Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08052003 - D.4 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on August 5, 2003 by the following vote. AYES: Supervisor Glola, Greenberg, Glover and De5aulnleer ABSENT: Supervisor Ulikema ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Hearing on applications file by D►eBolt Civil Engineering (Applicant) to rezone 40 acres locate at #0601 Morgan Territory Road, and appeal by Save Mt. Diablo RELISTED: September 9, 2003 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested. August 5, 2003 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board Of Supervisors and County Administrator tf' d C7 'pu y Clerk t TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FRt3M. TENNIS M. BARRY, AICP WFl Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR �,: County DATE: August b, 2003 SUBJECT: Hearing on the Recommendation of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to rezone a 49-acre parcel in the Tassajara area from Exclusive Agricultural,A-80,to Heavy Agricultural,A-3,and Appeal by Save Mt.Diablo of the Planning Commission Approval of a Tentative Map Approval to Subdivide the Site Into four parcels (#9801 Morgan Territory Road; APN 006-280-009) (Desolt Civil Engineering—Applicant; Shepherd-born, et al—Owners) County File#RZ993074 &#MS990002 (Sup. Dist. ill) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS —Adopt a motion to: A. DENY the Appeal of Save Mt. Diablo. B. Substitution for Visual Impact Mitigation Measure and Related Subdivision Permit Condition of Approval CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OI=COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES : ACTION OF BOARD ON XW:Ist 5: 12M APPROVED AS RECOMMENDE=D =r OTHER CONTINUED to September 9,2443 at 1:34 p,m.,hearing on the applications filed by DeBolt Civil Engineering(Applicant)to rezone 49 acres located at#9641 Morgan Territory Road,Tassajara area to Heavy Agricultural(A-3);and an appeal by Save Mt.Diablo of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Comm;ssioQ:s decision to subdivide the 49 acres into four parcels and other related modifications. VOTE OF SUO iI�RYd* I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND X UNANIMOUS(ASSENT_ CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Bob Drake (925)335-1214 ATTESTED Aust 5, 2009 Cc:Community Development Dept. JOHN SWEETEN, CLERIC" OF THE BOARD OF DeBoft Civil Engineering, Jim Diggins SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR McCloskey, Hubbard,Ebert,&Moore,Attn.Paul N. McCloskey,Jr. Contra Costa Water District,Jerry Brown East Bay Regional Park District, Brian Wiese BY ,DEPUTY Save Mt. Diablo, Seth Adams County Counsel August 5, 2003 Board of Supervisors Shepherd/Dorn Rezoning/Subdivision Proposal Appeal of SaveMt. Diablo Pile#RZ993074, #MS990002 Page 2 1. SUBSTITUTE the following mitigation measure for mitigation measure#1.A. in the initial study and mitigation monitoring program. Also, substitute this language for the corresponding condition of approval, Condition #5, in the subdivision permit. At the time of approval of a parcel reap, the applicants shall convey a scenic easement on each of the four proposed parcels, excepting only the areas of the existing residential structures on the Luck two parcels (Parcels C and D), and the two proposed new one-acre homesites (Parcels A and B). Subject to compliance with Mitigation Measure #1.8., the scenic easement shall also allow for placement of water storage and sewage disposal facilities within the affected area. The deed instrument to convey the development rights to the County shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, 2. Pursuant to Section 15074.1 of the California CEQA Guidelines, FIND that: a) The existing language of the mitigation measure (and corresponding permit condition)may cause confusion; and its retention is undesirable, and that the proposed substitution of modified language for the mitigation measure will allow for clarity; b) The modified language is equivalent or more effective in mitigating or avoiding potential significant effects, and c) That in itself, the modified language will not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment. C. FIND that on the basis of the whole record before it, including the Initial Study and the comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis. D. ADOPT the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for this project as adequate for purposes of compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and Mitigation Monitoring Program, as modified. E. APPROVE the rezoning of this site from Exclusive Agricultural, A-80 district, to Heavy Agricultural, A-3 district, in accord with the recommendation of the San Raman Valley Regional Planning Commission. F. INTRODUCE the ordinance amendment, giving effect to Rezoning File August 5,2003 Board of Supervisors Shepherd/Dorn Rezoning/Subdivision Proposal Appeal of Save Mt. Diablo File#RZ993074,#MS990002 Page 5 Environmental Review In 1999, the civil engineer for the owners, concurrently filed rezoning (County File #RZ993074) and subdivision (County File #MS990002) applications with the County to allow the division of 49-acres into four 10+acre parcels consistent with the Court Order. Much of the time associated with processing of this project has involved trying to come to terms with potential environmental concerns. • The applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Health Services Department that each of the four proposed parcels has an adequate water supply (ref. HSD memo dated 9/912002.); • The site may serve as habitat for several protected animal species (California Tiger Salamander, California Red-Legged Frog, Fairy Shrimp, and Nesting Raptors). Reviews of the project by the applicant's biologist and the County biologist, and a site inspection by the California Department of Fish and Game, have identified measures that would mitigate any potential impact to those species to a less than significant level. The applicant has agreed to those mitigations. Proposed Habitat-Protection Conservation Easement-In addition to the existing conservation easement affecting the eastern portion of the site and owned by Contra Costa Water District (intended to protect water runoff feeding Los Vaqueros Reservoir), this project would require the conveyance of a new and separate conservation easement. The purpose of the new conservation easement would be to protect those areas of the site with potential habitat(pond and vernal pool) of endangered species and adjoining buffer area. (Ref. COA#8 and #9.C.) The conservation easement would have to be approved by both the Zoning Administrator and the California Department of Fish and Game. • The applicant has also agreed to several view protection measures (ref. COA #5 and #8) intended to mitigate any potential impacts of the project that might adversely impact existing views from Morgan Territory Road or the Morgan Territory Regional Preserve. These include a provision for a scenic easement (grant deed of development rights) covering the whole of the 49-acre site save for the four one-acre building sites, and area for sewage disposal and water supply improvements. Based on these conclusions and documentation, on May 13, 2003, staff proposed the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for purposes of compliance with the review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Clarification on Development Agreement Application (County File #DA0201222} Some time after the rezoning and subdivision applications were filed with the County, staff informed the applicant that an existing mobilehome on the site had been authorized for a temporary caretaker use only under a previous land use permit; that the permit had lapsed; and that it would need to be removed from the site. August 5, 2003 Board of Supervisors Shepherd/born Rezoning/Subdivision Proposal Appeal of Save W Diablo File#RZ993074,#MS990002 Page 6 The applicant responded by indicating that they wished to retain the mobilehome on the property, and would be willing to convert the mobilehome to a permanent structure that otherwise resembles a new conventional ("stick-built')residence. So as not to slow the down the completion of a subdivision,the applicant also indicated that they would be willing to enter into an agreement with the County to allow for the completion of that alteration prior to filing a parcel map. The Planning Commission allows for this deferred alteration as part of the approval of the Minor Subdivision, Condition #20. At one time, staff thought it might be necessary to file for an application for a Development Agreement for this purpose. Such an application was filed. The file number for that application was cited in the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative declaration for that purpose. It was later determined that Development Agreement applications have a different purpose which are intended to vest development rights under laws that would be applicable at a particular point in time. No such needapplied in this instance. Consequently, staff determined that there was no need for a separate development agreement action, and did not present the Planning Commission with a separate proposed development agreement application. Similarly,staff is not proposing any separate Board of Supervisors action on a development agreement for this project. It would be staffs intent to suggest that the applicant withdraw the previous development agreement application insofar as it would not serve any function for this project. Planning Commission Hearing The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission heard the proposed rezoning and subdivision applications on June 18, 2003. At that time, staff recommended that the Commission find the proposed rezoning (to the Meavy Agricultural,A-3 district)and four-parcel division consistent with the General Plan. Staff also recommended that the Planning Commission approve the rezoning and subdivision application. Provisions in the Conservation Element of the General Plan govern the division of designated Agricultural Lands. That element contains policies that require the County to discourage applications of major subdivisions, but allow the processing of minor subdivisions subject to compliance with a number of(Rural Residential) implementation measures. Those measures include provisions that any parcels created will involve safe building sites. They also require demonstration that each proposed parcel provides for domestic water supply and individual sewage disposal on each site prior to approval of a parcel map. In reviewing this project, staff has determined that either those standards have been met, or recommended conditions that would require compliance with those general plan implementation► measures prior to approval of a parcel map. At the hearing, staff presented letters from the Contra Costa Water District and the environmental advocacy group, Save Mt. Diablo, expressing concerns with the environmental review and the project. Relative to the Water District's concerns, staff noted that the staff recommendation included a August 5, 2003 Board of Supervisors Shepherd/Dorn Rezoning/Subdivision Proposal Appeal of Save Mt. Diablo File#RZ993074,#MS990002 Page 7 requirement(CDA#24)that prior to approval of a Parcel Map the applicant provide evidence that the District is satisfied that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the District's Conservation Easement. After taking testimony, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to accept the proposed environmental determination, make findings, and approve the rezoning and tentative map approval based on the conditions recommended by staff, subject to several minor modifications. Planning Commission Findings The Planning Commission found that approval of this project would not serve to encourage additional parcel division due to the unique title encumbrance (CCWD Conservation Easement restriction), and the additional grant deed of development rights that will be required of this project at time of filing of a Parcel Map. SAVE MT. DIABLO APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVALS Following the Planning Commission approval action, the environmental advocacy group, Save Mt. Diablo,timely filed an appeal on the Commission actions in a letter dated June 30, 2003. The appeal objects to the environmental determination with respect to endangered species and visual impacts of the project. The appeal also opposes the project, but feels that if any subdivision is approved, it should be limited to only two parcels. The County has received no other appeals on the Commission decision. DISCUSSION The basis for the staff position on this project is presented in the staff report to the Planning Commission. Review of Appeal Points The appeal points of Save Mt. Diablo are summarized below, together with staffs response to those points. 1. Summary vfApoeal Point— The site is in a visually sensitive area being adjacent to Morgan Territory Regional Preserve and Morgan Territory Road. The suggested mitigations require that houses not be visible from Morgan Territory Regional Preserve or Morgan Territory Road, but no visual analysis has been done to demonstrate that this mitigation is achievable. Without conclusive visual analysis, we are not persuaded that the two new units, or the ones that will inevitably be built where the existing house and mobilehome are August 5, 2003 Board of Supervisors Shepherd/Dom Rezoning/Subdivision Proposal Appeal of Sava h t. Diablo File#RZ993074,#MS990002 Page 8 now located, will not be seen from the read or the park. Staff Response—The staff review(both initial study and staff report)concur that the site is a visually sensitive area. The site is visually divided from Morgan Territory Regional Preserve by hilly area that separates the two properties. Much of the site(including existing development on Parcels C and t7) is not visible from Morgan Territory Road due to terrain. Staff made these determinations by several visits to the site. However, contrary to the appeal, staff has not asserted that this project would not yield development that will be visible from Morgan Territory Road. Portions of the site (particularly the western half) will be plainly visible from Morgan Territory Road, including two proposed new house sites (Parcels A and B). But, staff does not assume all conceivable development that might be visible from Morgan Territory Road would result in unacceptable visual impacts. Some forms of development could be visually compatible with the area. Based on concerns with visibility, the applicant has agreed to Several mitigations that are included in the Commission's approval of the project. • The applicant would be required to convey a grant deed of development rights ("scenic easement') over the entire site except for the four proposed building sites(two of which already contain existing residences). (COA#5) • A deed restriction would restrict development to the following standards (COA#5): i. One-story structure. ii. Exterior surfaces limited to 50% light reflectance. iii. Any proposed water storage for fire-fighting equipment must be placed underground, or evidence that it is not visible from Morgan Territory Road or the adjacent Morgan Territory Regional Preserve, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. iv. All grading will retain the natural contours of the property visible from Morgan Territory Road and the Preserve, except for the four(4)one-acre building sites. • Removal of the unauthorized junkyard that is not visible from Morgan Territory Road, but may be marginally visible from parts of Morgan Territory Regional Preserve. Both staff and the Planning Commission felt these measures were sufficient to protect the views of the project as seen from Morgan Territory Road and Morgan Territory Regional Preserve. Staff continues to believe that these measures will be sufficient to protect the visual character of the site and the vicinity. Alternative to Staff Proposal ---While staff does not see any justification for further restrictions on development of this site, if the Board feels that greater protective measures are warranted, thea the Board could consider adding a condition that would require a design review provision, such as: Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit, ,and prior to preparation of detailed August 5,2003 Board of Supervisors Shepherd/Dorn Rezoning/Subdivision Proposal Appeal of Save Mt. Diablo File#RZ993074, #MS990002 Page 9 construction plans, the applicant shall submit development plans for design review. The height of any residence shall be limited to 20 feet as measured from natural grade. The design review shall be subject to a noticed public hearing, and review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The County shall provide notice of the hearing to the owners of properties within 300 feet of the site, based on the current Assessor's Roll including Bast Bay Regional Park District, and Save Mt. Diablo. One purpose of this review would be to assure that development would be visually compatible with the surrounding area. Prior to scheduling a hearing and completion of a staff report, copies of the proposed pians shall be referred to Save Mt. Diablo and Bast Bay Regional Park District for opportunity to comment. County staff time and material costs of this review shall be borne by the applicant including payment of an initial filing fee deposit to the County. 2. Summary of Appeal Point — The site is surrounded by confirmed locations of listed endangered and threatened species and fragmentation of the site, more residents, more pets and landscaping, will inevitably increase impacts on these species, even with the suggested mitigations. Staff Response—Staff acknowledges that endangered and threatened species are known to inhabit the vicinity. In this regard, the applicant has provided documentation by qualified biologists on this project, and that information has been peer reviewed by the County consulting biologist, and subsequently reviewed by staff to the California Department of Fish and Game. Without proper controls this project could have adverse impacts on wetlands ("Waters of the U.S. and Waters of the State"), Fairy Shrimp, California Red-Legged Frog, California Tiger Salamander, and/or Nesting Raptors. However, staff has proposed and the applicant agreed to measures that staff is advised would reduce those potential impacts to less than significant levels. A mitigation monitoring program is proposed to assure that those measures are properly implemented. The appellant presents no substantial evidence that would cause staff to re-assess that conclusion. Accordingly, staff sees no legally justifiable reason to change the staff conclusion that the impacts of this project on threatened species as mitigated would be less than significant. 3. Summary of Appeal Point -- The County has had mixed success with scenic and other conservation easements that are proposed as mitigations. In this case, the text of both proposed easements is too limited in detail to be effective or enforceable (a requirement under CEQA for mitigations.) The proposed easements lack detail and the one sentence scenic easement condition is confusing: "At time of approval of a parcel map, the applicants shall convey a scenic easement on each of the four proposed parcels, excepting only the existing structures on the hack two parcels, and the proposed neve homes sites for water storage and sewage disposal." August 5,2003 Board of Supervisors Shepherd/Dorn Rezoning/Subdivision Proposal Appeal of Save Mt. Diablo File##RZ993074,#MS990002 Page 10 It is not char whether the conservation easement would affect both home sites and water storage and leach fields—the suggestion is that new home sites are for water storage and sewage disposal -- and the size of the scenic easement envelopes is undefined. Uses allowed for the Hea vy Agricultural zoning proposed could easily conflict with and defeat the purposes of having a scenic easement. Staff Reponse A,oiarlication of Conservation and Scenic Easements - The project would require the grant deeding of development rights to the County except for the four building envelopes and sewage disposal and water supply sites. The scenic easement is primarily intended to protect against site improvements or rather alterations that would be visually unacceptable. This easement would apply to the bulk of the site, The project would also require the conveyance of a conservation easement (not to be confused with the existing Water District conservation easement)for purposes of protecting areas of the site that may serve as habitat for endangered species and adjoining buffer area. This easement would apply relatively small portions of the site. Bath easements are subject to prior review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. In addition,the conservation easement for the California Tiger Salamander must be approved by the California Department of Fish and Game. In the review and approval of the proposed deed instruments, staff will be consulting with the County Consulting Biologist, currently, Monk and Associates, on workable instruments. That firm has advised that a Grant Geed of Development Flights is an appropriate instrument that will meet the County's objectives for protection of sensitive lands in this instance, while not otherwise providing an excessive burden to the landowner. However, the firm has also advised that special language be added to the conventional deed instrument. Confused Language in Visual Impact Mitigation Measure and Proposed Substitution—The appellant has objected to confusing language in one of the mitigation measures pertaining to visual impacts in the initial study. Equivalent language was carried over into the mitigation monitoring program and the recommended subdivision permit. Staff concurs that the language in the mitigation measure is confusing, The mitigation measure had its origins from a June 14, 2001 proposal by staff,the applicant responded to that proposal in a letter dated August 30, 2002 with an improved and acceptable response. Exhibit I contains a comparison of the measure from each of the documents. August 5,2003 Board of Supervisors Shepherd/Corn Rezoning/Subdivision Proposal Appeal of save Mt Diablo Pile#RZ993074,#MS990002 Page ll In staff's judgment, there is no substantial difference in what was intended as acceptable development limits by either the applicant or staff. The proposed measure intended that the applicant convey a scenic easement (grant deed of development rights)over the entire 49- acre parcel, but exclude the four proposed homesites. It is also intended to allow the siting of sewage disposal (e.g., leachfield)or water supply facilities to be located within the scenic easement area. The existing language lacks for clarity, and would be undesirable to retain in its existing form. To remove the confusion, staff proposes that the Board authorize the deletion of the existing measure and substitution of the measure presented in the recommendation to the Board. The corresponding measures in the subdivision permit and mitigation monitoring program should also be modified. The Board may make this change without re-notice of a revised mitigated negative declaration if it can make findings pursuant to Section 15074.1 of the California State CEQA Guidelines. Staff concludes that it is reasonable to make that finding and recommends that the Board adopt that finding in making the substitution. Proposed Mitigation Measure Substitution Will Not Alter Other Visual Mitigation Measures- It should be noted that the proposed substitution of this measure would have no effect on the retention of another visual impact mitigation measure, That other measure requires the subdivision developer to record a deed restriction at the time of filing a parcel map to require that: "...Any proposed waterstorage forfire-fighting equipment shall be placed underground or evidence provided that it is not visible from Morgan Territory load car Morgan Territory Regional Preserve, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator." (Excerpt from Mitigation Measure I.b.) Comparison of Allowed Uses in Heavy Agricultural District vs. Exclusive Agricultural District --The appeal alleges that uses allowed in the Heavy Agricultural (A-3)District could conflict with and defeat the purposes of a scenic easement. Table I contains a comparison of the permitted uses in the Exclusive Agricultural (A-80) district with the Heavy Agricultural (A-3) District. The permitted uses in the A-3 district are roughly comparable to those allowed in the A-80 district. The A-3 district allows a foster care home and a family day care home for up to twelve children, and agricultural cold storage plants on parcels larger than 10 acres. In other respects, the uses are very similar. The few differences in permitted uses would not seem to pose a significant conflict with the objectives of the proposed scenic easement restriction. August 5,2003 Board of supervisors ShepherdlDorn Rezoning/Subdivision Proposal Appeal of Save 0. Diablo File#RZ993074,#MS990002 Page 12 Earlier Letters of Opposition Staff has received several other letters of opposition or concern on this project. • Contra Costa Water District-Early in the review of this project,the Contra Costa Water District expressed concerns with any additional development activity within the District's Conservation Easement that might result from this project. The District Easement is contained in Parcels C and D. Both parcels contain existing dwelling units and sewage disposal facilities. The only new development that is proposed in this area is the proposed conversion of the mobilehome to one that would be placed on a permanent foundation. The District has indicated that this alteration would be acceptable to the District. While staff believes that the project is permitted under the easement terms as the District has interpreted them, so as to remove all doubt, the Planning Commission approval of the tentative map requires that the applicant provide staff with evidence that the District concurs with this interpretation prior to approval of a parcel map (COA#24). • East Bay Regional Park District — The Park District also expressed early concern with the project, particularly with respect to possible impacts to protected species, and to parcelization of the site. As indicated above, staff viewed the appropriateness of proposed subdivision of this site differently from the Park District. Staff forwarded a copy of the Notice of Negative Declaration to the Park District on May 13, 2003. Staff did not receive a response from the District prior to the Planning Commission hearing. Suitability of Site for Approval of a Minor Subdivision The appeal letter says that the site is visually and biologically sensitive, and that this site is not suitable for this development. Staff believes that visual and biotic concerns will be addressed so as to avoid any significant effects. While the general plan discourages major subdivisions, it allows for minor subdivisions that comply with general plan criteria, and do not result in major hazards. • The slopes on this site are relatively mild. • The Health Services Department is satisfied that each of the four parcels has an adequate water supply. • The proposed parcels are roughly comparable is size to other parcels in the area. • While the site partially lies within an earthquake fault zone(Greenville Fault),the geology report indicates that development is feasible. Soil stability is not a major concern. • All of the parcels exceed the minimum parcel size restriction for the general plan designation that has been applied to this site. Reducing the number of parcels to two would not appear to allow for a workable solution in the family dissolution that the Superior Court is trying to address. There are three adult family members involved August 5,2006 Board of Supervisors Shepherd/Dorn Rezoning/Subdivision Proposal Appeal of Save Mt. Diablo File#Rz993074,#MS990042 Page 13 in the dissolution, and seeking value from this real property site. Grounds for Denial of a Tentative Map Government Code Section 66474 identifies seven (7) findings that if made by the County would require disapproval of a tentative map. Staff has reviewed those findings and feels that none of them can be made for this project. Collection of Fish and Game Fee 1250 Required for Posting of a Notice of Determination In a letter dated July 3, 2003, staff has advised the applicant that a $1250 fee must be paid before staff may post a Notice of Determination based on the proposed Negative Declaration determination recommended by staff. State law prohibits the Countyfrom posting a Notice of Determination until this fee is paid. To date, staff has not received payment of this fee from the applicant, if the County does not post a Notice of Determination within five days of a Board approval of this project,then the period for filing suit against a County approval will extend 180 days from the date of the Board's decision. Otherwise the period would be limited to 30 days. CONSEQUENCES OF A NEGATIVE BOARD DECISION ON THE PROJECT Should the Board determine that the proposed rezoning and subdivision applications are not consistent with the general plan, or otherwise would involve unacceptable environmental impacts,the Board may deny this project. Notwithstanding the Board denial action, the Superior Court may sti11 be able to decree a physical partition of the site. Staff understands that such a partition would not constitute a subdivision of property. In that instance,the parcels created by the Court presumably could be used for grazing and existing legally established uses, but could not be sold, leased, or financed until such time as the County had processed and approved the parcels under subdivision law. It is not clear what other options may be available to the interested parties (including the Superior Court)to allocate family assets among the family members if the subdivision were denied. The site is subject to strong winds, which may have commercial value as a windfarm site. The existing general plan and zoning district provide for (indeed encourage) development of wind turbines for energy production of this site. If the applicants are barred from a subdivision of the property, it is possible that they may elect to pursue development of a commercial windfarm on the site, which would require approval of a land use permit by the Planning Commission. In the hearing before the Planning Commission,the Commission considered this option and seemed to prefer the proposed subdivision of the site to a possible establishment of a windfarm as a means of division of real property assets. G:\Current P1anninglcurr-plan\Board\Board Orders\rz993074.bo.doc RD\ Exhibit I Comparison of Language Used for the Mitigation Measure To Address Potential Visual Impacts of the project A. Staff Proposed 6/14/2001 Mitigation Measure "Grant deed development rights (convey a "scenic easement") on all properties to the County except for the proposed residential "home" sites, excepting sites for sewage disposal and water storage provision. Said scenic easement shall be provided on the parcel map, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. " B. Applicant 8/30/2002 Response Agreeing to Measure with Adjusted language "The applicants shall agree to convey a scenic easement on each of the four proposed parcels, excepting only the existing structures on the back two parcels, the two proposed new homesites and the sites for water storage and sewage disposal. " C. Mitigation Measure in 12/12/2003 Initial Study I.A. "At the time of approval of a parcel map, the applicants shall convey a scenic easement on each of the four proposed parcels, excepting only the existing structures on the back two parcels, and the two proposed new homesites for water storage and sewage disposal. "1 D. Corresponding Condition of Approval from Subdivision Permit Approval "5. Convey Scenic Easement Over Site Except for House Sites — At time of approval of a parcel map, the applicants shall convey a scenic easement on each of the four proposed parcels, excepting only the existing structures on the back two parcels (Parcels C and D), and the two proposed new homesites (Parcels A and B) for water storage and sewage The applicant accepted the mitigation measures in the proposed initial study,including the subject initial study,on May 12,2003. disposal. The deed instrument to convey the development rights to the County shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. (Mitigation Measure I-A)'2" E. Corresponding Measure in 6/18/2003 Mitigation Monitoring Program "1. Scenic Easement/Deed Restriction a) At the time of approval of a parcel map, convey a scenic easement on each of the four proposed parcels, excepting only the existing structures on the back two parcels (C and D), and the two proposed new home sites (Parcels A and B),for water storage and sewage disposal. " C:\Current Planning\carr-plan\Staff Reports\M5990002-Mitigation Measure Comparison Review.doc RD\ 'Condition modified by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission in the approval of the project on June 18,2003. E -2 0 C3 4iC ,d p rn cd 00 Cl41> '4e t ja u y ^" 41 rn N .� cJ '+ lott + ; c-,, c m - • tn p Ld con 0 'C4 ti.� vi ova 140- Ob ' ct . Q w 0 .tn' is � c.7 � � � � � �., .� � �• , res" ,� � �, � ..� � L., � � as , ja Ig tz Cd cd 0 45 �` C? „�",._, a'�'-+ �°' rr "L✓ ..•+ '�. 47 ,..., � t(ti tea •-- ............. ............................................ . . . . . .. . ....... .. ........................... RESOLUTION _. _.. Resolution No. 9-2003 ShepherdlDorn Rezoning and Subdivision Applications Tassajara area RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAMON 'VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONCERNING RELATED APPLICATIONS ON A PROPOSAL TO REZONE 49-ACRES IN THE TASSATARA AREA FROM EXCLUSIVE AGRICULTURAL, A-80, TO HEAVY AGRICULTURAL, A-3 (County File #RZ993074) AND A MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE THE SITE (County File #MS990002), (DeBolt Civil Engineering -- Applicant; Shepherd/Dorn, et al — Owners) On December 10, 1998, Judge David B. Flinn of the Superior Court of Contra Costa County issued an Interlocutory Judgment ordering physical partition of a 49-acre parcel in the Tassajara area awned by Lester Shepherd,Mary Dorn Shepherd, and James Dorn into four parcels, and to file necessary entitlement applications with the County to allow for the subdivision of said land pursuant to the physical partition described in the order; On July 1, 1999, DeBolt Civil Engineering(Applicant) and Lester Shepherd, et al (Owners), filed concurrent applications with the Community Development Department affecting the same 49-acre parcel as follows: County File#RZ993074-4 A request to rezone the site from Exclusive Agricultural, A-80 district, to General Agricultural, A-2 district; subsequent to the initial submittal, in a letter dated August 30, 2002, the applicant modified the rezoning request to seek application of the Heavy Agricultural (A-3; min. 10-acre zoning) of the site; and County-File#MS990002--A request for vesting tentative map approval to subdivide 49-acres into four(4) 10+ acre parcels. On July 29, 1999, staff issued a letter to the applicant advising the applicant of additional information that would be required before the application could be deemed complete for processing purposes; Following receipt of additional information from the applicant, on October 21, 1999,the Community Development Department determined the subdivision application to be complete, and so advised the applicant; Pursuant to the review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff conducted an initial study which determined that the project may result in significant environmental impacts including Aesthetic, Agricultural Resource, Biological Resource, Cultural Resource, and Public Service Impacts; however staff also identified measures which would reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. In a letter dated May 12, 2003, the applicant agreed to the mitigation measures identified by staff; Resolution No. 9---2003 Skepher&Dorn Rezoning and Subdivision.applications Tassa,jara area On May 13, 2003,the Community Development Department posted a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for the project for purposes of compliance with CEQA, and distributed the Notice of Mitigated Negative Declaration as required by law, and allowed until June 13, 2003 for receipt of public comments on the adequacy of the proposed determination; After notice thereof having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on June 18, 2003,where all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission having fully reviewed., considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; RESOLVED, that on the basis of the whole record before it, including the Initial Study and the comments received, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission FINDS that • There is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis; • The potential environmental impacts from the project will be mitigated to a less than significant level based on the measures that have been agreed to by the applicant; and • The documents or other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based may be found at the Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street,Martinez, CA, under the custodian of the project planner, Darwin Myers (925) 335-1210. The Planning Commission therefore ADOPTS the proposed Mitigation Measures, and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration determination as adequate for purposes of compliance with the review requirements of CEQA; and the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project; The Planning Commission also FINDS that the proposed rezoning of the site to the Heavy Agricultural, A-3 district, and the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site, Agricultural Lands, and other applicable provisions of the General Plan including Scenic Route policies, and Conservation Element Rural Residential policies; Therefore, the Planning Commission RECOMMENDS that the Hoard of Supervisors approve the proposed rezoning of the site to the Heavy Agricultural, A-3 zoning district; R-2 _. .. Resolution No. 9--2003 ShepherdDorn Rezoning and Subdivision Applications Tassajara area The Planning Commission also APPROVES the proposed subdivision subject to conditions, including a requirement that the approval is contingent on adoption of the proposed zoning district by the Board of Supervisors. In adopting the mitigated negative declaration determination, the Planning Commission has concluded that the language of several of the mitigation measures is undesirable and modifies mitigations pertaining to view protection, agricultural protection, and protection of Waters of the State of California and Biotic Resources. The Planning Commission finds that these modifications are equivalent to those measures proposed by staff in mitigating potential significant impacts to the environment, and will not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment. These modifications are also reflected in the amended subdivision conditions of approval and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. The instruction by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was given by motion by the Commission on Wednesday, June 18, 20013 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners—Matsunaga, Neely, Gibson, Couture, Ingalls, and McPherson NOES: Commissioners—None ABSENT: Commissioners—Mulvihill ABSTAIN: Commissioners—None Following the Planning Commission action, in a letter dated June 30, 2003,the community group, Save Mt. Diablo,filed an appeal of the Planning Commission approvals of the project. KAREN MGPHERS ON Chair, San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: 1—� --&ni�2s l S M. BARRY, AICP Secretary, San Ramon Valley Rjonal Planning Commission, County of Contra.Costa., State of California GACurrent Planning\curr-plan'\2esolutions\rz993074,res.doc RD\ R-3 FINDINGS ANIS CONDITIONS OF AL`PROVAL. AS APPROVED BY THE SAN RAMON 'VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION ON JUNE 18, 2003 FINDINGS FOR REZONING FILL #RZ993074 AND MINOR SUBDIVISION FILL #MS990002 (Shepherd, et al AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE MINOR SUBDIVISION, IN THE TASSAJARA AREA, PER JUNE 18 2003 SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL A. Findirt ss to rove a Rezoning (Ord. Ref 26-2.1806) 1. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the General Plan. The General Plan Land Use Map designates the property Agricultural Lands (AL) (minimum 5 acre parcel size) and the proposed lots are approximately 12 to 13 acres each. Therefore, the proposed density is within the allowable range. There are adopted land use policies that call for initiation of a General Plan/zoning conformity study of the Morgan Territory area (Policy 3-107); and for restrictions on further fragmentation of parcels pending the outcome of the General Plan/zoning conformity study (Policy 3-108). To date that planning study has not been initiated. For that reason, the rezoning request raises policy issues. However, the project proponents have previously granted an access easement to EBRPD, and have conveyed a conservation easement to CCWD for the portion of the site that is in the Kellogg Creek watershed. Moreover, the project proponent has performed: a) geologic, b) archaeological; and c) biologic studies and has agreed to abide with the findings of these studies. Finally, the applicant anticipates complying with the requirements of County agencies (Public Works, Building Inspection, Health Services and Community Development Departments), as well as these of the County Fire Protection District and CDF. It should also be recognized that during the 15 years since adoption of Policies 3-107 & -108, the studies called for have not been authorized. Finally, the Superior Court has ordered the division of lands to resolve a dispute among the rightful property owners. Based on the preponderance of the evidence the finding can be made that the change will substantially comply with the general plan. 2. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts. Land north of the site (within the EBRPD Morgan Territory Regional Preserve) are designated "Parks and Recreation' (PR), land west of the site awned by CCWD are part of the Las 'vaqueros Open Space area and are designated Ming Sub File#MS9900002 Conditions of Approval (Shepherd,et al—Applicants&Owners) { "Watershed" (WS). To the south and west of the site are parcels designated "Agricultural Lands" (AL). The Land Use Element states that all agricultural zoning districts are consistent with the AL designation. In summary, from a policy perspective, all agricultural zoning districts are compatible with PR, WS and AL designations.' Nevertheless, the infrastructure and environmental resources of the area are not compatible with widespread ranchette uses. Furthermore, there are no adopted zoning standards for the Morgan Territory area to indicate that the proposed subdivision (and associated rezoning) are inappropriate. When CCWD acquired scenic easements they did not include the area of Parcels A and B, and EBRPD acquired an easement through the site but opted not to purchase the property. These decisions suggest that the project site was not needed by these agencies for their open space purposes. B. Findings to Approve a Tentative Map L Required. Finding. The tentative map shall not be approved unless the Zoning Administrator finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans required by law. The site is designated Agricultural Lands (S-acre minimum parcel size). The proposed parcels all exceed the minimum parcel size. In this case the VTM indicates two developed lots (proposed Parcels C and D) within an established conservation easement. No improvements are proposed on these lots. On Parcels A and B, there are potential building sites, and potential leach field sites that are setback from biologically-sensitive areas and are outside of the conservation easement. The residences on proposed Parcels A and B are setback approximately 3 miles from the scenic route. C. Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Traffic: The project will generate an estimated two additional AM and PM peak hour trips. (This assumes the two new residences on the site and 1.0 pear hour trips per unit.) Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements. 2. Drainage and Flood Control: The Public Works Department's recommended conditions of approval grant an exception to the collect and convey requirements of Division 914 of the Ordinance Code (CUA 436). No portion of the site lies See Land Use Element,Table 3-5 contained in the 6/18/2003 report to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission.. 2 Minor Sub File#NMS9900002 Conditions of Approval (Shepherd,et al—Applicants&Ownersl within a special flood zone designated by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). 3. Water and Waste Dispgsal. Recordation of the Parcel Map will result in creation of new ranchettes (on Parcels A and B). Proposed Parcels C and D have developed residences. The County Health Services Department has determined that each of the proposed parcels has an adequate water supply (refer to 9/9/2002 letter from Health Services). As a condition of approval (418.D.), the applicant will be required to demonstrate that each parcel has a leachfield site that passes the percolation test of the Health Services Department prior to approval of a parcel map. 4. Fire Protection: The site is in the State Responsibility Area (SRA). The parcels are subject to the requirements of both California Department of Forestry and the County Fire Protection District (see COA #16 for special deed disclosure of SRA regulations). Because the site is not located within either a suburban, urban or central business district area, no special fire protection measures under the County's Growth Management policies are required. A volunteer fire station lies within one-half mile of the site. 5. Public Protection: The condition of approval requires mitigation for the cumulative effects of the project (see COA #21). The project will not result in an increase of the population in excess of 1,000 people. For the new residences that would result from this project, the new residences will be required to contribute a $1040 fee to the trust fund for sheriff infrastructure improvements at time of issuance of building permits. 6. Parks & Recreation: The proposed subdivision will have a relatively minor cumulative effect on demand for park and recreation facilities, and is subject to payment of park dedication fees at time of issuance of building permits (Reference Advisory Note F). (Reference Growth Management Element of the General Plan) D. Precedence for Future Lot__$pli(ting Due to the existing fitle�restrictions of the Contra Costa Water DistIict Conservation Easement that resentl limit development potential of the site the. Planninja Comniissioii determined that a royal of this projggt would ruin nij:/,e the potential of it serving _as_an undesirable Drecedent that ini ht encourag additional lots lits irk the area. 3 Minor Sub File#MS9900002 Conditions of Approval (Shepherd,et al—Applicants&Ownersl CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILL #MS990002 Administrative 1. The application for approval of a four-lot Vesting Tentative Map is approved based on the revised site plan dated received by the County on September 29, 1999). Unless otherwise indicated, the following conditions of approval require compliance prior to filing the Parcel Map for four parcels. This approval is also based on the findings and recommendations of the following project reports: A. May 22, 2002, Jones and Stopes, Associates, Biological Resources Assessment. B. August 22, 2000, Anthropological Studies Center report on Cultural Resources. C. January 28, 1999, Terrasearch, Inc., geologic/geotechnical reconnaissance. This approval is contingent on adoption of the proposed rezoning (concurrent County File 4RZ993074) of the site from Exclusive Agricultural, A-80, to Heavy Agricultural, A-3, zoning district by the Board of Supervisors. Indemnification 2. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant - (including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Costa County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employers from any claim, action or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. 4 Minor Sub File##MS9900002 Conditions of Approval (Shepherd,et al—Applicants&Owners) Compliance Report 3. At least 60 days prior to filing a Parcel Map, submit a report on compliance with the conditions of approval with this permit for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Except for those conditions administered by the Public Works Department, the report shall list each condition followed by a description of what the applicant has provided as evidence of compliance with that condition. (A copy of the conditions of approval may be available on computer disk; to try to obtain, contact the project planner at 335-1214.) Unless otherwise indicated, the applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the conditions of this report prior to filing a Parcel Map. The Zoning Administrator may reject the report if it is not comprehensive with respect to applicable requirements. The permit compliance review is subject to staff time and material charges, with an initial deposit of$1,500 that shall be paid at time of submittal of the compliance report. A check is payable to the County of Contra Costa. Deed Restrictions[Disclosure Instrument 4. Any subdivision permit condition that is not implemented with the approved parcel map, or subdivision improvement plans shall be included in a covenant or deed restriction/disclosure document to be recorded against the deeds of each affected parcel prior to or concurrent with the recordation of the parcel map. Prior to approval of a parcel map, the proposed deed instrument(s) shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. View Protection Measures 5. T� Convey Scenic Easement Over Site Except for House sites—At time of approval of a parcel map, the applicants shall convey a scenic easement on each of the four proposed parcels, excepting only the existing structures on the back two parcels (Parcels C and D), and the two proposed new homesites (Llarccls A and t3) for water storage and sewage disposal. The deed instrument to convey the development rights to the County shall be submitted to the Community Development 5 Minor Sub File#MS9900002 Conditions of Approval {Shepherd,et al—Applicants&Ownersl Department for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. (Mitigation .pleasure I-A) 6. Deed Restriction onDesignn of New Development—At time of approval of a parcel neap, the applicants shall agree to a deed restriction to run with the land which restricts further structures to one story in height, and that prior to issuance of any building permit, a licensed architect or other qualified professional, shall attest on the construction plans that exterior surfaces (including the roof) will not exceed 50% light reflectance, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, that any proposed water storage for fire-fighting equipment shall be placed underground or evidence provided that it is not visible from Morgan Territory Road or the adjacent Morgan Territory Regional Preserve, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. All grading will retain the natural contours of the property visible from Morgan Territory Road and the Preserve, save for the four(4) one-acre building sites. (Mitigation Mesaure.I-I3) Removal of Unauthorized Junkyard 7. At least 30 days prior to requesting approval of a parcel map, the applicant shall permanent)remove all evidence of junkyard activity from the property, and properly dispose of related materials in accordance with the law, and inform in writing the Community Development Department — Current Planning Division and the Building Inspection Department — Property Conservation Division that the material has been removed and may be inspected for verification purposes. (Mitigation Measure II-A) Protection of Waters of the State of California, Fairy Shrimp and California Red- Legged Frog 8. The following conditions are required to protect Waters of the State of California, and the following threatened animal species: Fairy Shrimp and California Red-Legged Frog. a) A recorded deed of development rights shall be granted to Contra Costa County per the Vesting Tentative Map. The deed restricted area shall include the pond and vernal pool and area within 3003 feet with the exception that the land on Parcel C within 40 feet of 6 Minor Sub File#MS9900002 Conditions of Approval (shepherd,et al—Applicants&Ownersl the existing residence. Furthermore, the deeded area shall be fenced. The fencing shall encroach into the 300-foot setback only in the area of the residence on Parcel C. The applicant shall submit a fencing plan for compliance with the provisions of this mitigation measure prior to recordation of the Parcel Map and a "second sheet" shall be recorded that delineates the restricted area. Language on the second sheet shall identify the fenced areas as being deed-restricted where no grading, other development activity, stockpiling, trenching, tree cutting, shrub removal, or agricultural use, can occur. Any disturbance or intrusions into the deed restricted area shall require prior approval from the Zoning Administrator, and the Zoning Administrator shall review and approve the language in the deeded disclosure statement, and recordation of the deed of development rights shall be concurrent with recordation of the parcel map. (Mitigation Measure IV 1 A) b) The following statement shall be recorded at the County Recorder's Office for Parcels B and C to notify future owners of this affected parcel that fencing of the deed restricted area is required to prevent impacts to the pend, the vernal pool and their habitat: "This document shah serve as notice that you have purchased land that is deed-restricted habitat for special status species. The boundary of the deed-restricted area is to be fenced with a split rail or t minimall , visible ,fence. The fenced portion of the property is to be retained as undisturbed open space, with no grading, other development activity, stockpiling, trenching, tree cutting, shrub removal or agricultural use. " (Mitigation Measure IV-1-B) c) Submit evidence that the fences around the pond and vernal pool have been installed prior to requesting building or grading permits on Parcels C and B,respectively. (Mitigation Measure IV-1-C) (Mitigation pleasures IV-2 & -3) Protection of the California Tiger Salamander 7 Minor Sub File##MS9900002 Conditions of Approval (Shepherd,et al—Applicants&Owners) 9. California Tzgr Salamander - Prior to approval of the Parcel Map, the project proponent shall: A. Dune and map by a permitted biologist the extent of the impacts from all new construction including but not limited to grading footprint, staging area, and access roads on the two 12+ acre parcels fronting on Morgan Territory Road(Parcels A and B). B. Proposed construction shall avoid wetlands on Parcel C (12+ acre parcel located on the northeast portion of the site) and concentrations of ground squirrel burrows to the greatest extent possible. C. The current CCWD conservation easement on Parcels C & D shall be supplemented by an additional easement. The applicant shall provide evidence to the Community Development Department for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that the California Department of Fish and Game- approved easement has been recorded, or will be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the parcel map. The easement shall require management of areas within the new easement and the area around the pond that is currently under easement to the Contra Costa Water District (Parcels C%D) for the benefit of the California tiger salamander (CTS) according to a plan that has been reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. The resultant easements shall be sited in a way that conserves estivation habitat and dispersal habitat for the CTS that may breed on and around the site. Those areas should be determined using information that the applicant has already collected about the onsite resources and surrounding land uses. (Mitigation Measure IV-4) Nesting Raptors 10. Prior to issuance of construction permits, the results of a nesting raptor u� survey shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Specifically, a qualified biologist will perform a pre- construction survey for nesting raptors within 30 days of the onset of 8 Minor Sub File#NIS9900002 Conditions of Approval (Shepherd,et at—Applicants&ownersl construction or tree removal, if construction is to occur during the breeding season (frown February 1 to August 1). If raptors are nesting on the project site, a minimum. 300-foot buffer shall be established around the nest tree. This buffer shall be fenced with orange construction fencing. A qualified raptor biologist will periodically monitor the nest site to determine if grading activities occurring outside the buffer zone disturbs the birds, and if the buffer zone should be increased to prevent nest abandonment. No disturbance shall occur within the 300-foot buffer zone until the biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest) and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones, typically by August 1. The applicant shall submit a draft deed disclosure statement that encompasses the provisions of the mitigation measure for nesting raptors, for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The approved deed disclosure statement shall be recorded against each parcel concurrent with recordation of the Parcel Map. (Mitigation Measure IV-5) Archaeology 11. If any significant cultural materials such as artifacts, human burials, or the life are encountered during construction operations, such operations shall cease within 10 feet of the find, the Community Development Department shall be notified within 24 hours and a qualified archaeologist contacted and retained for further recommendations. Significant cultural materials include, but are not limited to, aboriginal human remains, chipped stone, groundstone, shell and bone artifacts, concentrations of fire cracked rock, ash, charcoal, shell, bone and historic features such as privies or building foundations. (Mitigation Measure IV-A) 12. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site of the `!find- or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the Coroner of Contra Costa County has been contacted, per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. (Mitigation Measure IV-B) 9 Miner Sub File#MS9900002 Conditions of Approval (Shepherd,et al—Applicants&Owners} 13. Appropriate mitigation of the cultural resources may include monitoring of further construction and/or systematic excavation of the resources. Any artifacts or samples collected as part of the initial discovery, monitoring or mitigation phases shall be property conserved, catalogued, analyzed, evaluated and curated along with associated documentation in a professional manner consistent with current archaeological standards. /'Mitigation Measure Ili'-Q 14. Prior to requesting approval of grading permits or foundation plans, submit evidence that the "General Dotes" on those plans encompass the archaeological mitigation measures. Geotechnical 15. The applicant shall comply with the following geotechnical requirements: A. The parcel map shall show and clearly label the east boundary of the Earthquake Fault (Alquist-Priolo) Zone. It should be stated on the parcel map that construction of structure for human occupancy in the A-P zone requires a fault hazard investigation, and that Terrasearch requires the scope of the investigation to include trenching. B. At least 30 days prior to filing a Parcel Map or installation of improvements or utilities, the applicant shall submit a preliminary geology, soil, and foundation report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.4201 for review and approval of the County Planning Geologist. The investigation shall include borings for each building site and for each slide that may pose a hazard to internal roads or other improvements. The report shall provide specific recommendations for realignment of internal roads and for corrective grading for roads. The report shall also provide planning-=level of detail recommendations for development of lots (e.g., slope gradients, foundation types, etc.) along with recommending specific geotechnical investigation of house sites at the time that detailed site planning is done for individual lets. improvement, grading, and building plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report. 10 Minor Sub File#MS9900002 Conditions of Approval (Shepherd,et al—Applicants&Ownersl C. The applicant shall submit two copies of a proposed deed disclosure statement for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator to run with the deeds to the parcels acknowledging the approved report by title, author (firm), and date, calling attention to approved recommendations and noting that the report is available from the seller. Wildland Fire Risks and Hazards 16. Concurrent with recordation of the Parcel Map, record a deed disclosure that incorporates the provisions of the "Wildland Area that Contains Substantial Risk and Hazard" of the mitigation measure in the Initial Study (see Table 1). The language in the disclosure statement is subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. (Mitigation Measure XIII--A) Table 1 WILDLAND FIRE RISKS AND HAZARD Prior to filing a Parcel Map,submit a draft of a deed disclosure for review and app7that Zoning Administrator. The statement shall advise the owner/prospective buyer that issuance of a building permit for any new residence,the applicant shall provide eviddesign of the improvements are in compliance with the provisions ofthe California of Forestry and Fire Proteetion(CDFFP) ire sa et regulations as they pertain to drveways, gates, turnarounds, defensible space and water for suppression of fires(contained in the California Public Resources Code,4290, Title 14, Chapter 7,Subehapter 1,commencing with Article 1). The approved deed restriction shall be recorded concurrently with the Parcel Map. Agricultural Disclosure 17. _ Disclosure of Agricultural Activities - Pursuant to Sections 8206.002 and 820-6.004 of the Ordinance Code (Right to Farm Ordinance), the applicant shall submit a proposed deed disclosure statement with the following information to be recorded against the deed for each of the proposed parcels for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Following approval by the Zoning Administrator, the approved deed disclosure statement shall be recorded concurrent with the recordation of the parcel map. "The County of Contra Costa declares its policy to protect and encourage agricultural operations as defined in the County's "Right To Farm Ordinance} (Division 820 of the County Ordinance 11 Minor Sub File#MS9900002 Conditions of Approval (Shepherd,et al—Applicants&Owners) Code). Contra Costa County has adopted a Right to Farm Ordinance. If your property is located in the unincorporated area of the county, near an agricultural operation or an agricultural processing operation, including such operations located on publicly-owned land designated for park, recreation, open space, watershed, or other public purposes, you may at times be subject to inconvenience or discomfort arising from those operations, including noise, odors,fumes, dust, the operation of machinery (including aircraft) during any time of day or night, the storage and disposal of manure, and the ground or aerial application of fertilizers, sod amendment, seed, herbicides, and pesticides. These similar inconveniences will not be considered a nuisance if they are conducted according to proper and accepted customs and standards. The Right To Farm Ordinance also establishes a grievance procedure to help resolve any disputes between agricultural operators and their neighbors. This is only a summary of the Right To Farm Ordinance. If you wish further information about the meaning or effect of the ordinance or the grievance procedure set forth in it please contact the Contra Costa County Community Development, at 65.1 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing, Martinez, California, 94553. Conservation Element Rural Residential Requirements 18. Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Requirements - Prior to filing the Parcel Map, the applicant shall comply with the policy criteria for subdivision of lands within agriculture and open space General Plan categories adopted by the Board of Supervisors March 15, 1983, and included in the Contra Costa County General Plan adopted January 1991. A. Each parcel shall have an "on-site"producing water well or a"test well" shall be installed with a minimum yield of three gallons per minute with bacterial and chemical quality in compliance with the state standards for a pure, wholesome and potable water supply (Title 11, Section 6443). If the chemical analysis exceeds the state standards for"maximum contaminant levels", for water potability, a statement must be attached and "run with the property deed" advising of these levels;2 or In a letter dated September 9,2002,the Health Services Department indicates that it has determined that each of the proposed parcels has an adequate water supply. 12 Minor Sub File##MS9900002 Conditions of Approval {Shepherd,et at—Applicants&Ownersl B. The project sponsor shall have verifiable water availability data from adjacent parcels or knowledge of the same, known by the Health Services Department concerning water quality and quantity per i. above; and Include a statement that "attaches and runs with the deed„ indicating that a water well shall be installed on the subject parcel complying with the general requirements stated above prior to obtaining a Building Inspection Department permit for construction. C. In addition to the above, a hydro-geological evaluation shall be required in known or suspected water short areas. This will include seasonal as well as yearly variations. D. The land shall be suitable for septic tank use according to the County Ordinance Code criteria and Health. Services Department regulations. Percolation tests shall pass on all proposed lots prior to filing of the Parcel Map. The applicant shall provide evidence for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that the sewage disposal requirements of the Health Services Department have been met. Fence Enclosure Required to Contain Domestic Animals 19. Prior to approval of a parcel map, the applicant shall provide a proposed deed disclosure for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The disclosure shall provide as follows: "At least 14 days prior to issuance of a building permit for any new residence, the applicant shall submit fence improvement plans with the proposed site plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator in the Community Development Department. The proposed fencing shall be designed to adequately contain domestic animals with all gates easily closed by a nearby rancherlfarmer when necessary. The purpose of the fence shall be to effectively prevent domestic animals from preying upon livestock and other farm animals in the area. " 13 Minor Sub File#MS9900002 Conditions of Approval (Shepherd,et al—Applicants&Ownersl "Following approval by the Zoning Administrator, the applicant shall obtain a building permit for the approved fencing concurrent with the building permit for the residence. The building permit for the fencing shall be finalled prior to final inspection of the new residence. " Convert Temporary Mobilehome on Parcel D to a Permanent Mobilehome 20. Prior to approval of a parcel map, the applicant shall either: A. Obtain a building permit and provide evidence for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that the existing mobilehome on a trmporary foundation on Parcel D has been modified to comply with the design requirements of Ordinance Code Section 84-68.1602 allowing for a Permanent Mobilehome; or B. Enter into a development agreement with the County including the provision of a suitable security subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator to assure the conversion of the existing mobilehome to meet the design standards of Ordinance Code Section 84-68.1602 within twelve months of the recordation of the parcel map. Police Service/Crime Prevention 21. _ The following requirements shall be met prior to filing a Parcel Map or issuance of a building permit as specified below: A. Prior to filing a Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit two copies of a proposed disclosure statement for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The approved statement shall be used to notify prospective buyers of parcels that are not occupied by existing legally-established residences at time of filing the tentative map application. The disclosure statement shall advise prospective buyers of affected parcels that prior to issuance of a building permit, they will be required to contribute to the County $1,000.00 for police services mitigation. The fee may be paid to the Contra Costa County Application & Permit Center. B. Prior to issuance of a building permit on any parcel that is not occupied by a legal residence, the applicant shall contribute $1,000.00 to the County for police services mitigation. The fee shall be paid to the Contra Costa County Application & Permit Center. 