Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 01011979 - R 12 IN 19
Diablo Engineers, Inc. Rezoning Application 2203-RZ Walnut Creek Area 1979 STORED: REEL # INDEX # MAP # Box # 000 a3(- �-- Chingas, George Rezoning Application 2203-RZ Walnut Creek Area 1979 oap�u�wc,� 79-Y1 STORED: [,OB- Qf A��J t l�I �-.- REEL #_[,.,_INDEX # MAP # BOX # � , abl o � q ire Board of SuperPors Contra Y Cou Counl CI?rR a-d EY O1hL10 C,erk Ot use Board CounEy Administration Building Costa Mrs.GYra4rin R—a.9 P.O. Box 911 Chief Cleat Martinez, California 94553 Count (415)372-2371 Tom?ower,Ist District ;fancy C.Fanden,2nd District Robed 1.Schroder,3rd District Sunne Wright McPeak,4th District Eric H.Hasseliine,5th District August 1, 1979 Contra Costa Times P. 0. Eos 8039 c7alnut Creek, Cry 94593 Gentlemen: Re: Purchase Order 43018 Enclosed is Ordinance No. 79-31, (Re-3onina Land in the Nalnut Creek Area) , which we wish you to publish on August 10, 1979. Please sign the enclosed card and return it to this office. I�MDIATELY 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, 'o be charged at the ma::imun rate tete Count_.r J. R. 07.SSON, CLERF r-n v pay for Tec.al / ; adertisinc set ay the �i �1/ !,card;on Apr. 21, 1970. By c- Moria Palo;lo, Deputy Clerk 15.4 w ORDINANCE NO. 79-81 Re-Zoning Land in the Walnut Creek Area) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: i SECTION I. Page N-15, 16 of the County's 1978 Zoning.Map (Ord. No. 78- 93) is amended by re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein (see also County Planning Department File No. 2203-RZ ) FROM: Land Use District A-2 ( General Areiculture ) TO: Land Use District R F�_( Single Family Residential ) and the Planning Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly; pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84-2.003. q' .. 40m,Ar2_.o �C R-100 RI'40 A.2 — < . - A•2 p / o F - h SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in the Contra Costa Times a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on July 31, 1979 by the following vote: Supervisor Aye No Absent Abstain 1. T. M.Powers (N) ( ) ( ) ( ) 2. N.C.Fanden (Y. { ) ( ) ( ) 3. R.I.Schroder ON ( ) ( ) ( ) 4. S. W. McPeak 00 ( ) ( ) { ) 5. E. H. Hasseltine (N) ( ) ( ) ( ) ATTEST: J.R.Olsson, County Clerk / and o i erk oL h Board CCC��� C Chairman of the Board E.H.Hasseltine B (SEAL) Gloria M. Palomo ORDINANCE NO. 79-81 ty- Si< 2203-RZ r In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California July 17 19 7g In the Matter of Decision on the Request of Diablo Engineers, Inc. (2203-RZ) to Rezone Land in the Walnut Creek Area. Dr. George Chingas, Owner. The Board on July 3, 1979 having fixed this time for decision on the request of Diablo Engineers, Inc. (2203-RZ) to rezone land in the Walnut Creek area from General Agricultural District (A-2) to Single Family Residential District (R-65), in lieu of Single Family Residential District (R-40) as originally requested by the applicant; and On the recommendation.of Supervisor R. I. Schroder, IT IS ORDERED that the request of Diablo Engineers, Inc. , is APPROVED as recommended by the Planning Commission. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ordinance Number 79-81 giving effect to the aforesaid rezoning is INTRODUCED, reading waived and July 31, 1979 is set for adoption of same. PASSED by the Board on July 17, 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: Diablo Engineers, Inc. Supervisors Dr. George Chingas affixed this 17th day of Julv 19 79 Director of Planning County Assessor . R. OLSSON, Clerk ByDeputy Clerk �adhl H-24 3/79 15M i 4 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California July 3 , 19 72 In the Matter of Hearing on the Request of Diablo Engineers, Inc., Applicant (2203-RZ) to Rezone Land in the Walnut Creek Area. Dr. George Chingas, Owner. The Board on ray 29, 1979 having fixed this time for hearing on the request of Diablo Engineers, Inc. (2203-RZ) to rezone land in the Walnut Creek area from General Agricultural District (A-2) to Single Family Residential District (R-65), in lieu of Single Family Residential District (R-40) as originally requested by the applicant; and A. A. Dehaesus, Director of Planning, having advised that an Environmental Impact Report was prepared by the Planning staff, considered by the Planning Commission during its deliberations and found to have been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State guidelines; and Bob Pond, representing the Citizens Advisory Committee for County Service Area R-8, having appeared in opposition to the proposed rezoning and having urged the Board to deny the request; and Wilbur Duberstein, representing the applicant, having stated that his client accepts the Planning Commission recommendation; and Supervisor R. I. Schroder having stated that he had concerns relating to fire service and having requested that decision on the hearing be deferred to July 17, 1979 to allow him an opportunity to meet with the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District; - IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the request of Diablo Engineers, Inc. is CLOSED and that decision on samez :-- is DEFERRED to July 17, 1979 at 2 p.m. PASSED by the Board on July 3, 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. cc: Diablo Engineers, Inc. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Dr. George Chingas Supervisors Wilbur Duberstein, Attorney affixed this 3rd day of Jul 19.79 County Service Area R-8 Castle Rock Water District Jon Benson Clerk Director of Planning By Deputy Clerk a dahl H-24417715m PROOF OF PUBLICOION This sp*for County Clerk's Filifi�'pmp a (2015.5 C.C.P.) by J, STATE OF CALIFORNIA JUM,` County of Contra Costa o-. I am a citizen of 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 I am the Principal Legal Clerk of the Contra Costa Times. Notice 0#' Public Hearing A newspaper of general circulation, printed and pub ; ra: FiE w lished at 2640 Shadelands Drive in the City of Walnut "'C0141'IiA:CQBiACOttN7Yi Creek,County of Contra Costa,94598 t* MAt�1/111tMM3 T1EA; , ?,MAtlRlf�pFtWFA �, And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaperdHlYCatnryA& xnrdF+Y'ratnv#"Fine, aidE>ieW>le81raa1►.llrrYs'-Cali-..: of general circulation by the Superior Court of the Coun- Mir'Contra Cwfa Cartlys ty of Contra Costa,State of California,under the date of of ttIW" l October 22, 1934.Case Number 19764. �an ++ � of Dlapitt Ex its{22R3�2t to rapoa tend feonri The notice,of which the annexed is a printed copy(set in task 7lytccalbndllrw�6lae[ is wtMfillt�irYnfat3�raNli .'t type not smaller than nonpareil),has been published in a thaCaurwyWContntiMle' regular and entire issue of said news totiatr4Ca>tionpreAeaart each rnn; e9 paper and not n >�,MM,>nw;n tse agke of, bt t+fannicM•CovghrAd in any supplement thereof on the following dotes,to-wit: m' �Afpe►�'i Ma :.;.z i APpwaiiivaAy 6:35ares iiai `edww60% aQ 20iW teat'saWh.at VrmiJi,dr June 13, W,aYwtCta aew.:' , 6x"ardtr of the duerd of sorsofltwCouttrotCaMro State 6ii;aiitenra.= Rale: 2J.2979 all in the year of 1979. J R, end�Ci Uiek I cern or declare under nal of perjury d 0t'oi- certify ( ) penalty per'u that the Coum7ot�ai+Nrab StlUo(CiYFonyad= � foregoing is true and correct. e�vp�ic cast000 bI'n6June Executed at Walnut Creek,California. On this 13 day of June ,19 79 Signature East Bay Newspapers,Inc. Contra Costa Times PROOF OF PUBLICATION P.O.Box 5088 Walnut Creek,Ca.94596 M5)935-2525 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California May 29 , 1979 In the Matter of Report of the County Planning Commission on the Request of Diablo Engineers, Inc., Applicant (2203-RZ) to Rezone Land in the Walnut Creek Area. Dr. George Chingas, Owner. The Director of Planning having notified this Board that the County Planning Commission recommends approval of the request of Diablo Engineers, Inc. (2203-RZ) to rezone approximately 6.35 acres located west of Castle Rock Road, 2,000 feet south of Comistas Drive in the Walnut Creek area from General Agricultural District (A-2) to Single Family Residential District (R-65), in lieu of Single Family Residential District (R-40) as originally requested by the applicant; IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that a hearing be held on July 3, 1979 at 2:00 P.M. in the Board Chambers, Room 107, County Administration Building, Pine and Escobar Streets, Martinez, California 94553, and that pursuant to code requirements, the Clerk is DIRECTED to publish notice of same. PASSED by the Board on May 29, 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 data aforesaid. cc: Diablo Engineers, Inc. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Dr. George Chingas Supervisors Wilbur Duberstein, Attorneyofflxed this 2907jay of May 1979 County Service Area R-8 Castle Rock Water District R. OLSSON, Clerk Jon Benson � Director of Planning By Deputy Clerk Dorot C. GO,s ss H-24 4/77 15m - NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON A PLANNING MATTER Walnut Creek AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday July 3, 1979 , at 2:00 P-79. in Room 107 of the County Administration Building, corner ofPP-ine and Escobar Streets, Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: Recommendation of the County Planning Commission on the rezoning application of Diablo Engineers, Inc. (2203-RZ) to rezone land from General Agricultural District (A-2) to Single Family Residential District (R-65). 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): Approximately 6.35 acres located west of Castle Rock Road, 2,000 feet south of Comistas Drive in the Walnut Creek area. By order of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California. Date: May 29, 1979 J. R. OLSSON, County Clerk and ex officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California By ,�• D rothyGald, Deputy Cleric James The Board of Supervi�rs Contra �' County l012900 erkan County Clerk a+�Q } EX officio Clerk of LSe 8-vard County Administration Building Costa MMG*raiainrRwseB Chief Clerk P.O. Box 911 County (415)372-2371 Martinez;California 94553 Tom Powers,1st District " Nancy C.Fanden,2nd District C Robert 1.Schroder,3rd District Sunne Wright MCPeak.4th District Eric H.Hasseltine,5th District June 1, 1979 CONTRA COSTA TIMES P. 0. Box 8088 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Gentlemen: l f Re: Purchase Order 44650 Enclosed is Notice of Public Hearing on request of Diablo Engineers, Inc. to rezone land in the Walnut Creek i area (2203-RZ) which we wish you to publish on June 13, 1979 1 Please sign the enclosed card and return it to this office. IMMEDIATELY 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, i TO BE CHARGED AT THE MAXIMUM RATE THE COUNTY MAY PAY FOR LEGAL J. R. OLSSON, CLERK ADVERTISING SET BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON APRIL 21, 1970. By DorotVCle ss, Deput t j 15.4 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY C � PLANNING DEPARTMENT R ECEIVED 8 1979 J. R. OLSSON TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: 16 May 1979 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERV15ORS Contra Costa CountyONT CgSTA CO. B .... _.._. . De u FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesu SUBJECT: REZONING: Diablo Engineers/Dr. Director of Planni George Chingas (2203-RZ) - 6.35 acres, A-2 to R-65 - Walnut Creek area. Attached is Planning Co ission Resolution #24-1979, adopted by the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, M'y 15, 1979, by unanimous vote (all members Present). This application was reviewed by the County Planning Commission on March 6, March 27 and again under Reconsideration on May 8, 1979, and was approved for a change from A-2 to R-65. The applicant requested R-40 zoning. The property is described as being 6.35 acres and being Parcel B of M/S 78-68, located at the western terminus of a private easement 480-ft., west of Castle Rock Road, approx- imately 2,000-ft., south of Comistas Drive in the Walnut Creek area. The following people should be notified of your hearing date and time: Diablo Engineers, Inc. (Applicant) Castle Rock Water District c/o Joseph A. Calabrigo Attn: W. Ambrose 1450 Enea Circle St.#330 611 Pine Creek Road Concord, California 94520 Walnut Creek, Calif. 94598 Dr. Geo. Chingas (Owner) Mr. Jon Benson 2635 Comistas Drive 3490 Buskirk Avenue Walnut Creek, Calif. 94598 Pleasant Hill, Calif. 94523 Wilbur Duberstein, Attorney 2500 Old Crow Canyon Road San Ramon, California 94583 County Service Area R-8 c/o Robert M. Pond 1445 Civic Drive Walnut Creek, California 94596 AAD/v cc: Files 2203-RZ & M/S 221-77 Supervisors, District: I, II, III, IV, V. Attachments: Resolution, Findings Map, Staff Report, EIR. Resolution No. 24-1979 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CO19AISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFOR- NIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RE=tMNDATIONS ON THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN ZONING BY DIABLO ENGINEERS (APPLICANT), DR. GEORGE CHINGAS (OWNER), (2203-RZ), IN THE ORDINANCE CODE SECTION PERTAINING TO THE PRECISE ZONING FOR THE WALNUT CREEK AREA OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, a request by DIABLO ENGINEERS, INC. (Applicant), DR. GEORGE CHINGAS (Owner(, (2203-RZ), to rezone land in the Walnut Creek area from General Agricultural District (A-2) to Single Family Residential District (R-40), was received by the Plann- ing Department Office on November 23, 1978; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report was preapred in conjunction with this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, after notice, thereof, having been lawfully given, a public hearing was held by the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, March 6, 1979, whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, on Tuesday, March 6, 1979, the Planning Commission accepted the Environmental Impact Report as being complete and in compliance with CEQA, State and local guidelines; and WHEREAS, on Tuesday, March 6, 1979, the County Planning Commission CLOSED the public hearing on this rezoning application to view the site on field trip; and WHEREAS, on Friday, March 16, 1979, the County Planning Commission visited the subject property; and WHEREAS, on Tuesday, March 27, 1979, at a CLOSED hearing, the County Planning Commission considered all reports, testimony and results of its field trip; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission makes its recommendations, findings, statements and certification to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, that the rezoning application of DIABLO ENGINEERS, INC., (Applicants), DR. GEORGE CHINGAS (Oemer), (2203-RZ), be APPROVED for a change in zoning from General Agricultural District (A-2) to Single Family Residential District (R-65) in lieu of the applicant's request for R-40, and that this zoning change be made as is indicated on the findings map entitled: PAGES N-15, 16 OF THE COUNTY'S 1978 ZONING MAP, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, on March 28, 1979, the applicant's attorney submitted a letter to the County Planning Department requesting RECONSIDERATION, citing "inequities in the handling of this matter"; and WHEREAS, on April 10, 1979, the County Planning Commission granted the applic- Resolution No. 24-1979 ant's request for Reconsideration; and WHEREAS, on Tuesday, May 8, 1979, the County Planning Commission held its Re- consideration Hearing whereat all interested persons did appear and were heard by the County Planning Commission; and 11MREAS, the County Planning Commission CLOSED the Reconsideration Hearing and after having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evi- dence submitted in this matter; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission reaffirmed their action of Tuesday, March 27, 1979, to recommend to the County Board of Supervis- ors that the rezoning application be APPROVED for a change from General Agricultural District (A-2) to Single Family Residential District (R-65); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission reports the follow- ing on the Environmental Impact Report: A. ENVIROMENTAL DdPACT REPORT: That the resolution with the comments and responses become a part of the Environmental Impact Report and that the Commission certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Report has been completed in conformance with CEJ(A, State and local guidelines and further certifies that the Commission has reviewed, considered and evaluated the information contained in said Final Environmental Impact Report; and B. FINDINGS: With reference to its recommendations, this Commission finds that: 1. The land use to be authorized by the Ordinance is consistent with the County General Plan in that said land use authorized by the Ordinance is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. 