HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08111992 - H.11 H.11
fcotra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
_ Costa
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON (��r'�'" "J
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT � '
DATE: July 21, 1992
SUBJECT: Robert Pacini (Applicant) - Aspara, Inc. (Owner) - TR 7118 - This is
a request for a tentative map to subdivide 95 acres into 46 lots, in
the Morgan Territory Area.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, including the
First and Second Addenda prepared for Subdivision 4884 as
complete and adequate.
2. Approve the tentative map and conditions of approval for
Subdivision 7118, Exhibit B attached hereto and by reference
incorporated herein, as recommended and modified by staff.
3. Adopt the General Plan and CEQA findings, Exhibit C, to this
document'.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
This application was previously approved on May 26, 1981,
previously identified as Subdivision 4884 , which subsequently
expired. Grading plans were approved in 1987 and grading permits
issued. The final subdivision map had also been processed and
approved, but the developer failed to complete the necessary.
bonding procedures for improvements and the tentative map expired
May 26, 1987.
Furthermore, the project was considered by the County Planning
Commission April 29, 1989, at which time a majority vote could not
be reached and for this reason, the matter was referred to th.#-
Board. __
r
r
The Board approved the tentative map for Subdivision 7118 with
conditions, on April 10, 1990 as recommended by staff which
included the finding that the County General Plan had been amended
specifically to allow for the proposed development and it was
consistent with the General Plan. Adjacent residents, Thomas
Fawcett and William Stipek subsequently filed suit in Superior
Court challenging the decision. On September 17, 1991 Judge
O'Malley rendered a decision that the County did not make findings
of General Plan consistency and ordered that the decision approving
the tentative map for Subdivision 7118 .be set aside.
Review of Application Under New General Plan
Staff has reviewed Subdivision 7118 under the 1991 General Plan to
determine its consistency. Staff's review determined the project
required amending to avoid impacts on Morgan Territory Road, a
scenic corridor and potential conflicts with ridgeline development
policies.
To mitigate the impact identified, the applicant has incorporated
into the project design a landscaping program of native oak trees,
to screen the homes from Morgan Territory Road and the area as
viewed from a distance.
Furthermore, to address the potential conflict with hillside
policies contained in the General Plan, the applicant is proposing
to construct the homes parallel to grade with a restrictive height
of 25-feet. Additionally, all homes constructed will require
review and approval by the Zoning. Administrator to assure
compliance with the mitigation measures listed in the "Second
1.
Addendum to the Final EIR for Tract 4848" (Exhibit A) . With the
exception of Lots 44, 36 and 48, the proposed lots are located
between 0% - 26% slope. In regards to Lots '36, 44 and 48 staff
would recommend a more restrictive height limit of 18-feet parallel
to grade be imposed to mitigate for the increased visual impact on
all steeper topography.
Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B presents the conditions of approval adopted by the Board
on April 10, 1990. Staff has reviewed the conditions and has
proposed modifications (indicated by highlights and strikeouts)
appropriate for inclusion in the approval of this project.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _x YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(8)
ACTION OF BOARD ON AUgUSE IT, 1992 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
On July 21, 1992, the Board of Supervisors continued to
this date the hearing on the recommendation of the Community
Development Department on the request by Robert Pacini (applicant)
and Aspara, Inc. (owner) for approval for a Tentative Map to divide
95 + acres of land into 46 lots in a Single Family Residential
District (R-40) with variances to have less than the required
average lot width for two lots (Lots 7 and 8) Subdivision 7118 in
the Morgan Territory area.
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, pre-
sented the staff report on the request for the tentative map
approval, describing the proposed site, the history of the subdi-
vision map, the April 10, 1990 Board approval of the subdivision
map, a subsequent law suit and set aside of the Board approval, and
Mr. Barry noted that the judge did find that the Environmental
Impact Review was adequate for that consideration. Mr. Barry
presented the staff recommendation as listed above.
.The public hearing was opened and the following persons
appeared to speak:
S.M. Skaggs, P.O. Box V, Walnut Creek, representing the
applicant, commented on the Court finding flaws in the County
process and the implementation of the Board decision for approval,
and the order of the Court for the Board of Supervisors to vacate
their approval of the tentative map. He requested that the Board
adopt adequate findings as before the Board today, and he advised
that the inconsistency with the then General Plan -with the land use
element and the open space element had been corrected.
Julie Pierce, 1526 Haviland Place, Clayton, representing
the Clayton City Council and Clayton Planning Commission, expressed
concerns including cumulative traffic impacts, urging the Board to
come up with a process to address the impacts, and she commented on
a letter dated August 5, 1992 from the Mayor and Planning Commis-
sion. She also commented on a concern with the minimum lot sizes
and the effect on the ridge lines.
Zack Cowan, 655 Sutter Street, Ste. #200, San Francisco,
representing Concerned 'Residents of Morgan Territory and Save Mt.
Diablo, spoke in opposition to the proposal, requesting the project
be referred to the Planning Commission for proper public review.
2
Leslie LaFond, 414.5 Morgan Territory Road, Clayton,
spoke in favor, of the proposed project.
Bob Laurence, 301 Chardonnay Circle, Clayton, spoke in
support of the Pacini development on Morgan Territory Road.
Seth Adams, P.O. Box 44, Martinez, representing Save Mt.
Diablo, spoke in opposition to the proposal, urging a clustering
approach,and he requested that the Board refer this matter to the
Planning Commission for review or that the Board deny the project.
Bill Stipek, 1115 Whispering Pines Road, Clayton, spoke
in opposition to the development as it is designed, and commented
on changes in the area since the Environmental Impact Study had
been done, and he requested that the matter be referred to the
Planning Commission for study and that a new environmental,,impact
study be done.
Mr. Skaggs spoke in rebuttal.
The public hearing was closed.
Supervisor Torlakson requested clarification from staff
on issues including incorporation of the original conditions into
the present conditions.
Dennis Barry responded that they were included and the
only modifications were suggestions that staff had made and the
applicant had agreed to to make the project more compatible than
originally proposed with the County General Plan.
Supervisor Torlakson inquired as to whether the envi-
ronmental impact review is adequate and consistent with the new
General Plan.
Victor Westman, County Counsel, responded that staff has
reached the opinion that this development is consistent with the
General Plan, and he advised that it was considered specifically
with the General Plan.
Mr. Barry concurred that the staff ' s opinion is that the
environmental impact review is adequate.
Supervisor Torlakson commented on the proposed project
and he moved approval of the proposal and staff recommendations as
they have modified and improved it further.
Supervisor McPeak advised that there should be a revisit
of the design of the project.
Supervisor Fanden advised that she supported the
project.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations 1, 2,
and 3 are APPROVED.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: I,, I=` V NOES: f. l y ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED August 11, 1992
cc: County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Public Works THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
McCutcheon, Doyle, et al COU ADMINISTRATOR
BY , , DEPUTY
IT A
r: Second Addendum to the
Final Environmental Impact Report
Mountain Meadows
Subdivision No. 7118
I . INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
The Mountain Meadows project was originally proposed
in 1977. The project originally contemplated a subdivision of
h 69 lots and was the subject of a final environmental impact
report that was certified as complete by the .Planning
Commission in 1978 ( "EIR") .
A revised tentative map application for 46 lots was
approved by the County in 1981 . This map expired in 1987 . The
applicant reapplied for the map in 1988, receiving approval by
the Board of Supervisors in April of 1990 based on the EIR.
This approval was challenged in an action entitled Fawcett v.
Board of Supervisors . The court ruled that the EIR was
adequate to support the project ' s approval . However, the court
ordered the Board to set aside its approval of the project,
because of defects in the County' s General Plan and because of
the Board' s failure to make proper findings .
The effect of the court ' s decision was to -settle the
issue of the EIR' s adequacy as of April of 1990, but to require
the Board to consider the project under the 1990-2005 General
Plan adopted by the County in 1991 ("1990 General Plan") . The
portion of the decision mandating this remand to the Board is
now pending on appeal . However, the project is presently
before the Board for reconsideration pursuant to the Court' s
order .
As a preliminary step in this reconsideration, staff
considered whether the EIR determined by the court to be
adequate as of April 1990 needs to be supplemented by a
subsequent or supplemental EIR. Under CEQA, after an EIR for a
project has been prepared, a subsequent or supplemental EIR may
be not required unless:
(1) Subsequent changes are proposed in
the project which will require important
revisions of the previous EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental
impacts not considered in a previous EIR on
the project;
(2) Substantial changes occur with
respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken, such as a substantial
1
t
deterioration in the air quality where the
b project wil'1 be located, which will require
important revisions in the previous EIR due
to the involvement of new significant
environmental impacts not covered in the
previous EIR; or
(3) New information of substantial
a importance to the project becomes available,
and
(A) The information was not known
and could not have been known at the time
the previous EIR was certified as complete,
and
(B) The new information shows any
of the following:
1 . The project will have
one or more significant effects not
discussed previously in the EIR;
2. Significant effects
previously examined will be substantially
more severe than shown in the EIR;
3 . Mitigation measures or
alternatives previously found not be
feasible would in fact be feasible and would
substantially reduce one or more significant
effects of the project; or
4 . Mitigation measures or
alternatives which were not previously
considered in the EIR would substantially
lessen one or more significant effects on
the environment.
Staff considered whether any of the foregoing criteria
have been met since April of 1990 and concluded that under
these criteria, a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not
appropriate. The purpose of this Addendum is to set forth the
basis for this conclusion.
It should be noted that although the conclusion of
this Addendum indicates that no new mitigation measures should
be imposed to address project impacts, staff recommends the
imposition of several new conditions of approval to ensure that
the project is consistent with the 1990 General Plan's policies
regarding hillside development and scenic corridors. These
2
conditions are not mitigation measures per se because they do
not relate to significant environmental impacts . However, they
are briefly described in this Addendum in the interest of
completeness.
II . PROJECT IMPACTS
4
P
The first criterion of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
has not been met because the project has not changed since
April of 1990 . Accordingly, staff 's review of the project
focused on whether either of the other two criteria are
present, i .e. , whether there has been a change in circumstances
or previously unavailable and important new information within
the meaning of. Section 15162 .
A. Utilities and Public Services.
1 . Electricity.
7
The EIR analyzed the project ' s potential impacts on
utilities and did not identify any significant impacts relating
to electrical services. There have been no changes in
circumstances nor new information since April of 1990 that
suggest that these impacts will be more severe than indicated
in the EIR.
2 . Sanitation Systems .
The EIR identified a potential significant impact
relating to individual sanitation systems . This conclusion was
based on the fact that the applicant had not .yet proven that
each of the proposed new lots contained an adequate location
for a sanitation system. In 1988, the applicant established to
the satisfaction of the County Department of Health that each
lot in fact contains an adequate location for a sanitation
system; the Department of Health proposed guidelines to govern
the review and installation of the proposed systems . See
Exhibit A, Memorandum from Winston Dea. Such review by the
Department of Health was made a condition of the approval of
Subdivision 7118 in April of 1990, and would mitigate the
sanitation impact to insignificance.
" There have been no changes in circumstances or new
information since April of 1990 that suggests that there will
be new or substantially more severe significant impacts
relating to sanitation than predicted in the EIR, or that new
mitigation measures would substantially reduce the impact.
3
x:
3. Water Demand.
.• The EIR concluded that the project would have a
significant and unavoidable impact on water demand because the
project ' s then-proposed 69 lots would generate new demand for
24,000 gallons of water per day. The EIR proposed water
conservation measures designed to substantially reduce this
impact, including water-conserving fixtures and drought
resistant landscaping.
The project application was reduced in 1981 to
46 lots, which would reduce the new demand to 16, 000 gallons
per day according to the formula utilized in the EIR. However,
this is still considered a significant impact . The measures
u proposed in the EIR will substantially reduce this impact, but
not to a level of insignificance.
There have been no changes in circumstances or new
information since April of 1990 that indicates that there will
be new or substantially more severe significant impacts
relating to water demand than predicted in the EIR or that new
alternatives or mitigation measures would substantially reduce
the project ' s impact on water demand.
4 . Water Quality.
The only water quality impact identified in the EIR as
significant relates to the possible risk of septic failure of
the project ' s individual sanitation systems . Mitigation
measures are proposed in the EIR that would substantially
reduce this risk, however the EIR identifies this impact as
potentially significant and unavoidable because the risk cannot
be entirely eliminated.
The practical likelihood of septic failure is quite
remote. The County Code strictly controls the use of
individual sanitation systems . The Code requires a permit for
each system, and provides for inspection by the County Health
officer upon reasonable notice. Any system found to be out of
compliance may be abated as a nuisance. The regulations in the
Code have been effective in avoiding septic failure, and staff
accordingly has concluded that the impact is not significant.
There have been no changes in project circumstances or
new information since April of 1990 that indicate there will be
new or substantially more severe significant impacts on water
quality than predicted in the EIR or that new mitigation
measures or alternatives would substantially reduce this
potential impact.
4
x.
5. Police, Fire Protection and Schools .
F
The EIR did not identify any significant impacts
resulting from the project ' s demand for police, fire protection
or school services . Since April of 1990, there have been no
changes in project circumstances or new information that
g' indicates that there will be new or substantially more severe
significant impacts in these categories than predicted in the
f: EIR.
a
B. Circulation.
F
The EIR concluded that at 69 lots, the project would
generate approximately 690 trips per day, based on a formula of
10 trips per home per day. Applying this formula to the
current 46-lot proposal, the project would generate 460 trips
per day. Two reports from TJKM Transportation Consultants,
dated April 11 , 1989, and May 22, 1992, confirm this estimate.
The reports state that Morgan Territory Road has ample capacity
to accommodate the additional traffic, indicating that the
impact has been reduced to insignificance. The two reports are
included in this Addendum as Exhibit B.
There have been no changes in project circumstances or
new information since April of 1990 indicating that the project
will have new or substantially more severe significant traffic
impacts on other roadways than predicted in the EIR.
C. Land Use.
The EIR indicated a potential land use impact relating
to (i) the potential need for a specific plan under the
California Business and Professions Code; and (ii) the
project ' s inconsistency with its 1977 land use designation as
Major Open Space.
The land use impacts identified in the EIR have been
eliminated. The reduction of the project from 69 to 46 lots
removed it from the scope of the Business and Professions
Code' s specific plan requirement. The General Plan was amended
in 1980 to change the land use designation of the site to
Single-Family Very Low Density, and site is so designated in
the current General Plan. The project is consistent with this
designation.
There have been no changes in circumstances or new
information indicating that there will be any new or
substantially more severe significant environmental impacts
relating to land use than predicted in the EIR.
5
r.
' D. Earth, Soils and Seismicity.
r
1 . Soils and Geology.
The EIR did not identify any significant project
impacts relating to soils and geology. Further information
t'
submitted by Alan Kropp and Associates confirmed that with
appropriate drilled pier foundations, house foundations will
perform adequately. This report is contained in Exhibit D.
There have been no changes in circumstances or new
information since April of 1990 that indicate that there. will
h be new or substantially more severe significant impacts
relating to soils and geology than predicted in the EIR.
2. Seismicity.
The EIR identified as significant seismic impact
relating to the Clayton/Marsh Creek fault that bisects the
project site. There have been no changes in project
circumstances nor new information since April of 1990 that
indicate that there will be new or substantially more severe
significant seismic impacts than predicted in the EIR.
To mitigate the seismic impact, the EIR recommended
mapping the fault trace throughout the site, distancing project
structures from the fault trace and administrative review of
all grading plans for the project. It is expected that these
measures would reduce the impact to insignificance. The
applicant has submitted maps that trace the Clayton/Marsh Creek
fault throughout the site. Adequate distancing of project
structures from the fault will be ensured through staff review
of site and grading plans for each project lot. There has been
no previously unavailable information since April of 1990
indicating that other measures or alternatives would
substantially reduce this impact.
3. Slope Failure.
The EIR identified a significant project impact
relating to slope failure, recommending grading restrictions
and administrative review of individual grading plans to
mitigate the impact to insignificance. Since April. of 1990,
there have been no changes in project circumstances nor new
information indicating that new or substantially more severe
significant impacts will occur than anticipated in the EIR or
that new mitigations or alternatives would substantially reduce
this impact.
6
F
4. Grading.
e
The EIR identified a significant project impact
relating to grading and recommended staff review of individual
grading plans in order to mitigate this impact to
insignificance. There has been no change in physical
circumstances or new information since April of 1990,
s indicating that new or substantially more severe significant
impact will occur than predicted in the EIR or that other
mitigation measures or alternatives would substantially reduce
. the impact.
r E. Vegetation and Wildlife.
The only significant impacts identified in the EIR
relating to vegetation and wildlife involve potential
r disturbance of wildlife and livestock on adjacent lands . The
EIR recommended fencing of the site to mitigate this impact to
r
insignificance.
E
The conditions of approval for the April, 1990
r approval of the project recommended that the applicant submit a
biological survey to the Zoning Administrator prior to the
filing of a grading permit. Such a survey was performed in
August of 1990 . This study concluded that it was unlikely that
the site supported any species of special concern, except
} potentially in the Marsh Creek corridor . The development is
designed to avoid any impacts on this corridor.
The applicant also submitted a jurisdictional wetlands
delineation, verified by the Corps of Engineers on
December 6, 1990 . The site contains 1 .9 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands . Most of the wetlands are on portions
of the site that will not be affected by the proposed
development, i .e. , in the Marsh Creek corridor. The project
may involve the fill of . 1 acre of vernal pools, which are
jurisdictional wetlands that may be filled under nationwide
r permit 26 . Nationwide permit 26 is appropriate where less than
10 acres of wetlands will be filled, and the fill will have
minimal impact on aquatic resources. The absence of any
species of special concern in the vernal pool and its small
size indicate that the fill would have minimal impact on.
aquatic resources . The applicant will be required to comply
with the terms of the nationwide permit.
The presence of wetlands on the site does not indicate
a basis for requiring a new EIR because (i) the small size and
absence of species of special concern indicate that the fill of
the vernal pool should be considered insignificant; and (ii)
the information indicating the presence of the vernal pool
could have been available in April of 1990 . There have been no
7
i,
1
changes in project circumstances or other new information
suggesting that the project will have new or substantially more
severe significant impacts than indicated in the EIR, or that
µ, new mitigation measures or alternatives would substantially
c,
reduce the project ' s impacts .
The biological survey and wetlands delineation are
attached to this Addendum as Exhibit E.
F. Recreation and Open Space.
The EIR did not identify any significant project
impacts relating to recreation. It did identify an open space
impact because of the site' s then-current land use designation
as Major Open Space. However, this impact was avoided by the
1980 change of the site' s designation to Single-Family Very Low
Density.
There has been no change in circumstances or new
information since April of 1990 that indicates that there will
be new or substantially more severe significant project impacts
relating to recreation or open space or that new mitigation
measures or alternatives would substantially lessen the
project ' s impacts .
