympic Boulevard) . This would be costly and since drainage is an existing problem and not one created by Subdivision 5187, it is not realistic to expect the developer of this subject property to bear the total cost of such improvements. However, any approval of this applica- tion should be contingent upon appropriate participation of the developer on off-site drainage improvements. 000229 Subdivision 5187 Page 3. Aesthetics and Grading: The proposed lrading and road cuts would not hlrnd with existing topography. As this hillside is underlain by hard sandstone, any steep high-cut slopes resulting from grading (either from building site preparation or road cuts) would be difficult to revegetate. The cuts would remain as highly visible scars on the hillside. Visual quality on the site would also be impaired by home construction. The presently open slope has high scenic value as a natural area providing visual relief from the dense urban area which surrounds it. The project would be highly visible from residences in the Saranap Valley as well as from Olympic Boulevard and State Route 24, which is on the State Master Plan for inclusion in the California Scenic Highway System. Mitigation: The applicants propose several measures which would reducc some of the aesthetic impacts. These include t`aundatiuns Which require little or no grading and the retention of mature native vegetation. According to the applicants, with the exception of trees removed for road construction site plans will seek to preserve trees wherever practical. 4. Traffic and Circulation: The project plans include the establishment of a roadway which will not meet the County's minimum width requirements. In addition to this, the tentative map indicates an intersection design which would offer limited sight distance in some directions. Taken together, these two features could cause a relatively high accident rate. Besides this impact, roads which do not meet minimum County standards will not be maintained by the County. Such roads will require private maintenance. Mitigation: Due to its narrow width, the proposed roadway will require either a variance for County maintenance or private maintenance. Since the County Department of Public Works will not endorse County acceptance for maintenance, private maintenance would probably be necessary. _ The lack of sight distance at the planned intersection could be be alleviated by a reflective device. Such a device would reveal otherwise hidden on-coming traffic. Vil. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS & DENSITY Recent action by the Planning Commission designates the site for 0-1 residen- tial units per acre, allowing for a maximum of 11 units on the 11+ acre site. Site elevations range from 275 feet at King Drive to 525 feet near Golden Rain Road, a-difference of 250 feet in approximately 450-foot distance. Building sites are restricted because of steep slopes up to 70%, although some portions of the site can provide building sites if buildings are designed related to topography. The General Plan as well as the environmental impact report for this proposal expresses concern that the scenic and visual quality of the area will be impaired by the development of the tree-covered hillside area and the steep slopes of the site warrant a lower density than that proposed. Subdivision 5187 Page 6 VIII CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION The proposal is not consistent with the General Plan. Staff recommends the tentative map for Subdivision 5187 be denied or that a revised map be submit- ted with a reduction of not more than 6 lots, providing for two l+- acre lots near King Drive and four 2.5+- acre lots at the steep upper portion of the site and the proposed cul-de-sac street be reduced in length. Under State Law (AB 884) this application has a 90-day extension from ,'anuary 1 , 1979. It is required that the matter be acted on within the 90 days. BT:lsw 2-1-79 ©002-2.9 I I:z t No A hu 1Z p 0 70, SIP cj ............. sx) .4i I 301 ZL //. �' 't�5% / ��..t� w�, �. ' 14 6MO ETNq�� J-L ', ytn ts rz- )D > Ar -4 TR T--rFM-TATIVf:- MAr r-WI310 WN M"or. 13UbVIVIGION� D . M . T . WAY & ASSOCIATES 5"DOV/1510,1 M0 9/401, 77�-8709 1053 A 13ROADWAY SAN I,RANCISC0 : CA. 9.1133 11'14- I A R C H I T E C T U H E ENGINEERING PLANNING _—~-•• -,c V , 1 .10 "' 11 ^ r - --f-_-�; Site i R� °_.="tib t�i�-��f-"1.�. ,'.`Y.�♦,�1�.%f'1�`^ "�. T�FICALPZOADu5ECT1O-� `-��' -'"'o, xlsTir,�( LP_nD_ d2JRIfTAKOLO rWH Gp9 G G�oNTGYTO .7v HG. �GHGFiOI•i �wnlr�uT c+cr� G. OCITo A��BL'G ' - /A GCKTG LGL C�JyTO )V/V"UT GREPA- -5 AG- MnTTGJt 1.10 Al !-ZO _+17':-IfYq GT• GHETLKJ[ �-R:lblo •� GP'vG eJCC /(!fi• �Y���T�'�CL LhnD GrR. +; NfrK�NIJT CK`=Y - ii ,ar�'� - �-•KhJ�TGCMf Lat Mfr% k oWME-�`7��•--. -_ � ' 5 s - --J4 32. / ,tiy .43.700 - � •y� _._ . --. `,BI SprE �. '- 06 sp cl"r ` �\ �•' gip.- / ) -- f oQ' �a _� .-��y` - �� � POC KG2'�S.00n`At4• I g r _ – ,.' ,- .,0� -_ �• � - - �^f�`'�\� ���` �-- •�\�� SSS --. .^" vim �,J•, /. yy�ao '�` _ /J\ \���"--1— sod f�—•!��1�� ----._�92 1 a'Zs w 'IG EL 'J.:5L6.37' kA, ' /Cp4jM00J� - c3cCPBh'KNN fo4N0/JrCN L4 r i i r"• !+r ii ma yt00 rys o/ 7 J r, `j 1 "fid• 1 �..St- sir'.21 �• � �_,....�� k .. � i��4,S ` � O ...: �i4r. ..yfr ya � frCx#lt`.: 1.6 -.. is• 1 :: ♦ 7 We Creek i SITE 2.5 R ,� _ 't r � nd ,. ,., . .AC L •�\ �ill 9� .r. C7. 4 o r� I [Yle9:: Bncfwn� may . _ rt 32 ENVIRONN ENTAL-IMPACT REPORT MMT V AY a ASSOCIATES � [ ce1 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary I I. Introduction Discussion 4 A. Project Description 4 B. Environmental Inventory 4 1. Physical Description 4 2. Existing Use and Surrounding Area 5 3. Utilities and Community Facilties 8 4. Circulation 9 S. Plans, Ordinances and Policies 11 6. Soils and Geology 13 7. Hydrology and Water Quality is S. Vegetation and Wildlife 19 9. Recreation and Open Space 20 10. Socioeconomic Considerations 22 11. Air Quality and Noise 23 12. Historical and Archaeological Aspects 23 13. Energy 25 II. Environmental Impact Analysis 26 A. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action 26 B. Any Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be 30 Avoided if this Proposal is Implemented C. Mitigating Measures Proposed to Minimize the Impact 30 D. Alternatives to the Proposed Action 33 E. Growth-Inducing Impact of the Proposed Action 33 F. Organizations and Persons Consulted 34 G. Persons and Firms Involved in Preparation of Report 35 H. Bibliography J6 III. Appendices 38 . 578001.1 SUMMARY Under Subdivision 5187, the applicant, Mr Way and Associates seeks to divide 11.25 acres into 14 residential lots averaging 32,300 square feet (ranging from 20,200 square feet to 47,300 square feet). The pro- posed project would be located on a steep, north-facing hillside on the south side of King Drive approximately 300 feet,.east of El Dorado Road on unincorporated land in the Walnut Creek area. Adjoining the property on the south is Rossmoor within the City of Walnut Creek. Ad- joining the site to the east (also on the north-facing hillside) is another pending major subdivision proposal (Subdivision 5199) for 23 lots on 13 acres. The tentative subdivision map calls for the creation of a subdivision that meets the standard lot size requirements of the prevailing R-20 zoning district (minimum lots size 20,000 square feet). The proposed project is also consistent with the existing Contra Costa County General Plan, which designates the site single family residential, low density (0-3 dwelling units per net acre). The net density proposed by the applicant is 0.74 dwelling units per net acres. The applicant's plan is in direct conflict with the pending draft Saranap General Plan amendment. The pending land use designation is single family residential - Country Estates (minimum parcel site: 1 acre) at the foot of the hill (below elevation of approximately 300 feet) and open space for the steep, upper portion of the hillside. The project site is currently undeveloped, generally heavily wooded in the gullies and on the lower two-thirds of the slope grading into a mixed oak savannah (with interspersed grassy areas towards the ridgetop). This EIR recognizes several environmental impacts that are likely to occur from development of the project. Several mitigation measures are also suggested. The following are the significant impacts associated with the project as proposed and the major corresponding mitigation measures. Significant Impacts of this Project Proposal: 1. General Plan. The project is in conflict with the draft Saranap General Plan amend- ment. The existing General Plan for this area shows single family low density; the proposed amendment shows the steeper portion of the hillside (i.e., two-thirds of the project site) as open space as does the General Plan of the City of Walnut Creek. This north- facing hillside is the only remaining open land of significance in the Saranap area. 2. Drainage. The already inadequate drainage system at the Olympic Boulevard - Tice Valley Boulevard intersection would be adversely impacted by the current design of the project: as described in the tentative map, water from the hillside would be conveyed into the drainage ditch on the south side of Olympic Boulevard. Flooding, both at 0W I 578001-1 • the Olympic Boulevard - Tice Valley Boulevard intersection and in the Dewing Park neighborhood can be expected to increase due to more impervious surface area. 3. Aesthetics and Grading. a. The proposed grading and road cuts would not blend with exist- ing topography. As this hillside is underlain by hard sand- stone, any steep high-cut slopes resulting from grading (either from building site preparation or road cuts) would be difficult to revegetate. The cuts would remain as highly visible scars on the hillside. b. Visual quality on the site would also be impaired by home con- struction. The presently open slope has high scenic value as a natural area, providing visual relief from the dense urban 'area which surrounds it. Tlie project would be highly visible from residences in the Saranap valley as well as from Olympic Boulevard and State Route 24, which is on the State Master Plan for inclusion in the California Scenic Highway System. 4. Traffic and Circulation. The project plans include the establishment of a roadway which will not meet the county's minimum width requirements. In addition to this, the tentative map indicates an intersection design which would offer limited sight distance in some directions. Taken together, these two features could cause a relatively high accident rate. Besides this impact, roads which do not meet minimum county standards will not be maintained by the county. Such roads will require pri- vate maintenance. Major Mitigation Measures (Relative to Preceeding Impact Summary): 1. General Plan. No mitigation measures suggested. A redesign of the project would be the best feasible method to minimize most significant impacts. The redesign would include reducing the number of lots to a total of 4-5 one acre lots. Redesign of the project would include a re- duction of Rubio Way to 16 feet in width with wider parking bays at selected spots. If the number of lots served by Rubio Way were to be reduced, then the street width could likewise be diminished thus eliminating much of the grading and lowering the height of retaining walls. 2. Drainage. Drainage improvements necessary to eliminate flooding problems in- clude provision of outfalls to Las Trampas Creek (about 1/2 mile north of Olympic Boulevard). This would be costly and, since 2 - 578001-1 • 4 drainage is an existing problem and not one created by Subdivision 5187, it is not realistic to expect the developer of this subject property to bear the total cost of such improvements. However, any approval of this application should be contingent upon appropriate participation of the developer on off-site drainage improvements. 3. Aesthetics and Grading. a. The applicants propose several measures which would reduce some of the aesthetic impacts. These include foundations which re- quire little or no grading and the retention of mature native vegetation. b. According to the applicant, with the exception of trees removed for road construction, site plans will seek to preserve trees wherever practical. 4. Traffic and Circulation. Due to its narrow width, the proposed roadway will require either a variance for county maintenance or private maintenance. Since the county Department of Public Works will not endorse county acceptance for maintenance, private maintenance would probably be necessary. The lack of sight distance at the planned intersection could be alleviated by the installation of a reflective device. Such a de- vice would reveal otherwise hidden on-coming traffic. - 3 - 578001-1 I. INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSION A. Project Description 1. Location: The property lies directly south of King Drive, within the Walnut Creek Sphere of Influence. Access onto the property is by King Drive which is County maintained only to its intersection with E1 Dorado Road, some 300 feet northwest of the property. Beyond this intersection eastward as it abuts the property, King Drive becomes an unimproved dirt road. (See Project Boundaries, Figure 2). The project site lies in Census Tract 3410 and is identified by the County Assessor's Office as parcel number 238-040-003. 2. Project Sponsor Objectives: The applicant's expressed pur- pose for this application is to subdivide the property into 14 lots and construct an equal number of custom designed, single family homes. 3. Project Technical Description: Under subdivision application 5187, the applicants, Dhfl Way and Associates, are requesting approval to subdivide approximately 11.25 acres into 14 resi- dential lots. The lots would range from 20,200 square feet to 47,300 square feet and average 32,300 square feet in area. Two variances from the standard minimum lot size requirements of 120' width and 120' depth accompany this request: Lot r5 to have an average width of 89' and a maximum depth of 1181. See site plan, figure 2 for reference. The applicants propose to construct King Drive as a 24 feet wide paved street from E1 Dorado Road through the subdivision. This proposed width is substandard for a County maintained road (minimum 32 feet requirement) and would require a vari- ance from the Planning Commission to be accepted for County maintenance. Access to proposed lots 3 to 14 would be pro- vided by Rubio Way, which would intersect King Drive at the northeastern property boundary. Rubio Way, as proposed, is to possess 24 feet of pavement within a 28 feet wide right- of-way and is therefore substandard for County purposes; it too would either require a variance or have to be privately maintained. Preliminary discussion with the Land Development Division of the Department of Public Works indicates that it is unlikely that their Division would recommend County acceptance, for maintenance purposes, of any roads possessing a 24 feet width of paving (Tunison, 1978). B. Environmental Inventory of Region 1. Physical Description a. Topography: A steep, north-facing hillside ranges in 4 - 0002129 •11, ,....