14 Minor Sub File#MS9900002 Conditions of Approval (Shepherd,et al—Applicants&Owners) Submittal of Alternative Road Names 22. At least 30 days prior to approval of a parcel map, the applicant shall submit at least three alternative names for the proposed private road to the Community Development Department, Graphics Section (335- 1270) for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The parcel map cannot be approved by the Community Development Department without approval of a street name by the County. Disclosure for Any Nearby Power Lines 23. Required Notification If There are Nearby Power Lines -- Where a parcel is located within 300 feet of a high voltage electric transmission line, the applicant shall record the following as a deed notification: "The subject property is located near a high voltage electric transmission line. Purchasers should be aware that there is ongoing research on possible potential adverse health effects caused by the exposure to a magnetic field generated by high voltage lines. Although much more research is needed before the question of whether magnetic fields actually cause adverse health effects can be resolved, the basis for such a hypothesis is established. At this time no risk assessment has been made. " Evidence That Contra Costa Water District Accepts Proposed Subdivision is Consistent with Existing Conservation Easement 24. Prior to approval of a parcel map, the applicant shall provide evidence that the Contra Costa Water District is satisfied that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Conservation Easement encompassing the eastern portion of the site that is held by the District, for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 15 Minor Sub File#MS9900002 Conditions of Approval {Shepherd,et al--Applicants&Ownersl Application Processing Fees 25. This application is subject to a deposit of $8,500.00, which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. Y-(u The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If y �the applicant owes additional fees, a bill will be sent to yeti--the applicant shortly after permit issuance. PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION MS990002 Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, 9 and 10 of the Ordinance Code. Any exceptions must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the vesting tentative map received by Community Development on September 29, 1999. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO FILLING THE PARCEL MAP: General 26. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, along with review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code for the conditions of approval of this subdivision. The Public Works Department will determine compliance with the following conditions of approval. Frontage Improvements 27. On 'Morgan Territory Road, the applicant shall provide pavement widening and/or construct turnouts as feasible to improve two-way traffic movement along the project's frontage, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. 28. The applicant shall pave the private road a minimum of 50-feet from the existing edge of pavement at the intersection of the proposed private road with Morgan Territory Road. 16 Minor Sub File#MS9900002 Conditions of Approval (Shepherd,et al—Applicants&Owners) Access to Adjoining Property Proof of Access/Acquisition 29. The property owner shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department of the acquisition of all necessary rights-of-way, rights-of-entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road and drainage improvements. 30. The property owner shall furnish an equivalent easement to the East Bay Regional Park District along the new private road alignment to replace their existing access easement over this site. Private Roads 31. The applicant shall construct and/or upgrade the on-site roadway system to current County private road standards with a minimum traveled width of 6.1+m (20 feet), with 0.6±m (2-foot) shoulder backing, with at least a 9.1+m (30-foot) access easement in accordance with the policy on Private Rural Road Design Standards. Since this property is located within a Moderate fire Hazard State Responsibility Area, the applicant shall comply with the requirements of the policy on Private Rural Road Design Standards and the policy on Rural Driveway Design Standards as approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 2, 1995. Where the policy allows, exceptions may be requested to utilize County private road standards, specified in the Ordinance Code, in lieu of the adopted policy on Private Rural Road Design Standards. Any such exceptions are subject to the review of the Fire District, the California Department of Forestry, the Public Works Department, and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Road Dedications 32. The property owner shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the right-of-way necessary for the ultimate right-of-way width of 18.3+m (60 feet) along the frontage of Morgan Territory Road. 33. The applicant shall submit a conceptual grading plan for the ultimate 6.1+m (20-foot) half-width of Morgan Territory Road, showing the horizontal and vertical profile of the road for the design speed, accurate topography, and the limits of grading on the applicant's side of the road. The property owners shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, any slope easements outside of the ultimate 18.3+m (60 17 Minor Sub File#MS9900002 Conditions of Approval (Shepherd,et al—Applicants&Ownersl feet) road right-of-way necessary to construct the ultimate roadway in the future. Intersection Design/Sight Distance 34. The applicant shall provide for stopping sight distance in accordance with Caltrans standards for a design speed of 48+ kph (30 mph), or, provide the maximum attainable stopping sight distance at the intersection of the new private roadway and Morgan Territory Road. This shall be accomplished by trimming vegetation, relocating fences or other obstructions or minor grading within the public road right-of- way, ight-ofway, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Maintenance of Facilities 35. Applicant shall develop and enter into a maintenance agreement that will ensure that the existing private road and proposed private road will be maintained, and that each parcel in this subdivision that uses the existing private road and proposed private road will share in their maintenance. Drainage Improvements Collect and Convey 36. The applicant shall be granted an exception from the collect and convey requirements of the Ordinance provided the existing drainage pattern is maintained and concentrated storm drainage is not discharged onto adjacent property. ADVISORY NOTES PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. A. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal, 18 Minor Sub File#MS9900002 Conditions of Approval (Shepherd,et al—Applicants&Owners} construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay B Region II or Central Valley B Region V). B. The San Ranco„ V--, Fire Protection District or County Building Inspection Department may impose additional requirements. It is advisable to check with these departments prior to requesting a building permit or proceeding with the project. C. The Building Inspection Department will require three sets of building plans that must be stamped by the Community Development Department and by the County Health Department. D. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division. E. The applicant is required to pay an environmental review fee of $1,250.00 for the Department of Fish and Game at the end of the appeal period. Failure to do so will result in fines. In addition, the approval is not final or vested until the fee is paid; nor may the County post a Notice of Determination until the fee is paid. A check for this fee shall be submitted to the Community Development Department made out to Contra Costa County for submittal with the final environmental documents. F. The approval of this vesting tentative map confers a vested right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with ordinances, policies, and standards in effect as of October 21, 1999, the date the vesting tentative map application was accepted as complete by the Community Development Department. The vested rights also apply to development fees that the County has adopted by ordinance. These fees are in addition to any other development fees that may be specified in the conditions of approval. The fees include but are not limited to the following: Park Dedication $2,000.00 per residence. Police Services $1,000.00 per residence Child Care $400.00 per residence An estimate of the fee charges for each approved lot may be obtained by contacting the Building Inspection Department at 335-1192. G. Pursuant to Section 66452.6(g) of the Subdivision Map act, the rights conferred by the vesting tentative map as provided by Chapter 4.5 of the Subdivision Map act shall last for an initial period of two (2) years following the recording date of the final/parcel map. These rights pertain to development fees and regulations. Where several final maps are recorded on various phases of a project covered by a single 19 Minor Sub File#MS9900002 Conditions of Approval (Shepherd,et al—Applicants&Owners) vesting tentative map, the initial time period shall begin for each phase when the final map for that phase is recorded. At any time prior to the expiration of the initial time period, the subdivider may apply for a one-year extension. The applicable filing fee shall accompany the application. If the extension is denied by an advisory agency, the subdivider may appeal that denial to the Board of Supervisors by filing a letter of appeal with the appropriate filing fee with the Clerk of the Board within 15 calendar days. The initial time period may also be subject to automatic extension pursuant to other provisions of Section 66452.6(g) relating to processing of related development applications by the County. At the expiration of the vesting time period, remaining development (i.e., new building permits) within the subdivision shall be subject to development fees and regulations in effect at that time. H. Some of the roadways that are used to access the subject property are private roads that may have a vehicle weight limit. You should be aware of those weight limits and your responsibility for road repairs when you bring construction equipment and materials onto your site. I. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and 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 and Game Code. J. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. K---- - ' , with- e - --- - 1 €3 di , ri ,4 f ri x,,, :I _a LK. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR. OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq, the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a ninety-day (90) period after the project is approved. 20 Minor sub File#MS9900002 Conditions of Approval {Shepherd,et al--Applicants&Ownersl The 90-day period in which you may pretest the amount of any fee or imposition of any dedication., reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. M.L._—The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the — Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Marsh Creek Area of Benefit, and the Eastern Contra Costa Mitigation Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. N-,M. The applicant shall be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for j Drainage Area 108 or Drainage Area 109 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. 16 1 kit--41Y-44h . �'Y tlt S }hYi ffi v^t{' of Fish rtd � e— ass h st '�s �'Es 12S3 }k E3-flot+ Gs ci t't4 ri t L, Game Box 47, Yo"tyflle, California, 94599) of any pfopesed constmetion Wit,111111-4,11-1-8 tieyel,-pniefft: ri�r.f ,-,-.n,z pei- +he and Game W vy�44J�.ld tAl✓2 P.L Lf YLLL IS iCL}' alfTect any 4, s N,_—This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. WAP. (--4ub-t1h4}kL+.l'fayy#3vN3?:keyzkaryww{h4(i,',C'isrreni Pius i carr-ll;��n. #nf'Yu�*ts'ry 5SU0,cur (3a-r3-(•r E 6}1-03 rd 101W2001 A 21 _ _ !� W CLI w oc 0 1 a C� � U U cB 'C ttf Viol v � 9Eq ate+ C? f M b y M tn c Cr1 A m' J U o 0 " � o v o 'T3`� °' y E,o res. _ ry (�f C5.� y •L3�� � y � � 3 to.b cJ'A ay+ o t� �y � � �' Cll i' t/ w as n y 9 rj CL p- 97 j y 3 y = > y o o y g a �O•3� � b��•O � � 4�,.G � � �© 6yi C}G�7 O � µ ��'4 ate .° yc � y ' cavo ` ` w 'C U a cyi•Y CLQ Cd Qj is 04 c 8 7-5 b ri N a � � u u �: �✓ ca r d � L3. N � '•. n 4O4.y c8 G a aY U N G7 fJ Y Ib �! A7 v✓ vz r a �} �N•d v w wC5 cai. G � '.� `" � ca C ^;c7 �' +� cc w w ..j a'aa 6 '� �,.0 N G,•� G d` t�' �: v �a �'" c �ttsa .� ��'y� c�• o ° © �� � v � u a,'� G ° � FSE ,�. .^ � " � � c} cn "� `.•% d) rr'z `�' .w* R4 to w iC p'�. ..•. W ��', r '',,N .L5 67 ,�,. w�v c rA V O So c4 _f}�a7 aG3 .� w ✓ v- �'�.O,r,. C td i'3.' .w.G +r � Gp CA.� Y �- � CS � t'7A.�*+ � "�11 oc o d� cid ami r3 Y , G in .,, 1 al.°•. y � G3 V' t} 7-- y d7 .l ?3 @'Ll 6) �..- ` 01 y..!r-c,.. G �" �+ � � '� `.✓ � GG '+' A Cd 1'^•� � G.3 a+•�,,' ,ry, a � A^.� d?''Q"� � SY.' '� :? � :3 C C.i Gy aU,. ai � vi o :3 NSA �°' � N•^' —• �L ' v W^ C � c`3 rfi a� 7-. a �• �, v ijiyj yi � � U••.-.-� in G r.� U d' r Q Q G? w Q v c,.1 n a.•- � � r `� cn •.°,S '•.¢+ a � vin 6 t Y N It• 'fly E ✓ a>. S? G# ey C4 �,.. 1 C� � � ��,rn G�•,�� rG3 .� a ,, G Q 7. G T u G u D {�" ..3 �-' .'� .o` 1/'1 O •r'yD G-�rs OA, ll •r aY G � � N � �r. �•� v+ :1 cn Q , Rs .,w .-+ ,.,'� 'KS G cn ,y', •n c1 � C) G ® ami � v GG O.rt � �' `tS r7 v, O � a1 v � vs� c> G ,�;, � `�ca*`' ""'k'' ✓ "�, v �'` '�. ,u � i G, ���,"pCa��'Y• G� a+ '✓ � u � � vz�^.d w0�U � r +Jt1� � r j �y r "�' � ��� � � G �.+ cn � G �'� W � by �1 ai ��� a �.• O. Y` ���` ��� G v` o��t°� �' �� �� G �e `"t tet" p•' °� y"'�. °r�� cf� p "'�� p � y `'L '�, t3 ✓ '� r- ,y'"'.. .e °% O ri � d U `°'G' v1%fS � w ed '��w p '`' 'y N O ?�� d ..t �`�' � p.� "' '�-' � S� O G� G�� c4 '�• ... � cwYU ,+ � r 'id �i � � G � �, ': r� Y 'aY g G y G y C YU r 4 r � C" Y def. G o• Y i c th yM 7 * W t6 N a a ° o ' th C.- G r3 Q c ca z U p � 7• a>� �` v' �'. Wit, G SCS. •� � w'CS � w U b4 t;;�,? �\ C5 .fl � �d, `O � �� C baa � •'� 3� 3'" w vY'� �'• ��1 n j o .-- .. 3 •o e� U v t• v v s� Ks v � � � *- �?.� � � G �', �i Y A-+ G i N � tL3 �' f^: � y, �.y P.3 �,.,,.,...^ @ � �i N N r 'S e•""."CI N � Cl R7 °' � a> G 7Ca.ca-C � v �u �.-r� � Gy �'� s m V �s�•�, �"� �£ �•y � � c�i � � �'P•� � � aGr � `ai �.,D-- ',y� � s: y, .Ls � �,G.a� ,,�j Ga O y � `. Gv y � x Z �G r s� o.a v Q ra p 1,3 S p U 0,:, �..' 3 ,per ,err. B3 cJ� , •N rJ d) 0 cn d p i U p ... 8'J y asa.,; v X✓ p sa �'�, >et1.� � �, � .-• ��� �.`''"" '�' CS �i O �' �.�` ✓.p L., a y N " � td N � i cd � �'�'' y`'' sA oa G ,✓� �' �., p� � � �,, G p p" „d a7 G-� �w--�, xi in cr. p Cpi �.,.pca c$ � �,,,'®..^ tr t*'`�n :a a7 .� �U �y°� � . � �w � �•.�.G O �' � � -�=6 j1G � n�i � �, v(,� O 'r p`� GU�v., y�y `d � � � y q N �,j � u v �:'� N �, �, � Gp �, �i `' �w � �r?, � � � cs':�;� w' �� � �, � �� °a c>'�� �" � �� �a'� �'"a o� G ✓� � ori � G �r p •' YJ� � .i7 c)� ���.G� � � � 'UC' '��" a .,�A✓ �-U O � ,G vp UP°� � U � r �w .n. O QC"Ey ��`. �: y 7 `c�3 %�-� y M ro � ,;} � � � `f' cd �' ���_� C :� N`.7 Gp r a) t`3 W rs ui � v �,��,. ,,., •- � '.s �n d 1 �\ U �` c.'* .°' Wrr 4 U G ' w '% ✓ p v rn t-- cr p N U "p 3> v cd w ✓ O t? C7�, Ki .,.* ✓ �, �`' is U� � v .+"es Gtx .� G � a> ,^ as � y, ca .-,� a '62 r "' �„ N `n+, G ✓ m .P i„ a7 w {y^c3 O �� p �' U-'� �, r3 its i N p C � �, �, p p �u"" v y �' •� 7'+ ✓ ¢.G �,. �� � as ,i sad' o ' c3 Y� s 8 Y •� t�.F � HCl �p �.� �•. F Cb w w ma D Y 57, Y p�•�" "�' 6J �.� i y' C� .rte+ G7 � N y Ri 7�J O� J � y fY ,L1 s., !' 51, _ � C �. C,J cS .... � v ca � <,- c7 v fi•-° e3 E'" O •,,+, :e; G `X' yy N�c`— �c O-es �4�c^ �, •� � •�, ° � �'' �L'^" S'�^ fl- N .� c. �l .ry?, 7 �, a•- cs u w `„z � � J� d �� � � �^' C � �G� -4 G' sem"' wy � � `,,' U ✓v �� � r �� 3. � ~' Ry G ti SCS Gk ¢,� � C= : � rr � � , � `��' � �Gam,,, ''�•�'" � d SATE MT. DIABI. O RECEIVED Board of Supervisors JUN 3 4 2003 Contra Costa County Board of Directors: 651 Pine Street Malcolm Sproul CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS President Martinez,CA 94553 CONTRA COSTA Co. Arthur Bonwell Allan Prager Re: Shepherd-born Project Vice Presidents Appeal of approval for#MS990002,#DA0201222 Amara Morrison,J.D. The Board of Supervisors will consider the related#RZ993074, Secretary John Mercurio Treasurer Tune 30,2003 Burt Bassler Mary L.Bowerman,Ph.D. Chairman DeSaulnier,members of the Board: Donald de Fremery,Ph.D. Stephen Joseph Save.Mount Diablo was formed in 1971 d includes more than 7000 supportersprimarily in Douglas Knauer anan su pp 3 p Y Robert Marx Contra Costa County. Steven Mehlman,J.D. Robert Dunn Save Mount Diablo submitted a letter to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission David Sargent regarding the Shepherd-Dom project,but was unable to attend the meeting because of a conflict David Trotter with another planning meeting. Save Mount Diablo APPEALS the Regional Planning Staff Commission's approval of a minor subdivision and a development agreement for the 4-unit Ronald Brown Shepherd-Dom project. The project's rezoning is a recommendation which will soon be Executive Director considered by the Board of Supervisors. Seth Adams Directorof Land ProgramsShepherd-Dom The She herd-Dorn roPertY is adjacent to Morgan Territory Regional Preserve,the Los Vaqueros Suzanne Bitz watershed and fronts 1800 feet of scenic route designated Morgan Territory Road, at nearly the Office Manager highest point along the road. ,SMD Mailing Address The 49 acre property has 80 acre zoning but was approved for four units,with a recommendation 1196 Boulevard way#10 Walnut Creek,CA 94595 to the Board to rezone to 10 acre zoning. Without the rezoning,the subdivision approval is moot. Save Mount Diablo is opposed to this subdivision given its sensitive,visually prominent location, Telephone: endangered species, and for the precedent it would set in an area with many sensitive resources. (925)947-3535 Save Mount Diablo believes that impacts on listed species,visually, and on adjacent public lands Fax' are significant, even with the proposed mitigations. (925)947-3603 Website: www.savemountdiablo.org We appreciate the staff work involved in consideration of this project. However,the decision to allow four units on such a sensitive parcel is not in the best interest of the public. There is a court order to the applicants requiring partition of the property,but which requires the applicant to adhere to County,zoning and other planning policies. Even if the Court had ordered the County to partition the property—which it didn't sale of the property and division of the proceeds,or subdivision into two lots instead of four,would have been equally effective. •The property is located at the crest of Morgan Territory Road in grassland highly visible area. •The suggested mitigations require that houses not be visible from Morgan Territory Regional Preserve or Morgan Territory Road,but no visual analysis has been done to demonstrate that this mitigation is achievable. Without conclusive visual analysis,we are not persuaded that the two new units,or the ones that will inevitably be built where the existing house and mobile home are now located,will not be seen from the road or the park. Other houses along;Morgan Territory Road are highly visible. -The site is surrounded by confirmed locations of listed endangered and threatened species and fragmentation of the site,more residents,more pets and landscaping,will inevitably increase impacts on these species,even with the suggested mitigations. -The County has mixed success with scenic and other conservation easements which are proposed as mitigations. In this case,the text of both proposed easements is too limited in detail to be effective or enforceable(a requirement under CEQA for mitigations). The proposed easements lack detail and the one sentence scenic easement condition is confusing. "At time of approval of a parcel snap, the applicants shall convey a scenic easement on each of the four proposed parcels, excepting only the existing structures on the back two parcels, and the proposed new home sites for water storage and sewage disposal." It's not clear whether the conservation easement would affect both home sites and water storage and leach fields—the suggestion is that the new home sites are for water storage and sewage disposal--and the size of the scenic easement envelopes is undefined. Uses allowed for the Heavy Agriculture zoning proposed could easily conflict with and defeat the purposes of having a scenic easement. Supervisor DeSaulnier is in support of more stringent development conditions for developments in the vicinity of Mt.Diablo and public lands,this project is a subdivision on a substandard lot adjacent to two public preserves and a General Plan designated scenic route. Even id drafting issues related to proposed mitigations are resolved,Save Mount Diablo is opposed to subdivision of this property. If you choose to approve the project,we would ask that you decrease the subdivision to one additional lot,and that you require visual analysis for the location of home sites. Further,that you require consultation with our organization to clarify scenic and conservation easement language. Bob Drake attended the Planning Commission hearing on June 18'h,and told me on Monday,June 23`$that the deadline for appeal is today,June 30. 1 have enclosed the $125 appeal fee. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, , Seth Adams Director of Land Programs Verified Notice of Apal: I declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing statement including any accompanying statements or documents in support of this request is true and correct. Signature of appellant: �.,.. Director of Land Programs Save Mount Diablo Date: 74", 301 2003 At Walnut Creek,Contra Costa County,California $125 appeal fee enclosed,to Clerk of the.Board,Contra Costa County COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTAcA�- GENERALRECEIPT //'++ �j �j G r� THIS COPY ES G 9 5 t . NOT A RECEIPT DEPT: / • ""�j` FOR j f V. ~ CASH ACCT. i. -SAL. • RECEIVED FROM CHECK PAID f C1� . 1 1 , MONEY SRL. , ORDER..'j DUE (OS7,REV.7M) 2513 SAVE MOUNT DIABLO WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A. 1196 BOULVARD WAY,STE.10 (925)947-3535 11-4288-1210 WALNUT CREEK,CA 54595 6/30/2003 PAY TO THE Contra Costa County $ *"125.00 ORDER OF One Hundred Twenty Five and 000100*******s****** *******«****sas*«********************************************* DOLLARS CCG Community Development Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street,No.tying Martinez,CA 94553-0095 MEMO SheiphercilDorn appeal - hp E1100 25 13EE' 1. 12 104 288 240 174 48 S 912EE" PERTINENT STAFF REPORTS Agenda Items ##5 & 6 Community Development Contra Costa County SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY JUNE 18. 2003 —7:30 P.M. 1. INTRODUCTION DEBOLT CIVIL ENGINEERING(AplicantAwners)) I - The subject project consists of two related applications that are described as follows: A. County File#RZ993074—A request to rezone approximately 49 acres from Exclusive Agricultural, A-80 (rein. parcel size of 80 acres) to Heavy Agricultural, A-3 (min. 10- acre parcel size). B. County File #M5990002 — A request for a vesting tentative map to subdivide approximately 49 acres into four 10+ acre parcels. The subject site consists of approximately 49 acres and is located at#9601 Morgan Territory Road in the Tassajara/Morgan Territory Road area. (A-80) (ZA: T22m3) (CT 3551.03) (Parcel €106-280-009). II. SUMMARY OF REVIEW In 1998, as a result of a family lawsuit aimed at a division of family assets, the Superior Court rendered an Interlocutory Judgment ordering the physical partition of a 49-acre parcel into four 10+ acre parcels. The above captioned applications have been filed pursuant to that judgment and are aimed at trying to allow for the lots to be lawfully created under subdivision law so that they might individually qualify for construction permits.Two of the parcels already contain existing residences (Parcel D contains a mobilehome on a temporary foundation). The site is located in a remote area that borders on property held by the East Bay Regional Park District and the Contra Costa Nater District. The site straddles two watersheds: Marsh Creek and Kellogg Creek. The latter feeds Los Vaqueros Reservoir. The Water District has acquired a Conservation Easement over the eastern(Kellogg Creek watershed) portion of the site that limits new development in this area. ShepherdlDorn RezoninglSubdivision Proposal Tassajara area File#RZ993074& #MS990042 The proposed division is allowable under the general plan, however the zoning district would need to be changed to accommodate the project. The applicant has demonstrated that each of the parcels has a serviceable water supply and has agreed to a number of measures to protect several threatened animal species that are known to inhabit the area, and to protect the visual character of the area. III. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion: A. That on the basis of the whole record before it, including the Initial Study and the comments received, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis. The documents or other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based may be found at the Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, Martinez,CA under the custodian of the project planner, Darwin Myers (925) 335-1210. C. To adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for purposes of compliance with CEQA. D. Recommending that the Board of Supervisors approve the proposed rezoning of the site from Exclusive Agricultural, A-80, to Heavy Agricultural,A-3. E. Approve the tentative map subject to conditions of approval, and contingent on ultimate approval of the rezoning request by the County Board of Supervisors. F. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program IV. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: The property is outside the urban limit line, and is designated Agricultural Land (AL) by the Land Use Map. This land use designation includes most of the privately-owned rural lands in the County, excluding private lands that are composed of prime soils or lands that are located in or near the Delta. Most of the AL lands are in hilly portions of the County and are used for grazing livestock,or dry S-2 Shepherd/Dorn RezoninglSuhrtivision Proposal Tassajara area File#2993074& #MS990002 grain fanning. The category also includes non-prime agricultural lands in flat East County areas, such as outside Oakley,which are planted in orchards and vineyards. The purpose of the Agricultural Lands designation is to preserve and protect lands capable of, and generally used for,the production of food, fiber,and plant materials. The title is intended to be descriptive of the predominant land-extensive agricultural uses that take place in these areas, but the land use title or description shall not be used to exclude or limit other types of agricultural,open space or non-urban uses such as landfills. The maximum allowable density in this category is one dwelling unit per 5 acres. The uses that are allowed in the Agricultural Lands designation include all land- dependent and non-land dependent agricultural production and relative activities. The following standards shall apply to all uses allowed in the Agricultural Lands designation: 1. Any subdivision of lands shall include conditions of approval which conform with the requirements of the"Rural Residential Policy,"which is outlined in the "Agricultural Resources"section of the Conservation Element(Chapter 8),and 2. Residential and non-residential uses proposed in areas of special flood hazards, as shown on FEMA maps, shall conform to the requirements of the County Floodplain:Management Ordinance (County Ord. #87-45). The following is a summary of General Plan policies that appear most applicable to this project. They are taken from the Land Use, Safety,Open Space,Transportation and Circulation and Conservation Elements. 1. Land Use Element. The Land Use Element contains policies for the Morgan Territory Area(see Table 1). These policies strongly discourage fragmentation of parcel size and call for more stringent zoning categories. S-3 _. Shepherd Dorn RezoninglSubdivision Proposal Tassajara area File#RZ993074&#MS990002 Table 1 SELEC'T'ED LAND USE SAFETY AND OVEN SPACE ELEMENT POLICIES Policies for the Morgan'Territory Area 3-107 A separate General Plan/zoning conformity study shall be initiated by the county in the Morgan Territory Road area,south of Marsh Creek Road. 3-108 The restriction on further fragmentation of parcels is crucial to this plan. A rezoning study should be initiated on this planning area to apply new,more stringent zoning categories. 3-109 A scenic route specific plan will be implemented to ensure adequate rights-of-way for the scenic routes along Morgan Territory Road and Marsh Creek Road Ground Failure and Landslide Hazard Policies 1022 Slope stability shall be a primary consideration in the ability of land to be developed or designated for urban uses. 10-23 Slope stability shall be given careful scrutiny in the design of developments and structures, and in the adoption of conditions of approval and required mitigation measures. 10-24 Proposed extensions of urban or suburban land uses into areas characterized by slopes over 15 percent and/or generally unstable land shall be evaluated with regard to safety hazards prior to the issuance of any discretionary approvals. Development on open hillsides and significant ridgelines throughout the County shall be restricted,and hillsides with a grade of 26 percent or greater shall be protected through implementing zoning measures and other appropriate actions. 10-25 Subdivision of rural lands outside planned urban areas down to the allowed minimum parcel size shall be discouraged,if the parcels are within,or only accessible through,geologically unstable areas. 1026 Approvals of public and private development projects in areas subject to slope failures shall be contingent on geologic and engineering studies which define and delineate potentially hazardous conditions and recommend adequate mitigation. 10-27 Soil and geological reports shall be subject to the review and approval of the County Planning Geologist. 10-28 Generally,residential density shall decrease as slope increases,especially above a 15 percent slope. 10-29 Significant hillsides with slopes over 26 percent or more shall be considered unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading or other land disturbance. i 10-30 Development shall be precluded in areas when landslides cannot be adequately repaired. Overall QVen SpAce Policies 9-1 Permanent open space shall be provided within the County for a variety of open space uses. 9-2 Historic and scenic features,watersheds,natural waterways,and areas important for the maintenance of natural vegetation and wildlife papulation shall be preserved and enhanced. 9-7 Open space shall be utilized for public safety,resource conservation and appropriate recreation activities for all segments of the community. I 9-8 Development project environmental review will consider the effect of the project on the County's open space resources, whenever the project proposes to convert substantial amounts of land from an open space designation to an urban development designation. Scenic Resources Policies ' 9-11 High quality engineering of slopes shall be required to avoid soil erosion,downstream flooding,slope failure,loss of vegetative cover,high maintenance costs,property damages,and damages to visual quality. Particularly vulnerable areas should be avoided for urban development. Slopes of 26 percent or more shall be protected and are generally not desirable for conventional cut-and-fill pad development. Development on open hillsides and significant ridgelines shall be restricted. 9-12 In order to conserve the scenic beauty of the County,developers shall generally be required to restore the natural contours and vegetation of the land after grading and other land disturbances. Public and private projects shall be designed to minimize damages to significant trees and other visual landmarks. 