G. Security.
The EIR identified a potentially significant impact
relating to the project ' s proximity to the County
Rehabilitation Center and recommended the provision of a second
project access to mitigate the impact to insignificance. This
measure could have significant impacts on March Creek. There
has been no changes in circumstances or new information since
April of 1990 that indicate that new. or substantially more
severe significant environmental impacts relating to security
impacts will occur or that new mitigation measures or
alternatives would substantially lessen the project ' s impacts .
H. Ener
The EIR identified a potentially significant energy
impact Caused by the construction of 69 homes . Limits on
grading were proposed to ,mitigate this impact to
insignificance. The impact would also be substantially
lessened by the decrease in project units to 46 homes.
There has been no change in circumstances nor new
information since April of 1990 indicating that the project
will have new or substantially more severe significant energy
impacts than predicted in the EIR or that new mitigation
8
G ,
1
fi measures or alternatives would substantially lessen the
x> project 's impacts.
I . Air Quality.
x The EIR did not identify any significant project
impacts on air quality. There has been no change in
1'
circumstances or new information since April of 1990 indicating
n that there will be new or substantially more severe significant
impacts than predicted in the EIR.
s: As a residential development, the project ' s primary
potential contribution to air pollution would result from
traffic-generated carbon monoxide. The County is below state
and federal carbon monoxide standards and is predicted to
remain so, according to the environmental impact report
prepared for the County' s General Plan 1990-2005 . See
pages 4 . 6-57 through 4 . 6-72 of the Draft EIR, State
Clearinghouse No. 88071904 . This information is incorporated
herein by reference.
III . GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
The project is consistent with the 1990 General Plan' s
land use designation of the site. However, as proposed the
project could conflict with the General Plan' s policies
regarding scenic corridors and hillside development . The
conditions of approval recommended by staff to avoid these
conflicts are set forth in Exhibit C to this Addendum, and are
summarized below.
A. Protection of Scenic Corridors .
The project site is visible from Morgan Territory
Road, a scenic corridor under the 1990 General Plan. The site
is not in the foreground of the viewshed, but forms a backdrop
to an existing residential development. To minimize the
project 's effect on the scenic corridor, a landscaping plan
shall be required that will screen the view from Morgan
Territory Road of project homes . The plan shall utilize
24-inch box native oak trees and be subject to the approval of
the Zoning Administrator. Low profile, stepped-on-grade
structures and garages that do not open facing the street shall
be encouraged. The Zoning Administration shall review all
driveway locations and architectural elevations.
B. Hillside Grading Restrictions .
The 1990 General Plan restricts development of slopes
of 26 percent or more. The project site contains such slopes .
The applicant has provided a map showing that most lots contain
9
a buildable site with slopes of less than 26 percent slopes .
This map is on file in the Community Development Department and
is incorporated herein by this reference. However, some lots
}: will require grading and construction on slopes of more than
26 percent.
To ensure compliance with the General Plan's visual
and safety restrictions on hillside development, the height of
project homes relative to natural grade shall be limited. Any
5 decks shall blend with the design of the structure; support
structures should be screened and landscaped. Exterior finish
materials shall not exceed a reflectivity of 50 percent.
` Development shall conform with the natural contour and, avoid
a excessive grading. Driveway locations and architectural
elevations shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning
Administrator with a low profile, stepped-on grade to be
encouraged. Driveways that do not face the street shall also
' be encouraged. All structures shall be located in a manner
that is sensitive to natural constraints, with a footprint that
' preserves existing trees for the extent feasible.
IV. CONCLUSION
The circumstances that would justify the preparation
of a subsequent or supplemental EIR are not present, because
since April of 1990, there have been no project changes,
changes in project circumstances or previously unavailable new
information that indicate that the project will have new or
substantially more severe significant impacts than predicted in
the EIR, or that new mitigation measures or alternatives would
substantially lessen the project 's significant impacts .
10
4EALTH SERVICES taEPA MENT
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
•- -
.Exhibit A ,
To: Community Development Date: June 23, 1988
is
rrom: Winston Dea subject: Subdivision 7118
Environmental Health Mountain Meadows #2
Martinez Clayton
z
4 .
This department has approved the installation of septic tank
systems on each lot with the following provisions:
1. Each lot will be subject to review by the -Health Department
prior to issuance of a building permit.
2. Each lot will be required to have 300 feet of leachline
per bedroom. The buyer of the lot has the right to a
new percolation test performed either by an outside
engineering company or through this division. If
performed by the Health Department there will be a
$100.00 fee. An improved percolation rate may _allow
the length of the leachline to be reduced,
3. Each lot will have an area which can be used for 100%
expansion of the system.
4. Removal of trees may be necessary on some lots.
5. The location of the drain system will have priority over
the dwelling site.
b. Grading and padding will be necessary on many lots.
Any deviation -or changes affecting the Concept of the sub-
division on file with the Health Department and dated May 7,
19$70 shall be resubmitted before this subdivision can be
considered acceptable to the Health Officer.
Water supply shall be by the +Contra'Costa County Water District.
Each individual living unit shall be served by a separate connection.
Such water distribution system located within the boundaries of
this subdivision shall become an integral part of the Contra Costa
County Water Districts overall water distribution system.
WD:jc
cc: Public Works, Bob ellen
Applicant '
TOTAL P.02
PRY 22 '92 14:16 TJW TRMSPORTATION CONSLLTAMS r.c
" Exhibit B
IL
- .
TRANSPORTAT/ON CONSULTANTS
s
t
May 22, 1992
F
Mr. Bob Pacini
5115 A Clayton Road
Concord, CA 94521
F. Dear W_memi:
f
g. In response to;MW request,wro have reviewed our previous report and data related to the
I .46-unit residential development proposed for Morgan Territory Road in Contra Costa County,
The site of the proposed pr%dect is near Whispering Pin" Drive. i
The previous report„dated April 11,1989,showed a daily traffic volume of 1,440 vehicles per
day(YO)on Morgan Territory Road,with 126 vehicles in the m.peak hour and 98 vehicles
in the a.m.peak hour. The 24-hour count was mads an Monday-Tuesday,April 1989.
F.:btting Traffic Volumes
The recent count,made an Monday-Tuesday,May 28.19,1992 shows a total of 1,309 vehicles
during the 24-hour count period. No peak-hour count was made.
Observation of the site vidnity by an engineer showed no apparent changes of any f
aonsequeace since the previous taunt was made. The actual traffic count was less, as
indicated above, by approximately 6.5 percent. i
t
Project Trip Generation
The proposed 48 single-family homes would be erected to generate 464 vehicle trip-ands
(vte)or one-pay trips per day,which is the same number as pr%dected in the previous report. .
These total daily trips are based on a trip generation rate of 10 vte per day, based on data
' published in?'rip Generation(1985)by the Institute of Tf nsportation Ehgina m(ITE)and
Frogn ss Repod(s)on 2Wp Oweration Research COWS by the California Department of
' Transportation(Caltrans)during the years 1966 through 1986.
Distribution of Ps4ect Trips
As reported previously,the total 460 daily trips would include 230 traveling from the site and
230 traveling toward the site,with 100 percent assumed to travel along Morgan Ttory
erri
Road to and from the north. j
1637 Chabot Dom suds 2u.Pf"tanton.Glftftt"MS$ V"•aim 434611
PLFABAN70N 9 WRAMENTO•FRESNO*WALNUT CREEK
-x aq•a r I JKM TIRSW15FORTATION CONSLLTANTS P.3
4
Mr. Bob Pacini -2- May 22, 1882
2*AMO VOIUMes with the Pref act
k
Using the currant count, if the 460 daily trips and 46 peak hour trips expected to be
generated by the proposed prtect were added to the existing trame,the volumes on Morgan
Territory Road would be 1,769 vehicles per day, Compared to the 1,660 estimated in the
previous report The current estimate is less, since the actual cossnt of existing traffic on
Maa•gaa Territory Road has &wlinsd.
s
No current peak hour counts are available,but it may be assumed that the peak hour traffic
volumes would also decl;,- proportional to the decrease in daily traffic volumes.
€. Roadwaay Capacity
9
As indurated in the previous report,the peak hour'capacity"or volume of traffic the roadway
could carry an*ainterxupted secticaaue would be agprorimately 1,000 vehicles per hour. There
-has been no change in this figure since the previous report
The existing peak hour volume is estimated to be slightly less than that indicated in the
previous report,based on the above analysis. Therefore, the existing peak hour volume of
126 vehicles or less on Morgan Territory Road is well within the capacity of the roadway.
f The addition of the traffic that would be generated by the prged would result in 172 vehicles
per hour or less, and this total is also well within the capacity of the roadway.
Summary and Cos fusion
The proposed 46 units would generate 460 daily trips and 46 peak hour trips during the pm.
peak hour(the same as in the previous report dated April 11, 1989). These totals added to
the existing traffic on Morgan Territory Road near Marsh Creek Road would result in -
1,769 vehicles per day(compared to the 1,660 vehicles estimated in the previous report)and
172 vehicles per hour or less for the p,= peak hour(less than in the previous report).
The roadway capacity can be considered to,be approximately 2,000 vehicles per hour;
therefcm,the existing plus project traffic volumes would still be well within the capacity of
the'r+oadwray.
Theme is no change in the conclusion reached by TJKM as the result of our recent review and'
new count of traffic an Mawgan. Territory Road near the proposed 46-unix residential
development. Please let me know if I may answer any questions or provide any additional
informat--
Very truly'yours, .
Rick Mitchell
Principal Associate
cc:Tim Coats,Ferguson Wollman
oar-auuw.
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
April 11, 1989
Mr. John Wollman
Ferguson & Wollman
Consulting Eagiaeers
200 Gregory Lane
' Pleasant HILI. CA 44523 '
y �
Dear Mr. Wollman:
This letter is In regard to the 46-unit residential development proposed for a site
located scar V&Ispering Pines Drive and Morgan Territory Road in Contra Costa
County near Claytoa. We have conducted a traffic volume count by machine on
Morgan Territory Road, and we have determined the approximate capacity of the
roadway.
Project Trip Generation #
The proposed 46 single-family homes would be expected to generate 460 vehicle
trip ends (vte) or one-way trips per day. These total daily trips are based on a trip
generation rate of 10 vte or one-way trips per day. During the p.m. peak hour, the
46 homes would generate 46 trips
These rates are based on data published in Trip Generation (1985) by the Institute
of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and in Progress Reports) on Trip Generation I
Research Cowie by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) during ,
the years 1966 through 1986. The ITE data were compiled from studies throughout 4
the sation,'aad the Caltrans data were compiled from studies in the treater
San Francisco Bay region.
Distribution of Project Trips ;
The total 460 daily trips would include 230 trips traveling from the site and
230 trips traveling toward the site. Of the total 460 daily trips and 46 peak hour
trips. 100 percent could be assumed to travel along Morgan Territory Road to and
from the north. R
Existing Traffic Volumes ;
The daily traffic volumes along Morgan Territory Road. near Marsh Creek Road
are 1.400 vehicles per day (vpd) based an a count conducted by a machine counter
placed on Monday. April 10, 1989. There were 126 vehicles in the p.=. peak hour '.
and 98 vehicles in the a.m. peak hour. A copy of the traffic count results is
enclosed.
i
4637 Ctk bat Drive.Sub 214.PlewarrtM Worria 64566•(415)463-0611 -
VAX(41ST s6}Sf+ip !
PLEASANTON•SACRAMENTO•FRESNO•CONCORD
z
Mr. John Wallman -2- April 11, 1989
' Traffic Volumes wltk the Pro3ect
1 If the 460 daily trips and 46 peak hour•tiips expected to be generated by the
proposed project were added to the existing.traffic, the volumes on Morgan
Territory Road would be 1.860 vehicles per day with 172 vehicles during the per.
peak hour.
r„.
Roadway Capaelty
Under ideal conditions. s twodane roadway can be expected to carry up to
3„800 vehicles per hour (vph) based on Information in the Xtghway Copacity,Manual
(Special Report 205. Transportation Research Board, 1995}. This total would apply
primarily to the peak hour. factors which affect the total include the design
speed, lane width. shoulder width, passing zone& type of vehicles, the directional
r split of traffic and the type of terrain.
w There are curves and narrow or no shoulders along sections of Morgan Territory
Road which affect the capacity. Therefore. the the peak hour *capacity" or volume
of traffic the roadway could carry on the uninterrupted sections would be
approximately 1.000 vph.
z
The existing peak boar volume of 126 vehicles along Morgan Territory Road is
• well within the capacity of the roadway. The addition of the traffic that would
h be generated by the project would result in 172 vehicles per hoar along Morgan
Territory Road during the p.m. peak hoar. This total is also well within the
capacity of the roadway.
Summitry
The proposed 46 units would generate 460 dally trips and 46 trips during the p.m.
peak hour. These totals added to the existing traffic on.Morgan Territory Road
sear Marsh Creek Road would result in 1,860 vehicles per day and 172 vehicles per
hour for the p.m. peak hoar. The roadway capacity can be considered to be
approximately 1,000 vehicles per hour. Therefore..the existing plus project traffic
volumes would be well within the capacity of the roadway.
If you have any questions or aced additional information. please let me know.
Sincerely.
Thomas J.'Clausen
rhm .
Enclosure.
cc: R. Sette
29-056
UCA
WAY ?C1tWM MIME CWXT
!f]'ama: mm COSTA CO. URF. U M fici84: 2.00
1�lC IGN s IOWA All TORY U- W NO MUM "13. fttfliW'!E: (IM fll
�� .11rAT0EX ! A.F.AR IEFX W 1xMiCAT 4 4 1 18 ! !9
ffEtATN 1 RV ARD o .
�tAt JlO NY 10 .�30my it -f18 aky i2 • •�SDAY 13 R11AY 14 itT{lR y is T U 11WAY &VUAU
le. C.tillT i / i a f f f M f -f i . f -- t f i r
! # 3 2 # t • # i # i ! 0 # 3 2
{ t # ! 7 # ! t # # t # # • # 1 ]
S # # 2 26 t # ! # t i i t i ! 2 26
SO # f i ! i ! t i # i u 50
). # # 29 T$ t •i # # # # t i t i 28 7i
70 t i # s # # i t t # v 74
p # i # i ! t # # i i ! 27 41
j ,1Q 40 42 48
35 34
.
320 22 t ! ! # i ! ! # t ! ! # 33 35
# i ! ! i t it i ! i # ! x 44
2 41 n ! ! ! i ! ! i • i ! # ! 41 37
3 # i i i # ! i i # i # i 63 41
! ! • ! ! ♦ t # • i ! ! 66 39
T Sis i6 t i i ! i )8 a
i 69 45 # ! ! # ! # i ! i i ! 69 45
45 24 i # i i ! i # # i # # # 45 24
31 13 i s # 4 # # i # t ! i t 31 13
! 17 24 i # # t . f i ! . # # * * ! 17 24
30 25 i► i ! ! i # # i # i ! t ! 25 i
11 4 4 4 4
kQTt�iS $12 475 ]3 240 # ! i i ! # t # ! t 685 715
COtiBIiO:i► TOTALS
u i
3
6 62
9 f 97 • # f i 98 97
* 68 i t # i i i 68
!o 12 t ! i s # • 22
=12 68 s' f s : f u
so w
76 78
a 104 t i s t . • 104
4 !8S ' it ! ! ! s ! 145
S 26 + i i ! ! ! 126
6 14 # i i ! ! # 114
1 44 i f f a 44
!0 31 s s t f s 31
!1 1 i i i i # # i
r■�r■wi■�I�■I����w�irrr�r��r■.Y■r■�■ � �■rrr. wrw�r�■■r�rr■�r�� --r ww■r ■ _ _--
STALS SW 313 # i i i s 1400
4:
Exhibit C
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
k
2'
FOR SUBDIVISION 7118
k
o-. CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTY GENERAL PLAN 1990-2005
k
4 Staff has identified two potential inconsistencies with the
1990 County General Plan. These potential inconsistencies
should be avoided as follows:
1 : The homes could affect the views from a scenic
corridor, Morgan Territory Road, which is
protected as a scenic corridor in the General
Plan.
Condition of Approval :
The applicant has incorporated a landscaping program
to screen the homes from Morgan Territory Road using
oak trees native to the area. This program will
minimize the visual intrusion of the development in
the scenic corridor.
2 : The project could conflict with General Plan
policies which restrict development on open
hillsides and provide for protection of hillsides
with a grade of 26% or more.
Condition of Approval :
The applicant has submitted a slope study indicating
which lots contain slopes exceeding 26% . The
following design guidelines will be incorporated into
the project design:
A. Any deck, whether raised or on grade, should
complement and blend with the design of the
structure. All support structures shall be
screened and landscaped.
B. The specific design of buildings of structures
shall result in a design that (i) conforms with
the natural terrain; (ii) avoids excessive
grading; and (iii) has a footprint that preserves
existing mature oak trees to the extent
feasible. A combination of staggered exterior
1
wall lines and two-story elements may be
appropriate. Homes shall be limited to 28 feet
parallel to natural grade. Homes on Lots 36, 38
:. and 44 shall be limited to 18-feet parallel to
. natural grade.
i
' C. Roof shapes that relate to the character of
surrounding terrain are to be utilized. Roof
colors shall not exceed a reflectance of 50% and
shall blend with the area .as viewed from a
distance.
D. Building height, setbacks and bulk shall
t encourage low profile, stepped-on-grade
structures, particularly at prominent sites
viewed from Morgan Territory Road or surrounding
area.
r
E. Prior to issuance of building permits, the
applicant shall submit driveway locations ,
architectural elevations and color samples, for
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator .
All structures shall be located in a manner which
is sensitive to natural constraints .
2
iEALTH SERVICES DEPA.. MENT
1
ENYtRONMENT'AL HEALTH DIVISION
Exhibit A
-TO$ Community Development Date: June 23, 1988
x rront Winston Dea subject: Subdivision 7118
F Environmental Health Mountain Meadows #2
t!tartin*z Clayton
f
k:
This department has approved the installation of septic tank
systems on each lot with the following provisions:
1. Each lot will be subject to review by the, -Health Department
prior to issuance of a building permit. .
2. Each lot will be required to have 300 feet of leachline
per bedroom. The buyer of the lot has the right to a
new percolation test performed either by an outside
engineering company or through this division. if
performed by the Health Department there will be a
$100.00 fee. An improved percolation rate may allow
the length of the leachline to be reduced.
3. Each lot will have an area which can be used for 100%
a expansion of the system.
4. Removal of trees may be necessary on some lots.
5. The location of the drain system will have priority over
" the dwelling site.
6. Grading -and padding will be necessary on many lots. •�
Any deviation -or changes affecting the concept of the sub-
division on file with the Health Department and dated May 7,
1987, shall be resubmitted before this subdiv*sion can be
considered acceptable to the Health Officer.
Water supply shall be by the Contra Costa County Water District.
Each individual living unit shall be served by a separate connection.
Such water distribution system located within the boundaries of
this subdivision shall become an integral part of the Contra Costa
County Water Districts overall water distribution system.