2. The EIR identifies several effects of the proposed project and the following comment is made: a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid each such significant environmental impact thereof; and/or b. The specific economic, social or other considerations make in- feasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives. C. R.ECRAIENDATIONS: That the applicant's request to rezone approximately 6.35 acres from General Agricultural District (A-2) to low-density Single Family Residential District (R-65), be APPROVED. BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED that the Chairman and Secretary of this Planning Commiss- ion shall sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, all in accordance with the provisions of the Government Code of the State of California. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the instructions of the Planning Commission to pre- -2- C0��� ! • Resolution No. 24-1979 pare this resolution was given by motion of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, „'fay 8, 1979, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Anderson, Compaglia, Milano, Young, Phillips, Brombacher, Walton. NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. I, William V. Walton, III, Chairman of the County Planning Commission of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing was duly called and held in accordance with the law on Tuesday, May 15, 1979, and that this resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the following vote of the County Planning Commission: AYES: Commissioners - Milano, Compaglia, Anderson, Young, Phillips, Brombacher, Walton. NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. G�^1i�"pv Chairman of the Planning Commission of e County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: r` Seca o the Pl ing Co 'ss/nof""the C ty f Contra Co ta, State of California ED RECEI - -- MAY /f 1979 J. R. OL5SON CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS NTA CO. B •^"RA�O ° cooz-1 -3- Findings Map '< R. 4 /� ` '} I I GOMI-S 2 ply � 1 R-100 - �� R40�� �a A•2 p o rt, Rezone From A-z- To Z 65 WALNOT CMEEK. Area i, V. \NALTOJ 1T1 , Chairman of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, State of California, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of PAGES N-IS IG Or TME GOJNTV$ 1918 ZONING MAP. indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning rr'` c Commission in the matter of DI AGLO L N61Ne�ILS INC, ZZ03- 2Z C a firmn of the Contra Costa Coun Planning Commission, State of Calif. 4Pnni'nq, : ry of a Contro Cos County Co mission, State of Calif. I'I ruin i nI! 11 -p;1 rl mcnl • Contrrl CoSLa County PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tut•sday. May 8, 1979 DIABLO ENGINI:kRS, INC. (Applicants) GEORGE CIIINGAS (Owner) County (rile 112203-RZ: I. INTRODUCTION: This is a request to rezone 6.35+ acres from General Agricultural District (A-2) to Single Family Residential (R-40). Property is located west of Castle Rock Road, 2,000+ feet south of Comistas Drive in the Walnut Creek area. This item was heard before the Planning Commission March 6, 1979. The hearing was closed, a field study scheduled for March 16, 1979, with approval on March 27, 1979. The applicant requested a reconsideration on March 28, 1979 which the Planning Commission granted and scheduled for May 8, 1979 Planning Commission Meeting. Letter stating reasons for this reconsideration is attached. i T. RECOIZIE.: DATION: Approve for R-65 III. GENERAL INFORI•IAI'ION: A. General Plan Designation: Single Family Residential - Low Density (1963 Land Use Plan) B. Zoning: General Agricultural District (A-2) C. Proposed Zoning: Single Family Residential - Low Density (R-40) D. CEQA Status: EIR completed E. Concurrent Application: M.S. 221-77 F. Site Description and Existing Land Use: Steep, wooded hillsides, 500 slopes. No structures currently exist on the property. G. Surrounding Area: Open space. Park lands exist to the south and west, with large lot single family residences to north and east. 11. Regulatory Programs: The proposed County Grading Ordinance would effect the development of this property. However, since the ordinance is not adopted at this time, it would serve only as a guideline rather than an ordinance. IV. STAFF CONSIDERATIONS: Due to park conflicts and on-site slope, requested that an EIR be prepared. Or J)i'lhlo 1111gincers, Inc. -2- 2203-RZ V. STAFF ANALYSIS: A. Compliance with Ordinance Requirements/Policies: The proposed zoning complies with the low-density single family residential designation of the 1963 General Plan. However, this represents a maximum density which the actual development could not exceed. There may be on- site concerns which may further restrict development to a density of less than one unit per 40,000 square feet B. General Discussion: 'llie subject property is highlighted by steep slopes which will restrict on-site development. However, this and any concerns with the interaction between park and residential uses should be worked out during the review of the tentative map for M.S. 221-77. As a result of staff review of the tentative subdivision map for M.S. 221-77, the topography and adjacent land uses indicate minimum 65,000 square feet parcels appear appropriate. Staff has recommended the minor subdivision be revised to reflect this and be approved for three lots only. VI. CONCLUSION: Based on the staff report above, staff finds the request appropriate and recommends that the Planning commission adopt a resolution -recommending the Board of Supervisor approve rezoning 2203-RZ from General Agricultural District (A-2) to single Family Residential District (R-6.3). BB:PlP 1/25/79 3/2%75/l/ 99 002'3". LAW OrV'1C1:S WILBUR DU13EUZSTL:zN CAROL O'CONNELL /. 13J cSo%c5'^S'lIG J,aet i/7amrny,�l otiu'a 9/rScS'Q? March 28, 1979 fTI Contra Costa County Planning Dept. County Administration Bldg. , North Wing P. O. Box 951 :v Martinez, California 94553 Re: County File No. 220"3-R'L'^T'_ County File No. MS 221-77 c� Gentlemen: Please be advised that I represent Dr. George Chingas, who was the applicant on the above noted applications to your Commis- sion which were decided last night, March 27th, at your meeting held at the County Administration Building. These matters had been heard on March 6th and closed for decision on that day so that your Commission could view the property on a field trip. Because I recognize that the Commissioners are mindful of their responsibilities to the public and the applicants, and aware of their heavy responsibilities in deciding the fate of properties in our county, I felt it important to call to your attention what I believe to be inequities in the handling of this matter, which resulted- in my client having secured an approval which was in truth a major defeat,. I recognize that our only avenue is to appeal to the Board of Supervisors' for relief (which we will do) , but for what it may be worth to other applicants in the future, I would like to call to your attention the following: 1. Although the hearing was closed, the Staff Representa- tive was allowed to reiterate his case, but the applicant was not permitted to make response.. At the hearing held on March 6th, several Board members had been convinced with regard to the subdivision of this property into 4 lots and also the modi- fication of one of the conditions relating to the highest eleva- tion so as to allow the applicant to place his personal residence on a site previously selected, which was some 20 feet higher than the perfunctory height designated by Staff (but still well below any ridge line) . The inability of the applicant .to call even Contra Costa County Planning Dept. March 28, 1979 Page Two the latter matter to the attention of the Commission has resulted in the necessity of an appeal. 2. Commissioner Phillips, who voted on the matter, was not present at the March 6th hearing and, therefore, had no oppor- tunity of ever having heard the position of the applicant. We are likewise informed that Commissioner Phillips was not present at the time of the field trip, but we recognize that she may have viewed the property at another time. However, not having had the benefit of the hearing, the applicant feels that she should have abstained from voting. 3. With the pressure of the amount of business required to be handled by the Commission, it is the feeling of the applicant that his application did not receive a fair hearing because the hiatus between the March 6th hearing and the March 27th decision obviously dulled the impact of the comments made at the March 6th hearing by the applicant's engineer, Joseph Calibrigo, as well as the undersigned. It is hoped that some method could be devised whereby the Commis- sion could view the properties prior to a hearing so that the information upon which they are called upon to make decisions is before them at the time the applicant is given his opportunity to be heard. Si c el,11, Wilbur Duberstei:n WD/sej cc: Planning Commission Members: William V. Walton, III Albert R. Compaglia Donald E. Anderson Elton Brombacher William L. Milano Carolyn D. Phillips Andrew H. Young Joseph Calibrigo Diablo Engineers Planning Department Contra P'""�C°'ltmill "`m°ef4 (/'1� WfPlam Y.Walton,til V Vsta Plant H411—cftakr wn Alert R.Compag" County Administration Building,North Wing Martinez—ViceCheirman P.O.Box 951 County Donald E.Anderson Martinez California 94553 Moraga Anthony; Dehaesus Director of Planning Elton ch otnbaUxr Born Phone: 372-2024 William 4laaano Pittsburg Carolyn D.Phillipa Rodeo Andrew H.Young Aldmd January 31, 1979 RESPONSES TO C064fENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR FOR 2203-RZ AND MINOR SUBDIVISION 221-77 DIABLO ENGINEERS INC., (APPLICANTS) AND DR. GEORGE CHINGAS (OWNER) To Concerned Parties: The project is located at the terminus )f a private road off the southwest side of Castle Roc Road, approximat' 1950 feet south of its intersection with Comisras Drive. in the Walnut ac,: area. A Notice of Completion of the Drart EIR was posted on November 21, 1978, with a posted final date for review/appeal of December 22, 1978. Written comments were received during the review period; copies of each are included in this response document. This document is the Contra Costa County Planning Department response t . comments received during the noticed review period. This document, together with the Draft EIR consitutes the Final Environmental Impact Report fc 2203-RZ and M.S. 221-77. DMB/ed RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR Application H.S. 221-77/2203-RZ r:r Four-lot minor subdivision application Castle Rock Rd., Contra Costa County Jnw 30 :3 Pfi'79 January, 1979 Written comments on the Draft EIR were received from the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District, the Contra Costa County Public Works Department, the Contra .Costa County Health Department, and the Citizens' Advisory Committee for Contra Costa County Service Area R-8. Copies are attached. 1. HEALTH DEPARTMENT Matters of concern to the Health Department--sewage disposal and domestic water supply--are discussed in the Draft EIR. Potential problems related to domestic-and firefighting water supplies are discussed in detail. 2. CONTRA COSTA RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT The Conservation District comment: express no concern with the proposed project or the Dr,ft EIA. s. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Public Works comments were received before the D-aft EIR was completed, and those comments related to drainage were incorporated into the Draft. The Department's comment that preferred access to the project site is S.om Comistas Road has already been responded to in the Draft in the section en- titled "Alternatives to the Project". This section discusses several ;ite plan and access alternatives and their advantages arl disadvantages. 4. COUNTY.SERVICE AREA R-8 (Citizens' Advisory Committee) The Advisory Committe's comments indicate general agreement with the sig- nificant impacts identified in the Draft EIR and the mitigation measures re- lated to vegetation, grading and aesthetics, and soil/geology/seismicity. The question of development with only one unit as an alternative is beyond the scope of the EIR. The project site is already a legal lot of record on .which one unit can be built without discretionary review. The Committee also commented that the only alternative site plan acceptable to them was one described but not illustrated in the Draft EIR. That alternative is illustrated on the following page. The advantages of the .alternative are described in the Draft EIR. 1 , 400 CD A., M Y v TWO-LOT ALTERNATIVE y r f . = Possible building sites r++ = Driveway/roadway CdQtra Costa • Anservation District ! ' 5552 Clayton Road - Concord,California 94527 - Telephone: (4151682-2266 r December 13, 1978 CCC Planning Department 651 Pine Street, North Wing Martinez, California 94553 SUBJECT: DRAFT EIR M.S. 221-77/2203-RZ Castle Rock Road, Contra Costa County Gentlemen: This is to advise that the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District staff has reviewed the abc znvironmental impact report. The following comments apply as iodic- 1. •� The project does not conflict with any current or planned District or Soil Conservation Service project. The environmental impact report is adequate and in conformance with District plans and policies. The environmental impact report lacks provif_ions for control f erosion and water management during constru,-tion. Additional information is required as noted on the attached sheet. Changes, as noted on the attached sheet, should be made before approval can be given by this District. This environmental impact report is considered to be inadequate, therefore, the District must oppose the project. Thank you for keeping us informed on the environmental aspects of your project. Please feel free to call on us if you have any questions or if we can be of assistance. Yours very truly, THOMAS t1. HOLMES, District Manager CONTRA COSTA RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT TWH/n 000ti, TO DC h ,u_ bl, H,=_ gn J)ATE FROM 2I1l,t", SUBJECT Draft F!k R2 -;"T 2.Z/-79 U, �n 0 a .Lr-Ylr�r-r.n,�,..�,}_ �Ls-uYr �/' r..>• 1'� —�,—�-'L!�r �:n 7� .����r✓,n,1! /!-�I �r-ort.Lt_>L.^rs�v.��Clt� �/`� ���_a-�-•'��Qri���1(L 7r1 �.Frvt Orf r,:�.• rl Q i.-e-�1: /1 s-s�� �,..P Y//��< t -' LG7•r[;rC.a Q•� C l� lQ�i n r �;n Q,:flb .(1C-t.�Iw IPnT C•� ,�. /�, ,.Y,..rr11 n/7 Y.i 1ElR Qn. U,�• C � rL-.11.ry'-4 .• � L7l�s-�,1�„ ci-�/�1,2x�v i QQ T J �, �/„� �LYyr_ o-�•t. ,'J�r � r pC�t-CiccW�.