9-13 Providing public facilities for outdoor recreation should remain an important land use objective in the County,as a method of promoting high scenic quality,for air quality maintenance,and to enhance outdoor recreation opportunities for k all residents. c 9-14 Extreme topographic modification, such as filling in canyons or removing hilltops, shall be avoided. Clustering and ' planned unit development approaches to development shall be encouraged. All future development plans,whether large or small scale,shall be based on identifying safe and suitable sites for buildings,roads and driveways. Exemptions to this i policy are appropriate for mining,landfill,and public projects in open space areas. S-4 Shepher&Dorn Rezoning/Subdivision Proposal Tassajara area File#R.Z993074& #MS990002 2. Safety.Element. The Safety Element of the General Plan includes a number of policies that require evaluation of geologic hazards for proposed land development projects in areas of potential hazards. On page 10-25 the Safety Element states that geologic conditions should be a primary determinant of land use. Table I presents ground failure and landslide hazard policies from the Safety Element that are most applicable to the project. 3. Ogen Space Element. The most appropriate uses in"Open Space"areas involve resource management,such as maintaining oak woodland,natural water courses or habitat for special status species (see Table I for Open Space and Scenic Resource Policies). 4. Transportation and Circulation Element. According to this Element of the General Plan,Morgan Territory Road is a designated scenic route. Scenic route policies 5-34 through 5-43 require that views from the scenic route be conserved, enhanced and protected. 5. Conservation Element. This element is concerned with issues regarding the identification,preservation and management of natural resources. According to Figure 8-1,the site is not identified as a significant ecological area,and it is not identified as important agricultural lands. The Conservation Element contains implementation measures for rural residential lots. Those measures include documentation of an adequate water source, adequate road access, septic tank leach fields that meet the requirements of the Health Services Department, evidence that the proposed parcels are reasonably free of hazards, adequate fencing to contain domestic animals and other measures (see General Plan, pages 8-42 and 8-43). G. Zoning: The property is designated Exclusive Agriculture(A-80). It is proposed to rezone the site to Heavy Agriculture(A-3). Chapter 84-40 of the Zoning Ordinance contains the ordinance code provisions of the A-3 district. The permitted uses include: a)all Table 2 types of agriculture;b)erection of agriculture- SUMMARY of ZONING STANDARDS related buildings;c)a stand not exceeding 200 FOR THE A-3 DISTRICT square feet for sale of agriculture products Min.standard Lot Area: 10 acres grown on the premises; d) residence of the Avg.Width{min.}: 140 ft. Depth(min.): no lot depth standard Owner, owners,lessee, or lessor of the land On Building Height(max): no structure height which the agricultural use is conducted; e) standard foster home/family care home; and f) family setback standards Side Yard(min.): 25 ft daycare home. Uses requiring a land use Livestock Structures: 50 ft Front Yard(min.): 25 ft permit are those listed in Section 84-38.404 of Rear Yard(min.): 25 ft S-5 ShepherdlDorn Rezoning/Subdivision Proposal Tassajara area File#RZ993074&#t1MS990002 the Ordinance Code. Other provisions of the A-3 District are listed in Table 2. H. 1981 Areawide Zoning Study(County File 2218-RZ)—In 1981,while California was in the midst of drought conditions, the County undertook a rezoning study (File #2218-RZ) of the Tassajara area encompassing the area east of the Cities of San Ramon and Danville, and extending eastward to properties bordering Morgan Territory Road. At that time,the Tassajara was largely zoned A-2(min. 5-acre parcel size)and where Agricultural Preserve Contracts had been established,A-4(min.20- acre parcel size). Due to the drought(some rural properties were having to truck in supplies of water for domestic consumption needs) and concern about premature parcelization that might result in conflicts with adjoining agricultural lands), the County determined that the zoning allowed for excessive development potential. As a result, the County created several new zoning districts(A-20,A-40, and A-80)with larger minimum parcel sizes and applied that zoning throughout the Tassajara area, including this site. I. Temporary Caretaker Mobilehome Land Use Permit—In 1985,the County approved a land use permit for a temporary caretaker mobilehome to be placed on this site. The permit was authorized for a period of three years. The mobilehome was placed on the property(located on proposed.Parcel D)with a temporary foundation in accord with the tennis of the permit. The period on the land use permit has lapsed; and the mobilehome is still on the property. F. CEQA. An Initial Study prepared by staff was completed on May 12, 2043. It identified potential aesthetics, biological resources, agricultural resources, public services, and cultural resources impacts, and identified mitigation measures. The project proponent submitted a letter(dated May 12,2003)agreeing to the mitigation measures, which allowed for the filing of a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration on May 13, 2003. The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents extended to 5 p.m. on June 13, 2043. D. Permit Streamlining Considerations. The applications were filed on July 1, 1999. On July 29, 1999, the applicant was notified that staff had determined the minor subdivision application to be"incomplete"and specific required items were identified that would be needed prior to further processing of the application. (The staff requested technical studies and data, along with refinements to the VTM.) The applicant's representative provided the required data, and on October 21, 1999 the application was deemed to be complete and work on the Initial Study commenced. S-6 Shepher"orn RezoninglSubdivision Proposal T'assajara area File#RZ993074& #MS990002 V. AREA AND SITE DESCRIPTION The Vicinity Map(Figure 1)indicates that the site is located in a rugged upland area that is immediately south of the EBRPD Morgan Territory Regional Preserve and that it fronts on the east side of Morgan Territory Road. Figure 2,Topographic Map,indicates that the site is located near the axis of a northwest-trending ridge. The topographic map indicates a network of rural roads and a"pit" on the site. Figure 3 is an ortho photo that has been annotated. It shows the location of the site with respect to cultural features(e.g.,Morgan Territory Road). Parcel boundaries are shown in yellow and the boundary of the property is represented by a heavy yellow line. Figure 3 also shows existing improvements on the site, trees, and wetland features (pond in northeast portion of site and vernal pool astride the southwest property boundary). Because of their habitat value, lands within 300 feet of these water features require sensitive treatment(see red circles in Figure 3). Note that an existing residence, graded/disturbed area and service road/EVA to the EBRPD Morgan Territory Regional park are within 300 feet of the pond. The site straddles two watersheds. The eastern portion of the site falls within the Kellogg Creek watershed,with runoff flowing into Los Vaqueros Reservoir. The westernn portion of the site lies within the Marsh Creek watershed, which conveys runoff northward. Figure 4, Zoning Map, shows prevailing zoning districts in the vicinity of the site. Note that the site and adjacent lands to the south and east are zoned Exclusive Agricultural,A-80 (80-acre minimum parcel size). The proposal is to rezone the site to Leavy Agricultural,A-3 Tate KEY PROVISIONS OF AGRICULTURAL (10-acres minimum parcel size). The districts DISTRICTS IN SITE VICINITY shown in Figure 4 and key provisions are District Minimum standard summarized in Table 3. srcparcel size Figure 5, Assessors Parcel map, shows the site A-2 General Agricultural s acres A-3 Heavy Agricultural 10 acres (shaded area). This map also shows nearby A-20 Exclusive Agricultural 20 acres parcel sizes,and annotations show applications A-40 Exclusive Agricultural 40 acres filed in the project vicinity. A-80 Exclusive Agricultural 80 acres Y y A-A Aariridtiirai PrPCPrvP Ain.,_—iv,,.>...AA ri VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Background. The site is presently encumbered with an established conservation easement and with an access easement.The conservation easement covers the eastern portion of the site lying within the watershed of Los Vaqueros Reservoir,which was acquired by the Contra Costa Nater District to protect the quality of runoff flowing S-7 _. _.. Shepherd/Dorn Rezoning/Subdivision Proposal Tassajara area File#RZ993074& #MS990002 from this site and potentially towards the reservoir. The conservation easement accepts existing development,but prohibits any new development. The site is also crossed by a a 40-foot wide emergency vehicle and maintenance access easement acquired by the East Bay Regional Park District to provide access to the adjoining:Morgan Territory Regional Preserve that abuts to the north. Additionally,the western portion of the site is in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone that encompasses recently active and potentially active traces of the Greenville fault,and the geotechnical consultant for the project has mapped three landslides on the site. These features are identified in Figure 6. As a result of a family lawsuit, in 1998, the Superior Court has ordered an Interlocutory Judgment Ordering the Physical Partition of the site into four parcels. The resulting minor subdivision application is also seeking a rezoning because the existing A-80 district would not allow the proposed parcels. As proposed, the site would be rezoned to A-3, which has a 10-acre minimum standard parcel size. The four proposed parcels range from 11.97 acres to 12.69 acres+. These parcels meet A- 3 standards and could not be further divided under the proposed zoning district.' B. Vesting Tentative Map. A reduced scale copy of the VTM is presented in Figure 6. It identifies the potential building sites on proposed Parcels A and B. It also shows potential leach field sites, well sites, and the driveway alignments. Parcels C and D are developed lots that are within the CCWD conservation easement. No construction is proposed on these lots. On proposed Parcels A and C, the existing improvements include the EBRPD service road. On proposed Parcel C there are four structures labeled existing house,existing trailer and two structures labeled existing barn,along with a well and existing leach field. On Parcel D there is an existing modular residence and riding arena. C. Proposed Improvement Agreement to Allow for Conversion of Mobilehome After Parcel Map is Recorded—The applicants have indicated that they wish to keep the existing mobilehome on Parcel D, indeed they wish to convert it to a permanent mobilehome as provided for under Ordinance Code Section 84-68.1602 (attached). They have indicated that they are prepared to make the necessary alterations so that it would qualify under that provision of the ordinance, and have obtained a letter from the CCWD indicating that the District would not object to allowing the conversion (within the District's conservation easement). However the applicant wishes to be able to complete the alterations after the parcel map is approved and recorded. Initially,the applicant had proposed the rezoning of the site to the General Agricultural,A-2(min. 5-acre parcel size),but subsequently modified the request to the A-3 district. S-8 .. _. _.. ShepherdlDorn RezoninglSubdivision Proposal Tassajara area File#RZ993074&#MS990002 To assure that this change will be completed in a timely manner, the applicant has proposed to enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the County to assure the completion of the work after the parcel map is recorded which would include posting of a security. A condition of approval (#20) is recommended to provide for this agreement. VII. AGENCY COMMENTS A. Public Works Department. On January 18,2000 the Public Works Department issued a memorandum identifying issues pertaining to roads,drainage and easements. Their comments are as follows: 1. Morgan Territory Road. • Morgan Territory Read is a single lane in this area. Conformance with the County Subdivision Ordinance would require widening of the roadway along the subject frontage. Full widening to ultimate width is probably not feasible in this area due to the presence of the embankment along the project's frontage. The PWD may,however, wish to see if there are areas where sight distance could be improved or pullouts constructed to facilitate two-way traffic in this area. The applicant should be required to provide widening or construct pullouts at a minimum of three locations along the project's frontage, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. • The property owners will be required to convey to the county all necessary right-of-way for the ultimate right-of-way width of+18.3 m (60 feet) along Morgan Territory Road. Note that the description of the site's western boundary as shown on the vesting tentative map conflicts with record information for the property on the opposite side of the road (ref. 65 LSM 19). • In addition, the applicant will be required to prepare a conceptual grading plan for the ultimate roadway half section along this project's frontage. This plan should show the horizontal and vertical profile of the road for the design speed, accurate topography, and the limits of grading for the +6.1 m(20-foot) ultimate half-width of the road. The property owners will be required to dedicate any additional road right-of-way necessary to accomplish this ultimate grading in the future. 2. Private Roads. The site is located in a Moderate Fire Hazard State Responsibility Arca so the proposed and existing private roads are subject to the requirements of the Board of Supervisor's May 2, 1995 policy on Private Rural Road Design Standards. All private roads serving more than one parcel will be S-9 ShepherdlDorn P'ezoninglSubdivision Proposal Tassajara area File#RZ993074&#MS990002 required to be constructed or upgraded to the Private Rural Road Design Standards. This will require the upgrading of portions of the existing roads on Parcels `C' and `D' within the conservation easement if they do not already meet these standards. 3. Other Easements. This parcel is encumbered by a CCWD conservation easement and an EBRPD access easement. The EBRPD easement is affected by the realignment of the existing on-site private roads. The property owner will be required to provide an equivalent easement to EBRPD along the new private road alignment. 4. Drainage. As the increase in impervious surface will not be substantial compared to the size of the parcels, an exception to the collect and convey requirements of the Ordinance Code will be considered for this project. B. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. On July 12, 1999, the District issued a letter outlining its requirements for the project: 1. Water Supply. The developer shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a minimum fire flow of 1500 GPM. {903.2}UFC 2. Access and Hydrants. Access roads and hydrants shall be installed and in service prior to combustible construction. (8704.1) UFC 3. Addressing. The developer shall obtain City/County-assigned street number/addresses and post them in such a manner as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. (901.4.4)UFC 4. Construction Materials. The developer shall provide roof coverings with a minimum Class C rating. Untreated wood shake or shingles are not allowed. (1503) T-24, CCR C. Contra Costa Water District. In a letter dated July 28, 1999, CCWD points out that the District has obtained conservation easements on the site. Specifically, it places restrictions and conditions on the property owner's right to utilize the portion of the property covered by the Conservation Easement. Attention is drawn to paragraph 11, which reads as follows: "As part of any application for subdivision of the Owner's property, of which the Subject Property is a part, there shall not be permitted any residential structures placed on the Subject Property. Any such structures shall be placed outside of the Kellogg Creek watershed." 5-10 S'hepherdlDorn Rezoning/Subdivision Proposal 1 assajara area File#RZ993074& #MS990002 The subdivision map shows possible leachflelds on Parcels C and D, which necessarily anticipate a residential structure, which is not permissible within the Conservation Easement. Moreover, the new leachfields would conflict with the provisions of Paragraph 1, which reads as follows: "Owners shall not permit, and shall take all action necessary to prevent, any pollutants or contaminants from infiltrating the Los Vaqueros Reservoir or the Kellogg Creek watershed." The legal descriptions of Parcels A, B, C and D fail to mention the recorded Conservation Easement on Parcels C and D. Nowhere in the Application for the Minor Subdivision or the Application for Change of Zoning is there any mention of this Conservation Easement for which the applicant was compensated for in the Judgment of Condemnation. The District is opposed to any subdivision of this property that violates the restrictions and conditions imposed by its Conservation Easement. D. East Bay Regional Park District. In a July 13, 1999 letter,the District objects to the proposed parcelization of this site, and feels that it would not be consistent with the General Plan.z The District has also expressed concern that the project may adversely impact wildland habitat. The District also notes that it has a recorded 40-foot wide access easement through the site(recorded as doc. #88 189949, date 10/14/88). The easement provides EVA and maintenance access into the adjoining Morgan Territory Regional Preserve. If this project is approved,the applicant should be required to offer a realigned access easement to the District to correspond to the proposed private road alignment. E. County Health Services Department. In a memorandum dated August 6, 1999, the Department indicates that an approved water source (well) and approved on-site septic system is required for each lot. Following receipt of test well information on each of the proposed parcels, in a memorandum dated December 9,2002,the HSD has indicated that it is satisfied that each proposed parcels has a well that will produce water meeting the minimum quality and quantity standards of the County. z The District references to Conservation Element Policy 8-2 which provides: "Areas that are highly suited to prime agricultural production shall be protected and preserved for agriculture and standards for protecting the viability of agricultural land shall be established." S-11 ShepherdlDorn RezoninglSubdivision Proposal Tassajara area File#AZ993074&#MS990002 F. Building Inspection Ike artment. In a memo dated July 15, 1999, the Grading Division outlined its issues and requirements. Additionally, there is a memo in the file from the Cade Enforcement Division of BID reporting a zoning violation on the site(unauthorized junk yard). It is an active code enforcement case and the junkyard is located within the established conservation easement. As a mitigation measure proposed by staff, the applicant has agreed to remove the material prior to approval of a parcel map. (Reference MM II-A, COA#7) G. California Historical Resources Information System. In a memorandum dated July 29, 1999, CHRIS indicated that an archaeological survey is needed prior to commencement of project activities. VIII. STAFF CONSIDERATIONS A. Ramifications of 1998 Court Decision—The Court decision is aimed at providing for the division of family assets involving a husband,wife and son(son-in-law). While the Superior Court has directed the physical partition of the property,the proposed parcels would not constitute building sites under subdivision law (would not individually qualify for building permits)unless the County approves a subdivision of the site. B. Assignment of Application Review to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission—The site not only straddles two watershed boundaries,but also straddles the jurisdictional boundary of two regional planning commissions: the San Ramon Valley and East County Regional Planning Commissions. Staff assigned this project to the review of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission based on two factors: • The Commission's role in the establishment of existing(A-80 zoning)in 1981 as part of the areawide zoning study; and • The new development that would be authorized by approval of this project would largely occur within the portion of the site that falls within the SRVRPC's jurisdiction. C. Consistency with General Plan, The General Plan allows for a maximum density of l unit per 5 acres of lands in the AL category. Four residences on the 49-acre property are well within these limits. • The site has been disturbed by a quarry operation in the past; it is not a site of prime agricultural land. 5-12 ShepherdlDorn RezoninglSubdivision Proposal Tassajara area File#RZ993074&#MS990002 • Mitigation measures(including provision for a grant deed of development rights and other deed instruments aimed at protecting any habitat of threatened species)has been agreed to by the applicant. • While the Contra Costa Water District has expressed objections to the project if it would result in new development within the District's Conservation Easement, staff does not believe that the project would result in new development within the area of the conservation easement. This area contains existing residences and sewage disposal systems that are authorized by the easement. However, to remove all doubt, staff is recommending that the applicant obtain evidence from the District that the District is satisfied that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the conservation easement. • Other than the conversion of the existing temporary caretaker mobilehome on a temporary foundation to a permanent mobilehome on proposed Parcel D,the project will not result in any new improvements within the portion of the site that is subject to the conservation easement held by CCWD. CCWD has provided a letter indicating that it has no objections to the proposed conversion of the mobilehome. • The site largely consists of grasslands, with few trees. • The sites proposed for development have relatively mild slopes that do not exceed 26%. • The site contains a year-round pond in the northeastern corner of the site,and a seasonal wetland in the southwestern portion of the site (next to Morgan Territory Road);neither would be adversely affected by the proposed project. • The staff recommendation includes a condition of approval to provide for compliance with the Right-to-Farm Ordinance. • Based on information provided by the applicant, the Health Services Department has indicated that the project meets the County's water quality and quantity standards. Prior to approval of a parcel map, the staff recommendation requires the applicant to demonstrate that each parcel is capable of handling an individual sewage disposal system (pass the percolation test) in accordance with the Conservation Element development requirements. • In this instance,the purposes of the 1981 zoning study are not being damaged. The site has been demonstrated to contain an adequate water supply. The development will not adversely affect any nearby agricultural operations (largely grazing activity). The proposed uses are compatible with the Agricultural Lands designation. There are not many other properties in the vicinity that possess these same characteristics of physical separation from agricultural operations. • While the site has been quarried in the past,this site is not one that the County has designated as a significant mineral resource in the General Plan Conservation Element. S-13 ShepherdlDorn Rezoning/Subdivision Proposal Tassajara area File#RZ993074& #MS990002 « The topography of the area visually separates the new building sites of this project from the adjoining Morgan Territory Regional Preserve to the north. • The applicant has agreed to mitigation measures that would control the appearance of new residential development so that it blends in with the surrounding area. • The project will involve minimal grading and disturbance of the existing terrain so as to protect its scenic quality. • The parcels are roughly comparable in size to two existing parcels across Morgan Territory Road. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention(CDF)and Public Works Department agree that Morgan Territory Road provides adequate access to the proposed parcel, but the Public Works Department indicates that frontage improvements are required along Morgan Territory Road. The CDF has adopted standards for the driveway, turnaround, emergency water supply for fighting a structural fire, and related issues. Furthermore,the County has adopted conforming standards for private roads and driveways; the applicant has agreed to comply with those standards. The geologic/geotechnical consultant indicates that the areas proposed for development are feasible, and the applicant has agreed to measures aimed at protecting: a)oak woodland;b)nesting raptors; and c)the protection of the pond, vernal pool and the special status species that utilize these habitats. Based on these findings, the project is consistent with applicable General Plan policies. D. Agency Comments. In response to the request by CHRIS, the applicant retained Anthropological Studies Center to perform an archaeological investigation of the site. The report concludes that there is no surface evidence of archaeological resources, but it goes on to indicate that there is an unknown (but potentially significant) risk that grading, utility installation, or foundation construction could result in discovery of historical/cultural resources. The report goes on to recommend that should there be an archaeological "find", a qualified archaeologist should be retained to evaluate its significance and provide recommendations. The Initial Study identifies this issue as a significant impact. The site is in an area protected by the CDF. The County FPD will respond to fires but the property does not have an urban level of service(i.e.,due to response time for the volunteer fire fighters serving the area and due to the limited water resources available for fire fighting). The agencies have concurred that Morgan Territory Road provides adequate emergency access, and the on-site improvements are required to comply with the provisions of the County FPD. 3 Anthropological Studies Center,2000. A Cultural Resources Study of 49 Acres at 9601 Morgan Territory Road (APN 006-280-009), Tassajara Area, Contra Costa County, California. ASC Project#50041-66/00;dated August 22,2000. S-14 ShepherdlDorn Rezoning/Subdivision Proposal 7'assajara area .File#2993074&#MS990002 It is proposed that the private road to the site be relocated, and the Public Works Department has indicated that the private road and all driveways must comply with County standards. Thus,the legal description ofthe access easement for EBRPD will need to be modified in the area of the intersection with Morgan Territory Road, and any road/driveway improvements in the conservation easement will require approval of CCWD. E. CEUA Comments. The responses to the NOI did not identify new impacts,nor were any comments received that challenge the adequacy of the Initial Study. J. Staff Evaluation. The project represents one additional minor subdivision in a remote, largely open space area(Diablo Range). The local road network consists of rural roads that are not designed for high traffic volumes. Most of the area is agricultural land(AL)or regional park(PR). Moreover,each minor subdivision that is approved in this area serves as encouragement for other property owners to submit applications for their parcels. Nevertheless, the request appears to comply with General Plan standards and with agency and Superior Court requirements. The response of the Contra Costa Water District to the application was a memorandum indicating that the District has obtained conservation easements on the site and it places restrictions and conditions on the property owner's right to utilize the portion of the property covered by the Conservation Easement. The East Bay Regional Park District has commented that it has a recorded service road/emergency vehicle access across the site to its Morgan Territory Regional Preserve. The California Department of Forestry and County FPD are not opposed to the project provided that it meets all of the County FPD requirements. No variances to the standards of the A-3 District are proposed. K. Review of Statutory Findings Requiring Disapproval of a Subdivision Alication--- Government Code Section 66474 provides several findings any of which if made would require disapproval of a subdivision application. Based on the project review including agreed upon mitigations, staff has concluded that none of these findings would apply to this site. DM\RD\ss \\fs-cd\users$\bdrake\Personal\MS990002 993474rpt.doc SC7/M3 S-15 63 SEE I�J MkP {{ .:CRE N4 :* •:. 11 31 aai ot i 0 ..... v k Y r 12 635. r E g • t ., a�'fT *� 4 }4'�` Yp.^ 'u rt '�h�4:?"' .z-f•; -�4 . X42.-:.. ..1V._ .xan. ! kd#:r.;f 3T y yw 7 ,. g.�'�•* 2L•v '� F*.-z- �� ' ^� w 'S a yr:c *4'' rl r vt�- 16 f 14 s'�.w'du•��.�' ��'��t�y � §�"j `,,ar�"1a. �"`+E,,,y�<r�t i�¢fy,,-��. tE r ��'t�,i ��. x�>�`� s� '� 't ;n rt -,,,_. +. -}` ��'� a: '}� � '��'+�;` ,� y Y*j a,r si�Yi.� �F^sm..,,.>ti v• ;v' s �,�� 7 'r i jt - `^..,_ .;;+c,*,,,.'�':., v .'hal' F 'htnft.. § :. ('. • �c,._ a` �_. ;fi>• � �� ice,,j�. c s,:'. +v' -`i a �,�` A .w r si'�'�iy�'��"'`�`a g ' ���"� ¢.f 7. _ :• �a �3 r� �a��"f v'�"✓`Y�x fif �,� �: Fua h r" \ ' ° -- c'� t'€''A' �dctiu.'' y�°ufr � � � •'�°"�tk`'�F�.�`�S a -• ;, y€.'Y"t`� € 1 I �. c 111��r+r ,r" "� '�Y'„,av i �. ,�'` n;;, .c•- y'�x itar�' � � .�. 26 26 I ,t.?i- >a.- ,. . 29 ! ; <Q " ( rt 65 + - - N 36 31 32 ms .I...... 33 r` AV ii 6 4. (......`may {- ,..-�.�{\ � �'� , .�. �"�-✓"-),� sr �\+ts l ��,r�,1bg"h� � C""' 1 � ��-`��'"`r�i. '".�� � O.. .',.fid'y �" 1 l. ✓ 4 _ L' � � r� ,c,'i �S ``� ' _ q ,gyp �r �',�J 1.:�"��.-w�.t\,,f yl.i? /' � t^--.--,��� �i1 �-'yy �Gi'�t..rP, -^.`' ,�'-�' —``^.••,-=' � ,,..,r`��,/"_� �,t�/-r�r1 nl'...-.--, �tt� �'�.�.'��' _ � r ,a'�'+. r a d : (t^- r 1i � .'✓' ..� 1('r 1 `�'.�...e/'n \ t600 tJr ti (1� ° 5� ;' � d����7 7r! ,i!r�, tt �'r-�✓'�""`r6C70 r. 1�f�, t ���' t`1 ,f ,Ca k712 0 it U?A o i re oqo?g a� y j74 & � �� r , � f r f r 0 L / •✓ Q � r -.s i _. Z � �`^S, f•' � � I i Y '�`%a�..r� � h /fPJ � f�u f � va R� . 3 I �$ff J / L. is r a f f t liy f i 77 ur Y r! 4 /i'd If - > •� i r --o""".--�""� � ���✓ � �----" � � �� t,,+ �� n. � : � ,,,; .� � � � t Q y, i �a b t�fi}s � �,�,�rr � � �� `. k �. i ,' k 1 �� �� rY y� k-� ,� r1 +� � dGj � � •� *cif i � � '� �y � � '� �� � ,n 4.,y� g. M,ji.tat �' „�-- t ������•'£� Old rY'ilr 7fid ..,,,`-•--""K3/:V1+�_„/•' V��ppyy (� J "�� �+,., j., l{l L tbf'9 `✓ m� " a R� er � •,. � � t � ,><•r~.=rte � �, '�'� �,a ;v '� , �," '� � .� w� � z,V� t�� � .� ,��� >.������ � � �a �� s C- r � W 7 ��.}-y � �,}� z u+ � o �.� r �, O K; y' ,n 1 �� , �� 1 � �� �Y a `��, _ , :� W fit: `� Y � �. 9 t b �� � �� x� r � �y <�. ;ref '� �� \ ,- �'�*#' �/, � +m�,rrS h � �r �twea 3. r'�.'y"°' + N. tv, rr ri /r <t rr Gy rr rr N �� C7 C7 cA i N C%j ht � M e Oslo roti Jr Vi cor hf N co ! 4 R! f R f f f ♦ y, � YI * R R � IAt q1. .R f AN i■i '"' ■ i ~1� i•�EI ■i i4'i■ ��i ! B/i■rrrr i/ i- �■ % l��M� 'L' i f iR l• ; !TMi liiiiii� r lE �i�3 i iiRii■■■�iii ■ t� ■ /r�r ��� f t1 ^�---=---"' li"• - - i ■ fi tt •■ ii w EIt►±IE"" ■ A/� ■■�t•tU�ittrli i� _ - ■S i � .� A � ■t t*Cii��t r 1ii14�i �,f / —z - i t f � i / iii iii■� x NN Log f !, � ■ i #■ ■ !■ i ■ � a a:s rr7�s`t , - � -- -; � ■� • f ti■ ■■ to wig i.. _ � ■ i ti �/ it i�Rr�„'� > i ' - - ■ �■Rt �� !mss^ !I�t r�sui� i -� �' rt,��■ sr�is i �im� i'+tE �1r{Rr :�s - •■i ! ■ Rft� - =- s s s ii■tet ■ ON WE gal Wig -."�`^^_�'""" —." .,:sem'-2.a -r.;..�'..-.,'.-^ �"',�s""s._ ..�a. �„� • T�= ; h� E.*i ! ■ 14R f .�----"'�= ~'�' `-'-._ - -�”' � r� �tA� #EA ,��ui+i' : W .. L!',•7l rni US name-lin NO an y RN�f TT^ r ! .__...�,�,,,,T .� — �.-`.;, -- � 1 T1s s �ir ■ ■ =c.---- -- - �^ '.."'".",_,,, ,.�_:1 ■� ■ it ■ ■ �� �N'iJ. �' _.�_..�_ - e- s� �' -._.c_� �j ■ # � i���! ■� iii -_'=��- - _'Y� �' ate-e _=-r" - c'/! f• � %i !■ ! it! ■ H �: ! . r ,fir.,.- .'::a' .:,::r:�,.n•,a' .:, .: ,. -.yrm,. Wt CIO to U O A- �w + N Ile LLJ 0 Co / srrsr r r h Y ( S". { I � Y 1 rn� IIl Office is closed the 1 st, 3ra tm. rr+aays cr eaut; muo HI! oil ,#' yid'• _ :` ., f 'rv- - t AL { \ 1 t 9++rw ���• j � �{(jam!' r] ,�� / Pk t y o 14 , v r , I y 44 19 ti r t1#wr.. 9� p tir. FR �. PR` 26 95 29 V. IN a �.-�• is ' (t�• >a . so �� . lot .4• ;; } i` MAYn�n.A ,. v } �. ,i•, y.,-r > R t iF jlf{�a' t.' '6r'a+e '•5r �Pian �'y q�`tfi.'��a�✓f�,r''$4Erx� '�. e '*t{i }& it G ' � A�" k s�4 x� ����k� ✓'S`5's�^�` ;t,:.