WD:jc
cc: Public Works, Bob Allen
Applicant -
. ;,�—s► 8/01sus
TOTAL P.02
• MAY 22 '92 14:16 TJM T ORTATION CONSLUANTS P.2
Exhibit B
TRANSPOR TA 77ON CONSULTANTS
job(R
0 � .
F'
I
c I Ma 22' 1982
k Mr.Bob Pacini
5115 A Clayton Road
Concord,CA 94521
Dear Mr.Pacini:
• In response to your request,we have reviewed our previous report and data related to the
!
.46-unit residential development proposed for Morgan Territory Road in Contra Costa County.
The site of the proposed prcgject is now Whispering Pines Drive.
The previous report,dated April 11,1989,showed a daily traffic volume of 1,400 vehicles per
day(vpd)on Morgan Territory Road,with 126 vehicles in the p.m.peak hour and 98 vehicles
in the a.m.peak hour. The 24-hour count was made on Monday-Tuesday,April 10-11,2989.
Existing Traffic vobnaw
The recent count,made on Monday-Tuesday,May 18.19,1992 shows a total of 1,309 vehicles
during the 24-hour count period. No peak-hour count was made.
ya
Observation of the site vicinity by an engineer showed no apparent changes of any
consequence since the previous-ootmt was made. - The actual traffic count was less, as
indicated above,by approxi=tely 6.5 percent,
PrWect Trip Generation
The proposed 46 single-family homes would be expected to generate 460 vehicle trip-ends
(vte)or one-way trips per day,which is the same number as projected in the previous report.
These total daily trips are based on a trip generation rate of 10 vte per day, based on data j
published in Trip Generation(1985)by the Institute of Tvansportation Engineers (ITE)abd
Progress.ReportWon ?dip Generation Research Counts by the California Department of
' Transportation(Caltrans)during the years 1966 through 1986.
Distribution of Prgiect Ttipo
As reported previously,the total 460 daily trips would include 230 traveling flbm the site and I
230 traveling toward the site, with 100 percent assumed to travel along Morgan Territory
Road to and from the north. j
I
i4637 CKAW DOM su1M 214,a A MON CW H MIA 04666-2754-(5101463 0611 i
.. .. .. . . .. . .. . .. ---- .--�----- . . l
PLEASANTUN•UCRAMENTO•FRESNO•WALNUT CREEK
Mr. Bob Facial .Z. May 22, IM
_ Tvaf,5o Vohunes with the Project
Using the current count. if the 480 daily trips and 48 peak hour trips expected to be
generated by the proposed project were added to the sewting traffic,the volumes on Morgan
Territory Road would be 1.789 vehicles per day, compared to the 1,880 estimated in the
previous report. The current estimate is less, since the actual oount of existing traffic on
Morgan Territory Road has declined .
Wo current peak hour counts ars available,but it may be assumed that the peals hour traffic
volumes would also deck-*IMPOZ =st to the decrease in daily traffic volumes.
lt"dway Capacity
,As indica ted in the previous report„the peals bow'capscity'or volume of traffic the roadway
could carry on t ninterrnpted sections would be approximately 1,000 vehicles per hour. There .
•has been no change in this Sgure since the previous report.
The cidsting peak hour volume is estimated to be allshtly less than that indicated in the
previous report,based on the above analysis. Therefore, the existing peak hour volume of
128 vehicles or less on Morgan Territory Road is well within the capacity of the roadway.
The addition of the traffic that would be generated by the prtect would result in 172 vehicles
per hour or less,and this total is also well within the capacity of the roadway.
Sunmay and Conotmdon
The proposed 46 units would generate 480 daily trips and 40 peak hour trips during the p.m.
peak hour(the same as in the previous report dated April 11.-1089). These totals addled to
the emst zg traffic on Morgan Territory Road near Marsh Creek Road would result is -
1,769 vehicles per day(compared to the 1,880 vehicles estimated in the previous report)and
172 vehicles per hour or less for the pm. peak hour(less than in the previous report}.
c
The roadway capacity can be considered to be approximately 1,000 vehicles per hour,
therefore, the eidsting plus project traffic volumes would still be well within the capacity of
the roadway. .
There is no change in the conclusion reached by TJKM as the result of our recent review and'
new count of traffic an Morgan Territory Road near the proposed 46-unit residential
development. Please let me know if I may answer any questions or provide any additional
iafara�atioa.
Very truly ymns .
XZOA 2V,4�
Tuck Mitchell
Principal Associate
do Tim Coate. Ferguson& Wollman
'. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
April 11, 1989
Mr.John Wollmaa
Ferguson & WOIIman
Consulting Engineers
200 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 ,
Dear Mr. Wollmaa: +
This letter is in regard to the 46-unit residential development proposed for a site I
located scar Whispering Pines Drive and Morgan Territory Road in Contra Costa j
= County wear Clayton. We have conducted a traffic volume count by machine an
Morgan Territory Road, and we have determined the approximate capacity of the
roadway.
s 1
}. Project Trip Generation ;
The proposed 46 single-family homes would be expected to generate 460 vehicle
r
trip ends (vie) or one-way trips per day. These total daily trips are based on a trip
generation rate of 10 vte or one-way trips per day. During the p.m. peak hour, the
4 46 homes would generate 46 trips.
k-
` These rates are. based on data published in Trip Generation (1995) by the Institute l
of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and in Progress Report(s) on Trip Generation
= Research Cowiu by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) during
the years 1966 through 1986. The ITE data were compiled from studies throughout
the aation,'and the Caltrans data were compllcd tram studies in the greater !
Sul Fnacisco Bay region.
y
Distribution of Project Trips
The total 460 daily trips would include 230 trips traveling from the site and J
230 trips traveling toward the site. Of the total 460 daily trips and 46 peak hour
trips, 100 percent could be assumed to travel along Morgan Territory Road to and
from the north.
Existing Traffic Volumes _
The daily traffie volumes along Morgan Territory Road near Marsh Creek Road i
are 1,400 vehicles per day (vpd) based on a count conducted by a machine counter
placed on Monday, April 10, 1989, There were 126 vehicles in the p= peak hour `
and 99 vehicles in the a.m. peak hour. A copy of the traffic count results is f
enclosed.
-
46V ChaW D".SLdti 214.ie (41spa awws is 94566•(.116)463.0611 j
PLEA5ANfON•SACRA1dE O•FRESNO•CONCORD
Mr, John Wellman •2- April 11. 1989
Traffic Volnxoes wltb the Project
' If the 460 daily trips and 46 peak hour•tilps expected to be generated by the
proposed project were added to the exittlag.traffic, the volumes on Morgan
Territory Road would be 1.860 vehicles per day with 172 vehicles during the pm,
peak hour.
Roadway Capacity
L Under ideal conditions. a two-lane roadway can be expected to carry up to
. 2,900 vehicles per hoar (vph) based on information in the Highway Capacity M4=41
(Special Report 209. Transportation Research Board. 1995). This total would apply
primarily to the peak hour. Factors which affect the total include the design
fi speed, lane width. shoulder width. passing zones, type of vehicles. the directional
split of traffic and the type of terrain.
{ There are carves and narrow or no shoulders along sections of Morgan Territory
Road which affect the capacity. Therefore, the the peak hour `capacity' or volume
of traffic the roadway could carry on the uninterrupted sections Mould be
approximately 1.000 vph.
The existing peak hour volume of 126 vehicle along Morgan Territory Road is
•
well within the capacity of the roadway. The addition of the traffic that would
be generated by the project would result in 172 vehicles per hour along Morgan
Territory Road during the pm. peak hour. This total is also well within the
capacity of the roadway.
Summary
The proposed 46 units would generate 460 daily trips and 46 trips during the pm.
peak hour. These totals added to the existing traffic on Morgan Territory Road
near Marsh Creek Road would result in 1.$60 vehicles per day and 172 vehicles per
l hour for the pacL peak hour. The roadway capacity can be considered to be
approximately 1.000 vehicles per hour. Thercfore..the existing plus project traffic
volumes would be well within the capacity of the roadway. .
If you have any questions or need additional information. please let awe know.
Sincerely.
Thomas h Clausen
Enclosure
cc: R. Sette
29-096
r ,
ISO
MMY 2 cwma MULE COMI
MYVBU: CMM CWA CO. U05 iACT01: 1.04
LOCATION-s it WA•IER11ORY R0. t10 SAW CtEU R1. "12 FILEMN: (IM FILE)
MFA7!€A s MW IEU OI' MAY 41101 R9
tpWTAI s RIC" • .
W - MMY 10 -MMY 1t -ttE#11 UAY 12 • -=MSAitY 11 MAY 14 -UTUDAY 12 lMY tL *My
*Ala t • f R f M f M ti •! s R t R 6 It
! ! 2 1 i i ! i ! ! ! # ! i 2 1
_ # ! 2 . 1
f • ! 2 • ! i 0 ! # ! 3 2
ti • • 2 5 ! ! • ! • ! i # i • 2 26
( # ! 12 30 ! i i ! # ! ! i i i 12 50
t ! # 20 70 • •# i ! ! i # 20 7i
27 70
! Z7 41 ; # ! • ! ! i ! i # i i 27 41
1Q 42 {0 # ! ! # ! i . ! # i i ► i 42 40
. 11 35 34 # i ! ! i # # • # # i • 25 34
12 N 33 35 # ! ! # # ! ! ! # i ! 23 35
1 X 44 # ! ! ! ! ! ! ! i i # • x 44
2 41 37 i ! ! ! i ! i i i # ! ! 41 37
i 93 -It i •! f ! # i # # 63 41
{ 29 i i i ! # ! i i # i ! 66 39
S 30 0 • i # # # ! t # # i ! i 78 48
i 69 45 4 ! ! # ! ! i i i i s i i9 45
T 45 24 i # • i # ; # # • • • 45 24
It 31 13 # i ! i i i ! # ! # i • 31 13
! 17 24 f ! ! -• ! i # i # i 17 24
10 25 6 � # # i • ! � i # t t # 2S i
11 4 4 # ! ! i ! i s # i t i 4 4
30w 612 475 73 240 ! # # ! i # # i 685 715
WMIKB TOTALS
12
1 3 ; _ # i • 3
f i i f f 8
S # 2$ 4 i i • 26
6 # 62 # i s s i 62
T • 96 ; # # # i '98
97
10 12 12
_. 11 64 • i # i f ! i9
"12 68 # ! i s • 68
2 1$ i # i # i i 78
3 104 104
4 JOS ! i i i i i 105
3 126 # i i i 126
6 114 ! i : i # i 114
i 44 * i i a s44
2 41 ! i # ! f 41
to 31 +#i 3i
IOTAU 1007 213 i •# i i ! t400
Exhibit C
t.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR SUBDIVISION 7118
T
t` CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTY GENERAL PLAN 1990-2005
Staff has identified two potential inconsistencies with the
. 1990 County General Plan. These potential inconsistencies
" should be avoided as follows:
1: The homes could affect the views from a scenic
corridor, Morgan Territory Road, which is
protected as a scenic corridor in the General
Plan.
Condition of Approval:
The applicant has incorporated a landscaping program
to screen the homes from Morgan Territory Road using
oak trees native to the area. This program will
minimize the visual intrusion of the development in
the scenic corridor.
2: The proiect could conflict with General Plan
policies which restrict development on open
' hillsides and provide for protection of hillsides
with a grade of 26% or more.
Condition of Approval:
The applicant has submitted a slope study indicating
which lots contain slopes exceeding 26% . The
following design guidelines will be incorporated into
the project design:
A. Homes shall not exceed a height of 25 feet
parallel to natural grade. Homes on Lots 44, 36
and 48 shall not exceed a height of 18-feet
parallel to natural grade.
B. Exterior finish materials, paint, etc. shall not
exceed a reflectivity 50%.
C. Development shall conform with the natural
contour and avoid excessive grading,
1
M
D. Prior to issuance of building permits, the
applicant shall submit driveway locations,
., architectural elevations and color samples, for
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
All structures shall be located in a manner which
is sensitive to natural constraints.
r
F..
T
y
1366il05.25.92
M57-001
2
s
a
Exhibit D
A
UN KROPP fs ASSOCIATES G€onamicAL CONsuam S
April 7, 1989
348-18, L 11674
Mr. John Wollman
Ferguson and Wolman
200 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
RE: Building Setbacks
Mountain Meadows, Unit 2
Contra Costa County, CA
Dear Mr. Wollman:
F
At your request,we have reviewed setbacks for houses on proposed Lots 5, 6, and 7 in Unit 2
of the Mountain Meadows development. This firm conducted geotechnical analyses of this project
in 1980 and 1981. As indicated in our January 30, 1981 report, 3 borings were drilled on these
lots. Tbese borings indicate that either bedrock or very hard terrace deposits were encountered
within 1 to 4 feet of the ground surface in each of these borings. It is my opinion that with the
building locations shown on Figure 7 of our report and appropriate drilled pier foundations, the
house foundations should perform adequately in the future. Once final house plans and layouts
have been determined,it may be appropriate to conduct additional studies. However,it appears
unlikely that any significant variations in the house locations or foundation concepts will be needed.
The opinions and conclusions presented in this letter are made in accordance with generally
accepted geotechnical principles and practices. No other warranty,either expressed or implied,
is made.
If you have any questions concerning this letter, please call me.
�gpfESSI
�ti0y4�LEE
Alan Kropp, G.E. W No.487
Principal Engineer
Exp. 12189
AY./bb
E OF CAti1�
-Copies: Addressee (3)
Gemini (1)
Attention: Ron Sette
2054 UnN"ty Aveme,Be*oley.G 94704 (415)641.5095
Exhibit E
yY
WILDLIFE RESOURCES STUDY REPORT,
RARE PLANT AND FLORISTIC SURVEY
FOR THE PROPOSED MOUNTAIN MEADOWS
UNIT II DEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,CALIFORNIA
4
i
PAR EWRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Cultural Resource Management • Biology • Environmental Planning
.Sacramento,
California
R..
ff
5 -
.
x
r..
t
WILDLIFE RESOURCES STUDY REPORT,
RARE PLANT AND FLORISTIC SURVEY
FOR THE PROPOSED MOUNTAIN MEADOWS
UNIT II DEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,CALIFORNIA
Prepared for.
LAND USE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
5900 Hollis Street.Suite C
Emeryville. CA 94608
Prepared by:
PAR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
P. O. Box 160736
2116 T Street
Sacramento,CA 95816-0736
and
The Botanical Research Group
1604 Grant Street.Suite I
Berkeley, CA 94703
August 28. 1990
\ � � , . .
\ ` � , . . : � .
v � � � . �
ƒ � �
w � - . . . �
\ . � . .
y� _ " - � � � . . �
\ . � � . . . .
\ � � . � . . . �
\ � � � � � \
\� `
\ �
\ � � � � �
\ . . � .
y . .
\ � . � .
ƒ . �
k �
ryi
WILDLIFE RESOURCES STUDY REPORT,
RARE PLANT AND FLORISTIC SURVEY
FOR THE PROPOSED MOUNTAIN MEADOWS UNIT II DEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,CALIFORNIA
¢F
y
t
Prepared for:
LAND USE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
3900 Hollis Street,Suite C
Emeryville, CA 94608
F
Prepared by:
PAR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
P. O. Box 160756
2116 T Street
Sacramento. CA 95816-0756
and
= The Botanical Research Group
1604 Grant Street,Suite 1
Berkeley.CA 94703
Authors:
Susan D.Sanders.Ph.D.
and
Niall McCarter.M.A.
Compiled by:
Steve Heipel.B.S.
August 28, 1990
- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Inventories of vegetative communities.rare plants,and wildlife resources were conducted
in June and July of 1990. No rare plant or animal species were observed during these field
.surveys. The wildlife plant community types identified at the project site include non-native
annual grassland.blue oak woodland.Great Valley willow scrub.and northern elaypan vernal
pool. Two of these communities.the willow scrub and the vernal pool.are considered rare. The
vernal pool habitat has been substantially impacted by past cattle grazing activities.
The most valuable wildlife habitats are the riparian corridor along Marsh Creek and the
P, oak woodland. Special status species that may occur at the site include red-legged frog,western
j5
pond turtle. Alameda whipsaake. and a snail (Hehnintholglypta nickliniana bridgfsi). These
r species could occur in the Marsh Creek riparian corridor.and the Alameda whipsnake could
also occur in the other habitat types of the project area.
Management recommendations include guidelines for protecting the Marsh Creek riparian
corridor and recommendations for preserving native oak trees during the grading,construction,
and occupancy phases of the project. A rare plant survey of portions of the project is
'} recommended for the spring in order to determine whether or not rare plants might occur that
m.: were not present during the late-season survey reported here.
i
r ,
ii
5
;. .- TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS .........r.....r.............. ii
$' INTRODUCTION .....................................................r... I
METHODS ................................................................ 1
YRESULTS ................... ........r........... .... 4
Vegetative Communities and Associated Wildlife Species ................... 4
yOverview ........................................r............... 4
Non-native Annual Grassland ...................................... 4
BlueOak Woodland .. ...................................r........ 4
Great Valley Willow Scrub ......................................... 6
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool ...................................0.. 6
Special Status Species .................................................. 6
RarePlants •................r..............................r.r... 6
x. Rare Animals ...................................................... 7
MANAGEMENT RECOMMIENDATIONS ..................................... 8
Protect the Marsh Creek Riparian Corridor ............................... 9
Protect Native Oaks ................................................... 9
Guidelines During Construction .................................... 9
Guidelines During Occupancy ...................................... 10
REFERENCES ............................................................. I1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I. WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED ON JULY 11, 1990.
APPENDIX II. RARE PLANTS KNOWN FROM CONTRA COSTA COUNTY.
APPENDIX III. PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED IN THE STUDY AREA.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map ........................................... 2
Figure 2. Project Location Map ......................................... 3
Figure 3. Vegetative.Community Map ...................................
• INMODUCTION
PAR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES. INC, (PAR) contracted with the Land Use
Development Corporation (LUDCO) of Emeryville. California. in May of 1990 to conduct
t, biological and botanical surveys of the proposed Mountain Meadows Unit II residential
subdivision near Clayton in Contra Costa County. California (Figure 1). An Environmental
Impact Report(EIR)was prepared for the project by Contra Costa County in June. 1977.with
addenda to this EIR approved in September. 1977.and June. 1978. An Initial Study completed
by Contra Costa County in 1988 revealed no additional significant impacts (beyond those
addressed in the previous EIR)and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance was
circulated in November, 1988.
r
The purpose of the current study was to provide an updated and thorough inventory and
evaluation of the wildlife and botanical resources at the project site and to assess the potential
for special status species inhabiting the area. This report does not include impact analysis
'- beyond that presented in existing environmental documents. - General management
z, recommendations to protect the wildlife resources identified in the study area are discussed.
The project site is immediately east of Mount Diablo State Park (Figure 1). It is located
in the Upper Morgan Territory area between Marsh Creek Road and Morgan Territory Road.