•r^/` .!'�,\ •\ - �' j S ��` f -I +f/;tom I�"��� Av.n„-,,. �''��' '�.••l• 7 lift ,. .:i” �. so 11 le •'` •` .` ci � t � +, it �� • ,,4� r 't ?r s r \l ,• c.• 'OPUS �.• `,�`� '�---.�.,r.�� � 1� � \tib tai\ rte./-•`r� 'j 20M FIGURE 4 �M fe* SUB 5187 BflUNDAR1ES jnw cmw ,Qb at 201W ()009" 79 _ 6 - 578001-1 elevation from 250 feet to 545 feet above sea level:- The property contains a number of north-south trending ridges and gullies. Some lots possess more than 150 feet of relief. .b. Slope: The maximum slope approaches- 1/2:1; the minimum natural slope averages 40 percent. The average slope is 52 percent. c. Climate: The regional is Inland Mediterranean type. d. Viewshed: From the project site, looking north, the Saranap valley, with fairly heavy residential development, occupies the foreground, while Route 24 and opposing slopes can be seen in the background. To the northeast, one can see downtown Walnut Creek; Mt. Diablo can be seen almost due east. e. General Appearance: A steep hillside, generally heavily wooded in the gullies and on the lower two-thirds of the slope, grading into a mixed oak savannah (inter- spersed grassy areas) approaching the ridgetdp. 2. Existing Use and Surrounding Area a. Present Use: The site is undeveloped, used by hikers in general and by motorcyclists in part. b. Nearby Land Use: To the north, the Saranap residential area: an older, largely developed medium density single family area. Rossmoor occupies the ridgetop to the south. To the west and northwest, the property is bordered by large lot homes (approximately 3/4 acre/unit). The pro- perty directly east - also on the north-facing Hillside is presently undeveloped open land; however, there is a pending major subdivision proposal (Subdivision 5199) there for 23 lots on 13 acres. The Contra Costa County Planning Department will require an EIR on this sub- division. c. Approximate Parcel Size in Area: Homes to the northwest are situated on approximately 3/4 acre (R-20 minimum requirement). Due west of the property is 19.56 acre parcel. To the east is a 13 acre parcel. The high den- sity (condominiums) Rossmoor development borders the site on the south. d. Compatibility with Surrounding Parcel Sizes and Land Uses: The applicant proposes parcels which would all meet the 20,000 square foot minimum for the existing R-20 zoning. However, residential development of this hillside - the only remaining open land of significance in the Saranap area and an important physical boundary between Rossmoor - S - 578001-1 • and Saranap - may not be an appropriate land use in this community, since it would reduce the visual and recreational amenities of this de facto open space. Development of this slope conflicts with and would eliminate the present re- creational use now occuring on the site as well as future recreational use now being planned for the site (the Las Trampas Ridge trail). 3. Utilities and Community Facilities a. Sewers: This site is within the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District boundaries and sewers have been planned for this area. A public sewer would be extended to each parcel to provide gravity service. b. Water: The site is within the East Bay Municipal Utility District. Water service is available for all lots with street grades no higher than 450' elevation. However, lots 7-14 with house pads above elevation 450' would be subjected to low pressure; private pneumatic pressure systems are re- commended for such lots. c. Electricity and Gas: Pacific Gas and Electric Company would serve the development. Public utility easements to be de- termined by P.G.$E. would be required for the electric dis- tribution system. d. Telephone: Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company would serve the development. The conditions of service would be similiar to those for the electrical distribution system. e. Schools•: Students- would attend'Montecito Elementary School and Fairview Intermediate School in the Lafayette School District. The site is also within Acalanes Union High School District (Del Valle High School). There is adequate capacity to accommodate any students generated by this project. f. Police: Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department would provide service from their main office in Martinez (approx- imately 13 miles north). The site is within patrol beat #12. g. Fire: Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District would provide service. Nearest stations are station #3 at Whyte Park Avenue and Boulevard Way 0.6 miles northeast of the site, Station #15 on Mt. Diablo Boulevard in Lafayette 1.9 miles northwest of the site and Station #1 on Civic Drive in downtown Walnut Creek 2 miles northeast of the site. The Fire District has expressed only one concern about the proposed project: they have a requirement specifying • 20' of unrestricted width for engine turn_around. This would apply to Rubio Way as well as King Drive. - 8 - N. Z sun wi Yom' ...n. « r N-,-Cg ooeiv 8 �r r �O r w ' i a 3w LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES I»73 sky Sari urcl•,salt•M. ltd••,G 9:211 21302►•ta[id•r 3b•d.Suitu Sol 6 201, DlwwW Nr,G 917" 34 a•rt 91rth 9trwt,Sm Su-Mm.G 92101 920►ria Aw , Red wd City.G 94063- FIGURE 2 _ SITE PLAN SUBDMSION 5187 2� • Project: Scala: Date: :ginaer/Geologist: Drafting by: BUILDING SITE 1 LOT AREA(S.FJ \` 2,2 .. �'''I •• KOO DMVE '• 2 400 sre RUB)o I .. 2 -. eo 13 b II 12 47,300 p s '_�••��' 525 r 7 _ n 4�, 300 `citcr'"'r t`t ij r l 1 lsr�* t � \.... 1 { c �+► ` `amu � _^ .-�--�, ,•_ � ,, � =~ --�.:; 1V, ° 2000FIGURE I soaN fQ� SUB 5187 BOUNDARIES d 000279 _ 6 578001-1 . • h. Hospitals: Hospitals in-the area include John Muir Memorial Hospital, Walnut Creek (3.5 miles northest); Kaiser-Per- manente Medical Center, Walnut Creek (2 miles northeast) and Contra Costa County Hospital in Martinez. i. Solid Waste Disposal: The site is served by Valley Dis- posal Service. j. Public Transit: None on Olympic Boulevard. The nearest (1.5 miles northeast of the site) A.C. Transit bus stop is at North California and Mt. Diablo Boulevards, which provides service to the Walnut Creek BART station, 3 miles distant from the site. k. Parks and Recreation: County Service Area R-8 has pur- chased 12 acres east of Rossmoor Parkway for future de- velopment as a community park, .this is approximately 0.75 miles southeast of the site. Existing Walnut Creek community parks are Rudgear Park, approximately 3.5 miles east and Larkey Park, 3.5 miles north of the property. 1. _ Flood Control District: The site is in Walnut Creek Major Watershed Zone 3-B; and within Storm Drainage Planning Area 15. (See Flood Control Zone and Plans under Hydrology and Water Quality). m. Nearest Commercial Facilities: The Commercial area closest to the subject area is along Tice Valley Boulevard, approx- imately one mile southeast. Downtown Walnut Creek is 2 miles northeast. 4. :. Circulation a. Immediate Access: As proposed, access to lots 3 to 14 will be from Rubio Way, connections with King Drive at the north- eastern corner of the property. Neither Rubio Way nor King Drive would meet County standards as shown on the tentative 'map; either they will require variances or have to be pri- vately maintained. King Drive joins E1 Dorado Road approxi- mately 300 feet northwest of the down-slope corner of the property, from which point on (the intersection it is County maintained. Access to Olympic Boulevard is via Newell Court. b. Nearby Arterial: Olympic Boulevard passes 1900 feet north of the property. There is adequate capacity to accommodate traffic generated by this project (Brooks, 1978). c. Highways: I-630 1.3 miles east. Route 24, 1.5 miles north approximately. 00Q',?nq _ 9 - 578001-1 d. Traffi� on ounts: The most recent countOlympic Boule- vard by the County Public Works Department were taken west and east of the project site. The results of these counts were as follows: TABLE 1 Location: 1000' E of Pleasant 300, W of Hill Road Newell Avenue Date: 7/5/77 12/12/77 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 10,712 (ADT) 12,118 Peak Hour Peak Hour (11 - 12 a.m.) 724 (10 - 11 a.m.) 990 (5 - 6 p.m.) 996 (2:45 - 3:45 p.m.) 1,094 If approved, the project would generate appro:amately 140 vehicular trips per day, and 17 peak hour trips.* The pro- ject would therefore increase local traffic by less than 2%. *These estimates are based on factors recommended by the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, 1975, where ADT=10 trips per dwelling unit and Peaking Factor= 12%of ADT (Average Daily Traffic). e. Accidents: On Olympic Boulevard between Pleasant Hill Road (2100' west of the project accessway) and Newell Avenue (4600' east of the project accessway): January - TABLE 2 February 1978 Time Location Damage Night Olympic/Newell Court Personal injury Day Olympic/Bridgefield Property damage Day 150' E of Tice Valley Boulevard Property damage Day 50' W of Alder Avenue Property damage In 1977, there were 6 daylight accidents involving personal injury and 8 daylight accidents involving property damage on Olympic Boulevard. (County Public Works Department). This is not con- sidered to be a dangerous arterial. f. Major Roads Plan: Olympic Boulevard is ultimately to be widened from its present 2 lanes to 4 lanes. However, due to a slower growth rate than originally anticipated, it is unlikely that this will occur before 1990. 578001-1 5. Plans, Ordinances and Policies a. General Plan of Contra Costa County i. Land Use: The 1966 Lafayette Area General Plan de- signates the site as suitable for'low density single family residential (0-3 dw`ellhhg units'per acre).' •The pending draft Saranap General Plan Amendment proposes Single Family Residef'tial - Country Estates Cl unit per acre minimum or 40,000 square foot minimum lot size) at the foot of the hill and Open Space for the steep higher hillsides. The.project conforms to the existing Plan but conflicts with the proposed Amend- ment. ii. Scenic Routes: The 1974 Scenic Routes Element de- scribes Highway 24 as being on the State Master Plan for inclusion in the California Scenic Highway System because of its diversity of developed areas that are adjacent to major open areas. The site is clearly visible from Route 24. iii. Open Space Conservation: The 1973 Open Space Con- servation Plan found that "open space is an important part of any community,"- thus developers are encouraged to design properties with open space values in mind. County design policies for hillside and ridgetop pro- perties dictate that "they do not excessively disrupt the visual quality of the landscape. All development proposals are assessed from-the point of view of visual quality in order to promote the physical and psycholog- ical well-being of all citizens, present and future." (p. 65 of the Open Space Conservation Plan). The aesthetics of the project proposal present visual problems: there will be a 28' retaining wall, vertical cuts up to 15' and possibly more inheight and at least one out area about 7 feet in height at an angle of 70 degrees from the horizontal. These cuts, in sandstone would remain as highly visible scars upon the hillside. The pending draft Saranap General Plan Amendment de- signates the upper hillside as Open Space because of its high scenic value and severe physical limitations to development (i.e., slope) . iv. Noise: The 1975 :Noise Element contains Community Noise Equivalency Level (CNEL) contour maps for 1990 in which areas having a CNEL level greater than 60 dBA are Iden- tified. Although the project site is not within the projected 1990 60 dBA contours, Olympic Boulevard is. The present predicted Community Noise Equivalency Level at Olympic Boulevard 1/4 east of Tice Valley Boulevard is 61. However, since the project site itself is not ®0012-219 - 11 - 578001-1 0 0 within an area where noise levels exceed 60 dBA CCNEL) on the 1990 contour maps, no acoustical study will be required. v. Safety: The 1975 Safety Element considers a number of physical hazards; only geologic hazards are important on this site. Geologic hazards arise mainly from unstable hillside slopes and areas are mapped according to the presence of landslide deposits and slope steepness. No landslide deposits exist on the site and while the site does fall into a slope steepness category of 30% and over, the geologic structure of the Cierbo Sandstone is gener- ally favorable from the standpoint of slope stability. vi. Other: Association of Bay Area Governments CABAG): In June of 1970 ABAG's Regional Plan was approved. It conforms in most respects with the existing County Gen- eral Plan which was adopted in 1963 and subsequently amended. b. Zoning: The site lies within the R-20 Single Family Resi- dential District 020,000 square foot minimum lot size). This zoning has a maximum building height of two and one half stories or thirty-five feet. Architectural rendering submitted by the applicant exceed this 2 1/2 story limi- tation. Every dwelling unit permitted in this district shall have on the same lot or parcel two off-street auto- mobile storage spaces (beyond the setback). There is also a front-yard setback requirement of at least twenty-five feet for any structure (including retaining walls over 3' high) on lots in the R-20 district; the project as proposed does not meet this requirement and would therefore require a Variance Permit. c. Slope Density and hillside Development Combining District: The Planning Commission is having public hearings- on a proposed Slope Denisty Ordinance. The purpose of this ordinance is to restrict grading on any slope of 30% or greater, to retain a portion of every lot with 30% or greater slope as undeveloped open area, to establish development standards and to determine hillside denisty through appli- cation of a formula based on the average slope of the parcel. If passed, this County ordinance would apply to the proposed project site and allow only 3-4 lots on the hillside. d. General Plan of the City of Walnut Creek: The property is within the "Sphere of Influence" of the city of Walnut Creek. The city's 1971 General Plan reflects the existing County Gen- eral Plan for the Saranap area; however, it shows the pro- perty site as open space which is bissected by a portion of a longer planned riding and hiking trail CLas Trampas Ridge Trail). 