� �,X� ��� i i w L _ r X } 1� t is •' &�`r 18 `+i,:� r$ ., � �. € mom s r _s.. k .. !._ x..f �. AmAkim,CONTRA COSTA x WATER DISTRICT +rurrnrwr iranir 1331 Concord Avenue P.O.Box H2O 99 AUG -2 PM 4: 30 Concord,CA 94524 (925)688-8000 FAX(925)688-8122 Via Facsimile and Mail 335-1222 Directors July 28, 1999 Joseph L.Campbell President James Pretti Vice President Elizabeth R.Ane#lo Meera Nagaraj, Project Planner✓ Bette Boatmun Contra Costa County Noble 0.Efcenko,D.C. Walter J.Bishop Community Development Department Generai Manager 651 Pine Street, 4t'Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 Subject: Rezoning—RZ-99300074 and Subdivision--MS-990002 Dear Ms. Nagaraj: This letter is in response to the Application for the Minor Subdivision and Application for Change of Zoning for 9601 Morgan Territory Road. The Contra Costa Water District has a Conservation Easement on the easterly portion of the property, which was acquired as part of the condemnation action filed in Contra Costa County Superior Court. Any further development of the property within the Conservation Easement would be a violation of the Judgment and Final Order of Condemnation recorded in CCWD v.Lester Shepherd, et al., Contra Costa Superior Court No. C 96-01725. (copy attached) The purpose of the Conservation Easement is to restrict the owners of the property, their successors and assigns, from developing the property or otherwise using it for any purpose inconsistent with Contra Costa Water District's use of the neighboring property for the Los Vaqueros Reservoir and related watershed. The Conservation Easement places restrictions and conditions on the property owner's right to utilize the portion of the property covered by the Conservation Easement, see Attachment 1. Attention is drawn to paragraph 11, which reads as follows: "As part of any application for subdivision of the Owner's property, of which the Subject Property is a part, there shall not be permitted any residential structures placed on the Subject Property. Any such structures shall be placed outside of the Kellogg Creek watershed." The subdivision map shows possible leachfields on Parcels C and D, which necessarily anticipate a residential structure, which is not permissible within_the Contra Costa Col.,.y Community Development Department July 28, 1999 Page 2 Conservation Easement. Moreover, the new leachfields would conflict with the provisions of paragraph 1, which reads as follows: "Owners shall not permit, and shall take all action necessary to prevent, any pollutants or contaminants from infiltrating the Los Vaqueros Reservoir or the Kellogg Creek.watershed." The legal descriptions of Parcels A, B, C, and D, fail to mention the recorded Conservation Easement on Parcels C and D. Nowhere in the Application for the Minor Subdivision or the Application for Change of Zoning is there any mention of this Conservation Easement for which the Applicant was compensated for in the Judgment of Condemnation. The District is opposed to any subdivision of this property that violates the restrictions and conditions imposed by its Conservation Easement. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at(925) 688-8162. Sincerely, Sa-OL ` Bruce K. Sage Real Property Agent BKS:dlr Attachment: Final Order of Condemnation No. C 96-01725 c: Kathleen Gibson Robert Nuzum Ed Stewart Dennis Pisila i i JEFFREY D. POLISHER #040551 2 BOLD, POLISINER, MADDOW, NELSON& JUDSON A Professional Corporation �.<<::,Ca:;,N Luu ry 3 500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Ste. 325 Y 4 Walnut Creek, Ca. 94596 1 (510) 933-7777 CONTRA COSTA Co .Recorder's Office 5 STEPHEN L. WEIR, County Recorder Attorneys for Plaintiff DOC - 97-01502-02-00 6 Contra.Costa Water District Wednesday, .AW 20, 1997 13:17:40 7 FRE $4,0011 Tt1 Pd $0.00 Nbr-0000141997 bit/R5/1--9 9 SUPERIOR.COURT OF CALIFORNIA- COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 10 11 12 CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT, ) No. C 96-0172.5 a Public Body, 13 14 Plaintiff ) 3 15 vs. ) } 16 LE.STER,SHEPHERD;MARY FORTH; SAN JOAQUIN ) FINAL ORDER OF 17 TELECASTERS, INC.,MARYSUE LaRUE, } CONDEMNATION' WILLIAM C. FLEET; JANE DOE FLEET, } 18 DANIEL W. LYNCH;LESLIE JENSEN;N.A. ) MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., AMERICAN ) 19 SAVINGS BAND.; DOES 1 THROUGH 50, ) 20 Defendants. ) 1 22 It appearing to the Court that Plaintiff has deposited into Court for Defendants entitled thereto the 23 sum of money assessed by the Judgement in Condemnation entered.in this proceeding; 24 NOW, THEREFORE,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED ANIS DECREED that 25 POUSNEK MAMM, the real property situated in the County of Centra Costa, State of California, and more particularly NeLSON JUDSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 8UME 325 y SM YGNA010 VALLEY ROAL 1 WALNUT CAErM CA 41656 PHONE:514-433.7777 i I described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, be condemned to Plaintiff in fee 2 simple absolute. 3 IT IS FURTER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that a certified copy of this 5 Carder be recorded in the office of the Recorder of Contra Costa County, State of California, and 6 ! thereupon title to said property described in Exhibit "A" shall vest in Plaintiff. 7 Dated: -`7 ELLEN S. JAMES 10 Judge of the Superior Court 11 12 13 l 14 1 { 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 l 23 24 2 UM.POU MADDOW, tN& ATTORNEYS AT LAW j SUITE:325 ��yy i 50O Y3MACIO VALLEY ROAD G ((( WALNUT CREM CA 946" PHONE:510-933-M? j1 f EXHIBIT "Ato The land referred to herein i.s'situated .in the State of California, -County-of Contra Costa,, City unjuoorporated and is described as follows: P2�RcEL OUB All that portion of-the northeast -mu ter of Secytion 31, . ToWnshif -1 South, Juga 2,.Hast, Mount.DiabI6 Base and Meridian., zyjn9 northeast of the County goad tunning irom marsh- Creek Road to•bivermore as'it existed in December, 1.951.: Containing 4 acres. Excepting from Parcel One: .dee general exceptions.following Parcel. Two horei n. P2FCBL TWO The southeast quarter.cf Section 30, Towa'ship 1 south, Range . 2 East, mount Diablo Base and Meridian. , Excepting from-Parcel Two: BEGINx1NG at the_south•litAe bf Section 30 at the north,South -: : centerl.inu: t.henca frim. sAil "toxx •'.CSF BESINNnTC, east along said south liner 685. 8 feet, more or less, to the west line of said Couiny Read;, Thence., along said west -line, the following coursers: N 260 32' OV V, 51.80 feet; N 18* 37' Ott" V, 440.59 feet;• N 27° 1.41 00" W, 110.57 feet; N 520 07' 300 W, 112.51 fee's; IN 61, ,00' 30" W, 63.42 feet; , N 1•C!° 07' 30" W, 195.46 feet.; N 040 i2' 30" W;' 311.23 f a; N 060 561 30 E� 309-58 feet; N 1.1.0 321 -00'" Yt,= IkS.,77 feet; N 070 52' 00" W,. 219.80 feet; ..N +0,,jy 4,��.b 121 001 ��, .°2g21'.,9y 77 feet.; fee N 200 421 00" !W '4,09419 feet, to the east-west czentexlirie c :.iaa d .86 tion 30; Thence, ;,test along said. 006wrest centerline, 56.1.1 feet, to the north-south centeiline; ..;... Thence south.along`said~:h�s��e=�a�t`ta centerline, 2691..96 feet, to the POINT.OF BBGINRXNG. • Also excepting front ParceJ.. Two: BEGINNING at M. point there: the Wgpterly Right-of-way of x i c, g ' erxa�tcary Road iYtterse4ts the East-West centerline of the above said section 30, To.w zship I South, Ranrye East, Mou V Diablo Herit�iiiar, Thence along eaid .9e9terl.y Right-�af=Way of MOZ9 �x ' erritory Road:, s.260 54145" Hr 17..67 ,feet, more or loss, to the point of curvaturc-of a 170 foot radius Curve W the , right, as shown on eha" certain map.entitled "Parcel Map MS. 146-73", f-iled, an J=4Ury .29'; `x.974 in Sora 32 of Maps, cin +Pages 4 and 5, official Rewords. of Contra Costa Coun=ty, Thence, alon=g said curve,. through a, central angl=e.of, 350 S8'00"., an are &Lstancse of 106.73 Teat, to a point of tangency,` Thence* tau4ent to aaid .curve; s' 9° 03'15" , 9.19 feet, 'to the point of curvature of a 530 foot.radius . curve ,to the l=eft; _ Thence, along said curve, t.2irough a central angle of 140 28' 000, an are distance of 133.82 feet, to a point of tangencYr ' Thence, tausend, to pa=id curve, S 5° 24-45- Be 576,79 feet, to the pt'3jntt of curvature"of a 270 foot radius carve to the right; Thence, along said curve, t r•ough a: central 4=91e of - ' ,lie, oil 0011, an arc diste ce of 61.91 feet, ,to a-point of Thence, tangent to said carve, s 50 36'15° W, ..225.41 feet* to the poi=nt of curvature of a 430 foot radius curie to the l=eft- Thence, along said curve, through a central angle of` 110 Oil' 000, .an 'arc distance of 82.55, ,feet, lx a poi=n=t of tangency; , Thence. - tangent ;co said curve, S 50 23'45" Be 308.80 feet, to the poi=nt of curvature of a 234 foot radius curve to the left; Then=ce, alone said curve th=rough a central angle of.: 370 034 01" , an arc distance.of 148.73 feet,. to a point of Thence, 'leaving said curve on a non--tangent line . N 470 23"40" S, 1.5:1.3 few,, 'tis a nai=l and shi=ner set in the Center Stripe-& said Morgan Terri=tory..Road; . .v_.. .fi.�i�zee•r--��+nt�..�►.tz�'s3g'2# ~�7° -�9'4i3"�'��• • ��..'��--deet. . . .,� _ to a 2 irlgh by 2 inch stake get iia a 3 foot by 4 foot t boulder; S . Thence, S 600 22130" 8, 532.39 feet, Thence, N 2.71* 191500 E, 399.42 feet, to a 1-112 inch iron pipe, " Thence, N 590 `59134" B, 288.79 feet, to',a .six by six inch csoruer post .of a four foot high barbed ti e fonce; Thence rux .ng along said barbed wire fence, N 320 4613711 S, BA4371.feet; Thence leaving said barbed wise fence and running, :H 290 '17''26`.`*Bx -853..36 feet Favre or Tess, . to -the. East--West Centerline.*of said section 30; Thence, along sant Bast-'fest Centerline of section 30,. S 870 17105a W, 1370.86 feet ;sore or less, to the POINT OF BEGINNING of this. description. Excepting frah P,4rceia..bne and %1.46: A portion of the southeast*quarter of .Section 30 and a. r portion of the -northeast meter of 8v tion 31, Towu.ship 1 . South,-,' Fuge Mist, Mount. Diablo'Base afd Meridian, containing 60*'039 acnes, more or Legs, described as follows: BEGINNING on the east line of said section 31, distant thereon N 0° 58'`' W, 1.06.b3 feet from the east quarter corner thereof, sgid POnM OF BBGINNXKG also 'being• in the' centerline of the county;Road.14 nown as Morgan Territory Road: thence, along- said '6anter3.irie the fol,lowitig courses.. N. 34° 01.' 45'x• W, 55.42 feet; N 250 3.2` 45" W, 311.06 feet; N 4. - 1.51. 45" W, 16:4.11. feet; N 390 04' OOK W, 1.06.66 feete tN 350• 04' 15u Wx 395.09 feet; H 300 45' 15"•W, 365.14 .feet; K 440 '04* 30" W, 439.93 feet; N 400 0.1 00" W, 488.08 feet; H, 316.52 'feet; Thence, N 4-610, 201 1211 -B, 2101..85 fest, more or less,, to the east lane of said .Stiction 30; e Thence south along: said- east line Pf Section 30 and :continuing south along -the east line of Said Section, 31, 3SaS.7 feet, to the POINT OF UGINNING. Being the parcel conveyed to William S. Ca.rnAzzo by deed recorded July 7, 1960, in Book 3655 of Official Records at Page 4'70. 25W DonzlShepherd. . . F.�sem�rzt MUM 1° A.Easement for Watershed gnd Water Quality Protectiort A.portion of the Southeast quuter of Seetioa 30 TowushIp 1 South,Rfinge 2 East,Fount Diablo . Base and Moridim more parditi 3y desaibcdL fouov Beginning at a point whrue the Westerly -af' tay of Morgan Territory Roast tez, .ts the fast Test terl ahova Seotitbt 30,Tbwnsh1p 1 South; Thence,easterly along said Centerrmc,�.i 87° 17`OST3,440.63 feet to the TRUE POINT OP Thence,Continuing along said Centerline,ISI 87111705T3,93222 foct;- Thence, leaving said C,euterlkc,S29°17`26"W,66136 feet, to a four foot high, barbed wire fence. ° ncc;running along saki"barbed wire fosse,S 92"46 37'W,824.87 fest,to a six by six inch < comer tom Thence,leaving said ba d)od wisp fm=S 59°59'34'W,288.79 feet,to a 1.112 inch,iron pips; Then=,N 26°24'06`x'", 1177.96 fze,to a 1-112 inch iron pipe; Thence, N 50 51' 31"W, 317.44 feet, more or less to the said East-West C;cntcrline of said Season 30,and the TRUB POINT OF BP,.CrINMG of this description. 'Me above-described Easement for Watershed and Water Quality Protection is not intended to confer upon Contra Costa Water District, its'successors and sssigns, any rights to possession or use of said pard, hereinafter referred as the Subject Property. The purpose of the easement is to restrict the owners of the Subject Property, their successors and assigns» from developing said Property or otherwise using it for any Purpose inconsistent-with Contra Costs.Water District's use of neighboring property for the .Los 'vaqueros Reservoir and related watershed. s The following restrictions and conditions shall apply to Owner's rights to udIUze the Subject Property described above. 1. Owners shall not permit, and shall take all action necessary to preverrt, any pollutants car contaminants from infrltxatiag the Los 'Vaqueros Reservoir or the Kellogg Creek wattishtd. ' 2. Owners shall keep all water wells properly oporated and pain t�nil. in compliance with applicable State mer County regulations to•ayold con.tarnination of the watershed aquifer. The abandoning of wells shall,be done In compliance with applicable States and/or County resat im,such=to avoid the introducdonofmrfaW contaIDIa:r3ts into tht aquifer..0=M shp notify Contra.'Costa`Fater Dlstript of&etr intent tO drill new wells,which wells shall be constructed and maintained i compl%e with applicable' State and/or cou regulafions. 3. Owners shall keep all septic systems properly operated and maintained to avoid(allures and res .taut effluent-overflow from the systems. Septic systems shall.be .operated, maintained and abandoned in accordance with appplicabltState and/or County - regulations. 4. Owners shall not permit the storage of any hazardous materials on the Subject Property. 5.° owners shall not permit.nor conduct any grading car other fill or excavation activities on the Subject Property without the prior written consent of Contra Costa.Water Districts which cys=t shall not be unreasonably withheld. Owners shall revegetate all out and fill slopes as required by Coutra Costa'gator District. k 6. Owners shall: conduct any cultivation or livestock grazing on the Subject property in such a manner as to minimize'soil erosion or other potential damages or pollution of the surface waters or watercourses within the Kellogg Creek 'watershed. _ Owners shall revegetate overgrazed areas as required by Contra.Costa Water District that are determined to be polluting the watercourses within the Kellogg Creek watershed. 7. Owners.shall not permit not conduct any discharge of-sediment to any surface waters or watercourses within. the Kellogg Creek watershed from the Subject Property. 8. Owners shall not permit nor conduct any dumping on the Subject Property. 9. Owners shall not permit nor conduct any drilling or exploration for minerals 2 on the.Subject Property. 10. Owners shall not permit nor conduct punned .bTrt ng Ctf1 the 5i�bject Property. 11. - As a part of any application for subdivision of theOwner's property, of which the S bject,Property is apart,thea shall not be permitted a y residers structures to be pLved on the Subjed Property: Any such mucturas shaU bo PhOC4 butssdo of the Kellogg Creek watershed: The provisions orf-shall inare to the benefit of and•be binding upon the heirs executors,personal representatives,adrainirstra.tors, successors a�d aszigs of Owneirs and Contm.Costa Water Distr ot,.itsi zc=ors azul.assigns. 1 PAUL N. McCLOSKEY,JR. (#024541) CHARLES E. McCLUNG,JR. (#89597) 2 W AGSTAFFE &JELLINS 333 Bradford Street, Suite D 3 Redwood City, California 94063 Telephone: (650) 366-9593 4 :r Attorneys for Plaintiffs, LESTER SHEPHERD 5 and MARY DORN SHEPHERD 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 9 1 10 LESTER SHEPHERD and MARY DORM ) NO. C 9 _ff `-'1 SHEPHERD, ) � 11 ) INTERLOCUTORY Plaintiffs, ) JUDGMENT ORDERING � 12 ) PHYSICAL PARTITION � VS. ) 1; } This document is a correct COPY JAMES DORN: DONNA DORM: JULIE ) 0 the orlc�;nwl on file in this 14 BLAINE DORN; AMERICAN SAVINGS } tfice• BANK: and DUES ONE through FIVE. 15 } AT EST L _ Defendants. ) 16 17 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS } ` 18 19 The above-entitled matter came on regularly for trial on June 18, 1998. before the 20 Honorable David B. Flinn. Paul N. McCloskey, Jr. appearing in pro per and for Plaintiffs 21 LESTER SHEPHERD and MARY DORN SHEPHERD, Lawrence E. Smith appearing for 22 Defendant JAMES DORN. Stephen V. Wickersham appearing for and with Defendant DONNA 23 DORN, and Thomas C. Nagle appearing for Cross-Defendant CONTRA COSTA WATER 24 DISTRICT, the Court having heard oral testimony and examined the documents offered in 25 evidence by Plaintiffs, good cause appearing, the Court makes the following findings of fact. 26 1. The Cross-Complaint filed herein has been dismissed with prejudice and the 27 monetary issues set forth therein settled amongst the parties after mediation. 28 2. The subject property is approximately 49 acres in size, a description of which - l - I is attached as Exhibit"A" to this Interlocutory Judgment. The SHEPHERDS and DORNS 2 purchased the property together as tenants in common in 1983,and from 1985 until 1998 the 3 SHEPHERDS have held title to the property in fee but as trustees for the one-half interests of the 4 DORMS. The DORNS were divorced in 1992 and in 1998 the SHEPHERDS conveyed by Grant 5 Deed back to the DORMS the one-half interest which had been held for the DORNS in trust. 6 Both JAMES DORN and DONNA DORN each received a respective one-quarter interest. The 7 SHEPHERDS reside in one home on the premises and JAMES DORN resides on another home. 8 A single well serves both homes which are located within a 26-acre conservation easement 9 established by the CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT by condemnation judgment in Action 10 C-97-02164 before this Court. DONNA DORN does not reside on the property. I 1 3. A Lis Pendens has been duly recorded with the Recorder of Contra Costa I 12 County. 13 4. The General Plan of the County of Contra Costa adopted in January, 1991 14 designates the subject property and its immediately surrounding area as Agricultural Lands. The 15 property does not contain Class I or Class 11 prime productive agricultural soils, nor is it within 16 the Delta Recreation Area. i 17 5. The General flan at page 8-39 declares that the limited subdivision of 18 agricultural lands for legitirnate reasons should be accommodated and does not discourage minor 19 subdivisions for rural residential use into four parcels so long as they meet the criteria for rural 20 residential development, set forth in Section 8 of the General Plan the pertinent provisions of t 21 which are set forth as follows: "(2) Agriculture/Open Space subdivisions are considered a long-term, rurallresidential use of the land. Parcel size 23 shall be a minimum of 5 acres in lands designated Agricultural Lands and 20 acres in lands designated Delta 24 Recreation and 40 acres in lands designated prime productive agricultural lands. 25 (4)(a) Each parcel must have an "on site" producing water well or 26 install a"test well" having a minimum yield of three gallons per minute with bacterial and chemical quality in 27 compliance with the State standards. 28 (b) Have verifiable water data from adjacent parcels .. - 2 - I concerning water quality and quantity. 2 (6) Road,street and access requirements, including necessary right-of-way acquisition and/or dedications will be subject 3 to the Department of Public Works recommendations or each parcel in accordance with the County subdivision 4 ordinance and with standards and procedures of that department. 5 (7) The land must be suitable for septic tank use according to 6 the County Ordinance Code criteria and Health Services Department Regulations. Percolation tests must be passed 7 on all lots prior to the filing of the Parcel or Final Map." 8 6. The testimony of Danville civil engineer Gene DeBolt satisfies the Court that 9 the above criteria and all other requirements under the General Plan are reasonably likely to be 10 met for the four parcels, descriptions of which are attached as Exhibits "B" "C" "D" and "E" to 11 this Interlocutory Judgment. 12 7. The Court has been advised of the fact that the zoning for the subject property 13 since 1980 has been A-80 but that the properties immediately north. west and south of the subject 14 property are either zoned for 10-acre parcel size or less. or have been approved by the County for 15 parcels of 10 acres or less. The court has been further presented with the sworn testimony of 16 County Planning Officer James Cutler that where the General Plan and zoning differ, the 17 provisions of the General Plan take precedence. 18 8. Because of tensions between JAMES DORN and the SHEPHERDS and the 19 divorce of the DORMS, it is in the best interests'of the parties that the property be physically i 20 partitioned. tinder the circumstances there are legitimate reasons, as the term is used in the 21 General Plan, for accommodating division of the subject property into four parcels of 10 or more 22 acres in size with the boundaries and easements as drawn by Mr. DeBolt. 23 9. A Division in Kind of the subject parcel, with division into the four parcels 24 shown in the map attached hereto as Exhibit "F" is in the best interests of the parties, in 25 compliance with the General Plan and is the most the most feasible way of partitioning the 26 subject property. 27 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that subject to approval by the appropriate 28 County agencies finding that each of the four parcels qualifies as to water wells, septic tank - 3 - I capability and the other requirements of Section 8w of the General Plan, the subject property 2 shall be partitioned into the four parcels as shown in the map presented by engineer Gene 3 DeEolt, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit"F' to this Interlocutory Judgment. 4 Plaintiffs are directed to present this Interlocutory Judgment and the necessary 5 data to the appropriate County authorities for approval and to report back to this Court when the 6 necessary approvals have been obtained. �ce�u�r 7 Dated this day of OQtebcr. 1998. 8 DAVID B. Fl. INN 9 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 10 11 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 12 7� f 13 LAWRENCE E. SMITH, Attorney for JAMES DORN 14 1.5 STEPHEN V. WICKERSHAM, 16 Attorney for DONNA DORN 17 Ca246i� "4 � 18 PAUL N. McCLOSKEY. JR.. Attorney for LESTER SHEPHERD and 19 MARY DORN SHEPHERD 20 '1 22 23 224 25 26 27 28 -4 - _� . ,. � /•,.,. _,: tea,.,.., ;y--wM1t ��"K._w.wwy f�,i �n,.0 iv► may„ l� y d •.h PLOT C �hy= 12.69 AC PLOT A C✓"L:Y"! EWyb„ytrtt:+i' y'3`. t•, - Y~ •,�,..�''� 197 AC , r a t PLOT D 2.69 AC If ,f 1 PLOT B -= 4 11.97 AC r i j' .... .._. ..... ._. ....... .. ZREGIOPNAL PyiRKS r EAST SAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 11 Beverly Lane July 13, 1999 President 7 Ward 6 Carol Severin Vice-President Meera Nagaraj ward 3 Jahn Sutter Contra Costa County Community Development Department Treasurer Ward 651 Pine Street, 411'Flr. Nrd 2 y North Wart YY;askamp Martinez CA 94553-00905 Secretary Martinez, Ward 5 Ted Radke Ward 7 RE: RZ993074; MS99002, Lester Shepherd, et. al. Doug Sider, Ward 4 The East Bay Regional Park District has received the subject referral of a rezoning and wad 1S;r; subdivision request. Please be advised that the property is subject to a 40' access Pat O'Brien easement in favor of the District, which is recorded as County Document# 88-189949, General Manager dated October 14, 1998. Copies of the instrument and legal description are attached. This easement, which provides emergency vehicle and maintenance access into the adjoining Morgan Territory Regional Preserve, should be noted on any subsequent map showing a division of that property. It is not clear that the easement (sh6wn as 30' on the present map) is the same as was granted to the District. The District therefore requests 1 confirmation of the location of the 40' easement in its favor relative to proposed new building sites. The District also wishes to note that, while the requested division is mandated by a court order, the court's interlocutory judgement is based, in part, on a finding ofconforrnity with Section 8 (2)of the General flan,permitting divisions of Agricultural Lands to a minimum parcel size of 5 acres. The District believes that 5-acre ranchettes are inappropriate on rural agricultural land, and that this section of the general plan leaves the County, as well as public land agencies like the Park District, vulnerable to just such divisions, and should be amended. Please send revised plans to my attention, and feel free to contact me at(510) 544-2623 should you require any additional information on the District's easement. Sincerely, G�a r i Brian Wiese Advance Planning 2950 Peralta Oaks Court P.O. Box 538i Oakland, CA 94605-0381 www.ebparks.org ., TEE: 510 635-0135 TOO: 510 633-aa6O `' FAX: 510 569-4319 Community Co t aDennis M.Barry,ACCP tJevetopmenL, Community Development Director Costa Department County Administration wilding County OCT 28 PM¢.... 4 551 Pine Streett =)r 4th Floor, North Wing '- " Martinez, California 94553-0095 Phonef925)335-1210 AGENCY OM E QUEST . fk I've V We request yourcomments egarding the attached application current!y under review. "t,ku DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows: ( Building Inspection HSI),Environmental Health Project Planner M e e ga V'�( + t'ir HSD,Hazardous Materials V t PIW-Flood.Control(Full Size) County File Number: t°`c--,1C G(qy74 o M5 _�-PAV-Engineering Svcs(Full Size) p 7� Date Forwarded Prior To:__ - j PfW Traffic(Reduced) P/W Special Districts(Reduced) We have found the following special programs Comprehensive Planning apply to this application: Redevelopment Agency ®Historical Resources Information System ^�JQ Redevelopment Area Fish&Came,Region Fire DistrictActive Fault Zone Sanitary District Water District _Flood Hazard Area,Panel# City 40 School District c- r60 dBA Noise Control Sheriffs Office-Admin.&Comm.Svcs. Alamo Improvement Association i/ Within 2,000 ft.Of Hazardous Waste Site —El Sobrante Plg.&Zoning Committee MAC Traffic Zone Gen.Svcs.-Dep.Director,Communications Community Organizations CEQA: ., Categorical Eaemtion Section epi V-e- D i v Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance. Please send copies of your response to the Applicant&Owner. oo comments on this application. ur-Comments are attached Comments: t d Signarrre�" Mm j:tgroupskdadpoatlrommkcomment.req Date Office Hours Monday- Friday: 8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. CLAYTON WALNUT CREEK MORGAN TERRITORY REGIONAL PRESERVE LAND EVALUATION FOR INTERIM USE FIG. "I po MOUNT DIABLO STATE PARK 0 .c t ww•r L> MORGAN TERRITORY REGIONAL PRESERVE DANVILLE TASSA URA SAN RAMON .44 f a cry, m 0 2 W Z 4 CJ DUBLIN HWY 580 t Wildlife The wildlife of the three new Morgan Territory properties is typical of that occurring throughout Morgan Territory Preserve. These properties serve as a land bridge between the open space lands of Morgan Territory, Round Valley, and Mt. Diablo Mate Park. They form an important corridor for animals with large territories like the golden eagle and mountain lion. The �{ riparian woodlands support nesting passerines, small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Additional species of birds and mammals occur throughout the grassland and oak savannah. Many species are year-round residents, but the parr also receives seasonal use from migrating raptors and songbirds. Scrub jays, towhees and gray fox are found in the chaparral, great-horned and screech owls in the oaks, and western fence lizards perch on rock outcrops. Sensitive and rare- animal species were observed in two locations on these properties. The red-legged frog occurs in the Perry property pond and in the pond in the southeastern corner of the Cardoza property. This species is listed as a "Species of Special Concern" by the State Department of Fish and Game. A golden eagle roost site occurs directly adjacent to the pond on the Cardoza property.Eagle feathers and droppings were scattered around this pond which is especially abundant with wildlife. The golden eagle is listed as a "Species of Special Concern" and a "State Fully Protected Species." It is also protected by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service under the Bald Eagle Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty. The animal itself and any parts thereof(feathers, etc.) are protected by these laws and the collection of these parts is a federal offense. • Initial park use will be limited to the existing staging area and reads. The spur roads that lead to the two ponds containing red-legged frogs will be signed"trail ends, area closed" to route people away from these sensitive habitats. • The pond on the southeastern corner of the Cardoza property should be fenced to reduce cattle trampling and to discourage the unlawful collection . of amphibians. Restricting public access to this particular pond may encourage the eagle to establish a permanent nesting site. 4 w t. ro y- --. . ...�.. 474 61 AVWMWMWtANk } ac1 ` ' a ,a i'« • .0 \\�V R '•� i.-»4 Y •Mrr-nl+� /� `�w4+lY ���F. �ji [� '• ` frl • �� err �/�\� yy. ±� It Y - Trail ' . '. LU c� CL .. �i�t«; �• C a �C .t Y t . . x ♦ . t . .> . a ,dry y� t'iMa tic 3. C 3 .i uy Ix ..� CL i. �_ +u. Reduction in numb it habitat of rare, unique or endan wed species: No Adverse r Impact No adverse impacts to sensitive plant or wildlife habitat would result from construction and use of the backpack camp and proposed trails. Construction of these projects would require only minimal alterations (minor grading and clearing) to existing vegetation and topography. No rare, threatened, or endangered plant species were identified in vegetation surveys conducted at the campsite and along the existing service roads on the MAM property (4/18/97). These surveys included consulting the Electronic Inventory of Vascular Plants of California(California Native Plant Society) (see Appendix S). Therefore no adverse impacts to rare, threatened or endangered plant species would occur. Wildlife surveys were also conducted at the campsite (3121/97) and along the proposed trails on the NAM property (7/18/98, 4/17197). The surveys at t�, campsite identified potential foraging and nesting habitat for the following special- status bird species. golden eagle (CSC, CRP)', Cooper's hawk (CSC), sharp- shinned hawk (CSC), and prairie falcon (CSC). California red-legged frog (FT, CSC) is also known to occur in many of the ponds near the campsite. The riparian habitat located along the north edge of the campsite could support red-legged frog and western pond turtle (CSC). However, these habitats are all located outside the proposed fenced boundaries of the campsite. Public use of the campsite would be concentrated within the fenced area,. Wildlife surveys along the trails of the MAM property identified California red-legged frog (Fr, CSC)' breeding in ponds on the property. It is also highly likely that golden eagle (CSC, CFP), Cooper's hawk (CSC), and sharp-shinned hawk (CSC) all breed on the property, although there are no recent records to confirm this. The property may also support other special-status species, including California tiger salamander (CSC), northern harrier (CSC), loggerhead shrike (CSC), and white-tailed kite (CSC). Townsend's big-eared bats (CSC) were identified living in the old residence in Diggs Canyon. (This building will be boarded up and retained for future rehabilitation.) No new trail construction is proposed in any of these wildlife habitats, as the existing service roads would be used for trails. Multi-use trail activities on these existing alignments would therefore not have adverse impacts on habitat for these species. ' Abbreviations in parentheses denote the fisting status of special status species,as follows: FS=Federally endangered. Fr=Federally threatened SE:State-listed endangered. S7=State-listed threatened. FSG=Federal species of concern cSc=California species of special concern. CFP=California fuity protected species FSP=Federal bald eagle protection act 10 V September 28, 1999 DeBolt Civil Engineering Job No. 96145 811 San Ramon Valley Boulevard Danville, California 94526 Tel: 925/837-3780 Fax: 925/837-4378 Ms. 1VMeera Nagaraj N, -- Project Planner CONTRA COSTA COUNTY -� 651 Pine Street, North Vying v Martinez, CA 94553 CA Dear Ms. Nagaraj: Enclosed are materials responding to your letter dated July 29, 1999 regarding MS 99-0002 on Morgan Territory road in Contra Costa County. The material is as follows: 1. A. One copy of the preliminary title report for the property. B. Ten prints of the revised Vesting Tentative Map responding to the letter from the County Public Works Department. C. The above revised Vesting Tentative Map also addresses the comments included in the letter from East Bay Regional Parks District. D. The above revised Vesting Tentative Map includes the referenced features. E. The above revised Vesting Tentative Map shows the location of the pond which was dry on the day we took our photographs. E Enclosed are eight photographs of the existing site along with a graphic showing the location of the photos. G. The revised Vesting Tentative Map includes the following: 1. Roadway and edge of pavement. 2. There are no trees in development areas. All the existing trees on the site will be maintained. bone will be disturbed by the anticipated road or house construction. 3. Rural Residential Policy Information. 4. Road compatibility with open space fire requirements. 5. Existing mobile home on Parcel 'D' was issued a permit by the County in 1985._ Ms. Meera Nagaraj Project Planner CONTRA COSTA COUNTY September 28, 1999 Page Two 2. We acknowledge the existence of a 26± acre Conservation Easement on the site. This area is the entire Parcel 'C' and 'l3' on the map. .All the structures and services needed for these parcels already exist. Tfie onI"y ym construction proposed for houses, septic systems, wells, and roads are to be on Parcels 'A' and 'B' which are not encumbered by the Conservation Easement. 3. The County Geologist has completed his review of the preliminary soils information prepared by Terrasearch. It's our understanding that he has deemed it adequate for continuing to process the zoning and subdivision applications. We loop forward to working with you on this project. Please call us if you have any questions. DEBOL,T CIVIL ENGINEERING Egc�e F. DeBolt EFD:sk Enclosures cc. Mr. and Mrs. Lester Shepherd wJencl. cc. Mr. Paul N. McCloskey wJencl. WILLIAM B. WALKER, M.D. CONTRA COSTA HEALTH SERVicEs DIRECTOR KENNETH C. STUART, � ENVIRONMENTAL MSEH,REHS -.•rte �•.