The subdivision is bounded by Marsh Creek on the west. the County Jail Farm on the north.
and private property holdings on the east and south (Figure 2).
METHODS
Working as a subconsultant to PAR. Niall McCarten of The Botanical Research Group
(headquartered in Berkeley.California)conducted the field survey of vegetative communities
and rare plants on June 13. 1990. The inventory of wildlife resources is based on a field
reconnaissance conducted by PAR's associate wildlife biologist,Susan Sanders(of Woodland.
California) on July ll, 1990. Both surveys were made on foot and by car and involved
assessing the area for wildlife resources and •identifying all plant and wildlife species
encountered.
The identification of plant species and the evaluation of habitat for wildlife species were
conducted to a level sufficient to determine whether or not species occur,or are likely to occur,
that meet any of the following criteria:
(1) listed as Rare,Threatened or Endangered at the state or federal level; .
(2) listed as a candidate for special status at the state or federal level•
(3) included in lists 1 through 4 of the California Native Plant Society's inventory
(Smith and Berg 1988);or
(4) •qualify under the definition of •rare' as used in the California Environmental
-- Quality Act Guidelines of 1983 (Public Resources Code,Section 15380).
Information from the field surveys was supplemented with data from the Natural
Diversity Data Base (NDDB) (California. State of, 1990). In addition. conversations with
knowledgeable individuals,including those affiliated with the U.S.Fish acid Wildlife Service
(USFWS). the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Mt. Diablo State Park.
supplemented the information provided by the NDDB.
I
*:4 "'' So 160
eNN
concord
Awl"*
At
.R C
s Wslaat Geek
ti
proleC<. •
680yGET>
t _
scj
g��aie 1• pColiect
Ylcta1tY
2
S.
-
ti
9�ASaGL'E � �
ut
ca SQU�F gtAtx QGILXr 1C� 4
y -rte A 1Q cxv CIO? ig8o
SOL, '
Vis�p aci
�'' iCi;�*y�p�E oZa 000
11
,low—
`SIlk
� tt• ,>?i y. !t •'114
(C`* t i`«, ',� :' '/� 1� ,`. �y lt�\1.;� .N•�'�' •,�4r! � AJC. .. 1 it:... ���
ALI 5.
Akl
too—
Ik—
I AS
•h. l �,\ � .(i(f1 •.'�^� 7 J � t`�p •fir' �G(J .2�'►�•r YC` ��.. i ,.' �\ \jTti,�,.
��,,^, the t�,� }` � + ,,fs �,�.,.'� � -�:�=`�' �'�`•f i�=-�-..i�>.?��_�.
" „'•�t- �,yL ", •"!i• � • �l ���. .` �\ •.�1i00 �j J� � � .yiY�,• ,y1tl� � •
yco�
Ft4°t�
t
z,
PSULTS
. Vegetative Communities and Associated Wildlife Species
Overview. The proposed project site is a mixture of non-native annual grassland and oak
woodland, with riparian woodland bordering the western edge of the site. One small vernal
4; pool exists within the eastern portion of the area. With the exception of residential
development immediately west of Marsh Creek and the County Jail Farm to the north, the
vicinity of the site is relatively undeveloped.with large blocks of oak woodland and grassland
common. The following description of resources at the parcel includes a summary of the four
characteristic vegetative communities present (based on the CD FG terrestrial community
: classification [Holland 19861). These four communities are depicted in Figure 3. A detailed
discussion of the typical wildlife species likely to inhabit these communities is also provided.
Individual vertebrate species observed during the wildlife resources survey on July 11. 1990
r are provided in Appendix L The plant names used below follow those presented by Munz and
Keck (1973). A list of all rare plants known to occur in Contra Costa County is provided in
Appendix IL Appendix III presents the plant species observed in the study area on June 13,
1990, by plant community.
Non-native Annual Grassland. Non-native annual grasses dominate the project site.
covering most of the central and southern portions of the area(Figure 3). The dominant species
composing the annual grassland are wild ryegrass (Lolium mulliJlorum), soft chess (Bromus
mollis).ripgut brome(Bromus diandrus),and wild oat(.frena barbata). The composition of the
grassland reflects intensive disturbance by previous and current land uses(e.g.,cattle grazing,
road construction, reservoir excavation). See Appendix III for a list of all plants observed
within this community.
The annual grasslands might support nesting birds such as western meadowlark and
horned lark, but the level of grazing disturbance makes such nesting unlikely. This plant
community also provides foraging grounds for lark sparrows, savannah sparrows, and water
pipits. The soils and plants in the annual grassland provide habitat for mammals such as
California voles, California deer mice, pocket gophers, and other small mammals. These
rodents are prey items for red-tailed hawks, great horned owls, coyotes. rattlesnakes, gopher
snakes, and other predators.
Blue Oak Woodland. Oak woodland covers the northern and eastern portions of the
project area (Figure 3). Blue oaks (Quercus douglasitl are the dominant tree species, with
scattered coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) also present. A few valley oaks occur in clefts
along Marsh Creek Digger pine(Pinus sabiniana)and buckeye trees(Aesculus ealifornica)also
occur sparsely in the oak woodland. A list of plant species observed in this community is'
presented in Appendix TIL The blue oak woodland is less disturbed than the annual grassland,
and a relatively high amount of vegetative diversity is present. However, due to past cattle
grazing,the understory consists primarily of grasses. rather than shrubs or young trees.
Oak woodland provides a number of important wildlife resources.including food,cover.
roosting. and breeding sites. Acorns are preferred or essential food items in the diets of
western gray squirrel. mule deer, and other game species. Acorn woodpeckers, northern
flickers,scrub jays,raccoons,deer mice,and woodrats also rely on acorns. Acorns are not the
only food item supplied by oaks. oak foliage and insects in the bark attract birds such as
bushtits. ash-throated flycatchers, white-breasted nuthatches, and western kingbirds. In
addition, oak-dependent fungi. lichen. mistletoe, and galls provide food for species such as
northern mockingbirds, tree squirrels,and raccoons.
4
E
t • LEGEND
Slue Oak Woodland
• . ' . ' •- ' . Great Valley Willow Scrub
' . , - •'+ Non-Native Annual Grassland
• ' • . - OV Northern Ciaypan Vernal Pool
• • -. , . s , . • • • - •- • - �,�� Marsh Creek
• « ♦ss. s ,
.. +' . �.. Dirt Road
W Structure
law
.r• •► r �i a �,
�e •
i
i•
•• •
w r
r ; ,r + .�►�:ter• ♦ w "r IAW .
♦ • . - .
r r w ��� • »
\; a
40
40, qm
%
w 411, \\
No \\ + W
dw
♦ \
low
ar \\
♦1 4
IW V w �\
46
• �, r v �l rr
w,...dj
`\\
i
N -
o s�oo 1000 FL
Apace•sem.
PAR ENVIRONMZWAL SERVICES.INC. 100
Figure 3. Vegetative Community Map
5
x
Oak trees offer shade,shelter.and breeding substrate for many animals. Woodpeckers
s excavate nest holes in snags or in dead oak limbs. These cavities are subsequently used by
other hole-nesting birds.including western bluebirds and American kestrels. Species that use
the open grassland for foraging in the day return to oaks at night to roost. and many birds
spend the hottest part of summer days resting in the shade of densely-canopied oak groves.
x- -
Grea+ t Yallev Willow Scrub. The Great Valley Willow Scrub community type is considered
to be a rare plant community by the CDFG(Holland 1986). This community is found along the
F western margin of the project area (see Figure 3). Marsh Creek supports a narrow riparian
t corridor with an overstory dominated by Goodding willows (Salix sooddingiil. Sycamores
s (Plalanus racemosa),buckeyes(Aesculus californica),and bay laurel trees(Umbellaria tali jornica)
are also present. Dense thickets of blackberry (Rubes sp.) create an impenetrable shrub
understory In places. A complete list of the plant species Identified in this community is
presented in Appendix TIL
' 'On the eastern side of Marsh Creek the riparian corridor has been protected from grazing
cattle by a barbed wire fence. On the west side. the lawns and landscaped yards of adjacent
residences extend to the terrace immediately above the stream. For much of its length Marsh
Creek is an intermittent creek with uttie or no flowing water in the dry season. In the vicinity
of the project area, however.the runoff from adjacent yards creates pools of standing water
even in the summer.
The narrow corridor along Marsh Creek supports a relatively high density and diversity
of wildlife compared to the surrounding annual grassland and urban landscapes. The food.
shade. water. and cover provided by this riparian vegetation is highly attractive to many
animals. Some of the species likely to inhabit the Marsh Creek riparian zone include red-
shouldered hawk.green-backed heron,mourning dove. bushtit.scrub jay. tree swallow. black
phoebe.gray squirrel.raccoon.opossum,and striped skunk. These animals are likely to breed
somewhere along Marsh Creek,and many more resident and migratory species use this habitat
+e
for foraging,roosting.or protective cover.
Northern Ciavflan Vernal Pool. This community type is considered rare by the CDFG
(Holland 1986). One small vernal pool observed within the project (see Figure 3). The
dominant species observed during the survey was Nordeum geniculatum. 'because the field
survey was conducted late in the season,typical vernal pool species that may occur earlier in
the spring may not have been observable. The vegetation is similar to the surrounding annual
grassland for most of the year. Grazing cattle have caused heavy vegetative disturbance to this
community within the project area. Appendix III provides a list of the plant species observed
at the vernal pool during this survey.
When the pool is filled with water in late winter or early spring. it may provide resting
habitat,for dome species of waterfowl or shorebirds(cg,mallards,killdeers). In addition,the
pool may provide breeding grounds for amphibians such as red-legged frogs and tree frogs.
Speelal Status Speelcs
Rare Ply A total of 46 rare plant species are known to occur In Contra Costa County
(Appendix Il). The majority of these species are either endemic to a particular soil type such
as serpentine (not present in the study area)or are wetland species present in the San Joaquin
River delta. None of the 9E plant taxa observed during the field survey (Appendix III)
represent rare species, The potential for rare plants is considered low due to the lack of special
conditions(i c,serpentine soils or delta wetlands)generally affiliated with rare species in this
6
_ area. However,the vernal pool community type may support rare species that would not have
been present during the 1990 inventory.
L.
Rare Animals, Seven rare animal species are known to occur in the vicinity of the project.
Characteristics of these species, as well as the potential for occurrence in the proposed
subdivision parcel,are discussed below.
i:
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum). Statur. USFWS Endangered. CDFG
Endangered. This species typically nests on ledges along large cliff faces on the Pacific coast
L'
and inland. This far-ranging raptor can fly many miles from its nesting sites while foraging,
and may be found soaring over a wide variety of habitats(Grinnell and Miller 1944). Peregrine
falcons fted on waterfowl and shorebirds, so their preferred foraging habitat includes
_ coastlines and mudflats that support these prey species. Peregrine falcons formerly nested
throughout most of the state, but were reduced to only about ten breeding pairs by the mid-
¢ 1970's(California,State of,1989}. An intensive recovery program,which included introducing
breeding pairs to nesting sites that formerly supported peregrine falcons,has been responsible
for substantial increases in the population. In 1988 the number of breeding pairs in California
was $2.
Until this year,peregrine falcons had not been recently recorded in the vicinity of the
Project site. In the spring of 1990, however,a breeding pair was introduced to Mount Diablo
State Park and has bred successfully (Bogardus, personal communication). The project site
itself does not provide suitable nesting or foraging habitat for this species.
Red-legged Frog (Rama aurora draytont). Status: USFWS Candidate Category 2.
California rcd-legged frogs occur in ponds, reservoirs, marshes, and well-shaded streams
(Stebbins 1972). Red-legged frogs are highly aquatic and require permanent or nearly
permanent pools for larval development,which takes between I I and 20 weeks to complete.
Red-legged frogs occur in streams and ponds throughout Mount Diablo State Park, and have
also been observed in Marsh Creek(Pelonio personal communication). This species is likely to
k occur in Marsh Creek in the vicinity of the project area because permanent pools of water are
supported by runoff from nearby landscaped yards.
Califoral& Tiger Salamander (Ambystomo tigrinum calijorniense). Status: USFWS
Candidate Category 2. In the Central Valley and foothills of California, tiger salamanders
occur primarily in grasslands at elevations below 1,000 feet. The species breeds from December
to February in streams, ponds, reservoirs, vernal pools, and wells (Stebbins 1983). Tiger
salamanders have not been recorded at or sear the project area,nor are there any records from
nearby Mount Diablo State Park. The most recent record in proximity to the project was noted
in the vicinity of Concord in 1924 (California,State of, 1990). The vernal pool noted above
and Marsh Creek provide potential habitat for tiger salamanders, but in light of the absence r
of recent and nearby records of the species,it is unlikely that the species is present.
Alameda Whipsaake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus). Status: USFWS Candidate
Category 2,CDFG Threatened. The Alameda whipsnake,also known as the Alameda striped
racer, occurs in the valleys, foothills, and low mountains of the Coast Range east of San
Francisco Say and west of the Central Valley in Contra Costa and Alameda counties
(California,State of. 1989). The snake is most commonly associated with chaparral, but may
occur in any inner coast range plant community, including grasslands,open woods,on rocky
slopes,and along open streams and arroyos (California,State of, 1989).
7
_ - Alameda whipsnakes occur fairly commonly in Mount Diablo State Park (Mt. Diablo
Interpretive Association 1980). In the early 1980's. a dead Alameda whipsnake was found on
t:
Marsh Creek Road in the vicinity of the project area(Pelonio personal communication). Given
this nearby record and the proximity of the Mount Diablo State Park whipsnake papulation,
the annual ,grasslands.oak woodland,and riparian habitat in the project area are considered
potential habitat for this species.
' Northern Brown Sklak(Eumeces gilberu placerencis). Statur. No official listed status.
The northern brown skink is considered a subspecies of the Gilbert's skink,a lizard found in
nearby Mount Diablo State Park. This species is not considered rare, threatened or even a
f candidate for such status; it is discussed in this report only because it was mentioned in the
context of other special status species in the environmental report for this project(Contra Costa
County Community Development Department 1988).
Northern brown skinks occur in a variety of habitats, including grassland and oak
woodland,and often reside near a stream or spring. Marsh Creek and the adjacent grasslands
and oak woodlands provide suitable habitat for this species.
* Western Food Turtle(Cle mtys xmarmorata). The western pond turtle occurs in quiet
waters of ponds, streams, marshes, and reservoirs with rocks, logs, and bankside vegetation
(Stebbins 1972). Western pond turtles have been recorded in Marsh Creek Reservoir and are
likely to occur in Marsh Creek in portions of the stream where pools remain throughout the
year.
Snail (No common name) (Xelminthoglypta xickliniana bridgesil. Status: USFWS
Candidate Category 2. This subspecies is one of five that occurs in coastal counties from
Humboldt to Monterey County (McGriff personal communication). A 1939 report discusses
their occiiience in Contra Costa County near San Pablo unaer rock piles and in tall grass,
weeds, and thistles (McGriff personal communication). The snail has also been reported on
open hillsides in the Berkeley Hills near Kensington (McGriff personal communication). As
with most snails,this species probably prefers moist areas such as springs or seeps(Eng personal
communication).
Xelminthoglypta nickliniana bridgesi has been reported near the project ares at Marsh Creek
Canyon and at Perkins Canyon,approximately one-half mile from the project area(California,
State of. 1990). The exact date of this collection is unknown, but it dates to before 1950. If
this snail species still occurs in Perkins Canyon(a tributary to Marsh Creek),then it is possible
it also occurs at Marsh Creek in the vicinity of the project area.
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are presented as methods to assure the protection of rare
plant communities(i.e.,Great Valley Willow Scrub),and plant or animal species that may occur
in the project area. In addition to these measures. a survey of botanical resources is
recommended in portions of the project (e.g.. within the Northern Claypso Vernal Pool
community) to a=certain whether or not rare species are present.
a
K
t_ Protect the Marsh Creek Riparian Corridor(Great Valley Willow Scrub eommualty type)
This general guideline will preserve some of the features of the Marsh Creek riparian
habitat that make it valuable to wildlife. It will also provide some protection to special status
species that may occur in Marsh Creek,including western pond turtle.red legged frog,Alameda
whipsnake.and Xelminlhoglypta xirkliniana bridgesi.
a. Do not allow dogs to run free in the riparian habitat.
d
b. Avoid thinning, pruning. or eliminating dead limbs or trees unless they present a
hazard to people or property. Snags and dead limbs are useful to wildlife as foraging
and nesting areas.
c. Do not clear undergrowth, leaf litter. or herbaceous vegetation from the riparian
corridor. These habitat features are important to wildlife as cover and foraging
$rounds.
d. Do not place fencing or other barriers to animal movement across the stream or
riparian corridor (Le,perpendicular to the stream/corridor).
e. Do not place sewer lines near the riparian corridor. Trenching for sewer lines should
be well beyond the dripline of riparian trees.
Protect Natty* Oaks
To preserve the wildlife values associated with oaks* native oaks on the site should be
saved wherever possible. Recommended guidelines for the grading and construction phases of
the project.as well as during residential occupancy.are discussed below.
" Quidelines During,Qnstru tr ion
f,
a. Plans and specifications should clearly state protection procedures for oaks on the
project site. The specifications should also include a provision for penalties if oaks
trees are damaged.
b. No vehicles.construction equipment,mobile offices,or materials should be parked
or located within the driplines of oaks.
c. Soil surface removal greater than one foot in depth should not occur within the
driplines of oak trees. No cuts of any depth should occur within five feet of their..
trunks.
d. Earthen fill greater than one foot deep should not be placed within the driplines of
oak trees,and no fill should be placed within five feet of their trunks.
r
e. Paving should not be placed in the immediate vicinity of oaks.
f. Underground utility line trenching should not be placed within the driplines of oaks,
If it is absolutely necessary to install underground utilities within the driplines of
oak trees.the trench should either be bored or drilled.but not within five feet of the
trunk.
9
QuidellriGS During Occupancy
. An educational pamphlet should be provided to homeowners explaining how to protect oak
trees on their property. The pamphlet should explain that the best way to protect native oaks
and the wildlife that inhabit them is to leave the trees alone and refrain from altering the
natural drainage near the trees. Suggested guidelines include the following:
a. Avoid lowering or elevating the ground level in the immediate vicinity of the tree
trunk. If it is absolutely necessary to raise the soil level in the vicinity of the tree,
place a protective collar of concrete or treated lumber at a minimum of six feet from
the trunk.
b. Avoid compaction of the soil by heavy vehicles within the dripline of oaks.
especially if soil is wet.
G Avoid removing soil.leaves,and grasses located under oaks,as these protect the roots
during the hot summer months.
d. Avoid building or paving beneath the dripline of oaks.
e. Avoid watering oaks in the summer. Landscaping placed in the vicinity of oaks
should not require watering.