12 - 578001-1 e. Hillside Planned Development District (H-P-D): The city of Walnut Creek places undeveloped land in hillside areas in the H-P-D District, with similiar goals to those of the County's Slope Density and Hillside Development Combining District. If the land were to be annexed to the city of Walnut Creek, it would fall under this designation and subsequent development permit process. As unincorporated land, the city may only make recommenaations to the County. f. Permits: Development of the site as proposed would require: 1) a Grading Permit from the County Building Inspection Department; 2) a slope easement or additional right-of-way for con- struction of King Drive, would be subject to Planning Commission approval; 3) variances for King Drive and Rubio Way as substandard County roads, need Planning Commission approval; 4) an exception to the County Subdivision-Ordinance (section 92-4.016) which stipulates that cul-de-sacs be no longer than 7001. Rubio Way is proposed to have a length of approximately 9751; there is no mitigation measure avail- able to reduce this impact as a through street is not feasible; needs Planning Commission approval. 5) drainage easements for the off-tract storm drain for dedication to the County; 6) an easement across Upper Golden Rain Road for the in- stallation of a 6" water main to serve the subdivision; 7) an exception to the County Subdivision Ordinance for lot number 5, which would be of substandard average width and depth; 8) a variance from the R-20 zoning district regulations for the proposed 3-story homes; 9) a variance from the 2S' front yard setback as many of the building lots .would be significantly closer to Rubio Way than 251 . 6. Soils and Geology a. Soils: U.S. Soil Conservation Service (1975) maps one soil type on the project site which is in the Los Osos-Milsholm- Gazos association. The soil has been classed as Land Capa- bility Unit VII because of the steep (50-200%) slopes. The depth to bedrock is 2-24" on the ridges and more on the slopes and in gullies. The erosion potential of the soil is high. Limitations which these soils might present to the proposed development of the site include expansivity (shrink- swell behavior), compressibility, and corrosivity. These limitations are described below: 0 - I3 - 578001-1 • • TABLE 3 Shrink/Swell Potential Compressibility Corrosivity Generally low-moderate overall moderate low-moderately high potential near base of corrosive slopes, in drainages and in areas underlain by shale bedrock. Expansivity and/or compressibility of soils may present a problem to roads and foundations in certain limited areas. b. Geology i. Geologic Units: The underlying bedrock in the north- eastern part of the site is the Briones Formation which includes massive, soft to moderately hard, fine to coarse- grained, silty sandstone with silt-stone and clay-stone interbedded, and thin.-bedded, soft, siltstone and clay- stone units with sandstone interbeds. In general, this formation does not exhibit good slope stability, espec- -ially where shale units are present. The remainder of the site is underlain by Cierbo Sandstone (75%+ of the site). The Cierbo Sandstone is a massive, fine-to-coarse-grained, soft to moderately hard sand- stone with some hard, will-cemented beds, and, as a formation, generally provides good slope stability. (See Geology Asap, Figure 5). ii. Faults: No known faults traverse the project site. The Calaveras Fault, considered to be active, is approximately 4000 feet east of the site. The San Andreas and Hayward fault zones, both active, are about 27 miles and 8 miles - respectively, southwest of the site. The inactive Las Trampas fault is approximately 3000' west of the site. iii. Site - Specific Report: "Preliminary Geotechnical Engineer- ing Studies for 11-1/2 Acre Site, Walnut Creek, California." Don Hillebrandt Associates, July 14, 1977. The report concludes that the project is feasible if all geotechnical - recommendations 'a'r'e followed ,and no adverse 'subsurface geologic structures encountered during subsurface ex- ploration (including zest borings and/or test pits to verify subsurface conditions and groundwater conditions). On this basis, specific recommendations and design cri- teria can be developed. The technical feasibility of the proposed vertical surcharged cut slopes with retaining walls should be carefully verified by the soil and design engineet-in'conjunction with the engineering geologist. 14 - 578001-1 _ • i c. Grading: (Refer to the Proposed Grading Plan, Figure 5) . Fourteen single-residence homes are planned, utilizing pole construction methods. Building site preparation would re- quire some grading and in some cases involve vertical cuts up to 15 feet, possibly more, in height. Construction of Rubio Way, to be 24 feet wide, and the access road, 16 feet wide, west of Rubio Way, includes planned vertical cuts up to 18 feet in height with retaining walls, cuts to 15 feet, height at 1:1, and at least one cut area about seven feet in height at an angle of 70 degrees from horizontal. A fill of about 28 feet maximum thickness with a retaining wall is planned in the east part of Rubio Way and fills approximately 4-8 feet high possessing a 2.5:1 slope, or less, are to be constructed in other areas. The Hillebrandt letter report of March 27, 1978, refers to 40- to SO- foot high cut slopes at inclinations of one horizontal to one vertical, near the intersection with Kiang Drive and about 500 feet west of King Drive Con Rubio Way). It would appear from the Pre- liminary Grading and Site development plan, revised March and April, 1978, that cuts of this height are no longer planned. See Grading Section in part TI for impact analysis of the proposed grading plan. 7. Hydrology and Water Quality a. Major Features i. Rainfall: Approximately 20" per year (County Public Works Department). ii. Water Movement: The southwestern portion of the site drains through a gully on the northwestern property boundary. This is a shallow unimproved drainage way which follows King Drive for approximately 290 feet to a point 10 feet east of the King Drive-E1 Dorado Road intersection. Here, a ditch has been dug, across King Drive, to permit water to flow into the roadside drain- age ways on King Drive. This in turn drains into a three foot deep drainage ditch on the south side of Olympic Boulevard, which during heavy rains floods the intersection at Tice Valley Boulevard and Olympic Boulevard. The water coming into the drainage ditch on Olympic Boulevard has no outlet; flooding in the Tice Valley intersection and Dewing Park neighborhood result from this grossly inadequate drainage system. [See Photo #2]. Runoff from the eastern portion of the site also goes into the Olympic Boulevard drainage ditch. The only outlet for this water is a shallow makeshift ditch dug through the Dewing Park neighborhood which parallels the natural drainage and therefore collects water. Las Trampas Creek, about one-half mile to the north, is a perched creek which was rerouted northwar�dy by farmers 15 578001-1 wr4' ,a? _`' " .%. • '. Ts t r: �ill! -s #1 - On-site view ` 4 #2- Drainage problem. Picture illustrates lack of adequate drainage facilities east of the Olympic Boulevard drainage ditch. Photo taken 100' west of• Olympic, Tice Valley Boulevard intersection. Site outlined in background.' - 16 - 001 02 0 Noun Pi F••oda+d ••-� 1p q ' 9 3liI111Vd mooduad IP 031NII 'SNIGnIONI G38MMA GNV 1109 ONIN9t101S d0 V3aw, J33HO ONV NS1rM 3d01S %InO 3NOISGNVS 0VVI4 )r 40 dIG GNV 3HIHIS� bo�-£ '_30 40 dIG GNV 3)119'19 O£ NOI1VVAHO:! S3NOIH8 .Dq.L <3NOISONVS 0GH3D- Ol _Z;-O3SOd0lid d0 V3HVi -- LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES 620 prim A�.meam)W City,CA DOU MIOCENE FIGURE GMLOGY SUBDIVOM a scale: � Engineer/Ccologist: Drafting by: EkOSION OF TCONTROLLED . . 375 525 �� 17 578001-1 in the early part of the century. Water exiting the project site cannot go uphill to Las Trampas Creek; therefore, it collects in the natural sump of the Dewing Park neighborhood. The problem can be summarized as a lack of facilities to transport heavy runoff to Las Trampas Creek; the Creek itself has adequate capacity to carry runoff from most storms. iii. Site Drainage: On-site drainage is well defined by one major drainage swale, which appears to be moist most of the year (by observation of the vegetation present). There are also lesser drainage swales on the property which support luxuriant vegetative growth. No open channels of flowing water were noted on the property. b. Flood Control Zone and Plans: Within Major Watershed Zone 3-B, a study has been conducted for Storm Drainage Area IS (by the County Department of Public Works). This study has concentrated on methods to alleviate the flooding problem at Tice Valley Boulevard and Olympic Boulevard and the sub- sequent flooding of homes in the Dewing Park neighborhood. Drainage improvements necessary to eliminate these problems include the provision of outfalls to Las Trampas Creek (perched to the north of Olympic Boulevard) . Such an out- fall line would involve the construction of a drainage pipe longitudinally along Olympic Boulevard to a point approximately one-half mile east of Tice Valley Boulevard where it could daylight into the ditch across from Craw- ford Court, from whence there would be a gravity flow into Las Trampas Creek. The outfall line would have to run along the north side of Olympic Boulevard; however, there are two gravity flow sanitary sewers running under Olympic Boulevard which cannot be moved. Engineered crossings would have to be designed around these sewers to cross Olympic Boulevard. This would be costly and it cannot be expected that one developer would pay the total cost of such improvements; however, to- gether with other developers, money could be raised for such improvements. In addtion to the three major development proposals in the area of the Tice Valley-Olympic Boulevard intersection, money could also be raised through the formation of a drainage improvement district with taxing .authority to collect the monies necessary to construct drainage improve- ments that will be acceptable to the residents of the area. c. Drainage and Flood Control Improvement: As there are no adequate drainage facilities in the area and the nearest natural water course is Las Trampas Creek, a half mile to the north, the County Public Works Department has submitted the following as a condition of approval for subdivision 5187: 00029 - 18 - 578001-1 • "All storm water runoff entering and originating in the Subdivision shall be collected and conveyed in an adequate closed conduit storm drain to Las Trampas Creek." (Contra Costa County D.P.W., October 18, 1977). See Drainage Section in part II for impact analysis of the proposed drainage system. d. HUD Flood Insurance Zone: The project site is not within a Flood Hazard Zone. e. 'Water Quality: Runoff appeared to contain some detergent. No obvious sources of pollution were noted on the property. 8. Vegetation and Wildlife a. Vegetation Types: The lower two-thirds of the slope is covered by large trees 15-45 feet tall (primarily oaks and buckeyes) in a fairly dense woodland, with localized dense brush occuring in gullies. The woodland becomes more open, with scattered grassland between the trees towards the ridge- line in the southwestern portion of the property. The species present belong to the Foothill Woodland with the exception of the introduced annual grasses. A species list for the site follows: Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak Quercus lobata Valley Oak Umbellularia californica California-Bay or California Laurel Aesculus californica California Buckeye Quercus kelloggii California Black Oak Shrub species present in the understory: Ribes californicum Currant or Gooseberry Corylus cornuta, var. californica Hazelnut Rubus, spp. Blackberry Toxicodendron diversiloba Poison Oak Baccharis pilularis Coyote Brush Vitis californica Wild Grape Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon or Christmas berry Nerium, spp. Oleander Spring wildflowers present in the grassland: Dodcatheon spp. Shooting star Castilleja spp. Indian Paintbrush Ranunculus spp. Buttercup 19 - A 578001-1 Brodiaea spp. Brodiaea 1 ethia spp. Mule Ears i. Environmental Conditions: Dense woodland with good grass and herbaceous cover. Fairly moist in the gullies all year round; supporting heavy growth of various ferns (wood ferns and maidenhair ferns), and miner's lettuce (Montia perfoliata). Many of the buckeye trees (Aesculus californica) appear to be sustaining heavy foliar in- sect damage. b. Wildlife: Wildlife species inhabiting the project site are found in association with the Foothill Woodland vegetative habitat and the small area of more or less open grassland habitat (oak savannah). i. Species composition: In the foothill woodland, the following avian species were observed: scrub jay, steller's jay, common flicker, varied thrush, bush- tit, and juncos. Turkey vultures were observed flying over the site. Numerous tracks and droppings indicate that blacktailed deer utilize the project site; three were observed feeding in the grassland area during an early morning visit to the site. Species common to lo- cal grassland habitats include: western fence lizard, -- Pacific gopher snake, common kingsnake, redtailed hawk, American kestrel, western meadowlark, California ground squirrel, botta pocket gopher, western harvest mouse and blacktailed jackrabbit. Only the jackrabbit was observed. ii. Population Stability: Population probably fairly stable due to undeveloped nature of the site, open lands to the east, and dense woodland to the west. Hikers and motor- cyclists use the area intermittently but because of the heavy vegetative cover on-site, their effect on wildlife is probably insignificant. Resident wildlife populations are therefore likely to be quite stable. c.. Rare, Endangered or Unique Plant and Animal Species: None are known to occur in the vicinity and none were observed during field reconnaissance. 