�y y �-C.'L�J- 00 lX1- 7i k�7 1J -�1��T t� C i r-^1'•_r-...r �.� L.n.,.•� � .i _r ,+•-lig �.--!.•..r-.�.L _ f/ C n�.•/,:�f_Cµcr c�,' dc�, ('.rr, - or Ih oo i_i'lrr-//l4I1.-.JAL- rrM /Le'e'e o 6t loe'-n SIGNED /E'-IIKLZ4 INSTRUCTIONS- FILL IN TOP PORTION,REMOVE DUPLICATE (YELLOW)AND FORWA O REMAINING PARTS WITH CARBONS.TO REPLY. FILL IN LOWER PORTION AND SNAP OUT CARBONS.RETAIN TRIPLICATE(PINK)AND RETURN ORIGINAL. 01 Of 11 wl l TII:?1r,`I'I I I11"'.,°t'IY11tN't' Ccntl Ca Ci::l a l'runl �. TO: An _hony A. Dehaer-lis December 13, 1978 D3 _ector of Plhnning FROM: . T M.,//��erow`,; P:'': ,�t•• ttJ�� SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Report Cared or Pf•,JPnv'ir( ihmenLal I�eal'th- M.S. 221.-77/7.7.0:1-RZ Castle Rock Road This department has reviewed the Draft Envifid`mental Impact Report for M.S. 221-77/2203-R.Z, Castle Rock Road, and makes the following comments: 1 Sewage disposal for these four lots shall be provided by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. The applicant must apply to the Health Department for individual well permits or for a small water system. Adequate quantity and quality of water has been a problem in this area. TMG:JLK:sm n � • 2� t r t5 J CITIZENS'ADVISORYCOMMIT Audrey Bram. Gary Gh l Haidy M Sanford sh R E� p SBllys, (� CM {y� 0P.EIV SPACE SPECM V U CMEK Robert M.F 0 o D a IEJai ZZ If z6 dM '?g CONTRA CORA CoLWY SERVICE AREA R ,January 17, 1979 Contra Costa County Planning Department 4th Floor, North Wing, Administration Bldg. Pine $ Escobar Streets .� Martinez, Ca. 94553 V. Re: Draft EIR M.S.221-77/2203-R2 , Gentlemen: The Citizens' Advisory Committee for Contra Costa County-Service Area R-8 has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for subject minor subdivision and has grave concern as to the impacts of the subdi- vision as reflected in that report. Of primary concern to the Advisory Committee are those significant and irreversible impacts identified as: 4. Soil/Geology/Seismicity - page 1 5. Grading and Aesthetics - page 2 7. Vegetation - page 3 The mitigation measures suggested for all of the above are to reduce the number of lots, relocate the building sites, and relocate the access road. The Advisory Committee concurs with these recommended measures. The topography of this property is such that to allow the subdivision and devel- opment as proposed in the EIR would be to destroy the scenic qualities of the public open space, which adjoins this property on two sides. The Advisory Committee has reviewed the alternatives to the Project set forth on pages 21 et seq, and comments as follows: 1. No project. If the site were developed with one unit, that unit should be confined to the lower elevation and access indicated for Parcel A. 2. Open Space. Although its acquisition as open space is desirable, the Service Area has no funds with which to purchase the property. 3. Site plan alternatives. The only alternative site plan proposed in the Draft EIR which provides acceptable mitigation to the irreversible impacts is the not illustrated additional two lot alternative with scenic easement set forth in the third and fourth paragraphs of Section 3, page 21. 00 231 Page Two (cont.) 1/17/79 -To: Contra-Costa-County Planning Department Re: Draft EIR M.S.221-77/2203-R2 4c. Acces . Alternative. The proposed alternative access through the Shell Ridge Recreation Area is unacceptable for the reasons indicated. 5. land Exhange Alternative. The proposal to trade this site for a similar -area of R open spate to the west is not feasible. Such trade would block x%hat is now the only public entrance to the open space from S.)uth Ygnacio Valley_ Further, this property was acquired with Open Space Bond funds for park and open space pur- poses, a public improvement, under threat of condemnation as se` forth in Board of Supervisors Resolution of Necessity No. 77/720 and probably could not be disposed of without vote of the people. The Advisory Committee appreciates the opportunity to comment on this Draft EIR and reqursts that they be kep` advised as to further actions on this proposed subdivision. Sincerely, An Sally Smith Chairperson SS/nb cc: Chief of Planning, City of Walnut Creek ' • • CITIZENS'ADVISUIIYCOMM IIILL Audrey Bramhall Gary Ginder Hardy Mlller - REEC?`- E D Sanford Skaggs `' - . ` SallySmlth u OPEN SPACE SPECIALIST W UT C MD E 7 K FEB 1 !@ Ila afl �9 Robert M.Pond GPM P E CONTRA COSSA COUNN SERVICE AREA R-8 -1 r,f;Ft'.: " 1 1 February 6, 1979 Mr. Anthony A. Dehaesu_s, Director Contra Costa County Planning Department Administration Building, 4th Floor, North Wing Pine & Escobar Streets Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Dehaesus: Re: Draft EIR MS 221-77/2203 RZ I have reviewed the revised tentative map stamped "Received January 12, 1979" of subject minor subdivision. Reference is made to my letter of January 17, 1979. The comments contained therein are still valid. The revised tentative map does not appear to mitigate certain of the major impacts identified in the EIR. (4) Soil/Geology/Seismicity - page 1 While the roadway has been generally relocated to the lower elevations the building site for Parcel D remains the same, hence still requiring major grading of the hillsides to reach the site. (5) Grading and Aesthetics - page 2 The number of proposed units has not been reduced nor have their locations been significantly changed, as recommended' in-the draft EIR. Development as proposed in the revised tentative map would still have the significant impact of destroying the scenic qualities of the Shell Ridge open space. (7) Vegetation - page 3 Same comments as for (4) and (5) above. The draft EIR suggests reducing the number of units and locating them at the lower elevations. The revised tentative imap ignores these recon- mended mitigation measures. The revised tentative map is misleading in that it identifies the proper- ties to the west and south as under private ownership. These properties are, in fact, owned by the County as public open space. s 0002.41 Mr. Anthony A. Dchaesus February G, ]979 Page I o The two-lot alternative identified in the pen-ultimate parenthetical paragraph on page 21 of the draft EIR is considered to be the only one which adequately mitigates the significant environmental impacts of this proposed development. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the revised tentative maps. Sincerely, Robert M. Pond RMP:rr cc: Chief of Planning, City of Walnut Creek s 000231 r 4 � k , Zf t J _ i A Contra t Costa F �4 { 5 A � rt — 4, L� 4 5 twl-RONIOWAL:IMPACT. REPORT ` 4� M ;S 22l ?7J2203 RZ K k :Castle Boe Cont s'a-"Costa County November, 1978 r _ Y .•p'r t — _ s t 1 — 1 � L it Y Y CONTENTS SUMMARY....................... ........................1 I. INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSION A. Project Description.......... ...............4 B. Environmental Inventory of the Area.........4 C. Utilities and Community Facilities.. ........5 D. Soil/Geology/Seismicity.....................7 E. Grading and Aesthetics.... ..................9 F. Traffic/Circulation............... ..........9 G. Drainage/Water Quality.....................10 H. Vegetation/Wildlife........................14 I. Schools.:******' ',,**'*...*...*...15 J. Air Quality................................15 K. Noise......................................16 L. Energy. .. .... .... .. .. .... ..................16 M. Parks/Recreation.... .. .... .................16 N. Archaeology...... .. .... .. ..................17 II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS A. Environmental Impacts.... .. ................17 B. Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided if the Proposal is Implemented. ..... ....... ....... .......19 C. ;litigation Measures.... ............... .....19 D. Alternatives to the Project................21 E. The Growth-Inducing Impact of the Project. .... .. .. ....... ..............25 III. PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED DURING PREPARATION OF THE REPORT. .. ... ................27 IV. BIBLIOGRAPHY.. .. .. .. . ...... ....................27 V. EIR AUTHOR......... .. .. .... .. ........ ..... .....27 APPENDICES Contents................ .. ...... ...............28 00071' NAPA �. SONOMA ��" COUNTY tCOUNTY ,-,-- ( � MART N SOLANO COUNTY - COUNTY SAN PAFLO BAY SUISUN BAY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY l �J :::w LNUT CREEK OAKLAND SAN FRANCISCO �• SAN ALAMEDA MATEO COUNTY 1 Q1.1 COUNTY SAN FRANC;SCO BAY`- F-icure 1 scale: 1" s 4.75 mi. fappro\.) Project Site a .0 ' • a �"'�.- ••M -- .• .� _ ,.moi VE...,._ r () , • . ����" - '.t �-,til t 11 �ri� - ya ItAt .. IN i oa 00 ~ SOD ( Figure _ � t� �• AREA SE'rTlr'G 'T c G c. 7.5 *.iyT�ute ' f {From t7' s7 - series map to prO32ot (Arrow Po ^, r site-) ---±- ---- '--' �}' j✓ �1 MT • 'fes +,�'� ... t C. C ZA5T c5AY / REG/ONAZ AARA' 015 r. Figure 3. 1 �?FIti??PORI?nQ?7 SETTING Scale: l" - 50C' Project Site CITY ` OF R-121 A:2" r WALNUT R-15 / // LZ- /P-1 �I CREEK R-151 / y W R-15 A-2 Figure 4. ZONING IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE Scale: 1/8'- = 100' -iv- Project Site � �y�t� ti •/-r `---...., .,....----- � E J. J• ,. �,,,"".---�...'' ... ` it._ =4`;�� �.~ � ""`r.,r J `�• `/moi'�,.� - - -y},���'�!..,,,,,;!�f'yG'�.,..�.. �J"'�!!�� .� .i'f, �`,-•,: s Z -Y� rea-ac�1Qn °v�Ma F 4!� + ti �lthe ce • � `i- 4 SUMMARY The proposed project, 2203-RZ/M.S. 221-77, is a request for rezoning of 6.35 acres from the General Agricultural District (A-2) to Single Family Residential District R-40, and a request for approval of a four-lot minor subdivision. The site is located just west of Castle Rock Rd. and just south of the Walnut Creek city limit, near North Gate High School. Significant impacts have been identified in the following categories: 1. ZONING Impact: The project site is within the City of Walnut Creek's sphere of in- fluence, and the proposed density is in excess of the maximum of three lots that would be allowed under the City's Hillside Planned Development District pre- zoning designation. Mitigation: Reduce the number of proposed units to a maximum of three. 2. DOMESTIC WATER Impact: Since the project site is not in the Contra Costa Treated Water District, the applicant is proposing the use of wells, and the potential exists for inadequate quantity and quality of well water to serve the proposed units. Mitigation: Before public hearings are held on the project, the applicant should provide sufficient information, consistent with Health Department re- quirements, to indicate adequate water quality and adequate water availability for four units on a year-around basis. 3. FIRE SERVICE Impact: The Castle Rock County Water District, in which the site is lo- cated, is substandard in terms of firefighting water supply, and such supply is not currently available from the Contra Costa Water District. Mitigation: Before project approval, the applicant should submit evidence to the County that he has prepared a plan, approved by the Fire District, for the provision of a firefighting water supply consistent with the standards of the Uniform Fire Code, and implementation of the plan should be required as a condition of project approval. A. SOIL/D" LOGY/SEISMICITY Impacts: A. Because soil on the site is highly erosive and large, steep cut and fill slopes will be required to build the proposed subdivision roadway, there is substantial potential for soil erosion. B. The potential exists for damage to roadway improvements and utilities-- especially in the area of heavy roadway grading--resulting from moderate- -- 000231 magnitude earthquakes originating on _he Concord or Franklin Faults, or great earthquakes originating on other 3a;• .,rea faults. ?litigation: To reduce the potential for erosion and earthquake damage, the subdivision roadway could be relocated to a lower-elevation alignment where slopes are not so steep and less grading would be required. (See sample site plan alternative illustration below.) 5. GRADING AND AESTHETICS Impacts: The project site is an important visual element of the Shell Ridge Recreation Area, and is highly visible from surrounding residential areas. The proposed homes, home site grading, driveway grading, and the heavy grading required for the proposed subdivision roadway will 'nave significant visual impact, greatly reducing the scenic qualities of the easterly end of the Shell Ridge open space. Mitigation: A. "love the subdivision roadway to a lower elevation alignment requiring less grading. S. Reduce the number of proposed units. C. Locate units at lower elevations along the lower elevation roadway. D. Require Zoning Administrator review and approval of home site plans, architectural plans (includings colors and materials), and roadway and drive- way grading. (The figure below illustrates one possible site plan alternative in which the number of units is reduced, the subdivision roadway is relocated to a lower- elevation alignment along the northerly site boundary, and homes are located at lower elevations at the fringe of the woodland area. This alternative and several others are discussed later in the report in the section entitled "Al- ternatives to the Project".) .�� -_------ -__-- TWO-LOT ALTERNATIVE Parcel A 1.3 e= Possible b,ild,n0 sites -2- coo"_ 4-I 6. DRAINAGE Impacts: A. Existing 12" pipes downstream from the site, at Castle Rock and Pine Creek Roads, are inadequate for anticipated runoff from the project site and three adjacent lots fronting Castle Rock Rd., in a 10-year storm. B. Development of the project, other subdivisions and homes in the area, and the proposed Ygnacio Valley Christian School (southeast corner Comistas and Castle Rock), will probably require a 24" pipe at Pine Creek Rd. and an im- proved-capacity ditch downstream to Pine Creek. Mitigation: A. The downstream 12" pipe at Castle Rock Rd. should be replaced by the developer with a minimum 18" pipe. B. The downstream 12" pipe at Pine Creek Rd. should be replaced with a 24" pipe. (The project developer could provide the new culvert, or could pro- vide it jointly with other developers in the area, including those of the Ygnacio Valley Christian School.) 7. VEGETATION Impacts: Project development will require removal of many mature and de- veloping oak trees, and will endanger and probably ultimately kill many others located around the edges of graded areas. (Oaks are particularly susceptible to changes in the ground surface within and around their drip lines.) The area of greatest removal and damage would be along the proposed subdivision roadway as it enters and crosses Parcel B, where the steep gully slopes will require heavy grading. Mitigation: A. Move the proposed subdivision roadway to a lower-elevation alignment where it would avoid the site's oak woodland, or would pass only along the edge of the woodland. B. Reduce the number of proposed units to generally reduce impact. C. 1.ate homes at lower elevations along the lower-elevation roadway, to reduce dr .veway impact on trees and to limit home development impact to the fringe area of the woodland. D. Require a tree plan for staff review and approval, including locations, species, and sizes of existing trees on and around home sites and graded areas; trees to be removed; and precautions to be taken during and after construction to avoid damage to trees located near graded and paved areas. I: INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSION -A. Project Description Under applications 2203-RZ and M.S. 221-77, Diablo Engineers, applicant, and George Chingas, owner, request approval of the following: 1. Rezoning of 6.35 acres from the General Agricultural District (A-2) to Single Family Residential District R-40 (40,000 sq. ft. min. lot size). 