10
9t
;F.. REFERENCES
P'
C
California.State of
1980 At the Crossroads-A Report on the Status of California's Endangered and Rare
Fish and Wildlife. California Department of Fish and Game,Sacramento.
1989 1998 Annual Report on the Status of California's State Listed Threatened and
Endangered Plants and Animals. California Department of.Fish and Game,
Sacramento.
1990 Natural Diversity Data Base Report dated May 30, 1990. California Department of
Fish and Game.Sacramento.
Contra Costa County Community Development Department
1988 Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and Environmental Impact
Report for Subdivision 7118. Martinez.California.
Grinnell. L.and A.H.Miller
1944 The Distribution of the Birds of California, pacific Coast Avirauna No. 27.
Cooper Ornithological Club,Berkeley.
Holland. R.
1985 Preliminary Descriptions of Natural Communities in California. On file,
California Department of Fish and Game.Natural Diversity Data Base.Sacramento.
Mount Diablo Interpretive Association
1980 Amphibians and Reptiles of Mount Diablo. Brochure prepared by S. B.Ruth, R.
Doyle, J.Fowler.and J. Pclonio. Diablo, California.
1987 Checklist of the Birds of Mt.Diablo. Prepared by S.B.Ruth and P.Gordon, revised
by P.Gordon and J.Pelonio. Diablo,California.
Muni.P. A.;and D. Keck
1973 A California Flora with Supplement. University of California Press,Berkeley.
Smith, J.,and K.Berg
1988 California Native Plant Society"s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular
Plants o[ California. Special Publicition No. 1, fourth edition.
Stebbins,R.C.
1972 California Amohibians and Reptiles. University of California Press.Berkeley.
1985 A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton-Mifflin Co.,Boston.
Personal Communications
Bogardus.Burt
July 29. 1990. State Park Ranger,Mount Diablo State Park. Diablo.California.
Telephone conversation.
11 .
Y'
u ♦
it -
C'
REFERENCES(Concluded)
Eng. Larry
Y July 12, 1990. Biologist. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento.
w-
Telephone conversation.
McGriff. Darlene
July 12. 1990. Biologist. Natural Diversity Data Base. Sacramento. Telephone
conversation.
Felonio.John
" August 9. 1990. Herpetologist,co-author of Amohibians and Rentilcs of Mt Diablo
Alamo.California. Telephone conversation.
4 ♦ .
1
12
�.
. .
is
5
n � ,
�.
p$S
C
k-.
]C'
Y
F
��
�.
�:.
�'
's
x
s
:+<:'.
'•:,.y.:
r.
. .�
,: � t
,.,:T
.:.�.
?s{ �� ...
.. :•.:ilf� '�T:.
/��) :fit
.��;
. .I�
.�� F�,
'� `��
W `; >.ip
� �w
� v �`t`
..a
���
>r,wW. �;
.;>;_ ,
:�.f���
��� �+:
Fye
t,F�'.
Fy4
i, • • •
APPENDIX I. WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED ON JULY 11, 1990.
Common Name Scientific Name
E; Turkey vulture (Catharses aura)
Red-tailed hawk (Buteo Jamiacenis)
Mourning dove (Zenaidura macroura)
a Acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes Jormicirorous)
Nuttall's woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii)
Black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans)
Ash-throated flycatcher (Myiarchus eineraserns)
Sara swallow (Hirundo rustica)
Scrub jay (Aphelocoma eoerutescens)
Plain titmouse (Porus inornatus)
Sushtit (Psaltriparus minimus)
White-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis)
American robin (Tardus migratorius)
Rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus)
Lark sparrow (Chondestes grammacus)
House finch (Carpodacus mexicanus)
American goldfinch (Spinus tristis)
Y p
v
J
y3a y
� zl
f
cn
a
!s
~ i i
p V Y
;• :: wv w a► v as ar v v as v a v ro
o 0 0 o a c o o i w o o.
U w z w z z z z z z z ac a z z
U
� V er er
a w w w •P%, �
C
z z z z z V t3 z u
°O
•o
Q
v
,C m
An .u, • .m �
go
O C ,C a1
ee s. O i
s v E i ee ,cin
00
,u s+ aC vii
at
w
8 Q M Q «M. ti1 , a .it A C v O h
A.
QO as •"' �. O O a►• .2 to .0
z
00
Z O
IE
JS
It -lZ
O C v
O
Ent O �r
fa
v O O � tY► v .. O � � O O U
Q �. .it b Q C O .0 i't O O t •� b b ! `' � t
< tip a ``� ! ! '�c ! V V to U U
e '
s.
ca
a
r 'fl
M �
O O O O
Ow
I►
V
a
a
a
0
W N v N N N N N N
Do% ate. w w i
.Z .► c c « c v « .`. « c c « «
«7so
IVO O a o c ea ee �e
V ts. z z V Z W U U V z z V V U
< o
F m
! 3 e w
Ems.. 'v `^� .o ."_°0 In
Q a i in u ' N ` an ac
V a► ,r w s. ao
a CL
e
o ~ Olt
0 C6
C6 a
a - a
� z
4c 40
89Q iy •..
Ori v 1 pIE
z IE fa
Q •`• Y E is o •�: w•�' it. Aa
.�► 4ma4 ;
�' �. �. .`t ` .r ► ► .. �. ".��. O
W a a .r F c+ ia � ..
a s se 4 .'�� Igo .C g {y v a
4 w
Am
u m m m m m m m m
r 10 OD
O C C
s w Y ICU
Y Y Y Y w Y Y Y Y Y
0 o w` o ow`
v w Z Z Z aG Z Z w Z Z z Z ac
a
a
n
0
i; v ••• N fV N N V N N
Z V 00 OD 00 00 00 R m
Y w Y YWE
V
Lila U V U V V Z Z W V ZZ Z V
o.
! y a
00
v 0 6. o G o " v410 V
V w
Ea Y Z N
� o = E
x 7 m
ewe a. on
h V v OD h
�, •• Q �' �. O O
e
V N Z ; V G N ! a
INC
ti Q
06
b
Q
Y v y •a.
•r y C M 4 C o v ` 421
Q
k Z Q -br. V 1 ti b i M -.Q b •ea
Z _ . r o . � � o ., a o •
fs
wO. •� .e a o 3 v : « ~ v a
wj
U
a o
to 1 �.1 �l V O= 4 O� K h •
a
y5-
I�
V � �
u c o
w o o a x
V
C4
. O �
o
�+ N
9- V v
.V •„ o
7- to
U �
O t
r
a r
L' � •ti•;,, V w is tl :� rjf
a
V E � o � � c ;. aou•
u
�Y/i O .ter' O � •�p � U "" i'
� � o
M r
4 „ N J p Y N
H N on
t
j Y QA
.�'�.. Q y 3 d V
Nit C v p b
�j r w fir► �_ ii, � 0..
y
Yd "' Vi ti
a N
3
o -
{
`�::^ '4:'::end;•.�.:.y��,.
� 7rti: }.�. s•
rs aJ
;AA
e .-mow
W
a -
APPENDIX III. PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED IN THE STUDY AREA.
Scientific Name Annual Blue Oak Vernal Wiliow
Grassland Woodland Pool Scrub
A
r.
Achillea millefolium X
x Adiantum Jordani X
Aesculus californira X
Agoseris heterophylla X
Anagalliis arvensis X
Artemisia douglasiana X
Asclepias fascicularis X
Arena barbata D X
Barcharis p/lularis sip.
consanguinea X
Baccharis riminea X
Bolsduralla stricta X
Brassica geniculata X
Brodiaea taxa X
Bromus diandrus D X
Bromus motlis D
Carduus pycnocephalus X
Centaurea solstitialis X
Chrysothamnus sp. X
Cirsium rulgare X
Clarkia affinis X
Clarkia rhomboidea X
Cotlinsia heterophylla X
Cynosurus echinatus X
Cyperus eragrostis X
Doucus pusillus X
Delphinium rariegatum X
Digitaria ischoemum X
Elymus glaucus X
Elymus triticoides X X
rremocarpus setigerus X
Erodium cicutarium X X ••
Eschscholtsia calijornica X X
Galium murale X
Galium nuttallii X
Geranium carolinianum X
Glyceria elata X
hleteromeles arbutijolia X
Xolocarpha rirgata .X
Xordeum geniculatum D
Hypochoeris jlabra X
Juglans californica X
Juncus balticus X
Juncus effusus x
D . Dominant Species X Species Present
r
APPENDIX M. PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED IN THE STUDY AREA (Continued).
t
Scientific Name Annual Blue Oak Vernal Willow
Grassland Woodland Pool Scrub
juncus xiphioides X
l actuen saligna X
Lactuca serriola X
Lathyrus jepsonii var.
coli jornica X
Lolium mtultijlorum D X
Lupinus adsurgens X
Lupinus bicolor X
Lythrum hyssopljolia X
Madia elegans x
Madia minima X
Marrubium sulgarr X
Medicago polymorpha X
Mentha pulegium X
Micropus calijornicus X
Phacelia heterophylla X
Phoradendron calijornica X x
Picris echioides X
Pinus sabiniana X X
Pityrogramma triangularis x
Plagiobothrys stipitatus x
Plantago lanceolata X
Platanus racemosa X
Poo annua X
Polypogon interruptus X X
Polypogon monspetiensis X
Polystichum calijornicum X
Populus jremonlii X
Psoralea physodes X
Quercus agrijolia X
Quercus dosiglasii D
Ranunculus aqualilis x
Ranunculus miuricatus X
Rhamnus erocea x
Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum x
Rosa call formica _ x
R'ubus procerus x
Rumex erispus x
Salix goodingli X
Sanicula bipinnatijida X
Scandix pecten•reneris X
Scrophularia calijornica x
Sherardia arvensis x
Silene gallica X
D - Dominant Species X Species Present
t:
APPENDIX M. PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED IN THE STUDY AREA (Concluded).
Scleatlfic Name Annual Blue Oak Vernal Wtllow
fl Grassland Woodland Pool Scrub
s.
Silybum marianum X
Stachys arvensis X
Stellaria media X
Symphoricarpus mollis X
4 Torilis nodosa X
Toxicodendron diversiloba X X
Trifolium variejatum X
Typha tlauca X
Umbellaria californica X
urtica dioica X
Vicia benyhalensis X
Mitis californica X
i
D-Dominant Species ' X•Species Present
THE BOTANICAL RESEARCH GROUP
1604 Grant St.,Suite s 1
oerkeley,California 64703 (413)641-6145
Y
Robert J. Pacini Sept. 21, 1990
CAL-Land Real Estate
E= 5115-A Clayton Rd.
Concord, CA 94521
Dear Mr. Pacini,
Enclosed are copies of the paper work sent some time ago the Army
Corps of Engineers for their verification. Sorry I didn't get
your copy to you sooner. As you will rote, there are less than
10 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, thus you will not need a 404
permit for your project.
The Corps may request an onsite verification in which case they
would want me to show them the site. Once the Corps decides on a
date for that I will let you know. The Corps is very backed up
with these delineations and the field verification may occur in
October or November if they decide to do one at all.
If there are any questions regarding our results, please call me.
Sincerely,
Niall MoCarten
Principal, Senior Botanist
THE BOTANICAL RESEARCH GROUP
1804 Grant:a,suit.t 1
l5arkoloy.California 94703 (4* b)841.8145
Mr. Tom Coe
Regulatory Section
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
650 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA
95814-4794
-Dear Mr. Coe:
Enclosed is a letter report of a jurisdictional wetlands
delineation along with relevant field forms and aerial photograph
(1" = 2001) of the study area. Also included is the Contra Costa
Soil Survey aerial xeroxed and marking the study area plus a
vicinity map. I an submitting these for your verification. I
did a parcel wide survey, but as I note in the report Marsh Creek
will be outside of the proposed project and the center of the
creek is the property boundary. However, I figure you can't
delineate half a creek.
I was unclear on the district of jurisdiction, but Sharon
Moreland in the San Francisco district informs me that projects
associated with water courses that drain into the San Joaquin
River delta east of the City of Antioch are Sacramento District.
In this case, Marsh Creek does in fact flow into the delta east
,► of Antioch. If you find that this project is in fact not in your
district please let me know.
If you have any additional questions please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Niall McCarten
Principal
THE BOTANICAL RESEARCH GROUP
f'
a;. 1604 Grant St,iulte 01
• Berkeley.callfornla 64705 (415)641.6145
i
E
Robert J. Pacini August 1, 1990
CAL-Land Real Estate
.f 5115-A Clayton Rd.
Concord, CA 94521
Dear Mr. Pacini,
This report is to inform you of the results of our jurisdictional
wetlands delineation, including "waters of the U.S. ," on the
property east of Morgan Territory Road, south of Clayton, Contra
Costa County. We have sent a copy of this letter report -in
addition to jurisdictional wetland field forms to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to have the delineation verified.
` A survey of wetlands was conducted 'on the site on June 13, 1990,
Methods followed those outlined in the Federal Manual for
Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. The site
consists of approximately 130 acres of non-native grassland and
blue oak woodland.
lletbods
The property was surveyed for vegetation and other indicators of
wetlands. Data forms were completed for samples taken from
representative points within the potential wetland areas as well
as for contrasting upland sites. The following is a summary of
the findings:
Wetlands
The property includes 1.9 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. ' The
acreage of wetlands includes 0.1 acre of vernal pools and swales,
1.6 acres associated with Marsh Creek on the west property
boundary 'and 0.2 acre of "Waters of the U.S." in the form of a
summer dry drainage. Even though Z am aware that Marsh Creek is
not included in the proposed project area, it is included in the
wetlands for the sake of completeness of the jurisdictional
wetlands on your property.
Vegetation
Wetland indicator plant dominants observed in the vernal pools
and swales included Hordeum geniculatum (facultative)., Juncus
balticu_s (obligate) and Polypoaon monspeliensis (facultative
s.
wetland) . Along Marsh Creek the vegetation was composed of all
obligate wetland dominants including Typha latifolia and Leersia
. . crvzoides in the herb stratum and Salix goodincii in the tree and
shrub strata. Wetland indicator status is based on the National
List of Plant S2ecies that Occur in Wetlands: California__rRegion
21 (USFWS, 1988) . Upland dominant vegetation vas either Bromus
` mollis (facultative upland) or Bromus diandrus (upland) in the
herb stratum and Quercus douglasii (upland) in the tree stratum.
soils
4
f The soils on the site are mapped as Los Gatos loam, 15 to 30
percent slopes (Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, 1977) . This
soil is a typic argixeroll and is not classified as a hydric
soil. The soils of the vernal pools and swales vere determined
to be hydric by the presence of field indicators of long duration
inundation including; low chroma (Munsell colors of IOYR 3/1 and
7.5YR 3/0, iron mottles (7.5YR 4/6) and gleying. By comparison,
areas of higher relief had consistently higher chroma (10YR 5/4
and 7.5 YR 4/3) , mottles appeared in one site (7.5YR 4/6) but
gleying was not observed.
Hydrology
Although inundation vas not observed in the vernal pools and
swales during the vetlands survey, evidence of it was indicated
by the presence of oxidized root channels, the presence of algal
and detrital mats and the 'presence of a drainage or basin. Small
pockets of surface vater were in the northern drainage identified
as a "waters" and there vere indications of normal high water
such as staining on the channel and detrital deposits. Surface
water was observed in Marsh Creek.
If there are any questions regarding our results, please call me.
Sincerely,
Niall McCarten
Principal, Senior Botanist
cc: Steve Heipel, PAR
ip
ob
• '� a � , . i. � �• •�• _ may,. ,�f�'��[ ,�.
0 46
• t '
4L M'j '3. •
^jai., t; :� •z �� , ��' s`»'i � • -
�+i�� � • i - s•
' � '�i��n. -}"rte ' .` � •
• �, +,rpt `' r �:. t - � `:� •�
F,�.-Mtre.`mow yr•r� i;- t* .1�t r•,r�•at 1 i�>`•" s* ' ,+"-
4 s
IS �y -is f t � t"• -ei
s •'�. +r.,� '�_.a-,-yw �i Y _ '�.r,�s'' � t� Y�• ter`-`� � i ll-A t '�-.
if-A
34
7 -ACRAI4ENTOOISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS -
&- LL 650 CAPITOL MALL
' SACRAMENTO.CALIFORNIA 9"14.479A
we►Lrro December 6, 1990
AITENTgM of
Regulatory Section (9001122) .
rt
1
Mr. Robert J. Pacini
CAL-Land Real Estate
5115-A Clayton Rd.
Concord, California 94521
Dear Mr. Pacini:
A.
This letter concerns the project which borders Marsh Creek
in Section 33 Range 1E, Township IN,, . an the Antioch South 7.5
minute Quad, In Contra Costa County, California.
We have reviewed and verified the wetland delineation map of
this property submitted to us by Mr. Niall McCarten of The
Botanical Research Group, by letter, dated November S. 1990.
our jurisdiction in this area is under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. A Department of the Army Permit is required
prior to discharging dredged or fill material into waters of the
United States. Accordingly, a permit will be required prior to
filling any of the 1.9 acres of waters present on the Marsh Creek
property as identified on the verified wetland map. The type of
permit processing required will depend upon the type and amount
of waters which would be lost or substantially adversely modified
by fill activities.
This verification is valid for two years from the date of
this letter. I have issued identification number 199001122 to
R: this action. Please refer to this number in any future
correipondence concerning this project. If you have any
quest ons, please write to Karen Shaffer, Room 6536 at the
letterhead address, or telephone (916)551-2271. -
Sincerely,
Tom Coe
Chief, Regulatory Unit 1
Copies Furnished:
The Botanical Research Group, Mr. Niall McCarten, 1604 Grant
Street, Suite 1, Berkeley, California 94703
5`
l_
E` •
M
E
E
i
i
THE
BOTANICAL
RESEARCH
GROUP
Niall F. McCarten
DkWot of Research
iax&w St.Suite t t
gwkewyC&Mwia94703 Ntsl t-Btis
THE BOTANICAL RESEARCH GROUP
1604 Grant St. Suite 1
Berkeley, CA 94703
(415) 841-8145
Mr. Robert Pacini
Cal Land Real Estate
5115-A Clayton Rd.
Concord, CA 94521
Dear Mr. Pacini:
Thank you for the use of the key to your property. I have sent a
copy of the gate key to Steve Heipel at PAR. If you have any
future needs for biological or wetland delineation services please
:r do not hesitate to call.
R
Sincerely,
;L
Niall F. McCarten
Principal
P
yEy..
t°
TM BOTANICAL RE88ARC8 GROUP
1604 Grant st., suite 1
s Berkeley, California 94703 .
(415) 441-8145
PROSPECTUS
i
The Botanical Research Group is a specialised company of
botanists that are highly trained in both basic and applied
research. We have provided high quality studies for federal,
state and local agencies as well as private companies and
organisations.