9. Recreation and Open Space a. Districts and Major Facilities: The site is within County Park Service Area R-8, but no public parks exist in the Saranap area at this time. The only recreational facilities located within the Saranap are are two private swim clubs. The County R-8 district has recently acquired a 12-acre park site north of the Rossmoor shopping center about .75 miles southeast of the site. Access to the park site from - 20 - '90022,9 578001-1 • • , the project site, however, is somewhat difficult, especially for children. Tice Valley Boulevard carries heavy traffic which is likely to increase substantially as Rossmoor and surrounding parcels continue to develop. Other recreational facilities near the area include play areas at blontecito and Parkmead Schools and a private riding stable on Kinney Drive. Two major parks, bit. Diablo State Park and Las Trampas Regional Wilderness are approximately 12 miles east and 8 miles south of the project site, respectively. b. Recreation Element: The 1970 County Park and Recreation Element of the General Plan suggests that a neighborhood park be developed in the Saranap area; however, since most suitable land in Saranap has been developed, it is unlikely that an adequate park site can be found. The Recreation Element of the City of Walnut Creek locates a portion of the Las Trampas Ridge Trail on the property site. The trail links with the Moraga-Layayette Trail System as well as proposed County trails to the south of Walnut Creek. c. Open Space Conservation Plan: It is not the purpose of the Open Space - Conservation Element to devise specific policies for urban areas. However, the Plan does recognize the im- portance of providing "open space within the urban complex for recreation, physical and psychological well-being,and beauty." It is recommended that the following general Urban Open Space Policies by implemented: 1) Achieve a well-balanced distribution of local and community parks related to present and anticipated future recreation need. 2) Work with unicorporated communities to devise means of providing needed park and recreation services. 3) Renew efforts to implement the adopted Recreation Element of the General Plan. 4) Provide an urban trails system for local use and with connections to the county and regional trails. 5) Utilize open space for public safety within the frame- work of providing a variety of recreation opportunities for all segments of the community. 6) Encourage developers to design properties with open space values in mind, 7) Insure that planning agency reviews and EIR's for de- velopment plans include assessments of the open space needs met by the proposal. See Incompatibility with the Proposed General Plan Amendment in part II for impact analysis and project conformity to these goals. - 21 - 578001-1 d. General Plan of the City of Walnut Creek: The General Plan designated the upper two-thirds of the hillside as 'Greenway 0-2 dwelling units per acre.' Although the project would appear to fall within this density requirement, it would not because of the H-P-D (Hillside Planned Development) Ordin- ance. e. Visual and Existing Open Space: De facto open space exists on this hillside and is the only remaining open land of significance in the Saranap area. The slope and ridge have high scenic value and provide visual relief from the surround- ing urbanization. (See photos 3 and 4). The opposing slopes (approximately 1.8 miles north) are also undeveloped for the most part and provide a scenic outlook. 10. Socioeconomic Considerations a. Income, 1974: For the unincorporated community of Saranap, the median household income was $16,060, and the average income was $16,885. The 1974 median household income in Census Tract 3410 was $15,685 and the average income was $16,740 (1975 Special Census Data). b. Home Value: Average prices in October 1977: In Lafayette $124,000 and $93,000 in Walnut Creek. (Contra Cdsta Board of Realtors). c. Population: Population in Saranap in 1975 was 5815 persons, with an average household size of 2.5 perosns. The project will add approximately 35 people to the Saranap population, which has remained fairly stable in the past five years (1975 Special Census data). d. Employment Characteristics: In Saranap, 24% of the primary wage earners work in Contra Costa County Economic Area II which includes Walnut Creek; 23% commute to Alameda County; 16% work in San Francisco; 6% work in the immediate area; 5%_ work elsewhere in Contra Costa County and 22% are either un- employed, retired or not in the labor force. Most second wage earners are unemployed (51%) (1975 Special Census Data for unincorporated communities.) e. School Generation Data: Percentage of the population in the Saranap area: in elementary school, 9.5%; in intermediate school, 7.5%; in high school 5.5%. The project will generate approximately 7 new students, as follows: three elementary students, 2.5 intermediate students and 1.5 high school students (roughly). The schools in the Saranap area have adequate capacity to handle this increase. - 22 - 578001-1 11. Air quality and Noise a. Bay Area Air Pollution Control District (BAAPCD) Monitoring Station: The project stte •is -approximately two miles South- west of the Walnut Creek Monitoring Station. b. Recent Local Data: Number of days in which the Federal Oxidant Standard for smog was exceeded (BAAPCD data) : TABLE 4 1976 Walnut Creek 10 days Entire District 186 days y (composite)* *(drawn from figures at monitoring stations all over the district - includes overlapping days) c. Air Flows and-Nearby-Pollutioii 'S6upce5: Provailing westerly winds are from the northwest (from major refinery-related pollutant sources in Martinez •area). Major source of vehicular emissions is Olympic Boulevard, 1900' north of the project site. d Noise: Neither 1975 nor projected 1990 dBA (CNEL) contours extend to the project site. However, Olympic Boulevard is within the present Community Noise Equivalency Level of 60 dBA (the predicted CNEL on Olympic Boulevard 1/4 mile east of Tice Valley Boulevard is 61). e. Local Noise Sources: Vehicular traffic on Olympic Boule+*ard is clearly audible high on the hill as-well as residential noise from the foot of the hill. 12. ._Historical and Archeological Aspects a. Historic and Archeological Sites: There_are .no known historic or archeological sites on the site. b. Native American Groups: Indian inhabitants were known to have lived in the Tice Valley area. c. Potential for Archeological Resources: Quite low due to the steepness of the site and distance to Las Trampas Creek. 23 - ..,x v- ��' "#.a•�,j,.R��,yri3-�xRJ�����=s-.. r y x.,. ��� T4s y • . ,. :�-� 578001-1 • • 13. Energy a. Exposures: North-facing slope allows west, east and north exposures. h. Climatographic Location: The site is located on the southern slope of a fairly broad creek valley (Las Trampas Creek). c. Degree days per year estimates:* Heating = 2800 (moderate), cooling = 500 (moderate). *By convention, heating and cooling loads are expressed as degree days. For this purpose, 65 degrees is accepted as the outdoor temperature at which no heating or cooling is required in buildings. When the temperature is below 65 degrees, the number of degrees difference between the average temperature and 65 degrees is the heating degree day load (i.e., if the average daily temperature is 60 degrees, 65 - 60 = 5 degree days). Conversely, when the temperature is above 65 degrees, the number of degrees differnce between the average temperature and 65 degrees is the cooling degree day load. - 25 - S78001-1 II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS The following.discussions deal only with those environmental impacts which were determined to be important either in the Initial`Study or after further examination. Other possible impacts_.were anaiized and determined to be of negligible significance. The Initial Study, which considers all environmental factors, is attached to this report. (See Appendix A). A. The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action 1. Incompatibility with the Proposed General Plan Amendment and General Plan of the City of Walnut Creek. Although the project is compatible with the existing General Plan land use designation, low density single family residential, it conflicts with the proposed Saranap General Plan Amendment. The Saranap General Plan Amendment is currently in draft form in the Contra Costa County Planning Department; a final draft for public review should be ready by the end of Jura 1978. Hearings on the Amendments by the Planning Commission will then be scheduled. The preliminary draft of the Amendment proposes Single Family Residential Country Estates Cl unit per acre minimum or 40,000 square foot minimum lot size) at the foot of the hill and Open Space for the steeper uphill portion of the site, above an elevation of approximately 300 feet. tinder the proposed Country Estate designation, lots smaller than 40,000 square feet would be inconsistent with the General Plan and would require a General Plan amendment. The Open Space designation for the upper two-thirds of the hillside does not preclude all development: one unit/five acres would be consistent with this designation. The site was proposed as open space because it is the only re- maining open land of significance in the Saranap area and as such, its slope and ridge provide visual relief from the dense urban area which surrounds it. Residential development will diminish the visual and recreational amenities of this de facto open space. The steep slope of the subject site was another factor leading to the proposed open space designation. One of the issues of the Draft Amendment is hillside density and determined by environmental constraints. The General Plan for the city of Walnut Creek shows the upper two-thirds of the property site as Open Space, which is bis- sected by a portion of the Las Trampas Ridge and hiking trail. The development of a 14 acre subdivision on this site could necessitate the relocation of this longer planned trail (connecting to the Moraga-Lafayette Trail System and County trails to the south of Rossmoor). The project as proposed is also clearly in conflict with the City's Open Space designation. 2. Drainage The already inadequate drainage system at Olympic Boulevard and Tice Valley Boulevard will be adversely impabb6!6 ,�tLe - 26 - 4� `�1 578001-1 • current design of the project. As described in the tentative map, water from the hillside would be channeled through a drainage ditch on Tang Drive into the drainage ditch on the south side of Olympic Boulevard. Flooding, already a press- ing problem in the Olympic Boulevard-Tice Valley Boulevard in- tersection and in the Dewing Park neighborhood, can be ex- pected to increase as a result of this project. As water coming off the project site cannot go uphill to Las Trampas Creek, it will flow downhill through the Olympic Boulevard drainage ditch, out into the intersection and col- lect in the natural sump of the Dewing. Park neighborhood. The problem can be summarized as a lack of facilities to transport heavy runoff to Las Trampas Creek; the addition of more runoff through an increase in the area of impervious surfaces will contribute to increased flooding. 3 Grading The applicant proposes substantial grading for road construction and vertical cuts up to 15 feet for building site preparation. Construction of Rubio Way includes planned vertical cuts up to 18 feet in height with retaining walls, cuts to 15 feet at 1:1, and at least one cut area about 7 feet in height at an angle of 70 degrees from the horizontal. A fill of about 28 feet maximum thickness with a retaining wall is planned in the eastern part of Rubio Way. Fills of approximately 4-8 feet thickness with slopes at 2.5:1 are to be constructed in other areas. In general, the massive sandstone bedrock material may be feasible for development as planned, under the close scrutiny of the soil engineer and engineering geologist. Aesthetics rather than safety will be the major impact of the grading plan. As proposed, neither cut slopes nor fill slopes will blend with existing contours. A high retaining wall will be highly visible to residents in Saranap as well as motorists on Highway 24. As this hillside is underlain by hard sandstone, any steep high-cut slopes resulting from grading - especially for road cuts - would be difficult to revegetate. The cuts would remain as highly visible scars on the hillside, some of considerable height (15-181). The natural appearance of the hillside will be greatly altered by these visible cuts. 4. Aesthetics Visual quality on the site will also be impaired by home con- struction. The presently open slope has high scenic value as a natural area, providing visual relief from the suburban area which surrounds it. If approved, development on the site will be highly visible from residences in the Saranap valley as well as from Olympic Boulevard and State Route 24, which is on the State Master Plan for inclusion in the California Scenic Highway System. - 28 - i SOO is is f ve Ftvos,": ORI JOIDC ttE�A�Rpp.O 000 ONES ocoess - _ HSE SOL 77* \ 3tt.00 {NV � ."s'��/��i. �++�, `1 .` tip'. •,� ./ 7` • .. f i,.' '- ---•515—!'"/-�-'/' 3H�47��� �;'�1..�--.. `""--✓✓ fi / r h M1 J �°J sib•' i '- "` � 1 Fwd Y•ltt��• Y`iT�+�•G•11� s vrl t ya. '.,."06 .p fry' oylA 50z ?+c 1* 40b c IDA i 0• • /•tni r �'- N v \ R 7a1 _i''J 7 (-F.' j'�' '�. -t•. DA . / .- _� :� •�'��:' t` ,• - •fix-1"'� . 44 Upper - `�' � :-�` :'�`• •-ice_= =�'y�- J '`.';y ' _- +`•.�`� � / f/^' -..."^ter/ .� ,.�.•'.""—`.. �.--;. ,,,we/�� �- � . �� r/! f J �r"� _ �i '`-_.="".�._• - •4•LTA_- .. . �r��'J.:. b.W•1 �y�•. -•--•._._ _..tet�zs,,..�m '� �� ��� �� ,:� .._ - ~ (}-...,\ .�3 6Qid�n �i • � \..J ' 'ry a • O ^ 578001-1 Revegetation of the cut and fill slopes may be difficult to achieve, given the sandstone bedrock. If revegetation is not successful, the slopes would not only be more prone to erosion but would also be more -visible and unsightly. Nater inputs for landscaping could conceivably cause slope instability. Trees will also be removed from the site for road and home construction. 