2. Subdivision approval for four single-family residential lots. The site is located about 70 It. west of Castle Rock Rd. in the Walnut Heights area, just south of the Walnut Creek City limit (Figure 3). The project Tentative Map (Figure 5) indicates the following: 1. The proposed development is a re-subd'ivision of the largest lot of an existing three-lot subdivision approved by the County. 2. Gross density = 0.63 units per acre (1.59 acres per unit). 3. Largest lot = 1.56 acres, net (67,900 sq. ft.); smallest lot = 1.13 acres, net (49,300 sq. ft.). 'B. Environmental Inventory of the Area 1. Physical Description Primary topography of the site is two ridges rising to the south. These are part of a system of ridges which increase in elevation until they reach a little over 700 ft, at Shell Ridge, which trends northwest-south- east-about 3,000 ft. southeast of the project site (Figure 2). North and east of the site, the ridges drop away to level and gently-rolling terrain forming the southern end of Ygnacio Valley. On-site elevations range from 284 ft. above sea level, at the northeast corner of the property, to 470 ft. at the south-central property boundary. Slopes on the site range from about 25% in a few areas to about 50% (2:1) over the ma- jority of the property. 2. Existing Uses The site is currently vacant: (As of this writing, a house is under construction between Castle Rock Rd. and the easterly site boundary, on Parcel C of the existing subdivision (Figure 5). 3. Surrounding Uses The site is bounded by open space to the west and south. To the north and northwest are residential lots ranging in size from about three-fourths of an acre, to one acre, most of them developed. To the east and northeast, 00023.1 project area is within the general boundaries of the Water District, but is not within the portion of the District that provides treated :rater. The latter is Treated Water District �-1, the southerly loundary of which is just aerth of Comistas Dr., north of the project site (Figure 3). The site is in the Castle Rock County Water District, which receives raw (untreated) water from the Contra Costa District and stores and distributes it for agriculture and firefighting. (Provision of treated water to the Castle Rock District would require resident- petitioned annexation into the Treated Water District.) The Health Department requires a separate well/storage system for each unit, or the formation of a "Small Water System"*, which could involve chlorination, a certified operator, and daily tests of water quality, if the Health Department determines that water quality is poor. 3. Electricity and Natural Gas: Pacific Gas and Electric Company; both services available. 4. Telephone: Pacific Telephone and .Telegraph Company; service ' available. 5. Schools: Mt. Diablo Unified School District (See Section I.I. for further discussion.) 6. Police: Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department; main office in Martinez. 7. Fire Service: Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District. Asmentionedabove, the site is within the Castle Rock County Water District, which has some scattered standpipes, used as fire hydrants, located along road- ways in the area, including one on the easterly side of Castle Rock Rd. north- east of the site. This is an old rural system *.which is considered substandard by the Fire District because it is shut down at certain periods for maintenance, and cannot always depend on the Contra Costa Water District for a continuous supply of water.** Homes in the Castle Rock District have wells to supply do- mestic water. Other new developments in the area also have substandard firefij;hting water supplies, and have been approved subject to property owners' agreement to par- ticipate in future annexation to the Contra Costa Treated Water District, or formation of a separate district.-** (The 16 lots just north of the project site, for example, have a water tank adjacent to Comistas Dr., and individual treatment facilities. At the west end of Comistas, homes have only wells. in one case, the Fire District has agreed to pump from a private swimming pool in case of fire.****) * Winston Dea, County Health Dept., interview, Oct. 19, 1978 *� Senior Inspector Robert Frost, Consolidated Fire Dist., interview, Oct. 16, 1975 *** Ibid. `** Ibid. across Castle Rock Rd., are a number of lots of various sizes--one-half acre to several acres--with scattered residential development. (Under Land Use Permit application number 2126-78, Ygnacio Valley Christian School--grades K-8--is proposed for development just north of the project site, at the south- east corner of Comistas Dr. and Castle Rock Rd.) Many of the residentially developed lots in the area are used for keeping horses, and the areas east and south of the project site are distinctly rural in character. Castle Rock Park, a private recreation facility, is located about one-half mi. south of the site, at the terminus of Castle Rock Rd. 4. General Plan and Zoning The project site is in the General Plan sphere of interest of the City of Walnut Creek, and is designated for open space land use by the City (0-1 unit/acre).* The County's land use designation is General Open Space, which specifies a minimum lot size of five acres. The site is currently zoned A-2 (General Agricultural District), which has a minimum lot-size requirement of five acres. However, Walnut Creek prezoning for the site is Hillside Planned Development District (H-P-D).^'* (This is a PUD district, which has special provisions for development of sensitive hill- side land. Detailed development plans are required, indicating siting and de- sign of structures, landscaping and irrigation, fencing, lighting, and grading. Careful control of grading, and preservation of streams and vegetation are em- phasized. However, the most important aspect of the H-P-D District is a slope/ density standard which reduces ,gross density as average slope increases. Appli- cation of this standard to the project site results in an allowed "Base density" of 0.5 units per acre, and permits a maximum of three units (3.25) on the pro- ject property.) C. Utilities and Community Facilities 1. Sanitary Sewer: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District; service available. 2. Domestic Water: Since the Contra Costa County Water District does not t,ave service to the site***, the applicant has proposed wells. (The * City of Walnut Creek, Dec. 17, 1973, Walnut Creek General Plan, Land Use Map. ** Robert M. Pond, Open Space Specialist, City of Walnut Creek, interview, Oct. 20, 1978 *** Ann Fornes, New Business Administrator, Contra Costa County Water Dist., interview, Oct. 19, 1978 �5 - 8. Solid Waste Disposal: Valley Disposal Service, Incorporated; service available. D. Soil/Geology/Seismicity* (Figure 6) 1. Geology The bedrock of the site is Domengine Sandstone, a gray to . brown feldspathic quartz sandstone of Tertiary age. There are a number of outcrops of this material along the ridge tops of the site. The bedrock planes strike northwesterly and dip steeply to the south, on the order of 88 degrees.** 2. Soil The soil covering of the site is Gaviota sandy loam, a light . brown clayey sand, dry, and powdery where disturbed. The depth of the soil varies up to about 1.5 ft. Runoff is rapid and erosion potential is high. Several areas of moderate to severe erosion are found on the site, and it appears that deer and human activities have resulted in trails that have con- tributed to erosion problems. 3. Slope Stability No major downslope movement has been noted on the site. How- ever, two areas of soil creep and minor surficial movement are located in swales. These swales have slopes as steep as 2:1, which are the major geo- technical problems with regard to site development, particularly as they would be affected by roadway development. 4. Seismicity The active fault nearest the site is the Concord Fault, located about one mile to the north. Active creep is presently occuring along this fault, in the Concord area, and it is likely that the site will be subjected to a moderate-to-severe earthquake from the fault during the design life of the proposed structures. The potentially-active Franklin segment of the Calaveras Fault is located about 3.5 mi. w- t of the project site. Earthquake epicenters with Richter magni- cudes of =.5 to 4.4 have been recorded within 1.5 mi. to the north and north- west of the site. * Information in this section was derived primarily from ENGEO, Inc. , Engineers and Geologists, Oct. 10, 1978, Preliminary Soil and Geologic Feasibility In- vestigation (Contained in the appendices.) ** Contra Costa County, 1976, Preliminary Geologic Map of Contra Costa County: Unpubl. map at 1:62,500 scale, available from the County Public Works Dept. 7_ All ` V RSD SITE `'SUBDIVISION Bcur.JoA.aY LOT A LG7T G 300 SITE 3B0 �l '400 Sl .320 lDT B \\ I`t ppz 7Dp7$Ep 3� ROAD SI LOT 0 427 5 OF NG7TIG EEG D SF4A[I I��JNS MOVEMENT TTTT DRAINSG \N Figure 6. SOIL/GEOLOGY MAP (Adapted from ENGEO, Inc. , Preliminary Soil and Geologic Feasibility, contained in the appendices.) No Scale 00011-, Ll0\.'« E. Grading and Aesthetics The major earthwork required for site development will be along" the proposed subdivision roadway (Figure 7). There is an existing graded road (unpaved) providing access to a point near the easterly boundary of the site, and serving Parcels A and C of the existing three-lot subdivision (Fig- ure 5). Extending the road onto the site will require cut and fill slopes up to 20 and 30 ft. in vertical height, with an exposed slope distance up to 50 ft. These slopes would reach steepness of lk:l, which is in excess of the County standard of 2:1 (50%). Though the Tentative Map (Figure 5) indicates maximum roadway grade of 20%, actual measurement of the plan indicates that the segment of road between ele- vations 355 and 380 would have a grade of about 25-27%. (This is the area be- tween the end of the existing road and the easterly site boundary.) Additional grading will be required for home-site preparation, utilities in- stallation, and driveway construction. The driveway approaching Parcel C will have a grade of about 15-18% over a distance of about 80 ft., and the driveway serving Parcel B will have a grade of about 20% for about 80 ft. (Figure 5). F. Traffic/Circulation* 1. Existing Street System (Figure 8) Routes serving the site are the following: a. Castle Rock Road. This is a two-lane arterial with shoulders, bike lanes, and walkways between Walnut Ave. and North Gate High School (about 0.3 mi. north of the project site). Near the project site, this street is a two-lane country road with lateral earth ditches and nc shoulders. b. Walnut Avenue. This is an east-west arterial providing access to the Castle Rock Rd./North Gate Rd. area from Ygnacio Valley Rd, and downtown Walnut Creek. It is a wide two-lane street with bike lanes, walkways, and on-street parking. c. Oak Grove Road. This is a north-south arterial providing access from the area of the project site to Ygnacio Valley Rd., the Concord area, and the major shopping center at Oak Grove Rd./Ygnacio Valley Rd. It is a two- ^d three-' .ne street with bike lanes and walkways. 2. Current Traffic Current traffic volumes on Castle Rock Rd, are 300 vehicles/day near the project site, 600 vehicles/day at Pine Creek Rd., and 4,000 vehicles/ day at Bowling Green Dr. , north of North Gate High School. * See traffic study in appendices, _n_ k' � j / ; o � Figure 7. GENERALIZED ROADWAY GRADING L l (Stipelled area represents �' exposed cuts and fills.) � / (Adapted from applicant's Tentative Map; no scale.) W, 1. ��' IL2 �M c rn' ��i� S+.�' '•. � .� aINMpm WE ON cam L ME •� � � GIS +�- � ' ► � ' j`' AlumW. ► Figure 8. STREETS IN THE VICINITY THE SITE ,• ® No Scale.� + �� aEwa r 3. Project Traffic Estimated project traffic is 48 trips/day, at 12 trips/unit/ day. Estimated peak hour traffic is 5 trips/day. These volumes can easily be handled by the existing roadway system. There.fore, project traffic will not be a significant impact. Project traffic will, however, cumulatively contribute to long-term traffic in- creases, along with future developments or. Castle Rock Rd., North Gate Rd., Comistas Dr., and Pine Creek Rd. Ultimately, such development will probably generate enough traffic to require improvement of major intersections between the project area and Ygnacio Valley Rd.; and will contribute to the heavy peak hour congestion that occurs on Ygnacio Valley Rd. 4. Access to the Site Proposed access to the site, for Parcels B, C, and D, is over-'an easement serving the three existing subdivision lots (Figure 3). Parcel A would be served from Castle Rock Rd. by an easement along the northerly boundary of the existing subdivision: (Alternative access routes are discussed later in the report under "Alternatives to the Project.") G. Drainage/Slater Quality* The project site drains northerly to Comistas Dr. and easterly to Pine Creek (Figure 9). 1. The westerly part of the site drains northerly, through the adjacent open space area, then along a creek to a 36" pipe under Comistas Dr., ' then north in a ditch to a 36" storm drain in the North Gate High School park- ing lot. The culverts in this system are adequate to handle anticipated runoff. 2. The easterly part of the site drains to two metal pipe culverts, one 12" and one 18" in diameter, under Castle Rock Rd. The 18" pipe 04, Fig- ure 9) is adequate to handle anticipated runoff. However, the 12" pipe (#3, Figure 9) is not adequate, nor is the 12" pipe farther downstream, at Pine Creek Rd. 05, Figure 9). 3. Future development in the project area--possibly including the proposed Ygnacio Valley Christian School, at the southeast corner of Castle Rock/Comistas--may require a 24" pipe in place of 12" pipe #5, and an adequate See drainage and hydrology study in appendices. —12— LEGMAiD DRAINAGE BOUNDARY J'• :, "' _� ' 4 PROPERTY. UNES - - ��• 15% EX19TING CULVERT / 0 EXIS-nNG DRAINAGE CHANNEL ' : //c•� / tl ❑ice/ `.�({� PINE CREEK 12 /rte _� iib - � -°° '� �(TD �' �' ,r i _.;•/�1��-_``�\�� 14 f PROPOSED / 1• 5C�+Ocx. ''• ` �..�� GIfITSK /c, D /5 "� 15 Zt mm�e®c Figure 9. DRAINAGE AND DRAINAGE FACILI'T'IES IN THE VICINITY OF THE SITE NO Scale. downstream ditch to Pine. Creek. 4. Portions of Pine Creek, downstream from the project site in Walnut Creek and Concord, are inadequate and subject to periodic flooding. A segment of the creek at the BARTD crossing, near Lane Dr. in Concord, is currently being rebuilt by the Army Corps of Engineers. However, full im— provement will take several years.* Upstream, between the BARTD crossing and the project area, the creek is inadequate in several areas. Northeast of the project site, east of Pine Creek Rd. and Castle Rock Rd., the Flood Control District has proposed a rstencion basin. Funding is not yet available, but could be approved within a year, in which case it is anticipated that construction would begin immediately. This facility would greatly con— tribute to control of downstream flooding.** 5. In terms of water quality, an increase in siltation is expected during and after construction, and there will be long—term cumulativedecrease in the downstream quality of water as a result of oil, gasoline, chemicals., and debris flowing into the drainage system from the developed subdivision. (Soil erosion is discussed in the section on grading.) H. Vegetation/Wildlife*** 1. Vegetation The two vegetative types on the project site are grassland and mixed oak woodland. The grassland is found only in limited, lower—elevation areas at the extreme northeast and northwest corners of the site: Common species are introduced annual grasses and herbs, including Foxtail Barley, Wild Oat, and Italian Ryegrass. The mixed oak woodland covers most of the site, and includes Blue Oak and Coast Live Oak as dominant species, although California Buckeye and Valley Oak are also present, the latter at lower elevations. The understory of the mixed oak woodland includes many of the grass species found in the grassland areas; Little Quaking Grass, not found in the grassland, is also present. Other understory species include Goldback Fern and Maidenhair Fern, indicating that the ground is moist for a fair portion of the year. No rare or endangered species, as napped by the California Native Plant Society, * Bob Agnew, Contra Costa County Flood Control District, interview, Oct. 13, 1978 ** Ibid. �** See vegetation and wildlife survey report, including species lists, in the appendices. 