P
oValifieationst All the staff have extensive experience in many
areas of botany. Each staff member has, in addition, areas of
} expertise that sake them an authority in their field such as
plant taxonomy and *oology. Thus, the qualifications of each
p person in the Botanical Research Group surpasses the
qualifications of botanical consultants as recommended by the
California Department of Fish and Game. Sn addition, several
staff members have soils, geology and wetlands expertise in
addition to botany. All staff are trained in the use of various
mapping systems as well a aerial photo interpretation and remote
sensing.
r
Zroiertat We have provided field surveys of rare plants, plant
communities and wetlands for land management, inventories and
environmental impact projects. These projects include stational
Forest inventories, Fish and came preserves, and Department of
Parks and Recreation management plans and inventories.
Environmental impact studies have included hydroelectric,
transportation, levee revetment, utility, and housing
development. We have. done studies throughout California and
Arizona. Areas where we have considerable experience include the
most environmentally sensitive habitats in California, such as
'vernal pools, wetlands, and special soils like serpentine.
Facilitiest Te' have various in house facilities that allow us to
maximise our efficiency and provide the most advanced methods.
We have an operational computer geographic information system
(OIG) that allows us to provide computer assisted mapping and
database information in an output format that is specific to
particular project meads. We currently have the largest plant
species geographical data base that includes all plants in
California with various levels of location precision as well as
other information. We have plant physiological monitoring
equipment for field ecophysiologieal studies. We have two four-
wheel drive vehicles and two outboard motor boats for river and
delta surveys.
. . •� ` +�►
for
as
4t
� .� .•,,//�� •.It
- .. T.► �� �� 1; alt � .r�.o..•
ANEW. 00 mom ftom" 0
M...
�p 11►UIraM ItiJIMW � � � et• •a�`• �• •'�:�� ��,.• s
ir
swtSiCt EKf�er �`. .` � 1 - l- � •. �i.. - F... � �':T64
Sit#
as
40 , 16
Mom ENTAIN
MEAD SO
IU�4- f too am
.� k _ .
&MONO
M>
M.ww
M M.-
ask"M.r
PAR tNVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Cultural Resource Management o Biology a Environmental Planning
r.-
k
August 26, 1990
Mr. Bob Pacini
5115 Clayton Road, Suite A
Concord, CA 94521
: RE: WILDLIFE STUDY AND MARE PLANT SURVEY REPORT FOR TRE
MOUNTAIN KEADOW UNIT ZI DEVELOPMENT PARCEL, CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (PAR Ref. No. 90-49)
Dear Bob:
Enclosed are two bound copies of the..botanical and
biological resources survey for the referenced project. These
copies are for your use, review, or distribution. I have also
forwarded two copies directly to Ron Sette. The wetland
assessment and wetland delineation map are currently being
reviewed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Following agency
review, we can either submit these items separately, or we can
incorporate the wetland information into the enclosed document so
that all of the data is in one.- report. Please let me know if you
have a preference.
I am also returning a key to the gate on the property. I
believe it is yours. I apologize for the delays in getting this
information to you, but it has been a very busy summer. Please
do not hesitate to contact me at my office if you have any -
comments or questions.
Sincerely,
Steve Heipel
Environmental Planner IV
SH:idi
P.{3.Box 160756 a Sacramento,California 95816-0756 ■ (916)734-8356 or 739-6642 0 FAX (916)739-0626
i
EXHIBIT B
a
s
t
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 7118, MOUNTAIN MEADOWS #2
r
1 . This approval is based upon the Tentative Map submitted with the application dated
received December 28, 1989.
2. Comply with the requirements of the "Wildlife Resources Study Report, Rare Plant and
Floristic Survey for the Proposed Mountain Meadows Unit II Development Project,
' Contra Costa County" prepared by Land Use Development Corporation, August 28,
1990. All recommendations shall be implemented unless otherwise waived by the
.Zoning Administrator.
3. Prior to the issuance of any building permit and/or grading permit for work on any lot,
the proposed grading, location and design of the proposed residential building,
accessory building or paddock to be located on that lot shall be first submitted for
review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. Buildings and other structures shall
be designed and built to fit hillside areas at the envelope areas as indicated on the
tentative map, subject to the other conditions of this approval. Consideration shall be
given to the following:
A. Any deck, whether raised or on grade should complement and blend with the
design of the structure. All support structures shall be screened and
landscaped. 1
B. The specific design of buildings of structures shall result in a design which
conforms with the natural terrain and avoids excessive grading, a footprint that
preserves existing mature oak trees to the extent feasible. A combination of
staggered exterior wall lines and two-story elements may be appropriate.
Homes shall be limited to 25-feet parallel to natural grade. Homes on Lots 36,
38 and 44 shall be limited to 18-feet parallel to natural grade.
C. Roof shapes that relate to the character of surrounding terrain are to be utilized.
Roof colors shall not exceed a reflectance of 50% and shall blend with the area
as viewed from a distance.
D. Building height,setbacks and bulk shall encourage low profile,stepped-on-grade
structures, particularly at prominent sites viewed from Morgan Territory Road
or surrounding area.
E. Garages that do not open facing the street shall be encouraged.
F. All driveway locations and architectural elevations shall be subject to review
and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
G. Paddocks shall be located to avoid potential contamination of Marsh Creek and
the well systems or ground water of neighboring properties.
2.
H. The creek/riparian habitat shall be protected, and except as necessary to
construct the culvert/bridge and storm drain outlets, shall be left undisturbed
by any construction in the vicinity. Any work in the creek will require the
approval of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Fish &
Game.
t
4. A homeowners' association shall be formed for the maintenance of the private streets,
drainage facilities, the keeping of horses, and other common concerns. Covenants,
Conditions & Restrictions (CC & Rs) shall be submitted for review and approval by the
w Zoning Administrator prior to the filing of the Final Subdivision Map to be recorded
concurrently with the Final Map, and shall include the following:
A. A statement that the entire project shall be subject to the conditions contained
within the resolution(s) adopted by the Board of Supervisors with approval of
the tentative subdivision map.
B. A statement that the Association shall have the power and duty to maintain, .
repair, replace, restore, operate and manage all common areas and facilitate
improvements in substantial compliance with the approvals for the project.
C. A statement in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC & Rs) providing
authority for Association to collect the costs from the owners of property
within the project of any required maintenance and/or enforcement of the CC
& Rs.
D. Do not allow dogs to run free in the riparian habitat.
E. Avoid thinning, pruning, or eliminating dead limbs or trees unless they present
a hazard to people or property. Snags and dead limbs are useful to wildlife as
foraging and nesting areas.
F. Do not clear undergrowth, leaf litter, or herbaceous vegetation from the riparian
corridor. These habitat features are important to wildlife as cover and foraging
_,grounds.
G. Do not place fencing or other barriers to animal movement across the stream
or riparian corridor (i.e., perpendicular to the stream/corridor).
H. In the event that sewer lines are ultimately installed, do not place sewer lines
near the riparian corridor. Trenching for sewer lines should be well beyond the
dripline of riparian trees.
3.
f
_ I. An educational pamphlet shall be provided to homeowners explaining how to
protect oak trees on their property. The pamphlet should explain that the best
way to protect native oaks and the wildlife that inhabit them is to leave the
3
trees alone and refrain from altering the natural drainage near the trees.
Suggested guidelines include the following:
1. Avoid lowering or elevating the ground level in the immediate vicinity of
the tree trunk. If it is absolutely necessary to raise the soil level in the
r, vicinity of the tree, place a protective collar of concrete or treated
r lumber at a minimum of six feet from the trunk.
2. Avoid compaction of the soil by heavy vehicles within the dripline of
oaks, especially if soil is wet.
3. Avoid removing soil, leaves, and grasses located under oaks, as these
s protect the roots during the hot summer months.
4. Avoid building or paving beneath the dripline of oaks.
5. Avoid watering oaks in the summer. Landscaping placed in the vicinity
of oaks should not require watering.
J. A statement substantially in the following form: "The County of Contra Costa
is hereby given supervisory jurisdiction as may be determined by the County, .
of the enforcement of the provisions of the declaration dealing with
maintenance, cleanliness, and repair of any common areas and exterior
appearance of the project. In the event of a breach of any duty pertaining to.
such maintenance, cleanliness, repair or exterior appearance, the County of
Contra Costa may give written notice of such breach to the Association,
together with a demand upon the Association to remedy such breach. If the
Association refuses to do so, or fails to take appropriate action within 30 days
of the receipt of such notice, the County of Contra Costa shall have standing
and the right (but not the obligation) to bring an action in a court of proper
„jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this declaration. Should the County
prevail in any such litigation, the Association shall be liable for and pay to the
County its costs (including attorneys' fees and other involved County staff
time). Nothing contained herein shall limit any other right or remedy which the
County may exercise by virtue of authority contained in ordinance or state
law."
5. The final draft of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC & Rs) shall be
provided for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator.
y .
� u
!; u
f)7r
F
4.
6. Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant shall establish a replenishable
R fund of $20,000 which will be used to fund enforcement of the Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions (CC & Rs) by the homeowners association; said fund to thereafter be
maintained by dues payable to the homeowners association by its members.
7. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC & Rs) shall allow for the use and
maintenance of an equestrian trail through the development, as provided for in
Condition #8 below.
8. Prior to filing the final subdivision map, an equestrian trail easement shall be offered
for dedication to the East Bay Regional Park District through the development from the
vicinity of Lot 31 along the east and south boundaries to connect off-site to Morgan
Territory Road through adjacent properties either from the northwest or southwest
boundaries of the development. The developer shall submit to the Zoning
Administrator proof of the off-site trail easement and a letter of intent by the East Bay
Regional park District to accept the trail system. In the event the trail system is not
accepted by the Park District, it then becomes the responsibility of the homeowners
association. The applicant shall use its best efforts to acquire the easement, and if not
successful at the time for filing the final subdivision map, shall not be prevented from
filing the Final Subdivision Map except as provided herein. Upon a showing of such
good faith efforts at that time the Zoning Administrator would determine the best trail
alignment and the County would proceed with acquiring the necessary trail easements
if the issue has not been fully resolved by the applicant. All costs of acquisition and
installation of the trail.will be borne by the applicant and assured by the applicant prior
to filing the Final Map by entering an agreement with the County complying with its
Requested Condemnation Policy and providing security for all costs thereof in a form
acceptable to County.
A. The final alignment of the trail and its connection to Morgan Territory Road and
the Mt. Diablo trails system shall be worked out with input from the East Bay
Regional Park District and the Mt. Diablo State Park with final approval by the
Zoning Administrator.
B. ..The developer shall construct the trail and trail connections to the requirements
of the East Bay Regional Park District and shall bear all costs for their
installation.
9. A thorough geologic investigation of the site shall be performed by a licensed
engineering geologist with the intent of accurately mapping the trace of the Clayton-
Marsh Creek fault. Recommendations on the locations of homes relative to the fault
trace shall be included within the geologic investigation and report.
10. At least 60 days prior to recording a Final Map, issuance of Building Inspection
Department permits, or installation of improvements or utilities, submit a preliminary
geology, soils, and foundation report meeting the requirements of Subdivision
Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for review and approval of the Planning Geologist.
A.
5.
Improvement, grading, and building plans shall implement recommendations of the
approved report. They shall be signed and stamped by a licensed geotechnical
engineer. Final Map shall cite the approved report. (Record a statement to run with
deeds acknowledging the title, date, author of the report and calling attention to the
conclusions and recommendations of the approved reports.)
11 . The residential siting on each lot shall be subject to review by the County Geologist
and the Building Inspection Department, Grading Division, prior to issuance of a grading
or building permit, to assess the sites for geological stability.
Homes shall be located no closer than the recommended structural setback from the
trace of the Clayton-Marsh Creek Fault; as referenced in the Supplemental
Geotechnical Study by Allan Kropp Associates, #348-1 A, L2305, October 28, 1981 .
12. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading,trenching or other on-site
excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a
professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology
(SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity
to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed
necessary.
13. A grading plan shall be submitted for approval by the Director of Community
Development prior to preparation of the Final Map. The plan shall show all trees
meeting the criteria for "heritage" tree per Ordinance Section 816-4.402(1).located
within the roadway areas or their immediate vicinity. The species of the tree and its
size and location shall be shown. Where feasible trees shall be shown. Where feasible
trees shall be retained within a tree well or other appropriate protection device at fill
situations.
14. A lot line adjustment is approved for Parcel A as shown on the tentative map to be
made part of Lot 4 of contiguous Subdivision 3888. The property transfer shall be
accomplished by deed description or record of survey or may be indicated with the
final map. The property being transferred shall be combined with the receiving parcel
and assessed as one parcel for tax purposes.
15. Domestic water supply shall be provided by the Contra Costa County Water District
in accordance with the district policies for providing such service.
16. Septic tanks and leach fields shall be installed for each lot subject to the approval of
the County Health Department with issuance of building permits. Additional
information may be required by the Zoning Administrator and the Health Services
department, to verify that the installation of septic tanks and leach fields for this
development will not adversely effect adjacent or.downstream properties, particularly
b..
6.
j,.
as it may relate to existing wells. The final test and review by the Health Department
for septic fields and wells shall be conducted with consideration to strictly avoid any
r possible contamination of Marsh Creek and any possible contamination of existing
ground water supplying wells in the adjoining neighborhood.
k 17. Prior to filing a Final Subdivision Map, street names shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Community Development Department. All residences shall provide for
an address visible from the street, which may require illumination.
18. This project may be developed in a phased program as shown on the tentative map.
Any modification of the phasing program shall be submitted for approval by the Zoning
Administrator.
19. The emergency access road shown in the vicinity of Lots 40 and 41 shall be aligned
to the existing northerly terminus of Leon Drive and constructed to the satisfaction of
the East Diablo Fire Protection District, subject to the final review and approval by the
Zoning Administrator.
20. If consideration is given to providing existing Whispering Pines Road as a private road,
instead of a public road by a majority agreement of the homeowners association or
majority vote of the property owners, subject to approval of the Community
Development Department, the applicant shall then be required to relocate the security
gate to the entrance road near the intersection of Morgan Territory Road. The design
of the gate shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development
Department.
A road maintenance agreement shall be established for maintenance of the road,
operation of the security gate, and the cost of the lighting and landscaping.
21 . If, pursuant to Condition #20, the developer and existing property owners on
Whispering Pines Road consent to establishing the road as a private road, the
developer shall be responsible for installing the appropriate signing on the fully
privatized Whispering Pines Road. Such signing should include "Children at Play" and
speed caution signs. Installation of any speed bumps shall be after consultation and
agreement with the existing property owners.
22. The applicant shall work with the Sheriff's Department to provide access for all
construction equipment and construction workers entering the project site through the
Marsh Creek Detention Facility off Marsh Creek Road rather than through the existing
Whispering Pines Road.
23. Prior to issuance of building permits, final landscape and irrigation plans shall be
submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator consistent with the
plans submitted to the Community Development Department dated received April 14,
1992. 24-inch box native oak trees shall be used. The landscaping shall minimize the
projects effect on Morgan Territory Road.
d,
7.
24. Comply with the following construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements:
A. Noise generating construction activities, including such things as power
generators, shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. .to 5:00 P.M., Monday
E
through Friday, and shall be prohibited on State and Federal holidays. The
restrictions on allowed working days may be modified on prior written approval
by the Zoning Administrator.
B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all
a internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall
locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and
concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible.
C. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post
the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior
boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The
notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number
and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall
be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of
persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area
of responsibility. The names of the individual responsible for noise and litter
control shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be reissued
with each phase of major grading activity.
A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the community
Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the
names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the
area noticed.
D. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator. Any violation of the approved program or
applicable ordinances shall require an immediate work stoppage. Construction
work shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate
'construction bond has been posted.
E. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing
neighborhood traffic flows. Prior to issuance of building permits, the proposed
roads serving this development shall be constructed to provide access to each
lot. This shall include provision for an -on-site area in which to park earth
moving equipment.
25. To preserve the wildlife values associated with oaks, native oaks on the site shall be
saved whenever possible. The following guidelines for the grading and construction
phases of the project shall be implemented:
o.
8.
A. Plans and specifications should clearly state protection procedures for oaks on
k the project site. The specifications should also include a provision for penalties
if oaks trees are damaged.
B. No vehicles, construction equipment, mobile offices, or materials should be
parked or located within the driplines of oaks.
C. Soil surface removal greater than one foot in depth should not occur within the
driplines of oak trees. No cutes of any depth should occur within five feet of
their trunks.
D. Earthen fill greater than one foot deep should not be placed within the driplines
x
of oak trees, and no fill should be placed within five feet of their trunks.
r
E. Paving should not be placed in the immediate vicinity of oaks.
F. Underground utility line trenching should not be placed within the driplines of
oaks. If it is absolutely necessary to install underground utilities within the
driplines of oak trees,the trench should either be bored or drilled, but not within
five feet of the trunk.
26. Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as follows:
A. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code, this
subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance
(Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this
conditional approval statement.
1) Constructing a paved turnaround at the end of the proposed private
road.
2) Undergrounding of all utility distribution facilities.
3) Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the subject
property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage
facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed, and banks or to
an existing adequate storm drainage facility which conveys the storm
waters to a natural watercourse.
Designing and constructing storm drainage facilities required by the
Ordinance in compliance with specifications outlined in Division 914 of
the Ordinance and in compliance with design standards of the Public
Works Department.
4) Submitting a Final Map prepared by a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor.
9
r
4
rr
s:
5) Submitting improvement plans prepared by-a registered civil engineer,
payment of review and inspection fees, and -security for all
improvements required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions of
approval for this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary
traffic signage and striping plans for review by the Public Works
Department, Road Engineering Division. Review fees for these
{ improvement plans shall be paid on a Time & Materials basis at an
hourly rate established by the Public Works Department, Engineering
Services Division.
6) Relinquishing "development rights over that portion of the site that is
within the structure setback area of Marsh Creek. The structure
setback are shall be determined by using the criteria outlined in Chapter
914-14, "Rights of Way and Setbacks" of the Subdivision Ordinance,
except as otherwise approved by the Flood Control District.
7) Ensure that the Whispering (Pines Road crossing of Marsh Creek is
capable of passing the 100-year storm flow.
B. Construct the on-site road system to County private road standards and
configured as shown on the Improvement Plan.
C. Provide entrance tapers in accordance with CALTRANS Highway Design Manual
Figure 405.7, or as approved by the Public Works Department to preserve the
existing oak trees. Trim vegetation to provide sight lines for a 45 mile per hour
design speed.
D. Provide for adequate sight distance for a design speed of 45 mph at the
intersection of Whispering Pines Road and Morgan Territory Road.
E. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a
concentrated manner, from draining across driveways.
F. ;Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division,
of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for
the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and drainage
improvements.
G. Construct a gated 20-foot wide emergency vehicle access (EVA) within a 25-
foot easement for the subdivision via Leon Drive. The easement shall align with
the existing easement for Leon Drive. Those sections of the EVA which exceed
10% in grade shall be paved. No section of the EVA shall exceed 20% in
grade.