5. Geology/Soils In general, the massive sandstone bedrock material may be feasible for development as planned, under the close scrutiny of the soil engineer and engineering geologist. However, in some areas, substantial soil creep, highly weathered bedrock, adversely oriented joints in bedrock, expansive clay shale beds, expansive and/or compressible soils, or a combination of these features, may render the subsurface condition inadequate for building foundations, construction of road beds, and de- velopment of fills and cut-slopes as proposed. These adverse features are not expected to encompass the site nor are they considered as a gross detrimental aspect to site development but may exist in limited areas, particularly those areas under- lain by the Briones Formation as in the northeast portion of the site. The dip of bedding planes toward the southwest, into slope, offers favorable slope stability as relat-ed to pos- sible failure resulting from movement on bedding planes. How- ever, as mentioned above, there are well developed joints which may result in adverse conditions in some areas. The proposed grading and site development may cause a temp- orary increase in erosion on the site resulting in a temporary increase in sedimentation carried to drainage channels down- slope. Grading during a dry season could result in the gen- eration of dust which might spread to surrounding areas. Soils: Expansivity and/or compressibility of soils may present a problem to roads and foundations in certain limited areas. This is not considered a major potential impact because of the type of proposed construction, the limited amount of planned grading, and the generally low to moderate potential for expansivity and compressibility of the soils on the site. 000,229 - 29 - S78001-1 . • B. Any Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided If This Proposal Is Implemented 1. Unless mitigated by expensive drainage improvements, flooding in the Tice Valley-Olympic Boulevard intersection and in the Dewing Park neighborhood will increase as a result of added runoff to the drainage ditch on Olympic Boulevard. 2. Grading for road construction and building site preparation will create unsightly scars on the hillside. Road cuts will be 15-18' high, and at least one retaining wall will be 28' in height. Revegetation will be difficult to accomplish on the steep sandstone cut slopes. 3. The high scenic value of the site as a natural area will be visible from residential areas in the Saranap Valley, as well as from Highway 24. Some mature trees will be removed from the site in the course of grading and home construction. 4. Wildlife present on the site will be displaced. A high mortality rate for displaced animals often results as a consequence of no open niches elsewhere. 5. Energy consumption generated by the construction and occupancy of the homesites would be unavoidable and particulary adverse if conservation measures are not utilized. C. h[itigation Measures Proposed to Minimize the Impact 1. The applicant has proposed the following measures to minimize the impact of the proposal: a. Grading will be reduced by having structures' profiles follow the natural terrain, design of residences to follow natural amenities such as trees and contours, and the use of pole foundations rather than building pads. b. The minimum number of trees are to be removed for home and road construction so as to protect the visual amenities of the site. c. Residences will be designed with energy conserving ideas in- corporated, including special insulation, siting homes in relation to beneficial exposures and utilizing tree-shading, low electrical consuming lighting fixtures, and water saving toilets. 2. The following are several other mitigation measures which would minimize the impact of the proposed project: - 30 - 578001-1 a. Drainage and Flood Control Improvements: Drainage, according to.the County Code, must be taken to conveyed"natural or man-made systems, thus an outfall line to Las Trampas Creek is a necessary and desireable mitigation measure. Such an outfall line would involve the construction of a drainage pipe longitudinally along Olympic Boulevard to a point approximately 1/2 mile east of Tice Valley Boulevard where it could daylight into the ditch across from Crawford Court, from whence there would be a gravity flow into Las Trampas Creek. This outfall line would be subject to the Streambed Alteration Law, Section 1603, of the Fish and Game Code as it affected the stream channel. This would be costly and it cannot be expected that one developer would pay the total cost of such improvements; however, together, money could be raised for such improvements. In addition to the three development proposals in the area of the Tice Valley- Olympic Boulevard intersection, money could also be raised through the formation of a drainage improvement district with tax- ing authority to collect the monies necessary to construct drainage improvements that will be acceptable to the resi- dents of the area. In the event that the outfall line is not made a condition of approval as the Department of Public {Yorks has. requested (October, 1977), then if and when a funding authority dis- trict is established, this project should be required to pay a pro-rata share of the cost of drainage improvements to alleviate the flooding at the intersection of Olympic and Tice Boulevards and in the Dewing Park neighborhood. b. A redesign of the project would be the best feasible method to minimize most significant impacts. The redesign would include reducing the number of lots to a total of 7-8 (suggested eliminations include lots 12, 13, 14, 5, 6, 8 and one of the following: 1, 2, or 3). Four or five one- acre lots with the remainder as Open Space has also been considered. Another suggestion which would be in keeping with the proposed Open Space designation calls for ieducing the number of lets to two 5-acre parcels. Further redesign of the project includes a reduction of Rubio Way to 16 feet in width with wider parking bays at selected spots. If the number of lots which Rubio Way serves is reduced, then the street width can likewise be reduced, thus eliminating much of the grading and lowering the height of retaining walls. - 31 - 000ZA29 578001-1 • • C. Terraces within the larger proposed cut and fill slopes may be necessary to reduce the erosion hazard and assure success- ful revegetation. d. Consult with the Walnut Creek Open Space specialist concern- ing the planned trail on the unimproved section of King Drive. Provide for an access easement if one is desired. e. The following are some energy and water conservation measures that could be utilized in the future homes: i. To avoid intense early morning and later afternoon sun, residences should exhibit north-south orientation and should minimize the number and size of east and west facing windows. ii. To further minimize cooling needs, install adequate in- sulation, design for maximum ventilation (particularly attics), and use vegetation or awnings to shade houses from 22 degrees west of north counterclockwise to 45 degrees east of south. iii. Utilize solar collectors for space, water, and/or swim- ming pool heating (with natural gas back up units). iv. Select more energy-efficient natural gas instead of - electricity for cooking and clothes drying appliances; these appliances should have electric ignitors instead of pilot lights. Other high energy energy conservation- rated appliances should also be utilized. v. Use energy-efficient building materials (i.e. , minimal amounts of glass and metals; use a maximum of locally available materials requiring a minimum of processing such as wood and local stone). vi. Utilize double-glazed window glass to reduce heat loss and gain. vii. Plant low maintenance, climate adapted vegetation and minimal lawn areas to conserve water. viii. Utilize low-volume showers and low flush toilets to con- serve water. East Bay Municipal Utility District is the best current source of techniques and should be consulted for recommendations of appropriate water conservation measures. 32 - 578001-1 D. Alternatives to the 'Proposed Actions 1. No Project This alternative would retain the parcel as is 11.25 acres of: wooded open space on a steep hillside. The primary effect of this alternative would be the inability of the landowner to obtain a financial return on his investment. However, this is an individualized financial impact rather than an environmental impact. 2. Reduced Density The creation of fewer parcels would reduce most identified imp acts. . a. A total of 7-8 lots as presented under B of Mitigation Measures may be considered to be less visually obtrusive. The following lots could be eliminated 12, 13, 14, 5, 6, 8 and one of the following lots 1, 2 or 3. These lots were discarded for various reasons: homesites too close to the road, difficulty of access and/or inappropriate proximity to neighboring lots. b. Another alternative considers 4 or 5 one-acre lots with the remainder as Open Space. This alternative makes greater sense aesthetically as the road' could then be narrower and the hillside would retain more of its natural .appearance. c. Another suggestion which is in keeping with the proposed Open Space designation of the General Plan Amendment calls for a lot split into 2 five-acre lots. This is the only alternative which doesn't compromise the intent of the proposed Amendment to the County General Plan and the city of Walnut Creek General Plan E. "The Growth=Inducing Impact of the Proposed Action The project, as such, is not anticipated to be growth inducing. There is a current subdivision application for the 13 acre parcel east of this subject site. That application will be independently reviewed, however, policy questions (specifically, the Saranap General Plan Amendment) are similar. 000.219 - 33 - 578001-1 • • F. Organizations and Persons Consulted in the Preparation of this Report-; Contra Costa County Planning Department Staff Arnold B. Jonas, Planner IV Darwin Myers, County Geologist Harlan L. Menkin, Chief, Research and Program Development Kristin Ohlson, Planner II, Advanced Planning Section Jim Cutler, Chief, Comprehensive Planning Norman Halverson, Chief, Subdivision Administration Byron Turner, Planner III, Subdivision Section Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Boyd D. Jewett, Senior Civil Engineer, Flood Control C. Lowell Tunison, Associate Civil Engineer, Land Development Larry Reagan, Supervising Civil Engineer Bob Agnew, Associate Civil Engineer Leroy Vucad, Traffic.Division City of Walnut Creek Lester R. Foley, Senior Planner, Community Development Dept. Jim Olmstead, Planner, Current Planning and Design Review Section Robert M. Pond, Open Space Specialist California State Fish and Game Ted Wooster, Environmental Services Supervisor State of California Department of Transportation Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Department Robert G. Frost, Senior Fire Inspector Pacific Gas and Electric Company Central Contra Costa Sanitary District East Bay Municipal Utility District Health Department, Contra Costa County County Service Area R-8 - 34 - G. Persons and Firms Involved in the Preparation of This Report: Leighton and Associates, Inc, Rosemary Carey Environmental Analyst Lavon Lewis Project Geologist Larry Seeman Associates Richard Harris Editor 000229 - 35 - H. Bibliography Blackhawk Ranch Economic Impact Report, The, May 1974, Economic Supplement to Application 1840-RZ EIR CC Planning Depart- ment. Contra Costa County, October 1977, A Profile.. Contra Costa Planning Department. ------, 1970, Census Tracts. ------, 1975, Countywide Special Census under direction of California State Department of Finance Population Research Unit Census Tract 3410. ------, October 1975, Countywide Special Census Statistical Summary. Contra Costa County Planning Dept. ------, 1975, Countywide Special Census under direction of California State Department of Finance Population Research Unit County Division of Saranap. ------, 1975, East County/Delta Cost Effectiveness Study Part I Methodology. ------, September 1965, Lafayette Area General Plan ------, October 1975, User's Guide to the Special Census for Contra Costa Hillebrandt, Don Associates, July 14, 177, Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Studies for 11 1/2 Acre Site, Walnut Creek, California. Lewis, Lavon, The Environmental Setting, Impacts of the Project and Proposed Mitigation Measures for Geology and Soils. Walnut Creek, City of, California, September 1971, General Plan City Council Land Use Element Circulation Element Conservation Element Noise Element, 1975, Open Space Conservation Plan, 1973 Recreation Element Safety Element, 1975 ------, August 31, 1977, AEP Associates Hydrology Water Section: Impact and Mitigation Measures. Final Environmental Impact Report for Currier Development General Plan Amendment, Tice Valley Oaks Residential Development and Rossmoor General Plan Amendment and Rezoning for a Shopping Center. 36 - Walnut Creek Municipal Code, Sec 10-2.2220 Hillside Planned Development H-P-D permit 10-2.1301 Hillside Planned Development District. - 37 - APPENDIX A OOM-17q CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE File 5 /� Prepared by Date 9- 2'— 7 `f Reviewed by Date 19-40111 .311 2oz6 A. RECOMMENDATION: ( ) Categorical Exemption ( ) Negative Declaration ( Environmental Impact Report Required The Project (May) , ot) Have A Significant Effect On The Environment /7/:: c Ali: �.Jr'7VxVZ M L l4 C,n rJ/ rVv lle<i of Cf�sf//����a�7/�z, Slh�x•�G� �'�• �d/�/�f�!•L3 0�.� cj�r.�r. , .S/1P�•�.c: �a L.�rx�zx /�'.. ',S"r��:'���i 4 � �c.n1 �/?-� �� .��%��,. O /FlliCG�/v�: t'}ti '�lhs' An/4 7,.., 4SS'167 /n/ SArr B. PROJECT INFORMATION: 1. Project Location and Description: Ar C/c'-2v� Gv�a'?�.» cti �'i•� S'rr,•, 2« .5���� �� lfitiG- d/2i��-. 2. Site Description: AN GJZ�Lna7csr� !�/ZvJ����7.� L✓ir�� /fio %/.i f-���i�✓�,. �fy1c= B�Ivr� l2n�Crr/✓Lric�v, � '�vo �j r>1� �%I'. 7J '�: a�%; /�/1/a �%/f< 1% i�:"�:'f dY�st'.' fr;.n S l ��1 !'i/:' =f °• � 3. Character of Surrounding Areas: �r, r,Ii.ri� 7J/j� !L O�S�L•)L�A'��E �JL`'%C��� 17 i/ 17I �i�,�_',GL •L 1 `•�I`'L3'v�.�'F•r��l'��f t. C. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS: Yes Maybe No N/A 1. Does the project conform to County General Plan proposals Y including the various adopted Elements? (Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation and Open Space, Noise, Seismic Safety, -Safety,-Recreation, Scenic Routes,Solid Weste) (See appropriate impact sections for application of specific elements). General Plan Designation;source: fs�cJLl7C sy/'04S.427' 'gz 2. Does the proje t conform to existing (or proposed) zoning classification? Classification: 3. Does it appear that any feature of the project; including aesthetics, will generate significant public concern? Nature of Concern: 4. Will the project require approval or permits by other than a County Agency(Consider spheres of influence, and City Plans)? _ L Other Agency: `;� 47,e` a ' S•=Significant N=NegligiblC=Cumulative o= None U =Unknown N/A=Not Applicable D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: itfgation measures for *S 'N C No U significant effects where possible)+ 1. Earth. (Consider the Seismic Safety Element) Will the proposal re t in or be subject to; a) Erection of structures within an Alquist-Priolo Act Special Studies Zone? b) Grading(consider amount, and aesthetics)? c) Slides, liquefaction or other hazards on or immediately adjoining the site? d) Adverse soil or topographic characteristics (consider prime soils,slope, septic tank limitations, etc.)? _ _ _ P/ _ e) Wind or water erosion of soils, on site or off? _ _ ✓_ _ Discussion: r S N C _ 2. Air. Will the project result in deterioration of existing air quality, including creation of objectionable odors? Discussion: 3. Water. Will the project result in: a) Erection of structures within a designated flood (hazard) (prone)area? b) Reduction of surface or ground water quality or quantity? — — — i e) Alteration of drainage patterns or runoff? d) Disruption of streams or water bodies? — — — Discussion: 4. Plant/Animal Life. Will the project result in: a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants or animals? — — b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants or animals? — 0 Introduction of new species of plants or animals into an area, or inhibition of the normal replenishment, migration or movement of existing species? - d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop or existing j fish or wildlife habitat? Discussion: Fti�G C. GQ /,Z S. Noise. Will the project result in: a) Structures within the 60 dBA noise contour per the General Plan Noise Element? b) Increases from existing noise levels? _ — Discussion: S N C No U N/ S. - Natural Resources. Will the project affect the potential use, extraction, conservation or depletion of a natural resource? Discussion:. 7. Energy. Will the project result in demands upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new energy sources? _ t_ — _ Discussion: S. Utilities. Will.the project result in the need for new systems or gf—erations to the following utilities (including sphere of influ= ence or district boundary 'change): electrigity, natural gas, communications facilities, water, sewers, storm drainage, solid waste disposal? Discussion: 9. Public Services. will the project result in the need for: a) New or altered services in the following areas: fire protection, police protection, schools, parks or other recreational facilities, roads, flood control or other public works facilities, public transit or other governmental services? e� b) Alteration of sphere of influence or service district boundaries? t. Discussion: 10. Transportation/Circulation. (Consider the Circulation Element) will the project result in: a) Generation of additional vehicular movement with initia- tion or intensification of circulation problems (consider road design, project access, congestion, hazards to vehi- cles, ehicles, pedestrians)? b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demands for new parking? v C) Impact on existing waterborne, rail, air or public transpor- tation systems? Discussion: - L EIA 1L G:-owth Inducement. (Consider the Housing Element) Will the pcoject: 0 Alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of an area? — b) Affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? — c) Establish a precedent for additional requests for similar. uses? ✓ Discussion: 12. Aesthetics. (Consider the Scenic Routes Element) Will .the projectobstruct any public scenic vista or view, create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view, or produce new light or glare? — — — — Discussion: 13. Recreation. (Consider the Parks and Recreation and Circulation ElementsF Will the project affect the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities? — Discussion: 14. Archeolo •cal/Historical. Are there known archeological, histor- ic or other resources on the site or in the general vicinity? (Historical Resources Inventory and archaeological site maps.) — Discussion: "0^/4 15. Hazard. (Consider the Safety Element) Will the project result in aains'r of explosion, release of hazardous substances or other dangers to public health or safety? — — — �-- — Discussion: 16. Other. (Consider the Open Space Element) will the project j result in other significant effects on the environment? Discussion: 4r:-KV A14'1rA G. S N e. No U 17. Mandatory Findi s of significance (A "significant" check on any - of the following questions requires preparation of an EiR) a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the.quality of the environment, or curtail- the diversity in the environ- .-ment? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? V _ c) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? _ _ _ d) Does the project have environmental impacts which-will - cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion: AP 21 9/76 47 APPENDIX s 000229 Leighton & Associates Project No. 578001-01 • • 48 III. THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES A. Geology and Geologic Hazards 1. Setting. Topographically the site consists of north facing slopes and ridges ranging in steepness from about 25-35 degrees with some slope areas up to 50-60 degrees, particularly in proposed Lots 1,4,5,6,10 and 11. Existing rough grading includes two access roads across the central part of the site with steep cuts up to 8-12 feet high in the natural slopes. Rough graded pads exist in proposed Lots 1 and 3 and at the cul-de-sac at the north end of Lots 8 and 9. Drainage is to the north into the dirt road extension of King Drive and then westward toward the intersection with E1 Dorado Road. Soil thickness is from a feta inches to about two feet thick on ridges, becoming much thicker on slopes and in drainage re-entrants where it may combine with colluvium or slope-wash deposits. The underlying bedrock in the northeastern part of the site .is the Briones Formation, of late Miocene age (area of proposed Lots 1,2,3 and northerly portions of Lots 13 and 14). The remainder of the site is underlain by Cierbo Sandstone, also late Miocene age. The Briones Formation includes massive, soft, to moderately hard, fine to coarse-grained, silty sandstone with siltstone and claystone interbedded, and thin-bedded, soft siltstone and claystone units with sandstone interbeds. Abundant, well developed joints are present throughout the formation. The Briones Formation, in general, does not exhibit good slope stability, especially where shale units (including siltstone and claystone) are present. The Cierbo Sandstone is a massive, fine-to coarse-grained, soft to moderately hard sandstone with some hard, well cemented beds, and, : as a formation, generally provides good slope stability. Some of the very steep natural slopes, particularly in the westerly portion of the site, are partially a result of the high resistance this formation has to erosion. In some areas, bedrock of both formations is highly weathered within several feet of the surface. Fossil pelecypods were present in slope wash and in some sandstone units. One of these was identified as Pseudocardium densatum by Kevin Ahern, Paleontology Department, University of California, Berkeley. UO0Z 27r,-1 Leighton & Associates Project No. 578001-0 � 49 Structurally, the beds underlying the site have a northwest-southeast strike with dips into slope, toward the southwest, generally at 30 to 45 degrees. This attitude of bedding is favorable for slope stability for the predominantly northerly facing slopes of the site. In proposed Lot 1, underlain by sandstone and shale of the Briones Formation, there are existing scars of slope failures up to 15 feet wide and about 12 feet deep. These failures appear to have resulted from a combination of steep natural slopes of 50-60 degrees, badly weathered bedrock, and adversely oriented joint planes. These slopes may have been oversteepened at the toe by grading of the dirt road extension of King Drive. Large landslides have been mapped on slopes east of the site by Saul. No such large landslides have been mapped on the subject site by Saul nor were any noted in the geotechnical report of Hillebrandt and Associates. Neither were any observed in the field reconnaissance for this report. The probable reason for lack of larger landslides within the site is that most of the site is underlain by the more resistant Cierbo Sandstone and, where underlain by Briones Formation, the shale units are less extensive and less thick than in the area immediately to the east, where larger landslides have been mapped. Saul has mapped slope wash in drainage re-entrants in parts of proposed Lots 2,3, and 11 and Lot 4. Our reconnaissance confirms this and the material includes rock debris, fragments of trees and other vegetation and thick soil. These areas of slope wash also appear to be undergoing creep downslope. The site in general is subject to localized areas of shallow creep and sloughing of soil and weathered bedrock material. No faults are known to cross the site, and no faults were observed on the site. The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Zone. The Calaveras fault, considered to be active, is approximately 4000 feet east of the site. The San Andreas and Hayward fault zones, both active, are about 27 miles and 8 miles, respectively, southwest of the site. The Las Trampas fault, generally not considered active, is approximately 3000 feet west of the site. Leighton & Associates Project No. 578001-01 • 50 2. Potential Impacts: References to type and amount of construction and grading and certain recommendations are based on diagrams, cross- sections and the Preliminary Grading and Site Development Plan, dated April, 1977 and revised March and April, 1978, supplied by D. M. T. Way and Associates, a Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study dated July 14,1977 and a letter report, Preliminary Evaluation of Preliminary Grading and Site Development Plan, March 27, 1978, by Don Hillebrandt Associates,and information supplied by the Contra Costa County Planning Department. a. Proposed Grading and Site Development: Fourteen single-residence homes are planned, using pole construction methods. Building site preparation will require some grading and in some cases will involve vertical cuts of up to 15 feet, possibly more, in height. Construction of Rubio Way, to be 24 feet wide, and the access road, 16 feet wide, west of Rubio Way, includes planned vertical cuts of up to 18 feet in height with retaining walls, cuts to 15 feet, height at 1:1, and at least one cut area about 7 feet in height at an angle of 70 degrees from horizontal. A fill of about 28 feet maximum thickness with a retaining wall is planned in the east part of Rubio Way, and fills of approximately 4 to 8 feet at 2.5:1, or less, are to be constructed in other areas. The Hillebrandt letter report of March 27, 1978 refers to 40 to 50-foot-high cut slopes at inclinations of one horizontal to one vertical, near the intersection with King Drive and about 500 feet west of King Drive (on Rubio Way) . It would appear from the Preliminary Grading and Site Devel- opment Plan, revised March and April, 1978, that cust of this height are no longer planned. In general, the .massive sandstone bedrock material may be feasible for development as planned, under the close scrutiny of the soil engineer and engineering geologist. However, in some areas, substantial soil creep, highly weathered bedrock, adversely oriented joints in bedrock, expansive clay shale beds, expansive and/or compressible soils, or a combination of these features, may render the subsurface condition inadequate for building foundations, construction of road beds, and development of fills and cut-slopes as proposed. These adverse features are not expected to encompass the site nor are they considered as a gross detrimental aspect to site development but may exist in limited areas, particularly Leighton & Associates Project No. 578001-� 51 those areas underlain by the Briones Formation as in the northeast portion of the site. The dip of bedding planes toward the southwest, into slope, offers favorable slope stability as related to possible failure resulting from movement on bedding planes. However, as mentioned above, there are well developed joints which may result in adverse conditions in some areas. Soil and bedrock material encountered should generally be satisfactory for use in compacted fill. The proposed grading and site development may cause a temporary increase in erosion on the site resulting in a temporary increase in sedimentation carried to drainage channels downslope. Grading during a dry season could result in the generation of dust which might spread to surrounding areas. b. Fault Rupture and Earthquake Ground Shaking: The potential for fault rupture on the site is considered remote since no fault traces are known to cross the site. Moderate to severe ground shaking is antici- pated to occur at the site at least once during the life of the proposed structures. An earthquake of magnitude 6-7 originating on the Calavaras, Fault is considered to be up to a 50 percent probability over a 50-year period. Such an earthquake could be expected to generate peak rock accelerations at the subject site in the range of 0.6-0.7g with Repeat- able High Ground Accelerations (RHGA) of 0.36-0.42g. Ground accelera- tions generated at the site by earthquakes with a greater than 50% probability of occurrence over a 50-year period on the Hayward, Concord and San Andreas Faults could be expected within the following ranges: Hayward Peak 0.28-0.42g, RHGA 0.17-0.25g Concord Peak 0.25-0.37g, RHGA 0.15-0.238 San Andreas Peak 0.25-0.3g, RHGA 0.15-0.18g. Ground accelerations in non-bedrock material may vary somewhat from those expected in bedrock at the site. Expected seismic ground shaking has the potential to cause secondary effects such as landslides and/or ground failure in localized areas, particularyly those areas underlain by weak shale units, highly weathered bedrock, or thick soil or slope wash deposits. Leighton & Associates Project No. 578001-01 52 3. Mitigation Measures: The following measures are recommended to alleviate potential adverse impacts: a. All building foundations, cut-slopes, and fill emplacements should be founded or constructed in, or on, satisfactory subsurface materials as defined by a properly certified engineering geologist and soil engineer (such as Don Hillebrandt Associates, the developer's consultant). _Particular care should be exercised regarding stability of the proposed 1:1 cut slope and the lower, steeper than 1:1 cut slopes, more especially because county grading codes restrict cut slopes greater than 2:1 except where a soil engineer or engineering geologist has stated an opinion, in a report, that such slopes will be stable and not create a hazard. To reduce potential for erosion and sedimentation, provision should be made for erosion control (such as use of debris catch basins) if deemed necessary, based on the amount of grading and season of the year. Dust retardation measures should be implemented if conditions warrant. b. Prior to developing the final grading and building site design, a detailed subsurface investigation should be undertaken which would include, as recommended on page 6 of the Hillebrandt report, test borings and/or test pits to verify subsurface conditions and groundwater conditions, on which basis specific recommendations and design criteria can be developed. The technical feasibility of the proposed vertical surcharged cut slopes with retaining walls should be carefully verified by the soil and design engineer in conjunction with the engineering geologist. c. For earthquake ground shaking, utilize earthquake resistant design in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (1977) or other state-of-the- art practices of the Structural Engineers Association of California. 