� --_ H EALTH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIRECTOR RA, (' p C O 1 V{�� T R A COSTA 2120 Diamond Blvd., Suite 200 �j �- �j Concord, California H E A T !Tl 1 SERVICES 94520 Ph(925)646-5225 '- ' fax(925)646-5168 www.cocoeh.org September 9,2002 Contra Costa Community Development Dept. Principal Planner, Robert Drake 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Drake, The four wells located at 9601 Morgan Territory Rd., Livermore meets Contra.Costa Environmental Health regulations for water quality and an adequate water supply of 3 gallons per minute. The four wells produced 20 gallons per minute and exceed the requirements for a building permit to be granted. The wells are located on parcel A, B, C and D, where the original house is located. Please feel free to call me if you have any further questions at(925) 646-5225 x2.18. Sincerely, Jeff Edwards, RENS Senior Environmental Health Specialist JE Jj cc: McCloskey, Hubbard, Ebert &Moore Centra Costa Ccnrrunity Substance Abuse Se°vices Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services + Contra Costa Environmental realth • Contra Costa Health Plan wV • Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs +Contra Costa Menta:Neaith Contra Costa Public Health • Coma Costa P,eaicnal Medical Center + Contra Costa Heaiti7 Center DeBolt Civil Engineering 00 r 811 San Ramon Malley Boulevard 3 N /i: 06 Danville, California 94526 Tel: 925/837-3780 Fax: 925,/837-4378 Date: May 19, 2000 Job No, 96145 Job No.. Ms. Meera Nagaraj Project Planner CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Community Development Dept. 651 Pine Street, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 We are enclosing ti.e following: tine copy of the letter we received yesterday froom. the Centra Costa Water District regarding their approval of the foundation plan for the existing mobile home on MS 99-0002 on Morgan Territory Road. Comments: Sent for your file. It is our understanding that with this foundation approval, the application for a minor subdivision and re-zoning can now be scheduled. Please call us if you have any questions. DeBolt Civil Engineering Eugene F. DeBolt FFD:sk cc:' Mr. Tester Shepherd cc: Mr. Paul N. McCloskey, Jr. CONTRA COSTA WATL-R DISTRICT 1331 Concord Avenue �P.O.Box H2O Concord,GA 94624 ( ) $8 �}}8$.8122 MAY 1 ............................ May 16, 2000 Directors Mr. Eugene F. DeBolt Joseph L.Campbell DeBolt Civil Engineering Presidsnf James esid Pretti 81.1 San Ramon Valley Boulevard Vice President Danville, CA 94526 Elizabeth R.Anslto Vette atrnun 0 Noble O.Elcen#co,D.G. SUBJECT: (1) Your Letter to Bruce Sage Dated May ,2000 (job No. Walter J.Bishop 96145) General Manager (2) .Proposed Subdivision and .Rezoning of 9601 Morgan Territory Road in Livermore Dear Mr.DeBolt: The foundation Mans attached to your letter, in accord with County specifications and the design provided by Wayne Polvado(PE), have been reviewed and found to be consistent with the terms of the Conservation Easement. It is expected.that the existing leach field will be utilized by the Shepherds once the foundation has been constructed and the mobile home reinstalled as indicated. Since , Robert C. Nuzurn Watershed and Lands Manager RCN.ps Cc:Robert Drake, Contra Costa County Project Planner Lester Shepherd Paul McCloskey DeBolt Civil Engineering February 9 145 811 San Ramon Valley Boulevard Joh No. 96145 Danville, California 94526 Tel: 925/837-3780 Fax.: 925/837-4378 Ms. Debbie Chamberlain CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Community Development 651 fine Street, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Debbie: Per your request, we are providing you with this update on the Shepherd subdivision request (MS 99-0002) on Morgan Territory Road. In December, Bruce Sage of Contra Costa Water wrote to us stating "The insertion of a new foundation and the continued use of the existing leach field by the Shepherds appear to be feasible. The District needs to review any plans for the foundation prior to making any commitment for 'such construction to take place within the Conservation Easement." Mr. Shepherd has talked with contractors about this foundation and also talked further with Mr. Sage regarding the possibility of constructing a new home in lieu of the foundation on the mobile. We are currently awaiting a reply from Mr. Sage. We will continue to keep you informed as this matter progresses. Please call us if you have any questions. DEBOLT CIVIL ENGINEERING Eugem F. DeBolt EIS D:sk cc: Mr. Lester Shepherd r ... .... .... .... JUL-28®1595 16x35 CONTRA COSTA WRT6R 510 688 8122 P.02/10 & COMM(XMA .�rr■rrrrrrrs 1331 Concord Avenue P.0,Box H20 Concord,CA 94524 (925)668.OOO FAX(M)6W8122 Via Facsimile and Mail 335.1222 Directors July 28, 1999 Joseph L.Campbell Presidenr James Prett# Vice President E44abeth R.Anally Meera Nagaraj, Project Planner Bette Bostmun Contra Costa County Noble C#.B#cenka,C#,C, wafter J.Bishop Community Development Department General Manager 551 Pine Street, 4`s Floor,North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 Subject: Rezoning--RZ-99300074 and Subdivision—MS-990002 Dear Ms. Nagaraj: This letter is in response to the Application for the Minor Subdivision and Application for Change of Zoning for 9601 Morgan Territory Road. The Contra Costa Water District has a Conservation Easement on the easterly portion of the property, which was acquired as part of the condemnation action filed in Contra Costa County Superior Court. Any further development of the property within the Conservation Easement would be a violation of the Judgment and Final Order of Condemnation recorded in CCW'D v. Lester Shepherd,et ail., Contra Costa,Superior Court No. C 96-01725. (copy attached) The purpose of the Conservation Easement is to restrict the owners of the property, their successors and assigns, from developing the property or otherwise using it for any purpose inconsistent with Contra Costa Water District's use of the neighboring property for the Los Vaqueros Reservoir and related watershed. The Conservation Easement places restrictions and conditions on the property owner's right to utilize the portion of the property covered by the Conservation Easement, see Attachment 1. Attention is drawn to paragraph 11, which reads as follows: "As part of any application for subdivision of the Owner's property, of which the Subject Property is a part, there shall not be permitted any residential structures placed on the Subject Property. Any such structures shall be placed outside of the Kellogg Creek watershed." The subdivision map shows possible leachfields on Parcels C and D, which necessarily anticipate a residential structure, which is not permissible within the C71'71 t7 unity on r t omm M. Barry,ACCP Grnmuniiy Development Director Development Costa Department ,County County Administration Building ��......-- 051 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wingr Martinez,California 94553-0095w; Phone: -� (925) 335-1214 February 26,2002 By FAX& by Mail Paul N.McCloskey, Jr. Wagstaffe &Wagstaffe PO Box 5009 Redwood City, CA 94053-1529 Dear Mr. McCloskey: Re Alternative to Measure Requiring Removal of Existing Caretaker Mobilehome with Expired Land Use Permit Shepherd Rezoning/Minor Subdivision Applications Morgan Territory RoadlTassajara area County File#RZ993074 and#MS990003 We were previously asked to indicate the terms under which staff would be willing to support the above-listed rezoning and subdivision applications. In a letter dated June 26, 2002 to DeBolt Civil Engineering, we identified those measures. One of the measures we identified was an agreement by the applicant to remove a temporary caretaker mobilehome that the County had approved with a land use permit, now expired, prier to the filing of a parcel map. The measure is intended to allow compliance with zoning restrictions that limit the parcel to one residence, and caretaker mobilehomes only on a temporary basis, and only in accord with a land use permit. I understand that your client may wish to retain the mobilehome, and in order to meet County zoning requirements for longer retention of the dwelling may be willing to place it on a permanent foundation. The County Ordinance Code limits placement of mobilehomes to (1) approved mobilehome parks, (2) units on temporary foundations in specific situations, and for a limited period of time; and(3)mobilehomes on a permanent foundation pursuant to the design and operational restrictions of Section 84-68.1602 of the Ordinance Code (T-1 District; attached). Office Hours Monday-Friday:8:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month Alternative to Removal of the Mobilehome It may be possible to alter the mobilehome in a manner that would allow it to comply with the design specifications providing for siting of permanent mobilehomes. It should be noted that such modification may require more changes to the existing mobilehome than substitution of a permanent foundation. As an alternative to the removal of the mobilehome, we would also accept an agreement at this time from the applicant to (1) file an application and enter into a development agreement with the County before filing a parcel map, and(2)post an improvement bond acceptable to the Zoning Administrator to assure that the design of the mobilehome is modified to meet the specifications of Ordinance Code Section 84-68.1602 within 12 months of the recording of a parcel map, including obtaining a building permit and otherwise fully comply with applicable code requirements. Other Potential Caption If the applicant wished to establish the mobilehome on a permanent basis prior to approval of tentative and parcel maps,it would be necessary to file for and obtain County approval of a land use permit for a second residence (in addition to the existing"stick- built' residence on the site). As part of that process,the applicant would be expected to similarly modify the mobilehome including substitution of a permanent foundation and other specifications of the above-referenced code section. However, in this circumstance, it would not necessarily be required to serve as the principal residence on the property. Should you have any questions, please call me at (925) 335-1214. Sincerely, //3"„re ,�. ROBERT H. DRAKE Principal Planner Att. Ord. Code Section 84-68.1602 (Permanent mobile homes) Cc: Jim Liggins,DeBolt Civil Engineering File W:\ms990003.ltr RD\ 2 T-1 MOBILE HOMF./MANIFAC'rURE`3 HOME PARK DISTRICT 84-68.1402-84-68,1804 .Article 8468.14 (3) It is certified under the National Mobile Restrictions Home Construction and Safety Act of 1974 and any subsequent revisions,- 94-Ml evisions;84-M l Use for human ha ` ation. No (4) It is hstalled on a permanent foundation person shall curate,maintain or use for uman Nabi- system approved by the building inspection depart- talon,i sleeping, a mobile ,trailer or rnent of Contras Costa County; camp at on y lot except as provi#d in Articles (5) It is covered with an exterior material oaus- 84-68,l6, 84 .18 and 84.68.20 as follows: tomahly used in new conventional single-family+ (1) In a Ia fu1 mobile horn park or travel residential structures in the surrounding area; trailer park; (6) The exterior covering material must extend (2) In a Ia I recreation vehicle park or to the ground consistent with the most recent coon- campground allo by a land se permit in these ty-adopted Uniform Building Code. If a solid con- districts only;A•2, •3,RB, I and T-1. (Orris. crate or masonry perimeter foundation is used, the 92-65 12. 97-3 # (former 84-68.806), 81-38 § covering material need not extend blow the top of 1. 80"74 17, 75-16 15., ` code 18 168(d)(3); the foundation.No conventional mobile home s in Ords. 6M3 § 1, 68- 2 67-39 § 1). ins shall be allowed; (7) The roofing material is of a material cus- 84-68.1404 Stora e f mobile homes, travel tomarily used in new, conventional single-family trailers and camp ca The storage of a mobile residential structures in the surrounding area; home, travel trailer`or p car at the residence of (8) The roof has cave and gable overhangs; the owner or any o r .dente is permitted when (9) The covering material of the garage or car= not a for twin r Slee "ng purposes; provided, port is the same as used on the mobile home; unit; that the mobile e,trave ler or camp car shall (10) The roof overhangs, siding and roofing be ade uaiely eared from iew from public road- material have Dein;approved by the zoning adminis- way or thorou are.(Orris.9 .65§2[former§84- trator.The exterior materials must be found compat- 68.8101,87- 12,68-30 §2 (f er 184-68.8081 j, ible with neighboring residences. (Gals. 92.65 § 2 67-39 1. rior code § 9168(d 4)). (former § 84-68.8081, 87-22 § 3. 87-3 § 2, 8138 � 2 (former § 84-68,8071. Govt. C. § 65852-3). 8 1406Lotoccupied a living quarters. A lot:" a mobile home park or vel trailer panic shall i be occupied as living 4rtem unless a ---Article 84-68.18 sing a mobilo home or a single t el trailer or aacre e-r—""' single camp car is parked our the to . (prds. 92-65 2 (farmer§ 84-68.8121, 87-3 12, 68.30§ 2 (for- 84.6& 2 Permitted. Mobile homes y be er § 84-U.8101, 67-39 # 1: ;prior code 8668 located. m twined and 'used for housin for a ( A watchman or retaken`in the H4. L-I, A-8 A-40, A•20. A-4, A- A-2, A-1, C. F-R, F-1, -M and W-3 districts, w ri the zoning admird r has Article 84-68.16 determined that all dus article's crit a and pro- Permanent Use cedurres are satisfied. rds.92-65§2 former§ 84- `` 69.806(a)l. 87-22 § 21 -3 § 2). 8"9.16132 Permanent mobile homes.Mobile homes may be located, maintained and used for 84.69.1804 Criteria. er mobile home human habitation by building permit in all single- criteria to be satisfied and c lied with are: family residential districts(R )and all agricultural (1) There is a need for -site caretaker to districts(A- ) when the mobile home unit complics protect possessions of subs tive aloe; with the following; (2) No other housing 1 availab for a caretak- (1) It is to be occupied only as a principal resi- er dence on the lot; (3) The mobile a is not and not be (2) It meets all development standards of the occupied by any individ al possessing an o hip applicable zoning district; or leasehold interest i the property. The c shall be employed as caretaker and shall be entt on-site most u of the day. 370-3 (Correre c+A cowry 7.93) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVED PERMIT APPLICANT: Leer L. Shepherd APPLICATION NO. 2209-84(A) 9601 Morgan Territory Road Livermore, CA 94550 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 006-280-005 OWNER: same as above ZONING DISTRICT: A-80 EFFECTIVE DACE. January Il, 1985 This matter not having been appealed within the time prescribed by law, a permit for temporary carakermr��� is reby gr n ed, subject to the atta hed conditions. Aey A. AESUS Director of Planning ' By rag n, Acting, Zoning Administrator Unless otherwise provided, THIS PERMIT WILL XPIRE ONE YEAR from the effective date, if the use allowed by this pe'rmit is not established within that time. PLEASE NOTE THE EFFECTIVE DATE, as no further notification will be sent by this office: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. FOR CARETAKER MOBILE HOME - LUP #220.-84(A) 1. The permit is granted to Lester L. Shepherd and is not transferable. 2. The permit is granted for the use of a mobile home for a caretaker only. The occupant of the mobile home shall be primarily employed as a caretaker of the subject property and shall be present on.the site most hours of the day. 3. The mobile home shall be removed from the premises when it is no longer needed for the above use. 4. The mobile home shall contain not less than 220 square feet of floor area as defined by the Health and Safety Code. . 5. The mobile home shall be placed on the property as indicated on the plot plan submitted with the application. 6. The applicant shall obtain the necessary utility permits and comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Health Department and Building Inspection Department. Installations shall be done in accordance with the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code and the Calif ornia Administrative Code, Title 25, Part 1, Chapter 2, Sub Chapter 1. 7. This permit is approved for three years at which time applicant may apply for a renewal f or an additional three years. D P:plp ,�- - 84-68.1310 wide. e minimums may be reduced to e feet for an that the mo le home,travel trailer,camp car,vessel, or access ilding or structure: is set bac at least fifty vessel trade hall be adequately screened from view from feet from e front property line. public roadw or thoroughfare.(Ords.2002-27§5,,92- ' ,92- (3) li e .There shall be a rear yard o t least fifteen 65 §2[farmer 84-68.8 10],87-3 §2,68-30§2[former feet for any obile home, "There shall b a rear yard for 84-68.8 101,67- § 1:prior code§8668(d)(5)). accessory S tures of at least three feet. Ord.80-74§9). 84-58.1406 Lia cupled as living quarters. 84-68.1310 Height, A lot in a mobile ho a park or travel trailer park shall No mobile h e or other structure a T-I subdivision not be occupied as living arters unless a single mobile shall exceed twe feet in height.( d. 80-74 §9). home or a single travel tra r or a single camp car is parked on the lot.(Ords.92-6 2[former§84-68.812], 84-68.131.2 0 -street park 87-3 §2,68-30§2[former§84-68.8101,67-39§ 1:prior In T-1 subdivisio every mob' home unit shall have code 8668(d)(5)). at least two off-stree lntornobil storage spaces on the same lot.Such spaces all ea c have a covered or open Article 84-68.16.Permanent Use surfaced area of at least ' e by ineteen feet and shall be entirely outside the requ d s ack and side yard areas. 84-68.1602 ermanent mobile homes (Ord. 80-74§9), Mobile homes may oc e' and used for human habitation by building permit in allsingle-famflyresi- 84-68.1314 Fence, dential districts(R-)and all agricultural districts(A-)when A six-foot decorative f ce shall bound the mobile the mobile home unit complies with the following: home subdivision site are ( d. 80-74 §9}: (I) It is to be occupied only as a principal residence on the lot; 84-68.1315 Subdiv ion .rdinanve, (2) Itmeets all development standards ofthe applicable Mobile home subdivi ons all comply with the provi- zoning district; signs-of the subdivisio rdin ce.(Title 9).(Ord. 80-74 '(3) It is certified under the National Mobile H Construc- §q),, tion and Safety Act of 1974 and any subsequent revisions; (4) It is installed on a permanent foundation system ap- Article 8 .14. strictions proved by the building inspection depamnent ofContra Costa County; 84-68.1402 U e r human bitation. (5) It is covered with an exterior material customarily No person shall to te,maintain use for human Nabi- used in new conventional single-family residential structures tation,including sle .7a mobile h true;trailer or camp in the surrounding area; car in any land use d trio except as cavided in Articles (6) The exterior covering material must extend to the 84-68.16,84-68.18 d 84-68.20 and follows: ground consistent with the most recent county-adopted Uni- (1) In a lawful obile home p or,travel trailer form,Building Code.Ifa stolid concrete or masonryperimeter park; foundation is used, the covering material need not extend (2) In ala recreational veh" park or camp- below the top of the foundation. No conventional mobile ground allowed by 'land use permit in se districts only: home skirting shall be allowed; A-2,A-3,R$,C, and T-1.(Girds.20 -27§4,92-65 (7) The roofing material is of a material customarily §2,87-3 §2[fo r§ 84-68.8061,8 1-3 § 1,80-74§7, used in new,conventional single-.family residential stnretrares 75-16§5:prior c dje§8168(d)(3):Qrds. -83§ 1,68-30 in the surrounding area; §2,67-39§ l}. (8) The roofhas cave and gable overhangs; t (9) The covering,material ofthe garage or carport is the 84-68.1404 garage of mobile homes, vel same as used on the mobile home unit; milers,camp ears,vessels, nd (10) The roof overhangs, siding and roofing, material €xssel trailers. have been approved by the zoning administrator.The exterior The storage any land use district of a mob' home, materials must be found compatible with neighboring resi- travel trailer,c car,vessel,or vessel trailer at a resi- dences.(Ords.92-65§2[former§84-68.808],87-22§3,87- dence of the owner or any Cather residence is pe ' ed 3 §2,8138§2[former§84-68.8071:Govt.C.§65852-3). when not used for living or sleeping purposes;p vided, 509 (Contra costa County,Supp.No.57,11-02) Standard Deed Instrument for Conveyance Of Development Fights to the County (so-called "Scenic Easement') Recorded at the request of Centra Costa County Board of Supervisors Return to: Public works Department,Engineering Services Division, Records Section,and Community Development Department,Current Planning Division APN CDD File# Area GRANT DEED OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS To meet condition(s) of approval number , of , IIWe (Owner(s))hereby grant(s)to the County of Contra Costa,a political subdivision of the State of California (Grantee)and governmental successor or successors of said county,the future development rights,as defined herein below,over a portion of that real property known as - - _of Subdivision. ,situated in the County of Contra Costa, State cif California.and more particularly described in Exhibit"A". Development rights are defined to mean and refer to the right to approve or disapprove of any proposed construction, development or improvement within the areas marked "restricted development area." The development rights are and shall be a form of covenant,which shall runt with the said property and shall bind the current Owner and any future Owner of all or any portion of said property. In the event of disapproval of proposed construction by Grantee,or successor,said proposed construction shall not be performed, Grantee, or successor,may condition the approval of any proposed construction upon prior or subsequent performance of such conditions as Grantee, or successor,may deem appropriate. The undersigned executed this instrument on (Date) {Si�nau�re}A (Print same and title) (signature) (Printnarm and title) (See attached Notary) the reliance on projected proposed subdivision. `'� islative body of a city or in this s tion shall preclude th eg (1) tothing licant, from making at the re est of the prto subdivision county, or the designated advise ,.,,agency,, he determinations required in this 'fiction earlle han required pursuant t , (a). thin in this section sh` l b construed to create a right or entitlement to (m) No g water service or any specific level of orate"rvice. law concerning a Nothing in this section .� in . tided to oboe o is exisge ting customers or to (n) a r sery public water system's obligation to ovicle any potential future customers. public water system`s written (o) Any action chane ging the sufficiec of the Of a sufficient w r supply shall be gov ed f' QA1 Section 66499.3`7. verification o tided, Chapter 642, Statute of 1 Grounds for denial of tentative or par tl of eap 66474. a tentative map, or a A legislative body of a city or county shad ui ed,�if pt makes any bf the following parcel map for which a tentative map was not req findings- inot consistent with applicable general and specific (a) That the proposed maps plans as specified in section 65451, rovement of the proposed subdivision is not (b) That the design or imp consistent with applicable general and specific plans. e of development. suitable for the type (c) That the site is not Physically What the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. ro osed improvements are likely (e) That the design of the subdivision or the p p environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure lis or to cause substantial wildlife or their habitat. of im roVernents is likely to (f) That the design of the subdivision or typep public health problems. e of improvements will conflict cause serious p ro ert (g) What the design of the subdivision or the type acquired b the public at large, for access throughor use of,may approve a with easements, acq y governing y within the proposed subdivision. In is for accesconnectis o�rtfor use, will be provided, and that map if it finds that alternate easements, the public. This will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired byby these o easements of record or to easements established to a subsection shall apply only t urisdiction and no authority is hereby granted judgment of a court of competent j ublic at large has acquired easements for access legislative body to determine that the p proposed subdivision. through or use of property within the prop [Amended, Chapter 518, statutes of 19821 '68 Nil .,4al..:h k 4 r 11) r6f fr r r3 F f a. z .....a .? r._:E t..4 ....;.5..:.....A.u...i... '..._...e. z.v...s. e.#......,; ....::..:. n ... .. .. ... _...... .. .. .. _.r.'r `s...vu.s.�n+...,R.s Community Contra Dennis M.Barry, AEGP �+ CommunityDevelopmentDirectorDevelopment Cost Department Cour County Administration Building Ty 651 Pine Street L �f 4th Floor,North Wing ;l € Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: (925) 335-1214 � '•� rY � i June 14, 2001 Jiro Diggins DeBolt Civil Engineering 811 San Ramon Valley Boulevard Danville, CA 94526 Dear Jim: Re: Identification of proposed Mitigation Measures and Investigations That Might Lead to a Finding of leo Significant Impact Shepherd Rezoning/Minor Subdivision project Morgan Territory Road/Livermore area County File #R993074 & MS990003 (Job. No. 96 145) This is a follow-up to our letter of April 5, 2001. At that time, we indicated that the captioned project is subject to the review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and attached a draft initial study indicating that the project may result in a number of significant impacts. Subsequently, we have further investigated the matter to determine if it alight be possible for this project to qualify- for a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, and possibly avoid the time and expense associated with the preparation of an Environmental impact Report (EIR). We have consulted with resource agencies and a consultant with expertise in the field. Office Hours Monday- Friday:8:003 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st. 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month Pro osed Mitigation Measures and Investigations Attached is a list of mitigation measures and investigations which if followed might provide substantial evidence that would allow the County to conclude that the project will not result in a significant impact. The list of measures pertains to land use, aesthetics, wetland, and biotic impacts. Please nate that the proposed investigations of(1)water supply, (2) percolation testing, (3) wetland delineation, and (4) biotic resource evaluation would all need to be completed before the environmental review could be completed and before the project could be scheduled for hearing. Moreover, unless the wetland and biotic resource evaluations determine that there is no substantial evidence that the project would result in impacts to these resources, then the County could not process a Negative Declaration on the project. :Risk ofL,egal Challenge Notwithstanding our effort to try to find a way to simplify the environmental review, it may be difficult for the County to sustain a finding that the project will not encourage similar parcelization of agricultural lands in the area and thus encourage owners of other properties to undertake similar rezoning and subdivision activities. Such a pattern could, on a. cumulative basis, result in significant impacts on the provision of urban services and agricultural activities. Even when a project has impacts that are individually limited, the CEQA requires that an ETR be prepared when the impacts (including effects of probable future projects) are cumulatively considerable. "therefore, even while providing documentation that indicates the availability of water and suitability for onsite sewage disposal, and no significant evidence of any impact to protected wetlands or biota, an environmental review may be vulnerable to legal challenge. Need to Update SQA Initial Stud, Checklist The initial study checklist was on a form that has been, replaced in the current CEQA Guidelines. Attached is a copy of the current initial study form. Pleasenotethat we will need to convert to the new form before we complete the environmental review. 2 Should you have any questions, please call me at (925) 335-1214. Sincerely, ROBERT H. DRAKE Principal Planner Att. List of Mitigation Measures and Investigations 6/5/01 Letter from US Fish & Wildlife Service Pile C Awpdocs\sh eph erd.l tr RDS. 3 Proposed Mitigation Measures and Investigations that May Lead to A Proposed Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact Proposed Shepherd Rezoning and Subdivision Applications Morgan Territory Road area., County File #RZ993074 .and #MS990002 June 14, 2001 1. Land Use A. Development Density Potentially Sicant Impact— The proposed rezoning from Exclusive Agricultural, A-80 (80-:acre minimum parcel size) to General Agricultural, A- (5-acre minimum parcel size) may encourage secondary subdivision of the resultant parcels of the current subdivision application on this 49+ acre site. Migation treasure— Change the requested zoning f" General Agricultural, A-2, (5-acre minimum parcel size) to Limited.Agricultural, A-3 (I0-acre minimum parcel size). B. Non-Agricultural Use PotentiallySig nicant Impact— The site presently contains a junkyard as defined by the Junkyard Ordinance. Junkyards are not permitted on agricultural lands. Staff can find no record that the junkyard has been legally established.. Mitigation ation Measure--- The applicant shall agree in writing to thefollowing: `allowing.° At least 30 days prior to requesting approval of`a parcel map, the applicant shall remove all evidence of junkyard activity from the property, and properly dispose of related materials in accordance with the law, and inform in writing the Community Development Department-- Current Planning Division and Building Inspection Department—Property Conservation Division that the adequacy of`tie removal of the junkyard activities shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. C. Rural Residential General Plan Policies Potentially Significant Impact--Not all of the proposed parcels may have sufficient on-site groundwater supplies for domestic or emergency service needs. Similarly, not all of the proposed parcels may have suitable sites for accommodating on-site sewage disposal (septic tanks and leachfields). Fere the rezoning approved to allow parcel sues less than what is now possible, and subsequent studies show that not all of the proposed parcels are feasible (i.e., have adequate water supplies or on-site sewage disposal conditions), then the rezoning action may encourage subsequent development proposals where none is feasible. 1' Wzxion Measure_ The applicant shall provide evidence to the Community.Development Department that the Health Services .Department, Environmental Health Division is satisfied that all of the standards have been met that are contained in the attached General Placa Conservation dement Rural Residential.Development Policy i -w.• (4) (Demonstration of adequate water supply), and (7) ..Massing of pereolativn tests on all proposed parcels. 11. Aesthetics A. Potentially Significant I -- The site lies within the "scenic corridor" of Morgan Territory Road, a designated scenic route as provided in the General Plan Transportation dement. Portions of the site may also be visible from, and detract from the views of, the adjoining Morgan Territory Regional Preserve. 2 * Residential development and related uses resulting from this project may result in significant aesthetic impacts to the "scenic corridor." * Any necessary provision for water storage for fire fighting may result in a significant impact to the aesthetics of the scenic corridor. litaation Measures The applicant shall agree to: c A. Grant deed development rights (convey a "scenic easement") on all of the properties to the County except far the proposed residential "home"sites, exert- sites for sewage disposal and water storage provision. Said sonic easement shall be provided on the parcel roup, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. B. A Gleed restriction to be attached to and "run with the deed" of all proposed parcels that limits development to: • One story in height; • Prion to issuance of a building permit, a licensed architect, or other qualified professional, shall attest on the construction plans that the exterior colors of the proposed structure (e.g., roof, 3s•alls) shall not exceed 50% light reflectance, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. • Any proposed water storage for f ire fighting equipment shall either be (1)placed underground, or (2) evidence provided that it will not be visible frcrrra Morgan Territory Road or the adjacent Morgan Territory Regional Preserve, subject to the review and approval of the.honing Administrator. 3 ................................................. . MCCLOSKEY, HUBBARD, EBERT & 1V MORE, LLP-,�> 399 BRADFORD STREET, SHITE 102 `�� RED° ooD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 } TELEPHONE: (650)366-9593 FACSIMILE: (650)366-S043 PALL N. "PETE"McCLOS BEY,JR. SACRA*'M NTQ II Zf14�• JULIAN J.HUBBARD 775 SUNRISE AVENLS,Sum,160 BRUCE W.EBERT ROSEVILLE,CALIFORNIA 95"1 ADRIANA C.MOORS TELEPHONE-(916)781=7875 FACSIMILE:(916)781-2632 August 30, 2002 Mr. Robert Drake Community Development Department 651 line Street, 4`Floor Martinez, California.94553-0095 Re: Shepherd/Dorn applieations County File Nos.'RZ993074 and VIS990002 Dear Mr. Drake: Pursuant to your August 23 memorandum, this letter is submitted on behalf of the applicants with respect to the following points: 1. The applicants agree that their application be, and is hereby, amended to request A-3 (10 acre minimum) zoning. 2. Mr. Dorn agrees to remove all junkyard material fromhis premises. 3. The applicants agree to convey a scenic easement on each of the four proposed } tparcels, excepting only the existing structures on the back two parcels, the: two proposed new f homesites and the sites for water storage and sewage disposal. 