0 0 o } have been recorded for the site, and none was seen during field reconnaissance. 2. Wildlife The wildlife habitats of the site are the same as the vegetation types: grassland and mixed oak woodland. Because of its limited area, the grassland does not have major habitat impor- tance, and is mainly an extension of the oak woodland unierstory. The mixed oak woodland supports a number of bird species, including three wood- peckers--Common Flicker, Nuttall's Woodpecker, and Acorn Woodpecker. Other birds observed on the site were Scrub Jay, Plain Titmouse, and White-breasted Nuthatch. The site's relatively small size restricts its capability of supporting many mammals, and only small rodents were observed during field study. However, the plentiful acorn supply--an important food source for deer and Fox Squirrel-- probably attracts these species onto the site for feeding, thus expanding their ranges. No rare or endangered wildlife species have been recorded for the site, and none was observed during field reconnaissance. I. Schools Schools serving the area of the site are those of the Mt. Diablo Unified School District. Students from the project would attend the following schools: 1. Castle Rock Elementary, about one-half mi. north of the site on Hutchinson Rd. _ 2. Foothill Intermediate, about 1.25 mi. north of the site on Cedro Ln. 3. North Cate High, about one-third mi. north of the site on Castle Rock Rd. Because of the few units proposed for the project, no significant impact on ��hool eni -llments is anticipated.* Project students would, however, cumu- latively uontribute to increased enrollment. J. Air Quality The major source of air pollution in the vicinity of the project site Ralph Lopez, Administrative Assistant, Mt. Diablo Unified School Dist., interview, Oct. 18, 1978 is vehicle traffic on Ygnacio Valley Rd. , which is about two mi. northwest of the site, Secondary sources are vehicle traffic on 'Walnut Ave. and Oak Grove Rd., two arterials which provide access from Ygnacio Valley P.d. to the area of the site. The relatively few trips anticipated as a result of project development will not have significant impact on air quality, though they will cumulatively con- tribute to long-term increase in pollution of the air basin. K. Noise The Noise Element of the General Plan indicates that the average noise level (CNEL) along Castle Rock Rd. is not projected to reach 60+ dBA through the year 1990.* Because of the relatively few vehicle trips that would result, no significant noise impact is anticipated as a result of project implementati:on. '' However, the project will cumulatively contribute to increase in the ambient noise level in the area. L. Ener85 Compared to the coldest and warmest parts of the County, the Walnut Creek area has moderate need for winter heating and summer cooling. Degree Days per Year estimates are 2,800 Annual Heating Degree Days and 450 Annual Cooling Degree Days.** Although tree cover adjacent to homes could be a limiting factor, the site's terrain allows high exposure to sunlight, thus providing the potential for ex- tensive use of active and passive .solar systems. (See appendices for project energy input calculations and energy conserving mitigation alternatives.) M. Parks/Recreation Mt. Diablo State Park is the regional park nearest the project site, with access via North Gate Rd. Castle Rock Park, a private recreation facility, is located approximately one mile south of the site at the end of Castle Rock Rd. This facility is gener- ally open from May through September, though the period varies depending upon * Contra Costa County, Sept. 16, 1975, Noise Element, Map #15, p'. 33 Contra Costa County, Energy Use and Conservation in Contra Costa County, pp. 7-9 (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 tempera- ture is below 65 degrees, the number of degrees difference between the aver- age daily temperature and 65 degrees is the Heating Degree Day Load i.e., if the average daily temperature is 60 degrees, 65 - 60 = 5 Heating Degree Days). Conversely, when the temperature is above 65 degrees, the number of degrees difference between the average daily temperature and 65 degrees is the Cooling Degree Day Load.) 0002 ,1 • the onset of rainy weather and the summer fire hazard. Facilities include a meeting hall and picnic grounds, and activities are primarily oriented to. organized groups who must make reservations. Other recreation facilities in the area of the site are the Walnut Creek Municipal Golf Course and Heather Farms City Park, both located in Walnut Creek, off Y io Valle �d.- N. Archaeology A search of pertinent archaeological records has been made, and a professional archaeologist has examined the site. On the basis of these studies, there are no known archaeological resources on the property.* If any indications of archaeological resources are encountered during develop- ment, all work should be stopped within 30 meters of the find until a quali- ofessional has examined the find and recommended mitigation measures. IRONXENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS e following discussions deal only with those environmental impacts ere determined to be important during preparation of the report or in roject Initial Study prepared by the County Planning Department. The itial Study, contained in the appendices, also discusses non-significant impacts. A. Environmental Impacts 1. Zoning The proposed project zoning, R-40 (one unit/acre), is consistent with the County's Low Density Residential land use designation (0-3 units/acre). However, the proposed density would be inconsistent with the City of Walnut Creek's prezoning designation of Hillside Planned Development (H-P-D), which would allow a maximum of three units, based on the steepness of the site's slopes. 2. Domestic Water Piped domestic water is not available to the site, so well water must be provided. Because the availability of well water is not known, the —tential . xists for low water-well yields that would be inadequate to proper- ly supply the proposed units. 3. Fire Service The Castle Rock County Water District,. in which the project site See archaeology report in the appendices. is located, is substandard in terms of firefighting water supply, and such supply is not available from the Contra Costa i,'ater District. 4. Soil/Geology/Seismicity a. There is substantial potential for soil erosion on the site. This could particularly.be a problem along the proposed subdivision_ roadway, where heavy grading would be required. b. Though the site is located in an area generally classified as having moderate susceptibility to earthquake damage*, the potential exists for damage to roadway improvements and utilities--especially in the area of heavy roadway grading (Figure 7)--resulting from moderate-magnitude earth- quakes originating on the Concord or Franklin Faults, or great earthquakes originating on other Bay Area faults. 5. Grading and Aesthetics The project site is an important visual element of the Shell Ridge' Recreation Area open space, and is highly visible from surrounding residential areas as well. The proposed units and the grading required for driveway and roadway con- struction will have significant visual impact, greatly reducing the scenic qualities of the easterly end of the open space area. 6. Drainage a. .The existing 12" pipes downstream from the project site, under Castle Rock Rd. and Pine Creek Rd. , are not adequate to handle antici- pated runoff from the proposed project plus that from the three adjacent lots fronting Castle Rock Rd. , in a 10-year storm. b. Development of the proposed project, other subdivisions and homes in the area, and.the Ygnacio Valley Christian School, will probably re- quire a 24" pipe at Pine Creek Rd. and an improved-capacity ditch downstream to Pine Creek. 7. Vegetation Project development, particularly construction of the proposed -subdivision roadway, will require removal of numerous mature and developing oaks, and will endanger and probably ultimately kill many others located around the edges of graded areas. (While the precise number of endangered trees cannot be readily determined, reference to Figure 7 will give the reader some idea of the swath of vegetation that would have to be removed to build the road. Any surviving trees along the immediate edge of the graded area are likely to die if their root systems are disturbed or if drainage within * Contra Costa County, Dec. , 1975, Seismic Safety Element, Map 3, p. 31 ' -1?- 00U 3,1 their drips lines is substantially disturbed. Other trees are likely to be removed or disturbed by home-site grading and driveway construction. Most of the trees on the site are oaks, which are particularly susceptible to damage resulting from changes in the ground surface.) B. Adverse Environmental Effects hrhich Cannot be Avoided if the Proposal is Implemented 1. Conversion of 6+ acres of vacant land to suburban use, reduc- ing the natural scenic qualities of the project area. 2. Cumulative increase in air pollution, traffic, storm runoff, and demand for public services and energy. 3. Cumulative decrease in ground water supply. 4. Cumulative disruption of wildlife habitat. 5. Removal of numerous trees, and creation of hazards to others. 6. Contribution to growth-inducement in the project area. C. Mitigation Measures 1. Zoning The only way to bring the proposal into conformance with the density provisions of the City of Walnut Creek's prezoned Hillside Planned Development District would be to reduce the number of proposed units from. four to a maximum of three. (See site plan alternatives in a later section entitled "Alternatives to the Project.") 2. Domestic Water Before project approval, sufficient information, verified by the Health Department, should be submitted to indicate that adequate domestic water supply is available for four units on a year-around basis. (The Health Department has specific standards for rate of flow and storage capacity.) 3. Fire Service As a condition of project approval, sufficient information, verified ,y the Consolidated Fire District, should be submitted to indicate that the project will have a firefighting water supply consistent with the standards of the Uniform Fire Code. This is particularly important because the site is surrounded by substandard systems. (The requirements for such a system can be met by the provision of a gravity-flow water tank and a system of approved hydrants. Possibly, an on-site tank could be used in conjunction with connections to the Castle Rock Water District tank, to provide consistent supply. (It should be noted that an on-site tank would have to be located high enough above the homes to provide adequate pressure. Such a location for a tank would probably result in additional adverse visual impact.) 4. Soil%Geology/Seismicity To reduce the potential for soil erosion and earthquake damage to the roadway and utilities, the subdivision roadway could be relocated to an alignment requiring less grading, or the number of lots could be reduced and alternative access routes provided. (See later section on site plan al- ternatives.) 5. Grading and Aesthetics To reduce the visual impacts of project development, the follow- ing could be done: (See site plan alternatives.) a. Move the subdivision roadway to a lower elevation align- ment requiring less grading. b. Reduce the number of proposed units. c. Locate units a lower elevations along the lower elevation roadway. d. Require Zoning Administrator review and approval of home site plans, architectural plans (including colors and materials), and roadway and driveway grading. 6. Drainage a. To provide sufficient drainage capacity for anticipated run- off from the proposed project and the three adjacent lots fronting Castle Rock Rd., the 12" downstream culvert at Castle Rock Rd. should be replaced, by the developer, with a minimum 18" culvert. b. To provide for future long-term capacity of the downstream drainage system, the downstream 12" culvert at Pine Creek Rd. sheuid be re- placed with a 24" culvert. (The project developer could provide the new cul- vert, or could provide it jointly with other area developers, including those of the proposed Ygnacio Valley Christian School.) 7. Vegetation To reduce impacts on trees, the following could be done: (See site plan, alternatives.) a. `love the subdivision roadway to a lower elevation alignment where it would avoid the mixed oak woodland, or would pass only along the edge of.the woodland.. b. Reduce the number of proposed units to generally reduce impact. —20— C. Locate units at lower elevations along the lower elevation roadway, to reduce driveway impact on trees and to limit home development im- pact to the fringe area of the woodland. d. Require a tree plan for staff review and approval, includ- ing locations, species, and sizes of existing trees on and around home sites and graded areas; trees to be removed; and precautions to be taken during and after construction to avoid damage to trees located near graded and paved areas. D. Alternatives to the Project 1. No Project The site could be retained in its undeveloped state, and be landbanked for future development. Under this alternative, no substantial alteration of the existing environment would occur, and the adverse impacts of the proposal would be .avoided for an undetermined period. (It should be noted that even under this alternative, for this proposal, it is probable that the site would be developed with one unit, since the site is an existing legal lot of record.) 2. Open Space The site could be purchased by Contra Costa County or the City of Walnut Creek for addition to the Shell Ridge Recreation Area. This could be an expensive alternative and might not currently be financially practical because of reduced funding resulting from Proposition 13 cutbacks. However, other monies might be available, such as State Bond Act funds. 3. Site Plan Alternatives On the following pages are three generalized site plan alter- natives for the project site, with four, three, and two lots. All of the al- ternatives indicate roadway access from the northeast corner of the property (although other routes are possible), thereby eliminating the need for the large-scale grading that would be required for the proposed subdivision road, and reducing roadway impact on trees. The impacts are further reduced as den- sity is decreased to less than that proposed. The two-lot alternative keeps both dwelling units on the northerly side of the site, at lower elevations, and at locations which could be adjusted to place units just inside the woodland fringe, to provide screening without causing large-st le damage to the woodland. (An additional two-lot alternative, not illustrated, could consist of Parcels B and D of the four-lot alternative, with both lots extended to the west prop- erty line. This would confine road and house development to a limited area, and would keep it as far away from the Shell Ridge open space as possible..) With a two-lot configuration, much of the project site could be protected with a scenic easement. —21— 400 X T. Figure 10. , FOUR-LOT ALTERNATIVE � q l� Parcel A = 1.7 ac. (approx.) " C = 1.3 " n D = 2.3 = possible building sites d.o• = Driveway/roadway Figure 11. THREE-LOT ALTERNATIVE Parcel A = 1.8 ac. (approx.) 