H. Establish a maintenance agreement to ensure future maintenance of the private
road.
Y •
10.
F•.
h
I. Provide adequate sight distance for a design speed of 45 mph at the
intersection of Morgan Territory Road and Marsh Creek Road, subject to the
review and approval of the Public Works Department, Road Engineering
Division. If complying with this condition requires major reconstruction work,
then the work will be credited against the Area of Benefit fee. If a
reimbursement agreement is necessary, it,shall be executed prior to filing the
final map. No credit shall be allowed for minor work such as striping, trimming
of vegetation or minor grading.
J. Provide for an emergency vehicle access to Marsh Creek Road, subject to the
review and approval of the Public Works Department and the East Diablo Fire
Protection District.
ADVISORY NOTES
A. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish & Game.
The applicant should notify the Department of Fish & Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville,
California 94599, of any proposed construction within this development that may
affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish & Game Code.
B. This project may also be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers.
The applicant should notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to
determine if a permit is required and if it can be obtained.
C. The project lies within the 100-year flood boundary as designed on the Federal
Emergency Flood Rate Maps. The applicant should be aware of the requirements of
the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Flood Plain Management
Ordinance (Ordinance No. 87-65) as they pertain to future construction of any
structures on this property.
D. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the
Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Marsh Creek Area of Benefit as adopted by
the Board of Supervisors.
E. The applicant will be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for
Drainage Area 108A as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
e
t.
C '
C
F. Comply with the requirements of the East Diablo Fire Protection District. See
attached.
BT/GA/df
SUBVIII/71 18C.BT
2/22/89
4/05/89
2/06/90 - Revised BT (v)
3/5/90 df
3/26/90 as
4/3/90 df
4/20/90 as
6/19/92 as
7/2/92 as
{
r
G
£..
3
�.
�-
�d
L!`
j
A
�l
C,
�,
��
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
THE MOUNTAIN MEADOWS NO. 2,
PROJECT FINDINGS (Subdivision 7118) , AND
A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANT TO
r
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA")
t -
These findings are made by the Board of Supervisors of
Contra Costa County ( "Board" ) , California, pursuant to the
{ California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA" ) , Public Resources
Code sections 21000 et seq. , the CEQA Guidelines, and County
regulations promulgated thereunder . These findings include
this Board' s findings and determinations regarding the Mountain
Meadows #2, County Subdivision No. 7118 ( "Project" ) , including
the Project ' s impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives,
Statement of Overriding Considerations, consistency with the
governing General Plan, and findings required by the County
Code.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Procedural History.
1 . The first application for the Project was
submitted in 1977, requesting a subdivision of 69 lots on the
95 .4-acre site. An environmental impact report ( "EIR" ) was
prepared for this application in 1977 and subsequently
circulated for public review and comment . An addendum to the
EIR was prepared on September 12, 1977 . The Planning
Commission reviewed and certified the EIR as complete in 1980 .
The County approved a revised tentative subdivision map for
46 lots on May 26, 1981 . The tentative map expired on May 26, -
1987 .
2. In April 1988, the owner filed a complete
application for reapproval of the 46-lot tentative map. Two
hearings were held before the Planning Commission. The
Commission was unable to reach a decision on the application
and referred it to the Board of Supervisors . The Board held
four public hearings and, in April 1990, approved the
subdivision with conditions . It denied reconsideration "of its,
decision on April 24, 1990 .
3. An action was filed in Contra Costa Superior
Court on June 1, 1990, challenging the approval of the
tentative map. Fawcett v. Board of Supervisors (Contra Costa
Superior Court, Case No: C90-02319) .
4 . The trial court issued its decision on
September 17, 1991 . The court upheld the adequacy of the EIR,
1
rejecting arguments that factors justifying a subsequent or
supplemental EIR were present when the Project was approved in
April of 1990 . However, the court invalidated the approval of
the map, finding that the County had failed to make adequate
CEQA findings and finding certain deficiencies in the
f-
then-applicable County General Plan. The court issued a writ
of mandate to this Board, directing it to vacate its April 1990 ,
approval of the Project and ordering it to reconsider the map
application in light of the court 's decision.
5. In 1991, after the `Project's approval in
1990 but before the court's decision in Fawcett v. Board of
M Supervisors, the County adopted a new General Plan ( "General
fl Plan" ) . An environmental impact report was prepared and
certified for the General Plan.
B. The Applications Under Reconsideration.
This Project entails approval of a tentative
subdivision map for 46 units with conditions of approval .
C. The EIR.
1 . The order of the court in Fawcett v. Board
of Supervisors established the adequacy of the EIR as of April ,
1990 . County staff has evaluated whether conditions mandating
further environmental review have occurred since that date.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA
Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163, this Board may not require
a subsequent or supplemental EIR unless one or more of the
following events occur:
a. Substantial changes are proposed in the
Project that will require major revisions of the Environmental
Impact Report because of new significant impacts;
b. Substantial changes occur with respect
to the circumstances under which the Project is being
undertaken that will require major revisions in the
Environmental Impact Report because of new significant impacts;
C. Significant new information that was
not known and could not have been known at the time the
Environmental Impact Report was certified as complete becomes
available, and this information indicates (i) new or
substantially more severe significant impacts, or (ii) the
feasibility of mitigation measures or alternatives previously
believed to be infeasible that would substantially reduce one
or more significant impacts.
2
f-
A change in land use regulations (such as a new
General Plan) is not a basis for requiring a new EIR, because
it is not a physical change the environment . Accordingly, the
adoption of the 1991 General Plan is not a basis for requiring
a new EIR, although the project is required to be consistent
with the 1991 General Plan.
2. A second addendum to the EIR was prepared
that considered, without limitation, the County's 1991 General
Plan and supplemental information regarding visual, traffic,
and biological information ( "Addendum" ) . Based on this
{ information and other evidence in the record, the Addendum
concluded that no circumstances had arisen since April of 1990
that would justify the preparation of a subsequent or
supplemental EIR under Public Resources Code section 21166 and
CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15.163 .
3 . This Board found in April of 1990 that the
EIR was adequate in April of 1990, and that no supplemental or
subsequent EIR was necessary, and the court agreed in the
` decision of Fawcett v. Board of Supervisors. This Board now
finds and determines that the information in the Addendum shows
that there are no: (i) substantial changes proposed to the
project that would require major revisions in the EIR because
of new significant impacts; (ii) substantial changes with
respect to the conditions under which the project would be
undertaken that would require major revisions in the EIR
because of new significant impacts; or (iii) significant new
information that could not have been known when the EIR was
certified that shows that there will be new significant impacts
or that significant impacts examined in the EIR will be
substantially more severe, or that mitigation measures or
alternatives previously found to be infeasible would be
feasible and would substantially reduce significant project
impacts .
4 . Based on its review of the standards set
forth in Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA
Guidelines sections 15162 through 15164 and all of the evidence
in the record, this Board finds that the preparation of a
supplemental EIR or subsequent EIR is- not required to address
any of the information in the Addendum. This Board here by
adopts the conclusions in the Addendum as further findings in
support of this Board' s conclusion that no supplemental or
subsequent EIR is justified.
5. This Board certifies that the Addendum has
been completed in compliance with CEQA.
6. This Board certifies that the Addendum and
EIR represent the independent judgment of the Board, and were
3
E=
e'
presented to, reviewed and considered by this Board prior to
acting on the Project.
G'
7. The description of impacts in these findings
is intended as a summary only. The EIR and Addendum -describe
,. these impacts in greater detail.
F
J
f'
D. The Project Site.
The property is comprised of 95.4 acres . The property
is located at the easterly terminus of Whispering Pines Road
approximately .700 feet east of Morgan Territory Road. It is
bordered by Marsh. Creek on the southwest, the Contra Costa
County Rehabilitation Center on the northeast, and wooded range
lands .on the north and south. The Project site is zoned
residential .
The subject property is bordered on the west (between
Marsh Creek and Morgan Territory Road) by Mountain Meadows Unit
Number One, consisting of 21 large residential lots (of
approximately one acre each) similar to those proposed for the
Project . This 21-lot subdivision is on level ground
immediately abutting Morgan Territory Road. Properties to the
northwest and south of the site are hilly, wooded grazing lands
with topography and vegetation similar to that found on the
site. There are no agricultural preserves adjacent to the
property. The proposed subdivision would be situated on the
eastern slope of the narrow canyon containing Marsh Creek and
Morgan Territory Road. Each lot has a proven buildable lot
site that would require minimal grading.
The subject property is presently vacant land that has
historically been used for grazing.
E. Description of the Record.
The Record before this Board relating to this action
includes without limitation the following:
1 . All studies, letters, and other submittals
relating to the Project and Project applications;
2. All staff reports, resolutions, conditions
of approval , mitigation measures, and recommended design manual
standards (design standards) relating to the Project and
Project applications;
3 . All documentary and oral evidence received
and reviewed by City staff, the County Planning Commission, and
this Board prior to, during, and subsequent to all public
hearings relating to the Project and the Project applications;
4
f•
t
}
n
4 . The EIR and Addendum herein described;
M
5. The decision dated September 17, 1991 , of
the Contra Costa Superior Court in the matter of Fawcett v.
Board of Supervisors, Case No. C90-02319, and the court order
;. dated October 10, 1991 , issued pursuant to that decision, and
the Writ of Mandate dated October 15, 1991, issued pursuant to
the court order; and
x 6. All matters of common knowledge, the County
General Plan as currently adopted and as in effect in January
1991, the current County Zoning Code, and all other applicable
County policies, regulations, standards, and specifications.
F. Other Controlling Determinations.
1 . All of the mitigation measures adopted in
these findings are hereby imposed as conditions of approval to
the tentative map. The County shall monitor the implementation
of the mitigation measures established by the conditions of
approval, and in these findings in accordance with the
Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted with these findings .
2. The discussion which follows under the
captions "Facts" for each category recites some of the
background information relating to the Project. The
discussions under the captions "Findings" contain findings made
by this Board based on the entire record before this Board
including, without limitation, the information which is recited
in the discussion of "Facts . "
This Board intends that these findings and
determinations be considered as an integrated whole whether or
not any subdivision of these findings and determinations fails
to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other
subdivision of these findings . Any finding or determination
required or permitted to be made by this Board shall be deemed
made. All of the text included in this document constitutes
the findings and determinations of this Board whether or not
any particular caption, sentence or clause includes a statement
to that effect.
Although the discussions under the captions "Facts"
below may primarily relate to information in the EIR and
Addendum, each finding herein is based on the entire record,
including written and oral testimony in the record. The
omission of any relevant fact from the summary discussions
below is not an indication by this Board that a particular
finding is not based in part on the omitted fact. This Board' s
findings as set forth herein are based on all of the facts in
the record before this Board.
5
r
Unless otherwise indicated in these findings, all
recommended mitigation measures are determined to reduce any
significant adverse environmental impact of the Project to a
level of insignificance. Further, unless otherwise indicated
in these findings, all mitigation measures themselves are
determined not to result in any potentially significant adverse
environmental impacts.
II. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINED TO
BE INSIGNIFICANT AND NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
A. Facts.
1. Utilities/Electricity.
z
The EIR discusses the impacts of the Project on
electricity service on page 4 . Electricity will be provided by
Pacific Gas & Electric Company. The EIR does not indicate any
significant impacts relating to electricity.
2. Police.
The EIR discusses the impact of the Project on police
service at pages 4-5. The EIR does not list any significant
impacts of the Project on police service.
3. Fire.
The EIR discusses the impact of the Project on fire
service at page 5. The EIR does not list any significant
impacts of the Project on fire service.
4. Soils and Geology.
The EIR discusses the impact of the Project on soils
and geology on page 8. The Addendum contains further
information as to soils . The EIR does not list any impacts of
the Project on soils and geology as significant. This is
confirmed by the report from Alan Kropp and Associates dated
April 7, 1989 (Addendum, Exhibit D) . With appropriate drilled
pier foundations, house foundations will perform adequately.
5. Recreation.
The EIR discusses recreation impacts on page 10 . No
significant Project effects are identified.
6
Y a
6. Socioeconomic Characteristics.
& The socioeconomic effects of the Project are discussed
on pages 10-11 of the EIR. The EIR does not list these impacts
as significant.
K
7. Air Quality and Noise.
a. The EIR discusses the impact of the
Project on air quality at pages 10-11`. The EIR does not list
any impacts of the Project on air quality as significant.
b. The EIR discusses the impact of the
Project on noise at pages 10-11 . The Project 's terrain, low
density, and distances from Morgan Territory Road will
generally keep noise within maximum desirable levels . The EIR
does not list any impacts of the Project on noise as
significant.
8. Historical and Archaeological Aspects.
The EIR discusses the impact of the Project on
historical and archaeological aspects at pages 10-11 . The EIR
does not list any impacts of the Project on historical and
archaeological as significant. However, should any
archaeological materials be uncovered during excavation, work
shall cease until a certified archaeologist has reviewed the
final and recommended mitigation measures if deemed necessary.
9. Energy.
The EIR discusses the impact of the Project on energy
at pages 10-11 . The EIR does not list any impacts of the
Project on energy as significant . -
B. Findings.
Based on the EIR, the Addendum, the facts herein and
the entire record, this Board finds that :
1 . With respect to the impacts set forth above,
the Project will not have a potentially significant adverse
impact on the environment.
2. Because these impacts are found to be
insignificant, no mitigation measures are required to be
adopted pursuant to CEQA relating to these impacts, no analysis
of these impacts is required beyond that included in the EIR,
and no further findings '-are required regarding these impacts .
7
3
A
p i
k
Y
3 . Mitigation Measure 10 of the EIR,
recommending an equestrian path, does not address a significant
project impact and accordingly is not adopted as a mitigation
V measure. However, the Project includes an equestrian path,
which shall be offered for dedication to the East Bay Regional
Park District.
M
III. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR AS
F, POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT THAT WILL BE REDUCED TO
ti. INSIGNIFICANCE BY RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
A. Generally.
1. Facts and Findings.
a. The following facts and findings do not
' repeat the full discussions of impacts and mitigation measures
' contained in the relevant documents in the administrative
record. Instead, the facts and findings specifically reference
s particular documents containing such information (e.g. , the
EIR, Addendum, etc. ) .
B. Potentially Inadequate Individual Sanitation
Systems.
1. Facts.
a. The EIR discusses the Project.' s sewage
treatment requirements on pages 4, 12-13 , and 16 . The Project
will require the installation of individual sanitation systems
for each lot. The EIR concludes that this could pose a
significant and unavoidable impact because the soils on the
site are poor for septic systems . As mitigation, the EIR
recommends percolation tests for each proposed lot .
b. Prior to April of 1990, the applicant
established to the satisfaction of the County Department of
Health Services that each of the Project ' s 46 lots contains an
adequate location for the proposed sanitation systems . The
County Department of Health Services has approved the proposed
systems subject to conditions governing their review and
installation. These conditions are contained in a June 23,
1988 memorandum from the County Department of Health Services,
Environmental Services Division, to the Community Development
Department (Addendum, Exhibit A) .
2. Findings.
Based on the EIR, the Addendum, the facts herein, and
the entire record, this Board finds that the mitigation measure
recommended in the EIR .has been implemented. This Board also
8
r-
Y
' finds that the Project 's sewer treatment impacts will be
reduced to insignificance by the measures recommended by the
County Health Services Department in the memorandum of June 23,
E4, 1988, and adopts these measures as conditions of approval .
J` C. Schools.
w
1. Facts.
. The EIR discusses the impact of the Project on schools
at pages 5 and 13 . The EIR does not list .any impacts of the
Project on schools as unavoidable. The site is located within
the Mt. Diablo School District and is served by Mt . Diablo
} Elementary School, Pine Hollow Road, Concord, and Clayton Valley
High School . The project will have a significant impact
because of the increased costs associated with transporting
Project students to these schools. These costs are paid by
students ' families through mandatory school transit fees .
2. Findings.
Based upon the EIR, the Addendum, the facts herein,
and the whole record, this Board finds that the Project ' s
school impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance
by fees paid by Project residents and that, accordingly, no
further mitigation measures are necessary.
D. Vegetation, Wildlife and Livestock Disturbance.
1. Facts.
(a) The Project ' s impacts on wildlife and
livestock disturbance are discussed on pages 9-10 and 13 of the
EIR and page 7 of the Addendum. Mitigation Measures 11 and 12,
on pages 17-18 of the EIR, are designed to reduce these impacts
to insignificance; they include limits on construction of the
culvert bridge, a perimeter fence of the Project site to
protect adjacent grazing lands, and protections of trees and
Marsh Creek habitat. The property is currently fenced.
(b) The EIR did not identify any
significant impacts on sensitive habitats. This was confirmed
in a biological study undertaken pursuant to the Conditions of
Approval of the 1990 approval of the Project; this report is
included in the Addendum as Exhibit E. The report clarified
the appropriate measures to protect oak trees and Marsh Creek
habitat.
9
t
Y:
r- .2. Findings.
Y
Based upon the EIR, the Addendum, the facts herein,
and the entire record, this Board concludes that the Project ' s
t disturbance of wildlife and livestock will be mitigated to a
level of insignificance by the imposition of Mitigation
Measures 11-14 as clarified in the Addendum, and adopts these
r measures . Mitigation Measure 12 has been satisfied by the
current fence.
E. Seismicity.
1. Facts.
(a) The Project's seismic impacts are
discussed on pages 8 and 14 of the EIR. These impacts are not
listed as unavoidable. The Clayton/Marsh Creek fault bisects
the Project site trending from the northwest to southeast
direction. This fault is considered potentially active.
Movement along the fault could result in property damage.
Mitigation Measures 4 and 7 address this impact and are
described on page 17 of the EIR. These measures include
mapping the fault trace through the site, distancing of Project
structures from the fault trace, and administrative review of
the grading plans of all lots.
(b) Pursuant to Mitigation Measures 5 and
7, the applicant has submitted the necessary maps of the fault
trace to County staff together with a geotechnical study with
setback recommendations . According to the Addendum, compliance
with the recommendations of the geotechnical study will
mitigate the Project ' s seismic impacts .
2. Findings.
Based on the EIR, the Addendum, the facts herein, and
the entire record, this Board finds that the Project 's seismic
impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by
compliance with the recommendations in the geotechnical report
and that such compliance will be ensured through staff review
of site and grading plans for each lot. These measures will
satisfy 'and are adopted in lieu of Mitigation Measures 4 and 7
in the EIR.
F. Slope Failure.
1. Facts.
The EIR discusses the Project 's slope failure impacts
on pages 6-7 and 14. These impacts are not listed as
unavoidable. Mitigation Measure 4 on page 17 addresses these
10
k
s impacts, recommending administrative review of the grading
plans for each lot and grading limitations.
2. Findings.
Based on the EIR, the Addendum, the facts herein, and
. the entire record, this Board finds that the Project ' s slope
failure impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance by
the imposition of Mitigation Measure 4 and adopts this measure.