00Ll? Leighton & Associates Project No. 578001- P 53 Recommendations of the geotechnical consultants regarding ground accel- erations could be expected to incorporate ground acceleration values approximately as those presented above in "b". quake ground shaking, under Potential Impacts and should be incorporated- into the design of structures. d. Careful consideration should be given to site conditions as de' scribed by the geotechnical consultants and their recommendations closely adhered to during development of the final grading and building site design plans. Leighton & Associates` Project No. 578001-01 • 54 B. Soils 1. Setting. The soils present on the site have been characterized by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service (1966, 1975) as being shallow to moderately deep, good to excessively drained, eroded, clay loams and silt loams with clay loam subsoils. No prime agricultural soils .(as defined by the Soil Conservation Service) exist on the site. The soils of the site are designated Class VII (suitable for range and woodland). Limitations which these soils might present to the .proposed_development of the site include expansivity (shrink-swell behavior), compressibility, and corrosivity. In general, soils with high clay content have high shrink-swell potential and coarser textured soils that contain less clay have low.shrink-swell potential. Soils on the site were found to have a higher clay content on slopes and in drainage re-entrants with higher silt and sand content and less clay on ridges and steeper slopes. Generally, the soil within the site has low to moderate shrink-swell potential, but there may be areas of high shrink-swell potential, particularly near the base of slopes and in drainages or in areas underlain by shale bedrock. Degree of compres- sibility describes the potential of a soil to be compressed by structures placed on the soil, such as buildings and roads. Compressibility for soils on the site is classified as moderate. Some construction materials, especially metals and metal pipes, may corrode or deteriorate when buried in soil. Deterioration rate is largely dependent on the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the soil. Corrosivity is often greatest where metal materials intersect a boundary between different soils or different horizons of a soil. Degrees of constraint are based on soil properties such as texture, drainage, acidity, and electrical resistivity. Soils of the subject . site are rated as low to moderately corrosive to untreated steel pipe. The degree of limitation for septic tank filter fields for soils on the subject site is generally classed as severe because of the moderately slow permeability, limited depths to bedrock, and steep slopes. According to the Application for Approval of Subdivision Plot, the proposed sewage disposal method is to be through Walnut Creek Sanitary District. 0®02.21-1� Leighton & Associates Project No. 578001-1 55 Z. Potential Impacts. Consideration of potential impacts on soils and soil resources are as follows: a. Soils are designated Class VII, suitable for range and woodland, thus preclusion of agricultural soils is not a potential impact. Suitability for range and woodland is considered only fair. b; No septic systems are planned; therefore, filter fields should present no impact. However, should plans be changed to incorporate septic systems this could result in a serious potential impact because of the generally severe degree of limitation of the soils for septic systems. c. Grading will be required for street and access road development and driveway access and building site preparation. The effect of such grading related to erosion and sedimentation has been discussed under Geology and Geologic Hazards in the previous section and applies to soils as well as bedrock. d. Corrosion of metal construction materials and metal pipe is probable to a limited or moderate degree. e. Expansivity and/or compressibility of soils may present a problem to roads and foundations in certain limited areas. This is not considered a major potential impact because of the type of proposed construction, the limited amount of planned grading, and the generally low to moderate potential for expansivity and compressibility for the soils on the site. 3. Mitigation Measures. The following measures are proposed to alleviate adverse impacts: a. Expansive and compressible soils. Presence of these soil conditions should be identified and where construction will be affected, proper procedures should be recommended by the soil engineer. b. Proper coating of steel pipes or other metal construction materials to prevent corrosion Leighton & Associates Sb APPENDIX C Leighton & Associates r PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDIES FOR I'll-, ACRE SITE WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 619-7 RE UWE _ � D otP 1 V 1977 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 000 !'a �o� { Don Hille4ndt Associates -� ' 0 Geotechnical Consultants 604 Mission St. Suite 901 • San Francisco. CA 94105 • Phone (415) 543-5943 July 14, 1977 Project 336-1 R & W Partnership 1053 A Broadway San Francisco, CA 94133 Attn: Mr. Douglas Way RE: Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Studies for 112 Acre Site Area Immediately South of King Drive Walnut Creek, California Gentlemen:. In accordance with your request, we have performed preliminary geotechnical studies for the subject 112 acre site south of King Drive near its intersection with El Dorado Road in Walnut Creek, .California, as shown on the attached 1 Location Map, Figure 1. The purpose of our work was to perform. field and office studies so that conclusions could be reached regarding the feasibility of developing the site for the proposed project with respect to the geologic and soil conditions of the property. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property occupies an area of approximately 112 acres which is bordered on the north by King Drive and undeveloped property and-on .the south by Upper Golden Rain Road; the property varies from 250 to 500 feet in width between these roads and extends 1350 to 1470 feet in the east-west direction, -as shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2. The property will be subdivided into approximately 16 lots with the average individual lot size about 3/4 of an acre. There are presently two rough-graded access roads across the site. These roads, which generally run parallel to existing contours, will be improved to provide access to all of the lots. The grading required to improve these access roads will be the primary earthwork operations at the site; access to individual homesites will generally be provided by short driveways or structural ramps. Some retaining walls will probably be required in conjunction with the cutting and filling operations along the access roads. SCOPE The scope of our work, which was outlined in our letter dated May 4, 1977, consisted of (1) a review of available pertinent geologic maps, reports and 336-1 Page 2 literature as well as any available soil reports for properties adjacent to the site, (2) a study of stereographic aerial photographs in-an effort to detect any fault traces or landslide areas .on the site, (3) a detailed site reconnaissance by our engineering geologist and soil engineer, (4) an evaluation of the geologic and soil conditions and (5) the preparation of this report which presents the results of our preliminary studies. SITE RECONNAISSANCE INVESTIGATION A geological reconnaissance and field mapping of the site were performed on May 14, 1977, by our engineering geologist. Our soil engineer performed a reconnaissance of the site on May 26, 1977. The field reconnaissances included observation of the geologic and soil conditions along the existing access roadways.and the probable locations of residential sites. In conjunction with our field work, aerial photographs of the site were studied, published geologic maps were reviewed, and available geologic reports of the area were reviewed. A bibliography of the references used to assist in our field and office studies is included as Appendix A. SITE CONDITIONS The site presently consists of undeveloped, naturally vegetated, hillsides containing two rough-graded access roadways and pathways. There. is a heavy growth of oak and other large trees over most of the site with localized dense brush and a few small open grass covered areas. Topographically, the property consists primarily of north-facing slopes containing a number of north-south trending ridges and gullies. The orientation and configuration of the ridges, slopes, gullies and swale areas have been determined by the underlying geology. Bedrock was observed on several ridges and on many of the slopes along the access driveways whereas the gullies and Swale areas contained slope wash deposits (colluvium) that have accumulated from the-adjacent slopes. The inclination of the natural slopes at the site generally vary from- about 1 :1 to 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). On the ridges and adjacent relatively steep slopes, the topsoil materials (silty and clayey sands) range from 0 to about 2 feet in thickness. In the gullies and Swale areas, the topsoil materials are generally much thicker and have a higher clay content. In general , the topsoil materials have a low to moderate expansion potential with the most expansive soils located primarily inathe gullies and swale areas. The rough-graded access roadways across the site (See Figure 2) were generally made by making relatively steep cuts into the natural slopes and placing the materials from the cut slopes as fill on the downhill side of the roads. These non-engineered access roadways decrease in quality to graded pathways at several locations. We should note that two rough-graded building pads were excavated a number of years ago on the site. a Don Hillebrandt Associates f 336-1 • • Page 3 GEOLOGY The area studied is located in the hills of the Diablo Coast Range east of San Francisco Bay. The subject property is located on steep north facing slopes which are underlain by sandstones and shales belonging to the Cierbo Sandstone and Briones Formation as shown on Figure 2. The southwestern two- thirds of the site is underlain by the Cierbo Sandstone, a massive to well bedded, fine to coarse grained, abundantly fossiliferous sandstone. The northeastern one-third of the site is underlain by the shale member of the Briones Formation, consisting of a clay shale and shaly siltstones. A fossiliferous (Pelecypod) sandstone unit was mapped and observed on the site. As mentioned previously, the gullies and swale areas contain deposits of slope wash (colluvial deposits of soil and weathered rock). The geologic structure of the bedrock consists of bedding that strikes northwest-southeast and dips 35 to 50 degrees into the hill to the southwest. This is a favorable dip as indicated by the very. steep slopes that have J developed on the more resistant beds at the site. There are, however, several small localized landslides or soil sloughs at the site, primarily along the oversteep cut slopes along King Drive (See Figure 2). Our geologic field reconnaissance confirmed the mapping by Saul (California Division of Mines and Geology MS-16 dated 1973) who observed and located areas of significant soil creep, erosion, localized sloughing and landsliding. Saul located several large landslides to the east of the site. He states that these slides were probably caused by erosional over-steepening of the slopes combined with the weak shale member of the Briones Formation. As noted above, this formation underlies the northeastern one-third of the subject site; however, at the subject site it has favorable stability since the bedrock strikes and dips into the hillside. The existing geologic maps and our aerial photographic studies did not reveal any fault traces across the site, and there were no indications of faulting in the exposed cut slopes across the site. SEISMICITY The San Francisco Bay Area is recognized by geologists and seismologists as one of the most active seismic regions in the United States. The subject site is located approximately 27 miles northeast of the active San Andreas Fault, 8 miles east of the active Hayward Fault and about 1 mile west of the potentially active Calaveras Fault. In addition, the Los Trampas Fault is approximately 3000 feet west of the site. The potential of the San Andreas, Hayward and Calaveras Faults for producing earthquakes in the future can be analyzed by investigating their activity in the geologic past and recent historic times. This can be done using a statistical approach; however, the results must be tempered with considerable judgment because of the short historic record, geologic and soil complexities and many other variables. Don Hillebrandt Associates Page 4 thquakes of Richter Magnitude 7 or greater have not been recorded by alibrated instruments in the San Francisco Bay Region of Central California. --•wever, four.or five Magnitude 7+ earthquakes are thought to have occurred --- this region- since 1830. Of these, the 1906 San Francisco earthquake on r-�e San Andreas Fault has been assigned a Magnitude 8.3 (based upon its --sects and retro-fitting of seismograms). The large June 1836 earthqauke �-- ~-the San Andreas Fault produced shaking intensities similar to those of --tee 1906 event and may have had a nearly equivalent magnitude. The great __,.