4. .Applicants agree to a deed restriction to run with the land which restricts any further structures to one story in height, and that prior to issuance ofany building permit, a licensed architect or ether qualified professional shall attest on the construction plans that the exterior colors of the proposed structure (e.g.,roof, walls) shall not exceed 50% tight reflectance, sulaject to the review and approval of the zoning; administrator: any prol)o,sed water storage for fire-fighting equipment shall be placed underground or evi;:Ie nce provided-that it is not visible Augut 30, 200 Page 2 from Morgan Territory Road or the adjacent Morgan'Territory Regional Preserve, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. All grading will retain the natural contours of the property visible from Morgan Territory Road and the Preserve, save for the four one-acre building sites. 5. With respect to paint lc. in your August 23 mernorandurn, the water supply data previously supplied by Martell Nater Systems and Sequoia.Analytical for the four individual wells on the property, furnished you in my letters of May 18 and June 18-is being sent directly to the Health.Services Department, Environmental Health Division with the request that the Department advise you by letter that County standards have been met 6. With respect to the Biotic Impacts Report, Mr. Wickersham is following up with your new biologist consultant, Jeff Monk, of Monk& Associates, Walnut Creek, to assure that the Janes& Stokes Report complies with the staff-prescribed format. 7. 'The vernal pool identified in the Jones & Stokes Report will be protected against any development grading or construction within 50 feet of the pool, without interference with natural vegetation in and around the pool. I believe these commitments comply with all points of your August 23 memorandum. If any additional commitments treed be made,please advise. Sincerely, Paul N. McCloskey, Jr. P tiMcC/nim. cc: Lawrence E. Smith, Esq. Stephen V. Wickersham.,Esq. The Honorable David Flinn .1 it a Di gins Mr. and Mrs. Shepherd Community ( �'y} Dennis M.Berry,AICP Contra ra 1�d Community Development Director ! Development Costa [department unly County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: (925) 335-1210 July 3, 2003 Jim Di:ggins DeBolt Civil Engineering 811. San Ramon Malley Boulevard Danville, CA 94526 Dear Jinn: Re: Notification of Receipt of Appeal of June 18,2003 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Approval Proposed Shepherd/Dorn Rezoning and Subdivision project #9601 Morgan Territory Road,Tassajara area County File#R; 993074 and#M 990002 This letter is to advise you that the County has received a timely filed appeal of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission approval of the above captioned project (attached). The appeal will be scheduled for hearing before the Board of Supervisors. You will be notified of the date in which the Board will hear the appeal and your applications. R.e--lc nested P gyment of Fish and Game pees at This Time In the event that the County ultimately approves this project, an approval may be subject to legal challenge on the approval under the California Environmental. Quality Act (CEQA). The timely posting of a Notice of Determination of the adopted County (N itigated Negative Declaration.) determination with the CEQA reduces the legal exposure of the project. To limit the exposure on any County approval, it is necessary for the County to post a Notice of Determination with the County Clem within five(5) days of the date of the Board's decision.. If the Notice of Determination is timely posted,then the posting of the notice starts a 30-clay statute of limitations on court challenges. If the Notice of Determination is not filed within five days of the approval,then the posting of the Notice of Determination status a 180-day statute of limitations on court challenges. Office Hours Monday- Friday:8:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month r 2 County staff would prefer to minimize the period for filing a legal challenge on any approval of this project. However, California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 (C) (3)bars the County from pasting a Notice of Determination for the project until the applicant pays a$1250 Fish and Gane fee. We have previously requested payment of this fee. We wish to reiterate our request for payment of this fee at this time. A check may be made payable to the County of Contra Costa. If you have any questions,please call me at(925) 335-1214. Sincerely, ROBERT H. DRAKE Principal Planner Att. 6/30/2003 Letter of Appeal from Save Mt.Diablo Cc: Lester Shepherd Paul McCloskey, Jr.,McCloskey, Hubbard,Ebert&Moore,LLP Danielle Kelly, Clerk of the Board Dennis Barry Catherine Kutsuris Darwin Myers Heather Ballenger,Public Works Dept. Computer File GACurrtnt Plug\currplan\L,etters\rz993074.ltr.doc RD\ ..... .. .,jun its uj uq: iup a;ave nounr. viec act zezw.,jat r-joui P. I AV Darwin Myers Community Development Department IJvcarci r?f ?irecF rS; Contra Costa County Malcolm Sproul 651 Fine Street,North Wing,4`h Floor President Arthur Bc nwQ11 Martinez,CA 94553 Allau Prager Vice Presidents Care of Barren Piona,for delivery to San Ramon Valley Planning Commission Aniatra Momison,11). FAX 925 370-9775,FAX 925 335-1222 Secretary John mcrcurio Trea.stirer Re: Shepherd/Dorn Project Burt Bassler #RZ993074,#MS990002,#DA0201222 Mary L.BowarmanFh.D. Donald de Frenmy,Ph-D. June 18,2003 Stephen Joseph Douglas Knauer Robert Marx Dear Mr.Myers, S mven MchInum.J.D. rtobw Nunn Save Mount Diablo has reviewed the materials about the proposed development of the David id Sao gentShepherd/Dom Project on scenic route designated Morgan Territory Road,and adjacent to David Trotter Morgan Territory Regional Preserve,its main staging area.,and to Contra Costa Water.District's StOff Los Vaqueros watershed. Unfortunately 1 cannot attend this evening's meeting because of a Rontild gown conflict with another meeting. If possible,Save Mount Diablo would request continuance of this Executive Di mclor item so that we can appear before the Planning Commission. Seth Adams Direct(w of Land We appreciate the staff'work involved in consideration of this project,and tine detail of the biotic Programs Sunnnr.847.. reports and the mitigated negative declaration. We also appreciate the unusual circumstance of Pffice Manager court involvement in the proposing a physical partition of the site. SJWD Hailing Address There is another way to partition the site.however,which is to sell it and divide the proceeds, 1196 Boulevard Way#10 Walnut Creek.CA 94595neither is division into 4 parcels necessary for a partition. What'sproposed insteadis a rezoning and subdivision of is 49 acre property which has 80 acre zoning. T.-lelxhone. (925)947-3535 Given the zoning and location,Save Mount Diablo is opposed to the rezoning and Fax: subdivision as a bad precedent for the Morgan Territory-Tassajam area to general,for a (925site; property adjacent to a public park and a public watershed,and for this site specifically. We ��is�,,,<tvcat�s�trnidlahlrs.r�r°sw disagree with the mitigated negative declartition In that we believe impacts on listed species, visually,and on adjacent public lands are significant. The property is located at the crest of Morgan Territory Road in grassland highly visible area. - Without conclusive visual analysis,we are not persuaded that the two new units,or the cines that will inevitably be built where the existing house and mobile home etre now located,will not be seen from the road or the park. Other houses along Morgan Territory Road are highly visible The site is surrounded by confirmed locations of listed species and fragmentation of the site, more residents, more pets and landscaping,will inevitably increase impacts on these species. . : ... Jun IS 03 04: 19p Save Mount Diablo 925--847-6Ua P. � •The County has mined success with scenic and other easements which are proposed as mitigations,and the text of both proposed easements is too limited in detail to be effective or enforceable(a requirement under CEQA for mitigations). Itis not clear whether the easement would affect bath home sites and water storage and leach fields the suggestion is that the new home sites are for water storage and sewage disposal--and the size of the undefined scenic easement envelopes is undefined. uses allowed for the Heavy Agriculture zoning purposed could easily conflict with and defeat the purposes of having a scenic easement. Further,the one sentence scenic easement condition is confusing; "At time of approval of`a parcel map, the applicants shall convey a scenic easement can each of the four proposedparcels, excepting only the existing structures on the back two,parcels, and the proposed new homes tes for water storage and sewage disposal." Even if these problems are resolved, Save Mount Diablo remains opposed to a subdivision on a substandard lot adjacent to two public preserves. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Seth Adams Director of Land Programs JUL-28-1999 16=38 CONTRA COSTA WATER 510 688 9122 P.10/10 Contra Costa CoL ::y Community Development Department July 28, 1999 Mage 2 Conservation Easement. Moreover, the new leachfields would conflict with the provisions of paragraph 1,which reads as follows: "Owners shall not permit, and shall take all action necessary to prevent, any pollutants or contaminants from infiltrating the Los Vaqueros Reservoir or the Kellogg Creels watershed." The legal descriptions of Parcels A., B, C, and D, fail to mention the recorded Conservation Easement on Parcels C and D. Nowhere in the Application for the Minor Subdivision or the Application for Change of Zoning is there any mention of this Conservation Easement for which the Applicant was compensated for in the Judgment of Condemnation. The District is opposed to any subdivision of this property that violates the restrictions and conditions imposed by its Conservation Easement. if you have any questions or need additional 'information, please contact me at(925)588-8162. Sincerely, eLi Bruce K. Sage Real Property Agent s , Attachment: Final Order of Condemnation No. C 96-01725 c: Kathleen Gibson Robert Nuzum Ed Stewart Dentis Pisila AND 'VERNAL POOL 4 J Hr 4 ,t 5 Y 4` n r f "f. / R 4 f.r� iY i ,jam Y2 ��5 f : r Y , v j'fr PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A.TION AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ON IT Denni an, ICP Community Contra Comm it Development pme Community I3eveiopmsn# l7irector Development Costa ..�.. Department county County Administration Building 651 Pine StreetttAY 1 .3 ?003 4th Floor,North Wind Martinez,California 94553-4095S.L.WEIR, COUNTY CLERK Phone: S,R Q CONTRA C ost UNfY yJ. (925) 335-1210Ma NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Shepherd/Dom Project County File#RZ993074 #MS990002 #DA0201222 Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the"Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (CEQA)as amended to date,this is to advise you that the Community Development Department of Contra.Costa County has prepared an initial study on the following project: DeBOZT C1VILIG1IEERING A licant LESTER SHEPHERD ET AL Owners --The subject project consists of three related applications that are described as follows: A. County File#RZ993074—A request to rezone approximately 49 acres from Exclusive Agricultural,A-80 (min. parcel size of 80 acres)to Heavy Agricultural, A-3 (min. 10- acre parcel size, B. CountyFile #MS990002 - A request for a vesting tentative map to subdivide approximately 49 acres into four 10+ acre parcels. C. County File#DA020122—A request to enter into a development agreement with Contra Costa. County to allow the conversion of an existing mobilehome on a temporary foundation on proposed Parcel D to be converted to a mobilehome on a permanent foundation in accord with the provisions of Ordinance Code Section 84-68.1602 to a date after the proposed parcel map is approved and recorded. The County had authorized the mobilehome to be placed on the property subject to the requirements of a land use permit for a limited period of time for the purpose of aiding a family member, and the term of the permit has expired. The proposed conversion would allow,the mobilehome to remain on the property. Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. -5:00 o.m. 2 The subject site consists of approximately 449 acres and is located at#9601 Morgan Territory Road in the TassajaratMorgan Territory Road area. (A-80)(Zoning Administrator; T22m)(CT 3551.03 (Parcel No. 006-280-009) The Community Development Department has completed an initial study and concluded that the project may result in significant aesthetic, agricultural resource, biological resource, cultural resource,and public service impacts. However,measures have been identified which would reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. The applicant has agreed to those measures. Consequently, staff is proposing that the County adopt a Mitigated negative declaration determination for the purpose of this project's compliance with the review requirements of CEQA.. A copy of the negative declaration and all documents referenced in the negative declaration may be reviewed in the offices,of the Community Development Deponent, and Application and Permit Center at the NMcBrien Administration Building, North ging, Second Floor, 651 Fine Street, Martinez, during normal business hours. Public Comment Period-The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents begins on Wednesday,May 14,2003 and extends to 5:00 P.JV:,Friday.Tune 13,2003. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address: Name: Darwin Myers Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street,North Wing,4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 It is anticipated that the proposed Negative Declaration will be considered for adaption at a meeting of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission of the County of Contra Costa on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. The hearing is anticipated to be held at the San Ramon Valley Lined School District Board Room, 699 Old Orchard Drive,Danville, CA. Darwin Myers Project Planner cc; County Clerk`s Office (2 copies) 11fs-cdlusers8l13Drakeirz3930 74 nnd.dc)c RD1 BILE COPY INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONTMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Proiect Title: Rezoning File#RZ993074,Minor Subdivision#MS990002, and Development Agreement#DA020122. 2. Lead.Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County, Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street,e Floor,N. Wing,Martinez, CA 94553 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Darwin Myers(925) 335-1210 4. Project Location: The property fronts for approximately 1,870 feet on the oast side of Dorgan Territory Road,immediately south of the EBRPD Morgan Territory Regional Park and it is approximately 2,000 feet north of the Storybrook Lane/Morgan Territory Road intersection. The site is chiefly in the NW 114 of the SE 214, Section 30,TIS,R2E and is addressed 9601 Morgan Territory Road in the Morgan.Territory area(A-80) (Z-A-. T22m3)(CT 3551.03) (Parcel 006-280-009). 5, Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Jim Diggins,DeBolt Civil Engineering, 811 San Ramon Valley Boulevard,Danville, CA 6. General Plan Designation: Land Use - The property is outside the urban limit line and is designated Agricultural. Land (AL). This land use designation includes most of the privately-owned viral lands in the County, excluding private lands that are composed of prime soils or lands that are located in or near the Delta. Most of these lands are in hilly portions of the County and are used for grazing livestock,or dry grain farming. The category also includes non- prime agricultural lands in flat East County areas, such.as outside Galley,which are planted in orchards. th"gic�u-Itu-al-L ds--d si tion.-is-to prtservemdf�rote-Gt lands-- _ capable of, and generally used for,the production of food,fiber, and plant materials. The title is intended to be descriptive of the predominant land.-extensive agricultural uses that take place in these areas,but the land use title or description shall not be used to exclude or limit other types of agricultural,.open space or non-urban uses such as landfills, except as noted below in the descriptions of"Agricultural Core,"°`Delta Recreation and Resources,""Watershed," "Parks and Recreation," and"Open Space." The maximum allowable density in this category is one dwelling unit per 5 acres. The uses that are allowed in the Agricultural Lands designation include all land- dependent and non-land dependent agricultural production and relative activities. The following standards shall apply to all uses allowed in the Agricultural Lands designation: 2 (1) Any subdivision of lands shall include,conditions of approval which conformm with the requirements of the"Ranchette Policy,"which is outlined in the "Agricultural Resources"section of the.Conservation Element(Chapter 8); and (2) Residential and non-residential uses proposed in areas of special flood hazards, as shown on FEMA maps, shall conform to the requirements of the County Floodplain Management Ordinance (County Ord. #87-45) and the further requirements outlined in the"Delta Recreation" section (d)(5) below. Scenic Route The General Plan Circulation.and Transportation Element designate Morgan:Territory Road that fronts on the west side of the site as a scenic route. All of the land that is visible from a scenic route lie within a"scenic,corridor". The western portion of the site lies within the scenic corridor for Morgan Territory Road. Scenic route policies provide that development within the scenic corridor is to be reviewed to determine whether it may adversely affect existing views from the scenic route. 7. Zoning: The property is zoned Exclusive Table 1 Agriculture(A-80). Chapter$4.84 of the 3UN MARY OF ZOTNLNG STANDARDS Zoning Ordinance contains the ordinance code FOR.THE A=80 DISTRICT provisions of this district:..The permitted uses Klin. Standard Lot Area: 80 acres ard include: a) all types of agriculture;b) erection p` wtd th tom'�: �st " of agriculture-related buildings; c) a stand not Depth( , no s u rd exceeding 2,00 square feet for sale of Setback Standards Side Yard(min..): 50 ft agriculture products grown on the premises; Livestock Structures: 50 rt and d) a detached single-family residence on Front Yard(rnin.): 25 ft each parcel and accessory structures. father Rear Yard( .); 15:ft provisions of the.A.-80 District are listed in Mm Building Iieisht: 2 lta stories or 35 Table 1. 8. Description ofPro`ect: The applicant requests three related applications on the subject 49- acre site. A. File #RZ993074 — A request to rezone 49 acres from Exclusive Agricultural (A-80 minimum parcel size of 80 acres)to Heavy Agricultural(A-3;minimum 10-acre parcel size). B. File#MS990002—A request for vesting tentative map(VTM)approval to divide the 49+ acre parcel into four parcels. C. File ODA020122 P--A request for approval of a development agreement to forestall the proposed conversion of an existing mobilehome on a.temporary foundation on proposed Parcel D to a mobilehome on a permanent foundation that complies with the requirements of Ordinance Code Section 84-68.1602 to a date after a proposed parcel map is approved and recorded.. 3 The applicant's statement of the justification for the requested rezoning is to formalize a court-ordered partition. (Enclosed with the application is a copy of an Interlocutory fudgment ordering physical partition by the Superior Court of California,County of Contra Costa.) Lester Shepherd and et.al.,were the plaintiffs and Contra.Costa Water District was a cross defendant. The Coram order states,"that subject to approval by the appropriate County agencies finding that each of the four parcels qualifies as to water wells, septic tank capability and the other requirements of Section 8w of the General plan,the subject property shall be partitioned into the four parcels as shown in the map...." All lots shown on the VTM comply with the standards of the proposed A-3 District. 9. Surrounding;Land Uses anti Setting: The site is located in the Diablo Range,within a hilly upland area that has historically been used for grazing cattle,wildlife habitat and watershed. The prevailing parcel size in the vicinity is 8 to 100 -acres. The City boundary ofDanville is approximately 5 miles west of the site and Brentwood is approximately 6 miles northeast of the site. The property to the north is a wildlife nature preserve, the Morgan Territory Regional Preserve,which is awned and operated by the East Bay Regional.Park District. There is a trailhead and visitor's-center immediately north of the subject site. The Preserve contains trail and caping facilities. The property to the east lies within the watershed of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir, and is owned by the Contra Costa Water District. 10, Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required(e.g.,Permits,Financing Approval,or Participation Agreement.) The agencies with permit-granting authority over the proposed project include the Building Inspection Department (Building Permit), the Public Works Department (Compliance with Conditions of Approval Administered by the public Works Department),the Health Department (regulates water wells and septic systems). No outer permitting agencies have been identified. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIAL AFFECTED: The environmental f actors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: _• Aesthetics X Agdcultaral Resources Air Quality x Biological Resources x Cultural Resources _ Geology/Soils Hazards,&Hazardous Materials Hydrology/W,titer Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing —X— Public Services - Recreation Transportation/Traffic � Utilities/Service Systems _.__ Mandatory]Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the proj ect have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I fired that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact"or"potentially significant unless mitigated"impact on the environment,but at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and(2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I End that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,including revisions or mitigation measures that are unposed upon the proposed proj ect,nothing further is required. 1?-1 2-0 0 Signature Date Darwin Myers, Project Planner 5 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 1. AESTHETICS: Would the project: A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X B. Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X D. Create a new source of - substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X Summarv: The site is visible from Morgan.Territory Road,which is an officially-designated scenic route(see General Plan,Figure 5-4). However,views of the hills along this rural road are of large lot residential(i.e.,ranchettes),grazing land and permanent open space. There are existing residences on proposed Parcels C and D, Impact. Proposed Parcels A and B are 11.97 acres each,and their respective building sites lie within the scenic corridor of Morgan Territory Road, and may be visible from, and detract from the views from the adjoining Morgan Territory Regional Preserve. Residential development and related uses resulting from this prof ect may result in significant aesthetic impacts to the scenic corridor. Any necessary provision for water storage for fighting may result in a significant impact to the aesthetics of the scenic corridor. lvlit nation Measures---The following measures would reduce any aesthetic impact from the project to a less than significant level. T.A. Convey Scenic.E'asement Over Site Excegt for House Saes—At time of approval of a parcel map, the applicants shall convey a scenic easement on each of the four proposed parcels, excepting only the existing structures on the back two parcels,and the two proposed new homesites for water storage and sewage disposal. I.B. Deed Restriction on T7esign of New Develo men,'--At time o f approval of a parcel map,the applicants shall agree to a deed restriction to run with the land which restricts further structures to one story in of-any-btV'1d1ng­pint-#it; -qualifed -- professional shall attest on the construction pians that the exceed 50%light reflectance subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator; that any proposed water storage for fare-fighting equipmentshall be placed underground or evidence provided that it is not visiblefrom Morgan Territory Road or the adjacent Morgan Territory Regional Preserve, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.All grading will retain the natural contours of the property visible from Morgan Territory Road and the Preserve,save for the four.ane-acre building sites. E. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact by the California Dept.Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would the project: A. Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland or Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? X B. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X C. Involve other changes in the existing enviro=ent which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, to nor#-agricultural use? X Summary: The Soil Survey ofContba Costa County classifies the soils that occur on the property as the;Dibble silty clay loam. Itis a non-prirne(Class IV)soil used mainly for range,wildlife habitat and watershed. The ConservadonElement (pg. 8-27)indicates the property is not classified as an"Important Agricultural Area." frn Ad: Materials and equipment stored on Parcel C constitute a junkyard as defined by the Junk-yard Ordinance. Junkyards.are not permitted on agricultural.lands. Mitigation Measure-The following measure would reduce any impact to agricultural activity from theproject to a less than significant level. ZI A. .At least 30 days prior to requesting approval of a parcel map,the applicant shall remove all evidence of junkyard activity from theproperty,andproperly dispose ofrelated materials in accordance with the law, and inform in writing the Community Development Department -- Current Planning.Division and ___ ------------_-_---��ilda`ng�`ns`peck'-eon�epartm�n3=�'roperryC'arisen%aticn�7ivisiorithattfiema-t�iialhas�s�enreva`evs�eil _- _ _ for verification purposes. in. AM QUALITY-Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relief upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X B. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an i 7 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No lmact. Inco:noratian fact Lact existing or projected air quality violation? X C. Result in a cumulatively con.sidera- able net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air duality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? X D. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X E. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X Suir_niarv; The low intensity use proposed is not expected to yield significant air quality impacts. 1V. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES-Would the project: A. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,polices, or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? X B. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional poli.c es-,regulation`s arby the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? X C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section.404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption, or other means? X D. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inco or�rat on Impact act or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? X E. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? X F. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation: Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or State habitat conservation plan? X St,nmary: The project,if approved,would result in a total of four residences developed in areas of annual grassland vegetation. The oak woodland would not be disturbed., and no road construction is proposed for the project. Site improvements include construction of driveways,leach fields,residences and accessory structures on Parcels A and B. There is an existing residence and barn on Parcel C,and an existing residence on Parcel D. The stock pond on proposed Parcel C and the vernal pool that is located at the southwest corner of proposed Parcel Bare the most significant habitat elements identified by the biologists (see Figure 1). They are in locations shown for open forms of land use. The Conservation Element,Figure 8-1, indicates the site is not within a significant ecological area. The application was referred to the East Bay Regional Park District,who provided information indicating the Morgan Territory area is known to contain habitat for sensitive/protected species (letter dated October 26, 1999). In summary,the project does not require a 404 Pern dt from the Corps of Engineers. All trees are to be retained,so a tree permit is not required. Due to the large lot size(>10 acres),the project should not hamper use of existing wildlife corridors. Perhaps in part because of the issues raised by the EBRPD,the applicant authorized preparation of a biologic resources report,prepared by Jones&Stokes.Associates(SSA).That report provides background information on site conditions and analyzed potential impacts to:a)waters of the United States and waters of the State;b)fairy shrimp;c)California red-legged frog;d)California tiger salamander;and e)nesting raptors. The County's peer review biologists,Montt& Associates(M&A)reviewed the ISA report and issued a letter report that presents a listing of impacts and mitigation measures. Appendix A presents M&A's biologic resource evaluation(letter elated September 17,2002),along with the TSA report. It also includes a copy of E-Mail messages dated April 18 and 21,2003 from the representative of the -- _J eparternt ref Fish-&laame..The.fullrawing iwpa:ts d n itlgatiou-nieasures--are based upon-those biological-reports.- Potential iologi xeports.Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1. Waters of the United States and Waters of the state Impact: As"isolated" waters,the pond on proposed Parcel C and vernal pool on proposed Parcel B are no longer regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Regional Rater Quality Control Board is no longer regulating these isolated water bodies pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act,but the Board does regulate isolated water bodies as "waters of the State" pursuant to the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act' Although approval of the minor subdivision and rezoning applications would not result in damage to or :he term"waters of the State"is deed by the Regional Board as any surface water or groundwater including saline waters,wimin the boundaries of the State(Wates ccide§ 13050 e)). Ponds,seasonal wetlands,and vernal pools would all meet the definition of waters of the State. The Regional Board,one of the Porter-Cologne Authorities,considers clean fill(for Y I 9 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No b oact Incorporation. ltnnact Zmuact change in the pond and vernal pool,the owners of Parcels B and C could intentionally or inadvertently damage the resource. However,approval of the application presents the potential to protect this resource. IVlittgation Measure. IY=1-A. A recorded deed o�development rights shall be granted to Contra Costa County per the Nesting Tentative Map. The deed restricted area shall include the pond and vernal pool and area within 300feet with the exception that the land on Parcel C within 4(l feet of the existing residence shall not be fenced. Rather, the fencing shall encroach into the 300-foot setback in this area only. The applicant shall submit a fencingplan for compliance with the provisions of this mitigation measure prior to approval of the Parcel Map and a ."second sheet"shall be recorded that delineates the restricted area. kariguage on the second sheet shall identify the fenced areas as being deed- restricted where no grading,other development activity,stockpiling,trenching,tree cutting,shrub removal,or agricultural use,can occur.Any disturbance or intrusions into the deed restricted area shall require prior approval from the.Zoning Administrator, and.the Zoning Administrator shall review and approve the language in the deeded disclosure statement,and recordation ofthe deed of development rights shall be concurrent with recordation of the parcel map. IV-1 Be The following statement shall be recorded at the County Recorder's Office for Parcels B and C to not fy future owners of these affected parcels that fencing of the Gleed restricted area is required to prevent impacts to the pond, the vernal pool and their habitat: ":This document shall serve as notice that you have purchased land that is deed-restricted habitat for special status species.. The boundary of the deed-restricted area is to be fenced with a split rail or open wire fence. The fenced portion of the property is to be retained as undisturbed open space,with no grading,other development activity,stockpiling,trenching tree cutting, shrub removal or agricultural use" IV-1-C. Submit evidence that the fences around the pond and vernal pool have been installed prior to requesting building or grading permits on Parcels C and B, respectively. 