8 = 2.1 « C = 2.5 = possible building sites .. .r = Driveway/roadway /'�� ,� ��.`,��^r�l- .✓. `.�`�.air ... 1, � XL Figure 12. e TWO-LOT ALTERNATIVE Parcel A = 3.3 ac. (approx.) rJ „ B _ 3.0 Aft yb = Possible building sites �+a = Driveway/roadway 4. Access Alternatives The site plan alternatives described above all indicate access to the project site over the proposed Parcel A roadway easement from Castle Rock Rd, Figure 13 illustrates three additional access alternatives and shows how they relate to the proposed four-lot subdivision: a. Alternative One is a modification of the proposed access to Parcel A. This would require an easemant across a corner of the adjacent vacant parcel north of the site, to provide a 90-degree intersection with Castle Rock Rd. b. Alternative Two is a route over an existing dirt road, along which a sewer line could also be laid. This route would also probably require an easement. c. Alternative Three shows access over the existing dirt road providing access to the Shell Ridge Recreation Area. (Of the three roadway alternatives, this may be the least likely because the existing roadway is part of the land of County Service Area R-8, as illustrated on Figure 3 at the front of the EIR.) This alternative would require relocation of an existing horse gate, and would result in additional vehicle conflict with hikers and equestrians. All of the access alternatives would avoid the heavy grading that would be required for the proposed access road. 5. Land Exchange Alternative The project site could be traded to the R-8 Service Area for a similar area of land just west of rhe site, where home development would be less visually intrusive. This alternative would result in preservation of the project site--so that not even one home would be built on it, as is currently possible--but would also result in disruption of the existing en- trance to the open space area. E. The Growth-Inducing Impact of the Project The project will have a growth-inducing impact in that it will pro- vide housing for four additional families in the area, and will result in the suburbanization of 6+ acres which are currently undeveloped and would support only one unit under existing legal status, The overall density of the proposed project is inconsistent with the County's existing A-2 (General Agricultural) zoning, which requires minimum five-acre lots, and with the maximum density that would be allowed under the City of Walnut Creek's prezoned Hillside Planned Development District. Therefore, approval of the project would set precedents for future developments that would be inconsistent with both the County's and Walnut Creek's standards. -25- ccr�ISTAs CRI�JE � ' —� LEGEND _XIS'TING PANED ROADSPF�QP05m RCADS \ �1 AtTG$41U E ROAD LCICATIONS r^^3570Lg Acr_Ess RaaACS yea PR:PEATY L_1N%Zs �uED flR1vE1JAY l/ � Z -IOU5E GON3T ? H:�RSFi . JJ'' L£ ��aJ 5EWF12 Ps4RKING /� I F=ri eLE RfJAD VACANT` . A V �< OPEN " \ 8 aoao SP � iD � I 1 P RK s><n °IRT �A sis5a 3 GRn Y `\ RCAD BIG G CUT T L4:FT FOSZ PROPOSED SI7c � Figure 13. ALTERNATIVE ACCESS ROUTES TO THE PROJECT SITE No Scale III. PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED DURING PREPARATION OF THE REPORT DARWIN MYERS, DENNIS BARRY, Contra Costa County (CCC) Planning Dept.' SENIOR INSPECTOR ROBERT FROST, CCC Consolidated Fire Dist. CCC PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. CCC FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DIST, WILLIAM B WIGGINTON, ENGEO, Inc., Engineers and Geologists DIABLO ENGINEERS, project civil engineer MALCOLM SPROUL, Vegetation and Wildlife Consultant ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTING AND RESEARCH SERVICES, INC, ANN FORNES,_New Business Administrator, CCC Water Dist, ROBERT M. POND, Open Space Specialist, City of Walnut Creek ENGINEERING DEPT., City of Walnut Creek WINSTON DEA, CCC Health Dept. VALLEY DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC., Walnut Creek - RALPH LOPEZ, Administrative Assistant, Mt. Diablo Unified School Dist. PLANNING DEPT., City of Walnut Creek IV. BIBLIOGRAPHY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Sept. 16, 1975. Noise Element. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Dec., 1975. Seismic Safety Element. ENGEO, INCORPORATED, Oct. 10, 1978. Preliminary Soil and Geologic Feasibility Investigation, Proposed Minor-Subdivision on Castle Rock Road,_ Contra Costa County, California. FRANZEN, EDWARD L., Oct., 1978. Drainage Report, Castle Rock Rd. Minor Subdivision; and Traffic Report, Castle Rock Rd. Minor Subdivision. INTERACTIVE RESOURCES, INC., May, 1976. Energy Conservation: Guide— lines for Evaluating New Development in Contra Costa County, California. LITTLE, ARTHUR D., INC., 1976. East/Central Contra Costa County Waste— water Management Plan: ETR and EIS. SPROUL, MALCOLM, Oct., 1976. Vegetation and Wildlife Survey, MSL 221-77, WALNUT CREEK, CITY OF, Mar. 24, 1975. General Plan, City of Walnut Creek. V. EIR AUTHOR Steven D. Billington City Planning/Environmental Research Steven D. Billington, Principal Master of City and Regional Planning Bachelor of Arts, Geography Edward L. Franzen, Project Assistant Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering R.C.E. 16074 -27- APPENDICES Contents 1. Reduced Tentative Map.................. ........29 2. Project Initial Study...... .......... ..........30 3. Preliminary Soil and Geologic Feasibility study....................... ....................36 4. Traffic Study.... ............ ........ ..........42 5. Drainage Study....................................44 6. Vegetation and Wildlife Survey....................47 7. . Energy Input Analysis.............................52 8. Archaeology Report.................. ... .....55 00023 *` `� \ \. I hi�7�4:nY/,'ItN.: Ar,ceo ras L.C'MiM?Ly�1!•�O cYnriarfp.eo••'/Y'Lvv eatf,CA..q'H+6eb 1 \, oo'CVAar Wr• •710'e"s �J�/}/ \. / lr'�(( � f. _ 1.jam' �\� `• /� // / _ ,\ &Xr771v0 U!,E: ✓AG4N7' EA66: 6.35.K. ��'' � r� `��`\= i' - :�\ \'� \•.\, / `�`\\G/T/1./T/E5: 11/A7G.47 9YdY ,CYST. Q INIfL Riz,Aa r IX I f � _ ) I 1 �� \'�: 1 ` I c ` \ y/ •-� r_ a oma•-. ' .r�. n,,� _ s/r _�' V/i./IV/7Y'MAI- 4• a7�oo /, C Eti/ s �• \` G-E 1-; '��,; /w a:ecc , 1�`�, i� 1r�1� 1 r i t�� t r1' n+� \i'�� 1 '�� —_� qrr., ¢h( / ♦ . - ` ♦I♦, r / i'� ,,/ / i !�r'J IJ'il Jll. /��I/ .r�^ _r'� '\� __�\:�T�r�n _-_.��`�r \�\. `h ,�'�—�^ ''��'4b !. •'� N � ��I ,,/ � ,l+r •, / R' r-- \�•, ,—�1--�P�.ccc-� .-� �- '__ � ``� ,_ -� '`icy,` r r:. , .•"��r . /// / �• csc`c'--•�;.+ �. ��,',� ./• '� •-� fti�y1.• t�__�7�����I� �_� •� � ,1 � / i.t 1�1 ili li a°Q2�i^j hrxctiareoveAl Ye riE_ I _ _ � (I',Irl Li• _.�.riy \ \ ( r7 r'r-' /�P�'� .\ � � ` �. /G_ .r����\♦ '}F (��( J�, � 11' �., \' � e�x.�S,c r.\1 � `��/�v-tLtc/" .a\"+; \'� 1 ! � gcrscu 1 '•� ' , 11. lj�'\ t Se•� moi,. � Z 9 I� ! ' ' r L si .ray .eOMroCA CV-67A lrr�97- co'+r�'a t»ar� cou•/rn 1 -,�, 1 � •.."`� � ( ,?� l� �.1 4' . 11 /, /J//�f5L0 ENG)NEE'25 , sato currcw!!o0`7 c�neb,cu`.O j �` �f.`�;• \ ♦ `\ � � ` __ \`\t♦�`���y _ r.. , �?/, ./Lr.✓./ver 7,��:i�� —V U���•, \ \Z`s\;1'L'�1�\\ r\r �. \�11 h� ,J!r ; I �� �� // J�`/ ;'0 i'. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY P1_,XN 4,`6 DEPARI'MFNT INIT!AL STUL'Y OF ENV12WI ri!•XPAI. SIGNIFICANCL File 11 /l/j,5, < ?I- 77���03 q r1 j Prepared by /V1 �i�Y7.� ..�M,t ..> n r l t Hate Reviewed bypi.c fl__ Date A. RECOMiMENDATION: ( ) Categorical Exemption ( ) Negative Declaration (v<EEnvironmental Impact Report Required The Project(May) 4VHI-Not) Have A Significant Effect On The Environment 7lra tino�ack scC� in_ wn Arnvu�unrr`rr.�,7 rif.vi�,u� �i�1sr� C 1.e . cid1cics to eank0c�v.cl d..crnn��,.� Woodss.�,y,,rth oalcn AL 1Zoc�,•- Pv,� G�k. kUn.�, +�t��rt1�o-,)�oo�,) I.� nlu5u.9,.ci, ado 4�. �C6�,,w�i\F3\ c" 111111�f3'�-A�.X r1.y l J�Gr.� a� Wh.�h lmo,� l,,o,,.•-�. r o �c�c�.tva9. Sc�2�:�u� ��.�. ��o.s�.v� a,& B. PROJECT INrORi,fATION.-- --- I. Project Location and Description: ff r 4 �J t i_t.ziLO =:G Cc,n+=.- ii].e 2203;Z.: : Yl:. n'.icant_ !'�......-.St iu uz•^ h.rox 6.3; r c:es ro;t Gcncral ic;.Iturcl Listrict j c, 1zo;:_:tr is icc;aec A-2 to 67 1'eet a; i'C-6: ..o,ci, rnx. 1'C;n .Cert .f L'J., Lhe Pine _C,e=1;/C,.^tlr :ocLr'.d, ir,F•:rsecF•ioa.in the i ,l,:ua'. ii-riE;hts sra. 2. Site Description: tt 3. Character of Su;rounding Areas: rjt�r•t'" _� -30- 0002,31 C. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS: _ Yes Maybe No N/A 1. Does the project conform to County General Plan proposals including the various adopted Elements? (Land Use, Circulation, _ Housing, Conservation and Open Space, Noise, Seismic Safety, Safety, Recreation,Scenic Routes,Solid Waste) (See appropriate impact sections for application of specific elements). General Plan Designation; source: 2. Does the project coorm to existing (or proposed) zoning classification? (/ Classification: 3. Does it appear that any feature of the project, including aesthetics, will generate significant public concern? T Mature of Concern: 4. will the project require approval or permits by other than a %f County Agency(Consider spheres of influence, and City Plans)? ��,� ��,-.,,,-,..-�.r L �•t-r�'!_�ti.�J: F:-gyp' l�-�`J� � �+ Other Agency: i 1 I r, h^r)rl]tf`1<A, A� 'ttn .� 1 �l••l,o_(�n,Q. a ' S=Significant N Negligible C =Cumulative No=None U = Unknown N/A=Not Applicable_. D. ENVIRONMENTAL I3IPACTS:(include mitigation measures for "S N C No U P' i} significant effects where possible) — — — — — — 1 1. Earth. (Consider the Seismic Safety Element) will the proposal A,_"r� result in or be subject to: C� a) Erection of structures within an Alquist-Priolo Act Special Studies lone? A b) Grading(consider amount, and aesthetics)? — — — — — — e) Slides, liquefaction or other hazards on or immediately _ adjoining the site? n d) ,%dverso soil or topographic characteristics (consider prime < soils, slope,septic tank limitations, etc.)? Z — e) wind or water erosion_of soils, on site or off? • 0.•h0� r��.f.j^i C�'=., !',�,� •{'i,_;,,,.1,� �I GI?,Y,��•n.+G- )...- — ._,..1 — ___. — Discussior,: -� .: ..f.t rl } 'L.�. ,..•l.. ....t it �:Ill .sr.G�S}crlr ,ij(. 1M.h Crfnvt,-. �� •� .vJ� n� -1�o. ft..�..._ ._j. 1 ^', sJ-c, n�:off•. ,.r�r'...r.4_ r it ("1' r- � � ...� , _`.L<• J-,.r�,,•.�n.r•�L �l , tai-- o,h i.` /„i;?•i ,�'i1 j /'.,?'lJti� .,•;',. .tf�•.,; j,,,.;`.} .;r a t.JU.v.-:Jd f,�P:9.i• . .L.I t+t:11• M.^`(lag •'J' •�,•, .. .- I1J,'1 f i S N C No tl 2. Air. Will the projeet result in det.nriorr,tion 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? v b) Reduction of surface or ground water quality or quantity? c) Alteration of drainage patterns or runoff? d) Disruption of streams or water bodies? DISCll5S10R: G>�.�_D,_c.•n •:� �., n �� * ��+c�: `l ✓ lvd/fC-.... o11'v.-`f�J�•:1.�=( �G. •�-�J.A��1;1.,^r.-.r ��.,,f]�.W.?J� �L}•�.. {1.4_/\.�J.�i7�.�. �� .���v--�.�v o� C��rQ{J �{�1)�.RA 4. Plant/Animal Life. Will the project result in: I I a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants or animals? l/ b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants or animals? c) Introduction of new species of plants or animals into an _��,c+^ area, or inhibition of the normal replenishment, migration �I to or movement of existing species^ 1'. •,;x,1, ,1 f. �� r.� .� �,.-; Pn, ,,;;,,r�_•�� : !.?1 ,.,f,.•..JGr,�?— — — — —' — d) Reduction in actenge of any a;'ricultural crop or existing fish or wildlife habitat? Discussion: G la. V1� Old ?����_ (1%��,.; ...:t..,q 1 �.', ✓U+dJ -� �cl.)_oma c3�. a ! o. V (te,,,. '"•J }\l.� •i I/.+A� l , } S. Noise. Will the project result in: a) Structures within the 60 dBA noise contour per the General Plan 'Noise Element? b) Increases from exizting noise levels? Discussion: S N C No U N/:1 6. Naturnl Resources. Will the project affect the potential use, extraction, conservation or depletion of a natursl resource? — — — v _ Discussion: 7. Eng ergy. Will the project result in demands upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new energy sources? Discussion: 8. Utilities. Will the project result in the need for new systems or Utera Rons to the following utilities (including sphere of influ- ence or district boundary change): electricity, natural gas, communications facilities, water, sewers, storm drainage, solid Z waste disposal? Discussi n: -�`�"Q '.'J r�-to-L.4"v�v..n.�)�L 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? ✓ b) Alteration of sphere of influence or service district boundaries? r Discussion: 10. Transportation;Circulation. (Consider the Circulation Element) VVU the prole' 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, pedestrians)? — — _ — — — b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demands for new parking`.' e) Impact on existing waterborne, rail, air or public transpor- tation systems?Discussion, -2o' ,`� , 1 r^'i %,1 �� ✓, i 1`_r r,� 2D'b �� C� ;.v1•r. 1,111h''�'. ,^1.�• .. `' /�,J l� t7�..•.i. `l C 'r/ S u C No U !I. Growth Inducement. (Consider the Housimo Element) Will the . pralect: a) 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: 1 d, ( _: .,57.1.fa ..Q.,'.9 P-QA �•.ti. r {� t �-0 4- .��t:.a-�-��� l„+.,��J.o:tro -7 a.}Z�Lo„•'d/co-,� i`J nti�.)r n.. 1. .,.�:X`.f.<"w �.^.4��C�-uv.t`Jn._. .._,•}1..(;0 �u •ilrv�•0,.,,...,�...L•c�l. f_L'2..�n.�.l+.n.`•�t,•c:• 12. Aesthetics. (Consider the Scenic Routes Element) Will the / project obstruct 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 M-m—en-t-sT Will the project affect the quality or quantity of, recreational opportunities? Discussion: 1,, j• ,nl�..,.. . t^.�. r� <" .l �•��•� 14. Are heological!Historical. Are there known archeological, histor- ical or other resources on the site or in the general vicinity? (Historical Resources Inventory and archaeological site maps.) — - — ^ _ -- Discussion: 15. Hazard. (Consider the Safety Element) Will the project result in as c'-F of explosion, release of hazardous substances or other dangers to public health or safety? _ _ Z-�,__• Discussion: 16. Other. (Consider the Open Spice Element) will the project result in other significant effects on the environment? 1J_ Discussion: UjLL'-A- /l;.n .v .•,_. '_,, _:. '"i _`.�, .,. fi.r Ct?.