--yward earthquake of 1868 produced effects equivalent to a Richter Magnitude --,- event. --veral studies have been made of the recurrence interval of earthquakes in -dation to their magnitude. One approach to the recurrence of earthquakes oduced along the San Andreas Fault System has been made by Wallace, who dated seismic activity, surface fault breaks and tectonic creep along the - n Andreas System. Using (1) available information relative to local creep ----7=.tes, (2) historic earthquakes, and (3) records- of extent and amount of ound rupture, he has divided the fault system into several segments which =have differently. He concludes that segments that are experiencing high --.yep rates are unlikely to have large magnitude earthquakes (Magnitude 8+), 1,�ile segments with little or no creep ire most likely to produce such thquakes. -�- San Andreas Fault segment, extending between Cape Mendocino on the north --rd San Juan Bautista on the south, is the segment that broke during the 1906 ,—:=rthquake. Because creep is either absent or very slow and the level of ismicity is low, this segment is a likely candidate for a Magnitude 8+ �rthquake, according to Wallace. The recurrence interval of a Magnitude 8 �rthquake somewhere along the Cape Mendocino to San Juan Bautista segment --�: about 250 years. -ie Hayward, Calaveras and Pleasanton Faults, treated as single fault segment the San Francisco Say Area, are moderately active according to the level of ;-sctonic creep and seismicity. The Hayward and Calaveras Faults have broken storically and creep is continuing. Based on the behavior characteristics the Hayward, Calaveras and Pleasanton Faults, Wallace estimates that the -ximum probable Richter magnitude that can be expected for an earthquake on the entire segment is 7.0 with a recurrence interval of about 60 years. From the above discussion, it can be concluded that the proposed residences at the site will probably be subject to a large earthquake (Richter Magnitude 7 to 8+) during their economic life. Seismic effects during such an earthquake can be classified as primary and secondary. The primary effect is ground rupture, also called surface faulting. Secondary effects are the results of ground motion during an earthquake (i.e. landsliding, liquefaction, lateral spreading, differential compaction, tsunami, etc.). The seismic effects most relevant to the study area are landsliding and shaking. t Don Hillebrandt Associates ( - r 336-1 • • Page 5 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our preliminary studies, we conclude that from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, the site is suitable for development. The closest potentially active fault is approximately I mile east of the site. Our field and office studies do not indicate the presence of any active fault traces across the subject site. Therefore, it is our opinion that the probability of fault rupture (primary effect from major earthquakes) across any of the proposed homesites is remote. The site is expected to be subjected to strong seismic shaking at least once during the design lives of the planned structures. This seismic shaking hazard is one that is shared by all structures in the San Francisco Bay Area / and is normally considered during structural design. During strong shaking ✓ some localized sloughing could occur on the steeper slopes at the site. We recommend that during the development of this site, grading be kept to a minimum with most of the earthwork operations confined to the access roadways. _ Cut slopes along the access roadways that are up to 10- to 15-feet in height generally should not be steeper than 1.5:1. At locations where relatively competent materials are present, slightly steeper slopes may be possible. However, at locations where higher cut slopes are anticipated and/or where poorer materials exist, the cut slopes may have to be flattened to 2:1. Fill slopes .along the access roadways should not be steeper than 2:1 and the fills 1 should be keyed into stable soil or rock. Because of the relative steepness of the natural terrain, retaining walls will probably have to be used along portions of the access roadways. ` These walls, which will generally retain relatively competent soil and/or bedrock materials, can probably be designed for standard lateral loadings. 0--in general, the materials generated from the excavations on the site can be reused as engineered fill. We wish to point out that it may be necessary to perform some regrading to remove and/or stabilize some of the natural soils along King Drive and the access roadways that have been subjected to high rates of creep movements and/or shallow sloughing. Generally, this will involve over-excavating the potentially unstable soils, installing some form of drainage measures and then backfilling the excavation with engineered fill . We also wish to point out that most of the existing fills along the access roadways will probably require reworking. In addition, since many of the soils and highly weathered rock materials at the site are erodable in both their natural condition and in engineered fills, good drainage provisions should be incorporated into all slope designs and newly excavated or filled slopes should be planted to minimize erosion. Expansive soils do not present a significant problem at this site. In .our opinion there are a number of building sites on the studied property. The final location for a given structure must be evaluated on an individual basis. The foundation design system for each of the residences should take into account any potentially unstable conditions as well as any creep and/or expansive soil conditions that nay exist on the property. 0000 2 Don Hillebrandt Associates 336-1 Page 6 /Prior to developing the final grading and improvement plans, it is recanmended d that more detailed subsurface investigations be undertaken. Test borings and/or test.pits should be made throughout the area to verify. the subsurface conditions and to determine the engineering properties of the soil and bedrock materials. Measurements of any 'groundwater conditions should also be. made.. On the basis of these studies, specific recommendations for earthwork and drainage requirements for the roadways can be made and foundation design criteria for the residences can be developed. LIMITATIONS Our services consist of professional opinions and conclusions made in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either expressed or implied. If you have any questions regarding this preliminary report, please callus. Very truly yours, DON HILLEBRANDT ASSOCIATES l / , James C. Prendergast E.G. 955 Donald H. Hillebrandt C.E. 16338 DHH:JCP:lgb Copies: Addressee (5) Don Hillebrandt Associates 1 APPEN01 X A - BIBLIOGRAPHY J California Divison of Mines & Geology, 1974, "Special Studies Zones Richmond Quadrangle", Unpublished map at 1:2400 scale. Contra Costa County, 1975, Seismic Safety Element Technical Background Report, 236PP with maps at 1:2000 scale. Contra Costa County, 1976 "Preliminary Geologic Map of Contra Costa County", Unpublished map at 1:62500 scale. Ham, C..K. , 1952, Geology of Las Trampas Ridge, CDMG Special Report 22 page 26. Nilsen, T.H. 1973, "Preliminary Photo Interpretation Map of Landslide and Other Surficial Deposits". USGS, MF-493 BDC -#57 at 1:62500 scale. Pacific Aerial Surveys, 1954, Black & White Panchromatic Aerial Photos, I's AV-1251-10 & 10. Radbruch, D. H, & Case, J.E., Preliminary Geology Map and Engineering Geology Information, 'Oakland and Vicinity, California, Open File Report, U.S. Geological Survey, 1967. Saul, R.B. (1973) "Geology and Slope Stability of the Southwest 1/4 Walnut �i _ Ucc Creek Quadrangle, Contra Costa County, California", CDMG Map, Sheet MS-16- U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1974, Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, Unpublished Report, page 488, with maps at 1:2400 scale. Don Hillebrandt Associates .4KIl� •�� yV' t.` D M 91 ;�••• • 1 I� KA a 'o ��l'i'• �+R W.:'�-S`Z� 3 atDEl�`cf �y, ', ��°,.r°t llicT �iK`ti: '. ��F� 3.L ' tq lrS•. "F'•r T«w�n"�^f °� �.._E' ''• ,..�-{�,r�- .s.o '1 CP IY[�^23_,�/:Z - .n om/rl•t)V PVN [0. �..� =e l y • . �Y V'T :- y- - .t YR,•bA /0 .`�r�•v ICCT•'� [N1T �l i�' air `� y. v .Y•. At,., '�j,I•••• , �1ESSEH: -r'\�r.! '4a^Ii d ri+,, 'c ��2�i�• r:�:.T C4; 'r' V z�.,t�t �r °t,a DO �—s/", N Ti's i 5,R� :• '1`m.�: ;_ lry Ro - L 3��'7',+O 1 C COCOgA00-• ! 105 PRLDS Cl q r ?;. -�t�' _` a' ��°�. _ �'to �.� � � (^ � a. I•. ` N��"'{,I L•S �'• lel yips. -�y�•. �-.�� `/\, 1 �I•r .��L�►?D 4if � 6 �E•CtD'�I �*4• ' °e:r 3^E'i � °'+��• :v T- S x 'r. r,a L•,J. .�f ' PPPQ�.' Z Y+b. :.x.}••N•,:j w. '. +i9C701lP �r 1.-Pt SCALE 0 400 600 1600 2200 4400 6600 9800 11,000 FEET 0 1/4 0 3/4 t 2 2 1/2 MILES BASE: THOMAS BROS. MAPS LOCATION MAP Don Hillebrandt Associates 1112 Acre Site - King Drive Subdivision Walnut Creek, California Geotechnical Consultants PROJECT NO. GATE J_ Fipurs 1 336-1 JULY, 1977 � .t APPENDU D Leighton &Associates PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • l CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OCT 7j it 98 fifi '17 Date: October I8, 1977 To: A. A. Dehaesus, Director of Planning Attention: Norman L. Halverson, Chief off1977 v'sion Administration From: Vernon L. Cline, Public Works Director By: L. J. Reagan, Assisi-ant Public Worksl-or, Land Development Subject: TEntal-ive Map, Subdivision 5157 Preliminar•; Conference 1 :30 p.m. , Oc-lober I,, We have reviewed the subjecr ieni-ative map which was received by your office on September 12, 1977 and submit the following cornrnents for your consideration: 1 A. King Drive was dedicated on the map of -the Hillside Terrace Tract in 194 i. However, it was accepted by the County for mainienance only to the EI Darado Road intersection about 400 feet northwest of the subdivision. For cir7ulation to !fie east, the subdivider should be required to improve King Drive to Couni•y standards from EI Dorado Road through the subdivision. Rubio Way cannot- be ouilt to County standards and should be privately maintained. There are no adequate drainate facilities in the area and the nearest na RrfaI warercourse is Las Trampas Crcek, a quarter mile Po tle•norl•h. Therefore the suadiviCer should be required to collect all storm tracer runoff orig:na-ting the subdivision and to convey it in an adequate drainage facility to Las Trampas Crec!c. ll . Please include the following items in the conditions of approval for Subdivision 51U7. A. The subdivi .;ion shall conform to the provisions in Tille 9 of 1-he County Ordinance Code. Any variance therefrocrrnust be specifically applied for and sf,all nor be allowed unless listed on the Planning Commission's conditional approval statement. B. All utility transmission, distribution, and service facilities shall be inslalled underground. (Ordinance Code Chapter 96-10) C. Kiny Drivc shall be irnpre:ed from EI Dar-ado Road to the cast boundary of ;hr_ si,::divisiiou to Coun,y standards for a 2-.1-foul road in the existing big-`-.)ol r ;yhl of way curbed on lite subdivision side. The face of curb shall he 1,xa I ed " feet f rvrm -the r i yh l of way line aIong the: sued i v i s i on frontage to allow for- a future 32-foot road centered in the right of way. D. The slorrn drainage system is not, shown. Comment on the system will be :rade wren lite impro•ement plans are submitted for review. E. All storn water runoff ctiteriny and originating irr the subdivision stall b(. _L)IIccIed and convu-jed in an adequate closed conduit storm drain to La_. Trampas Creek. A. A. 1k:Lnr sms S • . Su,,. 51.:/ - 2 - Ocfoher 113, 1977 ( The developer shall uUInin the necessary drainage easements for the } of f-tract. siorm drain from the affected property owners for dedication to the coun-ty. G. The developer and/or his representatives shall nolify the Department of Fish and-Game, P. 0. Box 47, Yountvi 1Ic, CA 945519 of any proposed or existing con sI rucI-i on pr a jec t 1 hal- may a f t cc t Las Trampas Creek in accordance with Section 1601 and 1602 of the -Fish and Game Code. DD:sli - cc: Flood Cantrol Grading Engineer, Subdivision Engineer sub(Ji v i cler .Land DevFIupmcnt Sr. C.E. ,* CONTRAIRSTA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENO NOTICE OF XX Completion of Environmental Impact Report Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance Lead Agency Other_Responsible Agency Contra Costa County c/o Planning Department P.O. Box 951 Martinez, California 94553 Phone (415) 372-2024 Phone EIR Contact Person Darwin Myers Contact Person PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SUBDIVISION 5187 (Applicants: DMT Way and Associates) A proposed subdivision of 11.25 acres into 14 residential lots. Subject property is located on a steep, north-facing hillside on the south side of King Drive, approximately 300 feet east of El Dorado Road, in the Walnut Creek area. It is determined from initial study by of the Planning Department that this project does not have a significant effect on the environment. l� Justification for negative declaration is attached. XX.The Environmental Impact Report is available for review at the below address: Contra Costa County Planning Department 4th Floor, North IVing, Administration Bldg. . Pine F Escobar Streets {� GMartinez, California JuLy ;�Da e Post ��e 2 �J1, Final date for review/appeal G �U�U BL Planning Depart epresentative AP9 1/74