G. Grading.
y
Y
1. Facts.
a. The EIR discusses the Project ' s grading
impacts on page 14 . These impacts are not listed as
unavoidable. The EIR describes mitigation measures to reduce
these impacts to insignificance on pages 16-17, including
reductions in the number of lots, grading limits and review of
individual grading plans . The Project applicant has
r demonstrated that each lot contains a buildable homesite
requiring minimal grading. In addition, the Addendum contains
design and grading guidelines to minimize visual impacts from
Morgan Territory Road. These mitigation measures, as well as
standard sound engineering practice, shall govern the
administrative review of individual grading plans .
b. The number of lots has been reduced as
recommended in the EIR, from 69 to 46 lots .
2. Findings.
Based on the EIR, the Addendum, the facts herein, and
the entire record, this Board finds that the Project ' s grading
impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of mitigation measures recommended in the EIR and in
the Addendum and adopts these measures.
H. Circulation.
1. Facts.
a. The Project's circulation impacts are
discussed in the EIR on pages 4 and 13. At 69 units, the
Project was expected to generate approximately 690 vehicle
trips per day. Mitigation measure 5 in the EIR is recommended
to reduce this impact to insignificance.
b. The Addendum includes a traffic study
indicating that the currently proposed 46 homes will generate
460 trips a day, all of which will use Morgan Territory Road.
11
k
f
Forty-six cars will be added during peak hours. The
anticipated total number of vehicles using Morgan Territory
Road after the Project is built would be 172 trips per hour or
less, well within the road' s capacity.
2. Findings.
r
x.
s Based on the EIR, the Addendum, the facts herein, and
the entire record, this Board finds that:
r.
a. the Project's impacts have been
x reduced to insignificance by changes incorporated into the
project. This Board accordingly rejects the mitigation measure
proposed in the EIR.
b. The reduction in units will not create
any new significant impacts and accordingly does not justify
the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
I . Land Use/Open Space.
1. Facts.
a. The EIR discusses the Project ' s land
use impacts on pages 6-7, 13-14 , and 16. .Mitigation measure 3
is recommended in the EIR to address these impacts .
b. The EIR indicates that the Project is a
land project within the meaning of Business and Professions
Code section 11000 . 5; and concludes that a specific plan is
required under section 11526 . 1 . 'However, this conclusion was
based on the original application for 69 lots rather than the
current application for 46 lots . Business and Professions Code
sections 11000 . 5 and 11526. 1 apply only to subdivisions of
50 lots or more. Accordingly, no specific plan is required.
C. The EIR noted that the Project was
inconsistent with the Open Space designation' s minimum lot
sizes of five acres and concluded that this inconsistency was a
significant impact . The encroachment into open space is
identified in the EIR as significant and unavoidable.
d. The general plan designation of the
site was changed to Single-Family, Very Low Density in 1980
with the adoption of the Morgan Territory Amendment to the
then-governing General Plan. The current General Plan also
designates the site for Single-Family, Very Low Density
development. The Project is consistent with this designation.
12
2. Findings.
t7t:
Based on the EIR, the Addendum, the facts herein, and
the entire record, this Board finds that the impacts listed
above have been avoided by the .reduction in project units an
the change in the land use designation of the project site and
therefore rejects the mitigation measures recommended in the
EIR.
J. Energy
1. Facts.
The energy impacts of Project construction are set
forth on page 15 of the EIR. The EIR bases its conclusion on
the originally proposed 69 lots, and on the assumption that the
Project would involve a disproportionate amount of grading.
These impacts are not identified as significant and
unavoidable. To mitigate this impact, the EIR recommends
mitigation measures on pages 16-17 to limit grading on each
lot . These measures are expected to reduce the energy impact
to insignificance.
2. Findings .
Based on the EIR, the Addendum, the facts herein, and
the entire record, this Board finds that the measures
recommended in -the EIR are adopted and will reduce the
project ' s impacts on energy usage to a less-than-significant
level .
K. Growth-Inducing Impacts.
1. Facts.
a. The EIR discusses the Project ' s
growth-inducing impacts on page 19 and concludes that there
will be significant impacts relating to the conversion of
designated open space, the extension of water, electricity and
roads to the site, and the introduction of septic systems .
These impacts are not identified as significant and unavoidable.
b. The EIR' s conclusion was based on the
site' s 1977 designation as Open Space; the site is now
designated for Single-Family, Very Low Density development, as
proposed by the Project. In addition, the County's 65-35 Urban
Limit Line will ensure that growth in the area is severely
limited.
13
Y,
2. Findings.
Based on the EIR, the General Plan, the facts herein,
and the entire record, this Board concludes that the Project ' s
significant growth-inducing impacts have been mitigated to
insignificance.
L. Water Quality.
1. Facts.
a. The EIR discusses the Project ' s water
quality impacts on pages 9, 15, and 16. The EIR indicates that
there.may be a potentially significant impact because of the
possible health risks in the event of septic failure of the
Project's individual sanitation systems. Mitigation measures
are proposed on page 17 that would substantially reduce the
Project 's water quality impacts, including percolation tests
prior to approval of development of each lot to locate suitable
septic leach fields . In addition, compliance with County
Health Code requirements will minimize health risks .
b. The County Code requires permits for
all individual sanitary systems . Permits are issued under the
stringent requirements of the County Code and the regulations
issued by the County Health Officer. The Code also provides
for inspection of individual sanitary systems to ensure
compliance. In the County' s experience, the County Code and
regulations have been effective in avoiding septic failure.
2. Findings.
Based on the EIR, the Addendum, the facts herein and
the entire record, this Board finds that :
a. The Project ' s potential to have
significant impacts on water quality will be substantially
lessened by the mitigation measures described above and hereby
adopts these measures .
b. Enforcement of the County Code will
minimize, the likelihood of septic failure, reducing the
Project' s potential health impact to insignificance.
14
3
IV. SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT WILL NOT BE MITIGATED
A. Increased Water Demand.
g: 1. Facts.
z a. The EIR discusses the Project ' s
significant impact on water demand on pages 4, 12, and 16, and
i'
concludes that this impact is significant and unavoidable.
This analysis is based on the original application for 69 lots,
predicted to generate a demand for 24,000 gallons per day.
F Based on the formula set forth in the EIR of 350 gallons per
x
day per residence, the Project can now be expected to generate
t new water demand of 16, 100 gallons per day. This is
F
substantially reduced, but not to .a level of insignificance.
b. The EIR sets forth mitigation measures
on page 16 that will further substantially reduce the water
demand impact, including the installation of water-conserving
fixtures and drought-resistant landscaping.
2. Findings.
Based on the EIR, the Addendum, the facts herein, and
the entire record, this Board finds that the Project ' s impact
on water demand will be substantially lessened by the reduction
in lots and the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR, and
hereby adopts those measures . The impacts will not be reduced
to a level of significance. These impacts are overridden and
outweighed as stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations .
B. Security.
1. Facts.
The security impacts of the Project are discussed on
page 15 of the EIR. These impacts are not listed as
unavoidable. To mitigate these impacts, the EIR recommends the
addition of a second access across Marsh Creek. However, this
measure is predicted to have significant impacts on energy use
and the riparian habitat in the Marsh Creek corridor .
2. Findings.
Based on the EIR, the facts herein, and the entire
record, this Board finds that the mitigation measure set forth
above to mitigate Project's security impact is infeasible
because the benefit of this measure is outweighed by its
significant impacts and accordingly rejects this measure. This
Board further finds this impact will remain significant and is
15
x
i'
overridden and outweighed as stated in the Statement of
:F
Overriding Considerations.
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
l-
The EIR evaluates and compares four alternatives to
the proposed Project, including the No-Project Alternative and
three lower-density alternatives .
A. No-Project Alternative.
This alternative would preserve existing conditions on
the Project site for the time being. Ultimately, the site
could be used for grazing cattle, or could be administratively
divided into four parcels by a minor subdivision. This Board
finds that this alternative is infeasible and rejects this
alternative for the following reasons:
1 . The County' s General Plan, enacted to govern
growth in this County through the year 2005 after long and
careful effort, specifically designates the Project site for
the uses proposed in the Project. The No-Project Alternative
would contravene this planning directive by precluding
development for Single-Family, Very Low Density use.
2 . As stated elsewhere in these findings, many
of the Project impacts are mitigated to a level of
insignificance or substantially reduced by adoption of
mitigation measures . The Project represents environmentally
sensitive land use planning, and housing, recreational and
other benefits as set forth in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations . These benefits would not be obtained under
this alternative.
B. Larger Lots Alternative.
This alternative involves the resubmission of the
tentative map with a reduction in lots . The alternative
. recommended five-acre lots, based on the Open, Space designation
applicable to the property when the EIR was prepared in 1977 .
At five acres per lot, no more than 19 homes could be
developed. This Board finds that this alternative is
infeasible and rejects this alternative for the following
reasons:
1 . The Project ' s current land use designation
allows up to .9 single family units per net acre. This
designation is the result of the long and careful planning
effort that culminated in the adoption of the 1991 General
Plan, and the Project is consistent with this designation. The
16
alternative would not be consistent with this designation and
thus would conflict with applicable land use policies .
2. As discussed elsewhere in these findings,
many of the Project' s impacts will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance or substantially lessened (but not to a level of
insignificance) by the imposition of mitigation measures.
t;
3. This alternative would have impacts similar
. to those of the Project, somewhat reduced because of the
reduction in units. However, the reduction in impacts would
not be directly proportionate to the reduction in housing
because the entire site would still be devoted to residential
uses.
{ 4 . This alternative would involve a reduction
of at least 27 lots. This alternative accordingly would not
fully achieve the benefits set forth in Sections A and B of the
Statement of Overriding Considerations. The per-home cost to
new residents would increase substantially.
C. Ridgetop Open Space.
Under this alternative, the six steeper lots shown on
the original tentative map application would be removed from
the map in order to mitigate aesthetic impacts . This Board
finds that this alternative is infeasible and rejects the
alternative for the following reasons :
1 . The Project is not expected to have any
significant visual effects under 'the conditions of approval .
Almost all Project structures will be out of sight, hidden by
the existing hillside or landscaping.
2. The alternative would also tend to reduce
the likelihood of slope failure. However, the project' s
potentially significant slope failure impacts will be reduced
to insignificance by the mitigation measures adopted in these
findings .
3. The other impacts of this alternative are
essentially similar to the proposed Project. The Project in
its current form provides for fewer lots than does this
alternative.
D. open Ridgetop with Larger Lots.
This alternative combines the approach of the two
other lower density alternatives by removing the six steeper
lots on the original map and decreasing the density of the
remaining lots. This alternative would result in the fewest
17
r
number of saleable lots . This Board finds that this
alternative is infeasible and rejects the alternative for the
following reasons:
1 . As discussed in connection with the two
previous lower density alternatives, this alternative would
have impacts essentially similar to the proposed Project.
2. The 1991 General Plan designates the
r property for Single-Family, Very Low Density use. This
alternative would provide less housing than is indicated by
this designation, thus would not implement the intentions of
F the General Plan. The County would not fully realize the
r
benefits of the Project as set forth in Sections A and D of the
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
3 . The per-home cost to new residents would
increase substantially, as this alternative would result in a
decrease of at least 27 lots.
VI . STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
This Board makes and adopts the following Statement of
Overriding Considerations regarding the impacts of the Project
that remain significant after the imposition of mitigation
measures, explaining why Project benefits override and outweigh
these impacts.
This Board finds that the unavoidable impacts are
acceptable in light of the Project benefits . Each of the
matters set forth below is, independent of the other matters,
an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project
despite each and every impact that will remain significant .
A. Housing.
According to the Housing Element of the General Plan,
the County is expected to continue to grow at a rapid pace in
the coming years, requiring a substantial increase in housing
stock for all income levels . In addition, as the County' s
population ages, the demand for "move-up" housing will increase
significantly. The Project will address these growing needs by
providing 46 high quality custom homes designed and constructed
in an environmentally sensitive manner.
B. Recreation.
The Project presents an opportunity to provide the
East Bay Regional Park District with an equestrian trail
through the site to facilitate a connection between Morgan
Territory Road and the Mt. Diablo trails system.
18
s
e
t
C. Financial.
The Project will provide jobs to construction workers
and new customers for nearby commercial centers along Clayton
Road. In addition, the increased property values will generate
' increased property tax revenues for the County.
D. Planning.
f' The County's General Plan, which was enacted after
long and careful effort to govern growth in the County through
the year 2005, specifically designates the Project site for the
uses proposed in the Project. The Project will implement the
provisions of the General Plan by providing new housing in an
4 manner that is environmentally sensitive and consistent with
the General Plan' s policies regarding visual resources and
hillside development.
E. Biology.
Virtually all of the native vegetation on the site has
been replaced by exotic grasses . The Project will increase the
number of oak trees and other native vegetation on the site.
VII. FINDINGS REGARDING MONITORING OR REPORTING OF CEQA
MITIGATION MEASURES
Section 21081 . 6 of the California Public Resources
Code requires this Board to adopt a monitoring or reporting
program regarding mitigation measures adopted in connection
with these findings . This Board hereby adopts the following
program in fulfillment of this requirement:
The Applicant shall file a written report
with the County Director of Community
Development approximately once every
12 months, beginning 12 months following the
final approval of the Project Applications
by the Board of Supervisors and continuing
until the public improvements required by
the conditions of approval have been
constructed. The written report shall
briefly state the status in implementing
each mitigation measure which is adopted as
a Condition of Approval or which is
incorporated into the Project and Project
Applications .
County staff shall review the written report
and determine whether there is any unusual
and substantial delay of over one year in,
19
k
or obstacle to, implementing the adopted or
incorporated mitigation measures that
requires action by County staff. If
Applicant requests, the result of this
review will be provided to Applicant in
z,.
. writing.
If County staff determines that action is
required, the staff and Applicant shall
consult and, if possible, agree upon
additional actions to be taken to implement
the mitigation measure(s) which is subject
to the delay or obstacle. If and only if
the staff and Applicant are unable to agree
upon the additional actions to be taken,
then either staff or Applicant may bring the
matter before the Planning Commission for
decision whether any action should be taken
and what that action should be; that
decision shall be appealable to the Board of
Supervisors pursuant to the County' s appeal
procedures for subdivision decisions .
Staff, the Planning Commission, or the Board
of Supervisors shall be limited to imposing
reasonable actions as permitted by law which
will implement the existing mitigation
measures . In reviewing the timeliness of
the implementation measures, staff shall
consider the project timetable, subject to
reasonable but unanticipated delays due to
weather, economic feasibilities and the like.
VIII. FINDINGS SUPPORTING THE PROJECT APPROVAL
A. General Plan Consistency.
1. General Findings.
a. The Project must be consistent with,
and an implementation of, the 1991 General Plan 's goals,
policies, and objectives. The General Plan goals, policies,
and objectives must themselves be harmonized with each other .
For example, the General Plan's Housing and Land Use Elements
specifically contemplate the residential development proposed
.in the Project, while the General Plan' s Transportation and
Open Space Elements generally speak to the need for measures
preserving scenic resources relating to scenic routes and
hillsides .
These goals, policies, and objectives can and must be
harmonized. Any form of development will have some visual
20
impact and the General Plan permits development of visually
`. sensitive areas; absolute preservation of all visual resources
would likely preclude any development . The General Plan' s
goals, policies, and objectives recognize this situation and
call for a harmonizing of its many goals, policies, and
objectives in order to secure development that is planned in a
manner that will balance the development needs of the County
with its natural resource protection/preservation needs .
} Development of the Project site directly requires the
harmonizing of General Plan goals, policies and objectives .
The site is visible from Morgan Territory Road, a designated
scenic route, and has slopes of over 26 percent. To balance
and harmonize the site's residential designation in the General
Plan with the General Plan's protection of hillside and scenic
routes, the conditions of approval, including design guidelines
and administrative review of grading and site plans for each
homesite, will ensure that the development is constructed and
f maintained in an environmentally sensitive manner.
b. Based on the foregoing, this Board
finds that the Project is consistent with the 1991 General Plan.
2. Land Use Policies.
This Board Finds that :
a. The land use of the site is governed by
the Land Use Element of the General Plan and specifically by
Policy 3-104 . Policy 3-104 directs that development _of the
site be considered in accordance with the designation of
Single-Family, Very Low Density, subject to terms and
conditions imposed on approved maps and plans. The Project
will be approved subject to conditions of approval .
b. The Land Use Element designates the
site for Single-Family, Very Low Density use, allowing a
maximum of . 9 units per net acres . The Project is consistent
with this designation.
3. Visual and Hillside Policies.
a. Facts.
1 . The EIR does not indicate any
significant visual impacts relating to the Project. However,
the General Plan contains stricter visual resource protections
and grading restrictions than were in effect at the time that
the EIR was prepared in order to preserve visual quality and
promote safety. Under these stricter protections, which affect
development visible from scenic routes and on hillsides, the
21
i.
4-
y .
County is required to minimize the Project' s visual
obtrusiveness and grading. However, this is not a result of
any actual physical change in the Project 's anticipated
impacts, but rather of new provisions of the 1991 General Plan.
2 . The Project has been designed to
avoid extensive grading and minimize visual intrusion. In
addition, the Addendum contains recommendations relating to
grading and visual policies . These measures include design and
grading guidelines and the requirement that staff
administratively approve the site plan for all Project homes in
order to control grading and minimize the obtrusiveness of the
Project.
b. Findings.
1 . This Board finds that the measures
recommended in the Addendum relating to the Project 's visual
and grading impacts relates solely to changes in land use
regulations and do not relate to a change in the Project ' s
physical impacts . This Board, therefore, finds that no
important revisions to the EIR are necessary with respect to
the Project 's visual impacts .
2. This Board adopts the measures
recommended in the Addendum and finds that these measures will
: ensure consistency with the 1991 General Plan.
(A) The Project site contains
slopes of 26 percent or greater, thus is subject to the
hillside protection and grading policies of the Transportation,
Open Space and Safety Elements of the 1991 General Plan. The
Addendum recommends conditions of approval that contain design
and grading guidelines and require administrative review of
site and grading plans for each lot . These measures will
ensure consistency with the hillside protection policies of the
General Plan.
(B) The site is visible from
Morgan Territory Road, which is designated as a Scenic Route in
the Transportation and Circulation Element of the General
Plan. The Addendum recommends conditions of approval
establishing design and grading guidelines and requiring
administrative review of site and grading plans for each lot
will ensure consistency with the General Plan' s protection of
the visual resources associated with Scenic Routes.
B. Conformance with County Regulations.
This Board finds that:
22
s
1. The Project is zoned R-40 and is consistent
with this zoning designation.
2. This Project achieves a balance between the
housing needs of the region, the public service needs of County
residents, and available fiscal and environmental resources. .
3. The design of this Project provides, to the
extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities in the subdivision. One constraint on
such opportunities is the need to block Project houses from
view, which may tend to impede the use of solar energy.
23