� -34- 00021?' } } S N C No _U .ft/A 17.. Nlnmiritur� findings of Signifiennce (A "significant" check oil any oTtfie following questions requires preparation of an EIR) a) Does the project have the potential to degrade.the quPlity of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environ- t� ment? — — —. — b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? r� d) Does the project have environmental impacts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion: r. AP 21 9/76 -35- E NG E ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS•CONSULTANTS IN THE APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES INCORPORATED In Reply Please Refer to: October 10, 1978 N8-1316-B1 Steven Billington 1226 Warner Court Lafayette, California 94549 Subject: Proposed Minor Subdivision on Castle Rock Road Contra Costa County, California PRELIMINARY SOIL AND GEOLOGIC FEASIBILITY Gentlemen: As requested, we have conducted a soil and geologic feasibility investigation of the subject site. Study included a review of pertinent literature and a site reconnaissance. We conclude that no significant hazards are present which would preclude develop- ment of the site for residential use, provided the recommendations of this report are followed. Site Location and Description The site is located west of Castle Rock Road and just outside the Walnut Creek city limits (see Figure 1) . Total site area measures 6.35 acres. It has been proposed that this presently vacant acreage be divided into four parcels, as shown on Figure 2. Land to the north and east of the site is in varying stages of minor subdivision. To the west and south is undeveloped wooded land. Topography on site consists of two ridges rising to the south, separated by two swales that carry intermittent drainage to the north. The highest elevation is 270 feet, reached by the westernmost ridge at the southern site boundary. Vegetation consists of fairly dense oak woodland variegated with Buckeye in the swales. Soils Soil covering the site is a light brown clayey sand, dry, and pow- dery where disturbed. According to the U. S. Department of Agri- culture (1977) , this soil is classified as Gaviota sandy loam with an effective depth of 0-17 inches. Runoff is rapid and the erosion hazard is high. Areas where moderate to severe erosion has occurred are noted on Figure 2. Appearances suggest the high density of deer and man-made foot paths in these areas contributed to the erosion problem. L002:11.. ® 2150 SHATTUCK AVENUE, SUITE 400, BERKELEY,CALIFORNIA 94704 • PHONE (415) 548-8800 ..36_ Steven Billington N8-1316-B1 Proposed Minor Subdivision October 10, 1978 on Castle Rock Road Page 2 Geology A gray to brown feldspathic quartz sandstone classified as the Domengine Sandstone of Tertiary Age (Reference 1) underlies the site and outcrops in various places. Bedding strikes northwesterly and . dips steeply to the south (Reference 1) . Resistant sandstone boul- ders to 4 feet in height protrude from the ridge tops, especially near the house site on Parcel D. These should be removable using j standard equipment. } Slope Stability Slopes as steep as 2:1 occur in the swales. Creep and minor sur- ficial downslope movement has taken place in these areas, but no major downslope movement is in evidence on the site. Hillslope steepness poses limitations on road construction for the site. Fill slopes should be no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) , and drainage facilities should be constructed to prevent' water from flowing over the top of the road grade. A keyway and subdrains will be needed in the fill slope proposed for the road --� in crossing the large swale on Parcel D. Estimating an R-Value-✓—__ 20 and a Traffic Index of 4.0, an approximate 2 of~�,C uud T` of AB will be needed in the pavei;�: it thickness design. Subgrade materials should be firm and the recommendations of a Soil Engineer should be followed with respect to compaction of materials. Seismicity The nearest known active fault is the Concord fault, located approxi- mately 1 mile north of the site. Active creep is presently occurring in the Concord area along this fault. The possibility of moderate to severe earthquakes emanating from the Concord fault is likely during the design life of residences proposed for the site. The potentia"y active Franklin segment of the Calaveras fault is lorAued apprc.ximately 3.5 miles west of the site. Earthquake epi- centers with Richter Magnitude ranges of 2.5-4.4 are located within 1.5 miles to the northwest and north of the site. Such factors in- dicate that structures designed for the site should be designed according to the latest Uniform Building Code requirements in order to effectively minimize the effects of ground shaking on site. Conclusions 1. No soil or geologic conditions have been encountered that pre- clude development of this site for the intended use. 'Steven Billington N8-1316-B1 Proposed Minor Subdivision October 10, 1973 on Castle Rock Road Page 3 2. Bedrock is extremely shallow on site. This factor will in- fluence foundation design and any plans for cut and fill techniques on site. 3. Proper sub and stormdrain engineering should mitigate the erosion hazard on site. i 4. The proposed private roadway is feasible if proper engineering techniques are followed. 4 Recommendations 1. We reconmend a detailed soils investigation which would include determination of soil properties relevant to development and roadway grading. Very truly yours, ENGEO, Inc. i William B. Wigginton C.E.G. #855 Conies: 4 to Client = - 000; s Steven Billington N8-1316-B1 Proposed Minor Subdivision October 10, 1978 on Castle Rock Road Page 4 Selected References 1. Contra Costa County, 1976, "Preliminary Geologic Map of Contra Costa County", unpublished map at 1:62,500. Available from Contra Costa County Public Works Department. 2. Contra Costa County, 1975, "Seismic Safety Element", Public Hearing Draft. 3. Saul, 1973, "Geology and Slope Stability of the SW, Walnut Creek Quadrangle, Contra Costa County, California". Map Sheet 16 at 1:.12,000 scale. 4. L. S. Department of Agriculture (1977) "Soil Survey of Contra Costa County". -39- 5648 - 1565 1S15fi - 1567 1368 t . SIT o 4,t Y ♦ i � 1 1 1 ;r 1 .. 1 � 1 i 1 � ' ;N' r V' a / 00071 d Minor Subdivision FIGURE ENGEO Castle Rock Road NO. Contra Costa County, California 1 INCORPORATED SITE LOCATION ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS SCALE 1" = 600 JOB GONSUEAANTS IN THE RTH SCIENCESVPLtEp D—ATE October 1978 NO. N8-1316-BI _ 2150 SHATTUCK AVENUE, SUITE 400,BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704 - PHONE (4 5) 54s-13800 �, ��\ '.., —fes" J� _ v���x� k_3' .�.,.'... � ;'-� •,. � . �,.. �'�� - ,,� •'�•��• __,_ •,•1 ,,'� SSS•..: a� ��: •ti., >�" i � � Z. :y'. `,�f fit; ,• Y .1�'g `rs Iq 4R: intermittent drainage �� (R and erosion Areas of noticeable creep and shallow downslope movement ENCEO Minor Subdivision FIGURL Castle Rock Road NO. Contra Costa County, California IN COR' ORATE D SITE pT.AN 2 ENOINCE RANO OE OLOO13T3 SCALE 1" 80 r JOB CONSULT,1r4*3IN TME A1►LIEO DATE October 197 NO. N8-1316-B1 ' _ E.W.scaNCL& 2150 SHATTL�K AVENUE.SUITE 400,SERKELEYr CALIFORNIA 94704 PHONE(4151 54'mAA00AVENUE.SUITE 400,BFRKELEY,CALIFORNIA 94704 PHONE(4151 5�fi-eeoo f _.. _ – ----_ .. .. ,•fit TRAFFIC STUDY Four-lot subdivision off Castle Rock Rd. APN 139-290-001 Edward H. Franzen A.C.E. I. Street Access to the Area A. Castle Rock Road. This is a two-lane arterial with shoulders, bike lanes, and walkways, from Walnut Ave. to North Gate High School, about 0.3 mi. north of the project site. Near the project site, this street is a two lane country road with lateral earth ditches and no shoulders. Traffic volumes are 300 vehicles/day near the site, 600 vehicles/day at Pine Creek Rd., and 4,000 vehicles/day at Bowling Green Dr.; north of the high school. B. Walnut Ave. This is an east-west arterial providing access to the Castle Rock Rd./North Gate Rd. area from Ygnacio Valley Rd. and downtown Walnut Creek. Itis a wide two-lane street with bike lanes, walkways, and on-street parking. C. Oak Grove Rd. This is a north-south arterial providing access from the area of the project site to Ygnacio Valley Rd., the Concord area, and the major shopping center at Oak Grove Rd./Ygnacio Valley Rd. It is a two- and three-lane street with bike lanes and walkways. II. Access to Project Site A. The tentative map indicates widening of an existing narrow, steep driveway to a 16 ft, paved private road. This will require extensive grading and removal of many oak trees. A new home is under construction at the end of the driveway on one of the existing subdivision lots. Grading for this home has resulted in a steep cut slope at the end of the driveway, making it very difficult to construct a chrough.road into the area of proposed Lot B. B. Alternative access to Lots A and B could be provided by 10 ft. road at the northeast corner of proposed Lot A, in the gulley area, with an easement through the adjacent lot, about 50 ft, long, to a safe right-angle intersection with Castle Rock Rd. This would be more desirable than using the sewer ease- ment as shown on the tentative map as access to Lot A. C. Alternative access to Lots C and D could be provided by an easement along the existing dirt road northeast of Lot C, to a right-angle intersection with Castle Rock Rd. This route would also provide access to the existing lot north of propose Lot A, could provide a cheaper sewer-line route than proposed, and would reduce removal of oak trees. _4`w D. Another alternative access to Lots C and D could be along the sewer easement on the north line of Lot A. This would require some grading and the removal of some small oaks. E. A third alternative for access to Lots C and D would be by extension of the existing paved road that provides access to the adjacent open space area from Comistas Dr. This would require the least grading and remove the fewest trees, but would require relocation of the existing horse gate. Such a route could also be used to provide parking area for the open space. III. Project Area Traffic A. At 12 trips/day (Walnut Creek standard), the proposed project would generate 48 trips/day on Castle Rock Rd, This volume can be easily handled by the existing street system. Traffic on Castle Rock Rd., Walnut Ave., and Oak Grove Rd, is below the design capacity of the streets. Heavy traffic congestion occurs on Ygnacio Galley Rd, during peak hours. Peak hour traffic for the proposed project would be 5 trips/day, which would not cause significant impact. B. Future traffic in the area will increase due to long-term development of North Gate Rd., Pine Creek Rd., Comistas Dr., and Castle Rock Rd. The.inter- sections of Walnut Ave., Oak Grove Rd., Castle Rock Rd., and North--G'aEe Rd. will probably have to be improved because of cumulative traffic increase from many. small subdivisions. Increased congestion on Ygnacio 'Valley Rd. and om-thra_I•t^��+�_ Ave. and Oak Grove Rd. approaches can also be anticipated. ••L;j w DRAINACE STUDY Four-lot subdivision off Castle Rock Road APN 139-290-001 'Edward H. Franzen R.C.E. The project parcel (6.35 acres) drains northerly to Comistas Dr. and easterly to Pine Creek. Runoff from the easterly part of the property drains into metal pipe culverts under Castle Rock Rd.--12" and 18"--then across a pasture to Pine Creek Rd, and into Pine Creek. The westerly part of the property drains into the adjacent open space area, along a dirt road and into a 15" metal pipe. It then enters a small creek that drains the open space area, flows northerly into a 36" metal pipe under Comistas Dr., then continues northerly in a small ditch to a 36" storm drain in the North Gate High School parking lot. The quantity of anticipated runoff--with current conditions plus the proposed subdivision--is shown on the accompanying chart. The calculations are based on the Rational Method (Q = CiA), Contra Costa County Flood Control charts for rain- fall, and U.S. Bureau of Public Roads charts for pipe capacities. The data indicate that the 12" corrugated metal pipe at location 3 on the drain- age map, about 200 ft. north of proposed Lot A, is not adequate to handle exist— ing runoff plus runoff from the proposed subdivision and the three adjacent par- cels fronting Castle Rock Rd., and overtopping of the street under 10-year storm conditions could result. This pipe should be replaced with an 18" pipe. The existing 12" CMP under Pine Creek Rd., downstream from pipe 3 should also be replaced. Runoff from the proposed project, Ygnacio Valley Christian School (proposed at southeast corner of Castle Rock/Comistas), and future developments in the Pine Creek Rd. area will probably require a 24" pipe at location 5 and an adequate downstream ditch to Pine Creek. The increased runoff from the project site is not sufficient to justify all re- quired future drainage work, but with ultimate development, new facilities will be needed. Culverts at locations 1, 2, and 4 are adequate to handle existing runoff plus runoff from the proposed subdivision. i,,L 13 •�• WIAINAGE BOUi`lOZZY I RROPER'TY.UNES - ©oo I5"S�EXI5TING CULVERT j ' I C : 0- EXI5tNG DRAiNACIE CHANNEL PINE CREEK •.,.' :% -` ,; // . lit to New °xA 14vB� J ,;01 I PROPOSEvLS . SCHOOL 4- PROfO SUBC CDLFrr DRAINAGE AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES IN THE VICINITY OF THE SITE No Scale. • .5 DRAINAGE RUNOFF CALCULATIONS APN 139-290-001 Castle Rock Road Edward H. Franzen R.C.E. Area [dumber #1 ;F2 #3 #4 Description west part Comistas east part east part Lots C,D Dr. area Lots A,B, Lots B,D C, D Exist. culvert size 15" 36" 12" 18" Drainage area (acres) 3.9 63 7.4 4.7 Portion in subdivision (acres) 2.0 2.0 3.2 1.1 Length of drainage area 800' 3,200' 600' 800' Travel time (minutes). 6 10 5 6 Percent runoff (existing) ` 40 40 40 40 Percent runoff (developed) 50 50 50 50 Rainfall intensity (10-yr. ; in./hr.) 2.5 1.9 2.6 2.5 Existing runoff (10-yr.; c.f.s.) 3.9 48 7.7 4.7 Part of runoff from subd. (c.f.s.) 2.0 1.5 3.3 1.1 Runoff from improved subd. (c.f.s.) 2.5 1.9 4.2 1.4 Area runoff w/ subd. (c.f.s.) 4.4 48.4 8.6 5.0 Capacity of pipe (c.f.s.) 6 70 4 7 References: Contra Costa County Flood Control 1975 charts for rainfall. U.S.B.P.R. pipe capacity charts. 00oz-41, VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE SURVEY MSL 221-77, Contra Costa County Malcolm Sproul, M.L.A. October, 1978 The purpose of this report is to summarize field observations made on the site of proposed minor subdivision MSL 221-77 located off Castle Rock Rd. in Contra Costa County, concerning the potential impact of development on vegetation and wildlife. A field survey of the property was conducted on October 12, 1978. The entire property was surveyed on foot. Species lists have been prepared for both vegetation and wildlife. They do not include just species found on the site but rather serve to indicate also the species which could be expected to occur. VEGETATION The site, due to its limited size (6.35 acres) and one major exposure (north- east), has a fairly uniform vegetative cover. Two vegetative types occur-- grassland and mixed oak woodland. The grassland is found only'in the lower northeastern corner of Parcel A. It covers a limited portion of the site', though it covers more extensive areas on adjacent land. Common species are largely introduced annual grasses and herbs. These include Foxtail Barley, Italian Ryegrass, Wild-Rye, and Wild Oat.__!6--zS likely that native wildflower species grow here in the spring,--afid`the dried flower heads of two species of Brodiaca were observed on the site. The grass- land shows signs of past grazing but no signs of recent activity. It is possi- ble that some grazing still occurs, related to recreational horse riding. The mixed oak woodland covers the majority of the site. It begins where the major break in slope occurs and is found on all upslope areas. Dominant species are Blue Oak and Coast Live Oak. California Buckeye are found in the small draw and a few Valley Oaks grow in the lower portion of the woodland. The understory vegetation is composed of a mixture of annual grasses and more shade-tolerant herbaceous species. Many of the grass species found in the grassland are also common here. Little Quaking Grass is found here but not in the grassland. Two fern species, Goldback and Maidenhair, are also found here and indicate that the ground is moist for a fair portion of the year. No rare or endangered plant species, as mapped by the California Native Plant Society, have been recorded from the site or were observed during the field reconnaissance. WILDLIFE Wildlife on the site is found in association with the habitat types present-- grassland and mixed oak woodland. Their vegetative characteristics are describ- ed in the preceding section. The grassland, due to its limited distribution on the site, is of minor impor- tance. In terms of its use by wildlife on the site, it serves as an extension -L 7- of the oak woodland understory. Species found in the woodland move out into the grassland to hunt or feed and move back for cover. Due to rapid changes in land use surrounding the site, the small grassland area--even combined with the grassland area that adjoins it--will not support grassland-dependent species. The mixed oak woodland is the principal habitat on the site. Most bird species observed here are characteristic of the oak woodland type. They included three woodpecker species--Common Flicker, Acorn woodpecker, and Nutall's Woodpecker-- which are copmonly found in oaks. Other bird species associated with oaks and observed here include Scrub Jay, ?lain Titmouse, and White-breasted Nuthatch. Mammals observed here are all common to rhis area. The site's small size re- stricts its importance as an area which can support many species of mammals, and only small rodents were observed. Many of the larger species move through the site and utilize it to meet a portion of their home range requirements. The oak trees provide an important wildlife food source and the presence of three different species enhances their value. Oak trees produce their acorns at different times of the summer and fall, depending on the species. This dis- tribution of production provides an important food source for an extended period of time. Deer, Fox Squirrel, and the Acorn Woodpecker all intensively utilize this food source when it is available. Several species observed on the site are found in the area due to the presence of the adjacent rural-suburban development. They are principally found in the suburban habitat type. Due to its close proximity to the project site, they move out onto it to feed and move back to the garden vegetation to rest and, seek cover. Bird species are the most visible wildlife engaged in this move- ment and include Rock Dove, '.Mockingbird, Starling, and White-crowned Sparrow. It is likely that small rodents also exhibit this activity pattern. No rare or endangered wildlife species have been recorded from or were ob- served on the site. POTENTIAL IMPACTS The principal impact of the project on vegetation and wildlife will result from road building activity. The proposed private drive will require extensive grad- ing and filling due to the steep slopes found here. This will cause significant impacts on the vegetation due to the amount of species that will be removed. It is likely that more vegetation will be removed than is apparent on the tentative grading plan. Oak trees are particularly susceptible to damage from grading activity. Any change in the existing ground surface around a tree can cause damage. Fill around the base of the tree alters the soil moisture and soil atmosphere levels that the tree is accustomed to, which is usually damaging to the tree. Grading removes a portion of a tree's roots. Damage to the tree depends on the amount of soil removed. It is also likely that some trees will be damaged after con- struction is completed. The addition of summer watering around an oak results in oak root fungus (Armillaria) which damages and ultimately kills most trees which are affected. It is likely due to the steepness of slope and extensive 000231 grading required that impacts on vegetation outside the actual roadbed will equal or exceed that removed to accommodate the road. The majority of wildlife species found on the site will be reduced in number due to a reduction in available habitat but will not be eliminated from the site. Most bird rnd mammal species observed are able to inhabit suburban areas with such large lots, due to the retention of portions of the natural vegetation. The species likely to be forced off the site by this development include the Black-tailed Hare, Gray Fox, and Western Meadowlark. Any grazing by confined livestock on these slopes will be very destructive to the groundcover vegetation and will greatly increase the amount of soil erosion. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Relocate the existing proposed road. The proposed route will have significant impacts on the native oak trees both from the number actually re- moved by road construction and others damaged by grading activities. 2. Require detailed review of site plans to 'assess impacts on trees as a result of proposed home building. PLANT LIST Trees Valley Oak Quercus lobata Blue Oak Quercus Doublasii Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia California Buckeye Aesculus californica - Shrubs Poison Oak Rhus diversiloba Herbaceous Little Quaking Grass Briza minor Barley Hordeum spp. Italian Ryegrass Lolium multiflorum Wild-Rye Elymus spp. Wild Oat Avena spp. Brodiaea (2 species) Brodiaea spp. Mariposa Lily Caluchortus spp. Yarrow Achillea millefolium Goldback Fern Pityrogranmia triangularis BIRD SPECIES OBSERVED species Seasonal Status Vulnerability to Development Rock Dove R Anna's Hummingbird R Common Flicker w,R Acorn Woodpecker R Nuttall's Woodpecker R Scrub Jay R Plain Titmouse R White-breasted Nuthatch R X Mockingbird R Starling R Ruby-crowned Kinglet W Western Meadowlark R X House Finch R Brown Towhee R White-crowned Sparrow W S = Summer Visitor R = Resident Species W = Winter Visitor X = Decrease in population as a result of development. ..CO.. �01FC341 BIRD SPECIES EXPECTED Species Seasonal Status Vulnerability to Development Cooper's Hawk W Mourning Dove R Great Horned Owl R X Red-breasted Sapsucker W Ash-throated Flycatcher S X Common Bushtit R Western Bluebird R Hutton's Vireo R Yellow-rumped Warbler W Northern Oriole S Lesser Goldfinch R Lark Sparrow R X Dark-eyed Junco W MAMMALS OBSERVED OR EXPECTED Species Observed/Expected Vulnerability to Developnent Broad-handed Mole 0 Black-tailed Hare 0 Fox Squirrel 0 Botta Pocket Gopher 0 Western Harvest Mouse E California Meadow Mouse E Gray Fox 0 X Striped Skunk E Black-tailed Deer 0 S = Summer Visitor R = Resident Species W = Winter Visitor X = Decrease in population as a result of development 0 = Observed r = Expec`,_d .h..�p i SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ENERGY INPUTS FOR THE PROJECT* BTU x 100,000 X of (therms) total INITIAL ENERGY INPUTS Streets and Utilities Construction 31,248 7.5 Residential Construction 15,300 3.7 LONG-TERM NON-TRANSPORTATION INPUTS (20-YEAR PERIOD) Upkeep of Streets and Utilities 5,324 1.3 Residential Operation 219,648 52.9 TRANSPORTATION ENERGY INPUT 143,330 34.6 " TOTAL 20-YEAR ENERGY IMPACT OF PROJECT 415,330 100.0 } Methodology from: Interactive Resources, Inc., May, 1976, Energy Conservation: Guidelines for Evaluating New Development in Contra Costa County. California (two volumes) 0002.31 CA7 _ ATION OF ENERGY INPUTS Streets and Utilities Development At 63 therms/lineal foot of street length for single family conventional construction (Table 1.5, Contra Costa County study) : 496 lin, ft. x 63 therms/lin, ft. = 31,248 therms 2. Residential Construction (Table 1.5, Contra Costa County study) : 3,815 therms/unit x 4 units = 15,300 therms 3. Resideitial Oneration Beating, cooling, lighting, and appliance operation is esti- mated at 5:;912 therms/unit over a 20-year period, including in- direct enerM -squired to produce and deliver fuel andelectricity (Walnut Creek �a, Table 1.6, Contra Costa County study) : 54,912 therms/uz.1t x 4 units = 219,648 therms 4. pp-. � of Streets a Ut-ilities (Table 1.5, Contra C.. _ Judy) : 1,331 therms/unit x 4 units = 5,324 therms 5. Transportation Enemy Inputs a. In the absence of specific da;La for the project site, a general figure of 61 VMT (vehicle miles travelled) per day, per utit, is assumed for the project*: 61 mi./unit x 4 units = 244 mi./day * Arthur D. Little, Inc., East/Central-Contra Costa County Waste- water Management Plan: EIR and EIS (San Francisco. U.S. Environmental Pr-itection Agency, 1976) , p. 5-94 b. For fuel use, an average of 15 mi./gallon is assumed. Direct energy value of gasoline is about 1.25 therms/gal., and indirect input for production is reflected by a factor of 1.21 (Table 1.2, Contra Costa County study) : 244 mi./day x 1 gal./15 mi, x 1.25 therms/gal. x 1.21 = 19.7 therms/day c. Energy use over a 20-year period: 19.7 therms/day x 7,300 days/20 yrs. = 143,810 .therms ENERGY CONSERVATION MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES 1. Redesign the site plan to include attached units. (Attached units tend to be more energy efficient because of their inherent insulation qualities.) 2. Design homes to have overhangs or walls that will shade windows and ex- terior walls in -the summer and expose them to the sun in the winter. 3. As a sales option for homebuyers, provide special wall and roof construc- tion to allow for future installation of solar systems for swimming pool and domestic water heating and for temperature control. 4. Provide home insulation and weatherstripping in excess of current minimum standards. 5. Install energy-efficient Heatilator-type fireplaces with approved dampers, and provide for the drawing of fireplace combustion air from crawl spaces rather than from rooms. 6. Install energy-efficient heat pumps for heating and cooling. 7. Install energy-efficient appliances. 8. Install flourescent lighting fixtures where possible rather than high- energy-use incandescent fixtures. 9. Paint interior walls with light colors to provide optimum reflection of natural light and reduce dependence on artificial light. 10. Where practical, install energy-efficient skylights to increase natural interior lighting and decrease dependence on artificial lighting. oo(1231 1 _ � '-�� fit? • YZ . y ;CONSULTING AND AESEAACH SERVICES; INC " F ! . r x r October 25, 1978f J. Mr. Steven D. Billington. City:Planni'ng/Environmental'Research.-. 12261-Warner Court Lafayr-tte.,CA.945'49 , Dear Mr. Billington, Pursuant ). your. request of October 18:,.1978, we�have.completed_ an archaeC -Tical reconnaissance of-'the'.approximately 5:35 acre; Castle. Roca: ad minor subdivision near;5hel1 Ridge and'Walnut' ._ ;Ln -Creek,,Califr—cnia. t The archaeologica_ connaissance of the subject prope,+,y was .,.'undeitaken,.on. Octc. ?,9, 1978,by. Ms.'Cindy besgra-ndc' mp, W ose asery ces=were retax,, MS..:.,DesgxandchFt!:hot degree in anthropology is on.archaeology..:. ^a has a minimum five years extensive field experience.-. i northern'. California",archaeology., >The reconnaissance;of •the subject.prop;- "arty was completed by walking a series of transects'over' the parcel which provided fora complete intensive--examination:of the project location. Attached to this letter is a map which §hows aha route of,the.transects walked.by-:9s.-Desgrandchamp:, r As each transect was completed,,ground,s!;:.rfaces-were::visually ,,- inpsected:for indications of archaeological resources. 'All areas that„a�peaxed:to .have a:;possibility o€-containing;archaeological', remains were :insp2cted. , r In addition-to:the;.reconnaissance, maps_and;records im,the;possession: of ACR` and.;the'.Anthropology-Laboratory�ati-.Sonoma;;StateCCollege: (Society for California Archaeology District Clearinghouse 01) ,- were checked to determine if the subject property had been previously'” reconnoitered for indications of archaeological resources or if ariy known archaeological resources had been recorded to be within the_limits of ,the subject parcel. According to the information in the possession of ACRS and the Anthropology Laboratory, the property had never been subject to an archaeological reconnaissance, and no known azchaeological resources had been reported ,to be within" the parcel's limits. A copy of the correspondence from the Anthropology Laboratory verifying our records.check is attached. -55- 1838.Q.INE'FLAT ROAD . SANTA CRUZ, CA 4CB-426.824r, Mr. Steven D. Billington 2. October 25, 1978 No indications of archaeological resources were found during the course of the ACRS reconnaissance. Ituld appear, then, that developents to the property as proposed wilycoave impacts upon archaeological' resources unless subsurface remains are encountered during project activities. While this possibility seems remote, we would recommend that if any indications of archaeological resources are encountered during project development activities, all work be halted within a 30 meter radius of the find and a qualified archaeologist retained to ascertain the nature of the discovery and recommend mitigation asis necessary. If you should have any questions about our work or the results of our efforts, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Stephen A. Dietz Princpal SAP:ms g000�31 _ V � y"„ ZtV �S.t ROE OLLC e- 2801 V�T COTATI �1YE.�tiEROHM£ PARS. CALIF'OANIA 94M 3 SO�flAIi CO(1fQ THE ANTHROPOLOGY L.�BORATQRY = rrx+wrtrcur o■ia ''~ (70r,664.23$3 October 30, 1978 Mr* .Steve:Deetz l838 Pine Flat ?0ad Sesta Cruz, California 95060 Re. Archaeolo cal "Record Search for a small oarcel ,eas t of r ` 6i - Walnut Creek, Contra Costa, California Dear Mr. Deetz: 1ssLs letter is to confirm the findings of an archaeological record search conducted in respom, �o your telephoned request of October 26, 1978. . Fe ,; subject,parce]., propos for housing development, was situated' approximateli 3J miles east of centrr� Walnut Creek and 500 feet south. of the intersectifln of the Castle Rock/Comistas Drive intersection on the uSGS 7.5 .Jalrmt Creek quadrangle. Die archaeological base maps c. i ^T —ha Northwest Peak nal tpr mf the California Archaeological. Sites A the Guitura.L ::-I±rtes 'r Management Facility , Sonoma.State v;.i rersity were consulted t- det,-=Anne whether any previously recorded archaeological sites were striated within or. new the project area. The record search resulted in the ftp that no previously recorded arciiaeo— logical sites were sitaated within or near the projec4 boundaries. Ziank you for consuising us in ttis matter. If there are anyquestions regarding , ~ t2he f=ndirgs of this record search, please coatac t the Cul tu:ai Reso4:r ce$. Management Facility, Sonoma State University. Sincerely, Nelson B. Thompson . Staff:Archaeologist NBT.dd;: .57 �- n ter a, r � TSE G�I.LFOELViri STATE U'NIN'ERSITY A.ti`D COLLAGES: X . \1 XI +v G t VI r 1 ✓\ arts isy5t's tc ec /// '� '44� •` I,.�/�•�r'""o 'ljD� ' '.` rte_ AschaeO,og `; kiL1J Y�+w±�--> � / o� the Site '•:r ASE l CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF r -Completion of Environmental Impact Report Negative Declaration of. Environmental Significance A Lead Agency Other Responsible Agency Contra Costa County c/o Planning Department P.O. Box 951 Martinez, California 94553 Phone (415) Phone EIR Contact Person Dennis Barr Contact Person PROJECT DESCRIPTION:DWLO ENGINEERS INC. (Applicant)- GEORGE CHINGAS (Owner) County File #2203-RZ: rezone .35 acres from General Agriculture (A-2, S acre minimum. lot size required) to Single Family Residential (R-40, 40,000 square foot minimum lot size required). Subject parcel is located at the terminus of a private road off of the southwest side of Castle Rock Road, approximately 1,950 feet southeast of Comistas Drive, 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. Justification for negative declaration is attached. The Environmental Impact Report is available for review at the below address: Contra Costa County Planning Department 4th Floor, North Wing, Administration Bldg. - Pine & Escobar Streets 7 Martinez, California Dat Post �0�. L� g�g Final date for review/appeal By AML Planning Departmei R presentative '09`-1/74 t a Findings Map R 15 ! COM35TA5—Ofi.! � F y� t 1 ti �•f r-�•.•'•,�l _ �j .,.� 40 � iso A•2 A-2 / p ' a ' Rezone From A'2 To F 65 Area i, `VVILLIAI V. WAZzot- 1Tl , Chairman of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, State of California, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of PAGES N-IS tU of -rwE COONT`r 5 1-178 7—ONI06 MAP. indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission in the matter of 0I AGLO EN(,,,etRs )NC. C firman of the Contra Costa Coun.y-- Planning Commission, State of Calif. ATTE T: 5 ret ry of ie Contra Cas County Pruning Comission, State of Calif.