2. Faia Shrimp Impact: Several species of fairy shrimp are known to occur in the vicinity of the property.vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynch), longhorn fairy shrimp (B'ranchinecta longiantenna), and California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis). Both the vernal pool shrimp and the longhorn fairy shrimp are federal-listed species; .hence,they..areprotected under tbe feederal.Endangered species-Act...California-linderiella isaUderal"-species-of - concern". Federal species of concern are species in which more information is needed to determine their rarity status. Federal species of concern are not protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act; however, California linderiella could be protected pursuant to CEQA since it is considered a"rare"species. The vernal pool identified by 3SA report provides suitable habitat for these three species of fairy shrimp. According to the 3SA report,the project applicant has no intentions of filling this vernal pool. As such,it is unlikely there would be discretionary permit that would be required from a federal agency for the proposed example,soil)in waters of the State to constitute"pollution". Pollution is defined as an alteration of the quality of the waters of the State,which unreasonably affects its beneficial uses(Water Code§ 13450(1)). The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act,Water Code§ 13264,requires that"any person discharging waste,or proposing to discharge waste;within any region that could affect the waters of the State to file a report of discharge"with the Regional Water Quality Control Board through an application for waste discharge(Water Code§ 13260(a)(1). 10 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation. Significant No Impact Incorporation hnuact Impact project that would ensure protections for the vernal pool. If the vernal pool supports one of the two listed fairy shrimp mentioned above, and this pool was .tilled, this would result in the "take" of a federal-listed species. "Take" of a federal-listed species without prior authorization from the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service would constitute a significant adverse impact pursuant to CEQA,and could also result in civil and/or criminal charges pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act. M-itization Measure: The mitigation measure for Impact#1 above will provide protection for fairy shrimp habitat(see Initial Study,page 7). (TV-2) 3. California Red-Legged Frog Impact:The California red-legged frog is a federal-listed threatened species and a State species of special concern. This State designation affords no legal mandated protection; however,pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines(14 CCR§ 15380,some species of special concern would be considered"rare". Pursuant to its rarity status,any unmitigated impacts to.rare species would be considered a "significant effect on the environment"(§ 15382). Thus,species of special concern must be considered in any project that will,or is currently,undergoing CEQA review, and/or that must obtain an environmental permit(s) from a public agency. In 2000, the USFWS designated critical habitat for the California red-legged frog. The property lies within /mown designated California red-legged from critical habitat. According to the report issued by JSA,the pond on the property provides suitable habitat for the California red- legged frog. No focused surveys for the California red-legged frog have been conducted on the property so its presence on-site is unknown. However,since the frog is known from ponds on the immediately adj acent East Bay Regional Park/District property and on the Contra Costa Water District's Los'Vaqueros watershed property, there is a high likelihood California red legged frogs are present on the property. The proj ect proponent has no intention of impacting this pond but there are no mechanisms in place to protect it. Future owners of the proposed Parcel C may wish to modify or eliminate the pond. If the pond supports the California red-legged frog,and this pond was filled,or otherwise affected by the project,the result would be the "take" of a federal-listed species and its critical habitat. "Take" of a federal-listed species without prior authorization from the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service would constitute a significant adverse impact pursuant to CEQA,and could also result in civil and/or criminal charges pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act. Mitigation Measure: The mitigation measure for Impact 41 above will provide protection for the red-legged frog(see Initial Study,page 7). (IV-3) 4. Califomia`i-Rer_Salamander Impact:The California tiger salamander is a federal candidate for listing as threatened or endangered. In July 2002,the Sonoma County District Vertebrate Population of the California tiger salamander was emergency listed as endangered by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. In September 2000,the Santa Barbara County District vertebrate population.was federally-listed as endangered. It is likely only a matter of time before the Central Valley population(which.includes Contra Costa County)is federally-listed. The California tiger salamander is also a State species of special concern;hence,it must be included in any CEQA review being prepared for a project. Finally, the California tiger salamander is protected pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Under Title 14,the California tiger salamander cannot be taken or possessed at any time. JSA reported"probable California tiger salamander larvae in the existing pond on the site,but the presence of this species could not be confirmed because the animals were not captured." The California tiger salamander is known from the immediately adjacent East Bay Regional Park.District property,and from the nearby Contra f ll Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No lmpact lncomoration act Impact Costa Water District's Los Vaqueros watershed property. JSA stated that the larvae in the pond were probably California tiger salamander larvae and the County's biologic consultants(Monk&Associates)agree with this conclusion. Thus, the large vernal pool would also constitute breeding habitat for the California tiger salamander. It should be recognized that the California tiger salamander spends a few weeks each year breeding in ponds and temporary pools. The majority of its life cycle is spent in small mammal burrows such as those of the California ground squirrel(Spermophs7us beechyi). This salamander is known to migrate up to 0.6 miles from their upland - ------ -- -habitats-(burrows)-to their-breeding-ponds.—Hence,--upland-habitat-andunobstructed migration corridors are necessary to maintain-the survival of this species. In fact,when the presence of this salamander is known on a project site,California Department of Fish and Game will typically require large areas of upland to be preserved in.perpetuity for.this salamander. Based on JSA's description of the property,there are abundant burrows on the property that could provide the California tiger salamander with summer retreat habitat(estivation). Janice:Gan.,a representative of the California Department of Fish and Game CDFG)inspected the site on March 26,2003. She:has concluded that the two new homnesites(Parcels A and B)on the western portion of the site are likely to impact the California tiger salamander(CTS)species. The Department has suggested measures that would reduce.any impact to the CTS to a less than significant level in two E-Mail transmittals dated April 18 and 21,2003 to the applicant. In a letter elated April 23,2003,the applicant has indicated that he has agreed to the measures proposed by CDFG,and indicated that there will be no construction on Parcels A or B(closest to Morgan Territory Road) except far the driveway,building pad,water tank and septic systemareas which all tolled comprise no more than 2 acres on these two 12+acre parcels. Mitigation Measure for the California Tiger Salamander Prior to approval of a parcel map, the applicant shall: 1) Define and map by a permitted biologist the extent of the impacts from all new construction including but not limited to grading footprint staging area, and access roads on the two 12+acre parceLc fronting on Morgan Territory.road(Parcels A &B). 2) Proposed construction shall avoid wetlands on the northeast 12+acre parcel and concentrations of ground squirrel burrows to the greatest extent possible. ._3.)_ The-currant.CC.WD-aorzserYw7i n_.easement-on-Pamels C,&D_shall be-upplemented by run additional easement. The applicant shall provide evidence to the Community Development Department for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that the California Department of Fish and Game- approved easement has been recorded, or will be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the parcel map. The easement shall require management of areas within the new easement and the area around the pond that is currently under easement to the Contra Costa Water District(Parcels CID)for the benefit of the California tiger salamander(CTS)according to a plan that has been reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. .Time resultant easements shall be sited in a way that conserves estivation habitat and dispersal habitat for the CTS that may breed on and around the site. Those areas should be determined using information that the applicant has already collected about the onsite resources and surrounding land uses. (YY-4) i 12 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Nfitigation Significant No act Incornaration !=art hripact 5. Nesting Raptors Impact. Trees on the site or just outside the project site may provide nesting habitat for raptors. Construction activities during the breeding season(February through July)could result in the abandonment of active nests or direct mortality to these birds. Construction activities that adversely affect nesting, or result in mortality of individual birds,would be a violation of State and federal law, and would be considered a significant adverse impact per the guidelines of CEQA.. Mitiigatian Measure. Prior to issuance of construction permits,the results of a nesting raptor survey shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Specfically,a qual fled biologistwillperforrn a pre-construction survey for nesting raptors within 30 days of the onset of construction or tree removal, if construction is to occur during Me breeding season(from February 1 to August 1). If raptors are nesting on the project site, a minimum 300 foot buffer shall be established around the nest tree. This buffer shall be fenced witkorang-e construction fencing. A quaked raptor biologist will periodically monitor the nest site to determine ifgrading activities occurring outside the buffer zone disturbs the birds,and ifthe bufferzone should be increased toprevent nest abandonment. No disturbanceshall occur within the 3110- foot buffer zone until the;biologist has determined that the young have fledged(left the nest)and are flying well enough to avoidproject construction zones, typically.by August 1. The applicant shall submit a draft.deed disclosure statement that encompasses the provisions ofthe mitigation measure for nesting raptors,for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. the approved deed disclosure statement shall be recorded against each parcel concurrent with recordation of the Parcel Map. (Y V-5) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES-Would fine project? A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in§ 15064.5? X B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance.of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? X C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource feature? X D. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X Sum7nary:On July 29,1999,the California Historical Resources Information Center(CHRIS)stated that the property is adj scent to a I mown archaeological site and has the;potential for having archaeological resources.Based on their review, CHRIS recommends an archaeological survey prior to commencement of project activities. In response to the CHRIS memorandum,a cultural resources study was performed by the Anthropological Studies Center.' The primary conclusion Z Anthropological Studies Center,2000. A Cultural Resources Study of 49 Acres at 9601 Morgan Territory Road (APN 006-280-009), Tassajara Area, Contra Costa County, California. ASC Project#50001-66100 dated August 22,2000. 13 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No fact IncMoration fact I=act of the report is that no evidence of cultural resources was identified on-site.However,there is always a possibility that such resources may become apparent once vegetation is removed or during constriction excavation. Indicators of prehistoric site activity include charcoal,obsidian or chert flakes,grinding bowls,shell fragments,bone,and pockets of dark,friable soils. Historic resources include.glass,metal,ceramics,wood and similar debris. I. Cultural Resources Impact: Although no evidence of cultural resources was identified by the archaeological reconnaissance investigation, there is an unknown (but possibly significant) risk of buried cultural resources. The report prepared by the Anthropological Studies Center recommends that: a) if artifacts are uncovered during earthwork,grading be stopped until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the significance ofthe find and advise the County; and b)protocol are provided if remains of a Native American are discovered. Mitigation Measure. Thefollowing mitigation measures will reduce any project impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level. VA. If any significant cultural materials such as artifacts,human burials,or the like are encountered during construction operations,such operations shall cease within 100 feet of the find, the Community Devel- opment.Department shall be notified within 24-hours and a qual flied archaeologist contacted and retained for further recommendations. ;Sign ficant cultural materials include, but are not limited to, aboriginal human remains, chipped stone,groundstone,shell and bone artifacts, concentrations offire cracked rock, ash, charcoal, shell, bone, and historic features such as privies or building foundations. VB. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site of the `jgnd"or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Contra Costa County has been contacted,per Section 7050.5 ofthe California Health and Safety Code. VC Appropriate mitigation of the cultural resources may include monitoring offurther construction andlor systematic excavation ofthe resources. Any artifacts or samples collected as part ofthe initial discovery, monitoring or mitigation phases shall be properly conserved, catalogued, analyzed, evaluated and curated along with associated documentation in a professional manner consistent with current archaeological standards. Vl. GEOLOGY AND SOILS-Would the project? A. expose people or-structures to _ potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on.the most recent A.lquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer 14 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Trnpact 1ncooration Lnpact Impact to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publica- tion.42. X 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? X 3. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? X 4. Landslides? X B. Result in substantial soil erosion or the lass,of topsoil? X C. Be located on a geologic.unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off--site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X D. Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks to life or properq'? X E. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal.systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? X Summary: In 1999,Terrasearch issued a geotechnical reconnaissance reports The scope of the investigation included: a)review of published geologic maps;b)geologic interpretation of aerial photographs;c)a site visit by an engineering geologist;and d)evaluation of the data gathered and preparation of a letter-report presenting an evaluation of geologic hazards. The primary conclusions of the report are as follows: The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone that encompasses recently active and potentially active traces of the Greenville fault is mapped on the western portion of the site. a The site is in the outcrop belt of the Panache Formation. Based on extrapolation from nearby measurements, bedding strikes N.55-85E.W,with dips to the northeast at 20 to 65 degrees. All or portions of six landslides were noted at the site during the field reconnaissance, and none are shown on published geologic maps. Additional geotechnical studies are recommended by Terrasearch prior to issuance of construction permits. s Terrasearch,Inc. Site Reconnaissance Leiter Report,Proposed 49-Acre Parcel,Indian Springs Ranch,9595 and 9601 Morgan Territory Road, Contra Casio County, California. Terrasearch Job#8041 (dated January 28, 1999). _ 15 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Iin act Incorporation Irn act -, act Grading will comply with the provisions of the County Grading Ordinance, and the building must comply with the Uniform Building Code. VU, HA7..4R.DS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS- Would the project: A. Create a significant Lazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X B. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-qua-ter mile of an existing or proposed school? X D. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code. Section 6585.2.5 and,as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X E. For a project located within an airport laud use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in:the project area? X F. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,-would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X G. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation per? X H. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires, 16 Less Than Significant Potentially with Tess Than Significant Mitigation Significant No hMact Inco-moration imact Impact including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? X Summary: The project is a subdivision ofrural land to create four 10+acre agricultural parcels. Historically,this upland property has served as wildlife habitat, grazing land, and.watershed. The eastern half of the subject property accommodates two residences. The site is not on the Hazardous Waste and Substance(Cortese)List published by the California Environmental Protection Agency. Hence,there is no evidence of soil or groundwater contamination known to the State of California. 'There is no record of hazardous materials on-site. It is anticipated that the ranchette use of hazardous materials will not exceed threshold quantities. The project is consistent with the General Plan Policies 10-84 through 10-91,which are the public protection and disaster policies. The project is not located within the vicinity of a public use airport or private airstrip. The site is located in a high wildfire hazard area,but will be required to comply with recommendation of the Fire Protection District. 'Those recommendations address water required for fare suppression,access requirements,and fire-resistant designlbuilding materials. 'III.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY- Would the project: A. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements' X B. Substantially deplete_groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(a.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? X C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off- site? X D. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X E. Othemrise substantially degrade .17 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imoact Incorporation Impact ,Ract water quality? _ X F. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a.federal Flood.Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X G. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X H. Expose people or structures to a — significant risk of loss,injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of levee or dam.? X L Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? X Summar: There are no structures to be constructed within the Special.Flood Hazard Area(Zone A),and the existing residences on Parcels C and D are outside the creek structure setback zone. The proposed Parcels A and B are undeveloped. The potential building sites on those lots are on a ridge. The geotechnical reconnaissance investigation found no evidence or springs or seepage within the areas proposed for development on Parcels A and B, and no changes in the existing direction of drainage are contemplated. The only groundwater use anticipated is that required to support two additional rural ranchettes, along with that required for agricultural uses The eastern half of the site is subject to a permanent conservation easement that covers Parcels.0 and D. The easement bars any new development in this area but allows existing development to remain,including the existing residence on Parcel C and mobilehorne on Parcel D. The Contra Costa Water District has also indicated in a letter dated May lbs, 2000 that the proposed conversion of the existing mobilehome from a temporary foundation to a permanent foundation to be consistent with the District's conservation easement. Other than the proposed alteration to the.mobilehome,no other development is proposed within the area of the District's conservation easement. !. LAND USE AND PLANNING--Would theproject;_. .__. A, Physically divide an established co unity? X B. Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation of an agency'ith jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the General Plan., Specific Plan,local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X C. Conflict%rith any applicable �8 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X Summary:Land use policies for the southeast portion of the County that are most applicable to the subject property are presented below. PoZig 3-87 The Southeast County area is almost exclusively planned for agricultural, watershed,or public pu7poses. New land uses within this plan area should be limited to those which are compatible to the primary agricultural and watershed purposes of the area (farming, ranching,poultry raising, animal breeding, aviaries,apiaries,horticulture,floriculture and similar agricultural uses and structures)and consistent with the multiple use philosophy enumerated by this plan. Subject to specific project review and the polices listed within this pZan, the following uses are generally consistent with the pZanned agricultural areas: a)public andprivate outdoor recreational facilities;b)elude ranches,riding academies,stables;c)wind energy conversionsystems;d)single-family residences on larger lots;e)mineral resources quarrying;f oil and gas wells;g)pipelines and transmission lines;h)veterinarian offices and kennels;and i)public purpose uses, including those uses described in policies 3-87 and 3-88 ("airport and reservoir). X. MD\T-PRA.L.RESOURCES-Would the proj ect: A. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? X B. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use pian? X Summary: The California Department of Conservation has issued a report that classifies the mineral resource potential of lands in the San Francisco Bay Region(DMG Open File Report 96-03). According to this map,the site is placed in 'Mineral Resource-Zone 4(areas where available information is inadequate for-assignmeut to ariy otherl torte):ne Conservation Element ofthe General flan designates mineral resource areas within the County. The nearest such area is the Uni ,?n and Sand Bill Ranch quarries,located approximately 5 1/2 miles east of the site. Xl. NOISE-Would the project? A. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? X z 1 19 Less Than Significant Potentially with less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No fact IncoMori tion Kaci. hnRact B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground- bome vibration or ground borne noise levels? X C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X D. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above.levels existing without the project? X E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X F. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X Summary: The project will involve use of earthmoving equipment,and power tools during construction. Over the long- terra, the only new sources of noise is that associated with the four rural residences. Because of the relatively short duration of the construction period,these effects are not significant. The Noise Element ofthe County General Plan does not identify significant noise sources in the project vicinity and there are no nearby airports or landing strips. )M.. POPULA.TION AND HOUSING- Would the project: A. Induce substantial population growth in an area,either - directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or directly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X B. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X __ _ 20 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No hWact Incorporation impact Impact C. Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X S +nary: Most lands in the project vicinity are designated agricultural land(AL)and the project is outside of the urban limit line. The project proposes two new housing units, and does not displace any existing residential units. The population of the site, at buildout,is expected to be approximately 13 persons assuming 3 113 persons per parcel. No new extension of urban services to the site are required(water,sewer,road improvements).The project will not affect the distribution.of County population. XTII.PUBLIC SERVICES A. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered-governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, inn order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response tunes or other performance objectives for any of the public services: X 1. Fire Protection? X 2, Police Protection? X 3. Schools? X 4. Parks? X 5. Cather Public facilities? X Sunimary: The project is located within a rural area and currently has typical governmental services associated withrural development. The project is expected to incrementally increase demand for public services(e.g.,schools)and is not anticipated to create any new or unusual law enforcement problems. A letter from the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District has outlined their requirements for the project,which includes such items as:a)an adequate/reliable source of water for fire protection, b) adequate access, and c) fire resistant construction materials and equipping structures with sprinklers. 1. Wildland Area that Contains Substantial Fire Risks and Hazards(Area of State Responsibility) IMpact. State Responsibility Areas are lands exclusive of cities and federal lands classified by the State Board of Forestry as areas in which-the primary financial responsibility for preventing and suppressing fires is that of the State. These are lands covered wholly or in part by timber,brush,undergrowth or grass,whether of commercial value or not,which protect the soil from erosion,retard runoff of water or accelerated percolation, and lands used principally for range or forage purposes. Property owners in State Responsibility Areas have responsibility for structural fire suppression. In some areas the availability of eater to fight fires is marginally adequate or inadequate,so there may be a significant fire risL In the case of MS990002,the site is approximately 2 mile north of an unmanned fire station. Due to the response time,the site dares not have an urban level of service. = t 21. Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Lm act lncoryoration hMact imp–a—et MitLvation Measure. Prier to filing a Parcel Map,submit a draft of a deed disclosure for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. ne statement shall advise the ownerlprospective buyer ofeachparcel thatprior to the issuance of a building permit for any new residence, the applicant shall provide evidence that the design of the improvements are in compliance with the provisions of the California Department ofForestry and FireProtection (CDFFP) 'fire safety„regulations pertaining to driveways, gates, turnarounds, defeasible space and water for suppression of tires(contained in the California Public Resources Cade, 4.290, Title 14, Chapter 7,Subchapter 1, commencing with Article 1). The approved deed restriction shall be recorded concurrently with the Parcel Map. XIV.RECREATION- A. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? y I3. Does the project.include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the envirorunent? X S,,tmmary: The project will have a minor cumulative impact on existing recreational facilities. Specifically,the EBRI'D Morgan Territory Regional Park is adjacent to the site, and it has many trails. Future residences of the site can be expected to use these trails for hiking and equestrian purposes. The site is crossed by a an access easement which provides emergency vehicle and maintenance access to the Park District into the adjoining Morgan Territory Regional Preserve. By payment of park dedication fees,the project is participating in a program to create parklands. XV. TRANSPORTATION'TRAFFIC-Would the project: A. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? B. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the county congestion manage- ment agency for designated roads or highways? X _ _ 22 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incomoration Impact Impact C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X D. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g.,fawn equipment)? X E. Result in inadequate emergency access? X F. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X G. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation(e.g., bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? X Siunmarv: The project will not alter the existing circulation.system. The existing residence on Farrel C can be inferred to currently generate one AM and one PM peak hour trip. The proposed project,if approved,can be inferred to generate two additional AM and PM peak hour trips. The internal driveways providing access to residences will be required to comply with Public Works. and Fire Protection District standards. XVI.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS- Would the project: A. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X B. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction or which could cause significant –environmental-effects"?—----__ _ __ . _ __..._ ____ __ _ _ _ ___.___ _ __ C. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X D. have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlement and resources, or are new or expanded entitlement needed? X � t 23 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No lzn��act Incorporation Impact Impact E. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? X F. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? X G. Comply with federal,State and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X Sumrnarv: The site currently has electrical,telephone and waste collection services. Environmental Health Division of the County Health Services Department will require the project proponent to demonstrate that there are adequate water wells and suitable leach field sites on each proposed parcel prior to recordation of the parcel Map,The applicant has provided on the availability of water on each of the four proposed parcels. In a letter dated September},2002, the Health Services Department has indicated that it has received evidence and is satisfied that each parcel has a well that produces water in a quantity and quality that meets the County standards. XVII. MAI DATORY FINrDLNGS OF SIGNTIC_A_NCE- A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environ- ment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish and wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or ` endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X -B.—-roes-the-projeethave-impauts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? {"Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects)? X C. Does the project have environ- mental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on 24 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No !Mpact IncoMpration L-mact I=act human beings,either directly or indirectly? X G:1Cutrent PI=irglcurr-plw-i\nv Review\Initial Studies`M5990002-R.Z993074C ecEist-revised-5-5-2003-b.doc ,M y R �! w pkv,'•" w-� Y� ,7». r 7t �., � - ¢� �i�S#5yy-:S4 •^ test "°�i�f' .. �• 5 � t" x - <_. r �. SO S ��1, /zoo` `-�`'"�''•�..r { t- { �,..a�, �^y '� too �(/� t�,�-`^,.�.,�..,' +'�K[..���t,�'•✓�„�\\ �+4�` 1 1�\lil` ` X71 \../ !!�3 t�... . .'•��'~ \. .' � `��-� "_,,)\ t/ �l i'Jam`\. ,t f _ ,� i:” r1f �.i'.��``�`i i�-.�.,.� `^• k `)!r' � C r } it{ �4., �f \5 � ..ter �•"'" 4 ��..r \iv .c... r�V od1 �• '1 fill;'��v � -tt}1 21} v,r��\� � `.�`'�� ,/`��`"r�,�,/'''1��x�,e�'q1. i ��S i tf �,-✓ v"�-rr`��� ."�/'�.�..,1V1� iJ �1 .,� ` 11`*•,\,�"`.��\:,f ^\. l '� � .''.�`.\.� �4 ��;t/Vt;���� � '����\,�� "'..J.�` v:;`�'..`'}L.. / t (lis \}e\\ \� �fl�. ; \ li ✓ \) ' y�� v °^}��i{ti!�J''• S,C.1`� `"` ^•��z, '• ral fv.r•�t f'^\'l'\ �,, \ }� ,. \.. v`\��, �. rJ�"'f '.` �.v ` v v '� ��. �� C�/' r��`lttf�� ��� L���•,'\ ���,.��w.)�;� .,YEy ...... A� `�V- D4 N .:�� „,'�.-.A.`..,'���j^-'` 'V ���p 1,��....�yw--. ✓� , k��`i 1��`�\�l"r�r(��:� ? '1(�f^'� 7"� { t + �!f1 1 � _ .- .�.���,�-•....rte\� u.�" ul � 1 \\. :✓ly;' r;, "`.yt' L�`'^., 1 k.-.-'y.� {�\ (Y„r itl..:a s } r \�-,.v� r l _ t / r frrr'� .U.N�,1 \..,+`. "" 1 F.^' ." ;�,j •i 11,.x'". �rz'- � 1� � t •''�� -'� 1��\� t- , '>fr:�, _j'' 111�rt,�� � ;:��� e`s...y- ��,„ .v� � ",`:"( �v ��v�� - ` v l �•••.•-� } �' ..f, '�� v� �.,.��• '�1��'1��� n' _ � t�'`1..� ��� �� 1� rL `"'� `� fir,,=-� s t 1 .�rr � .� , �_.. 15D�1 .� �n( "� 1}i -��1. lj` '\...A_ � 1�....._•,^."w.,� - a�"' .\,`v Sol, +}It �I�,r�,,,( -f .. � .Gf" ' �� •7 - `��'t,��� � J ./ .' ..",i t�' � , � \1 t�i � �,'St l `>---� O C Ogg t r s f ! .,..-ata ,, -"..� '- �,�_=��.�i i�. "`:o'"• 4 - ,��r .t't .�^"-. •� ] t, tt 4l.7 • bs V d� rr, rr !r 1r i� ,i !, C3 rr � �r r � GCS rr �� C3 b �r oh CSS V1 A`T r � 1 rr Sr c � ro m ". - q _ 1�5144,`� fl� co Lr�'„rj co k 1Y M mg k k 3` �+ r r� At �?.+ �''�, s�-�u'*�o��"�xk 4� s �a��Z�� `rte� �,.•r x i - Yr 3J rye JF'r -J"N Kf$ YG1• � N tkr yvl�Y{ •,.,Ytry d.r Ln C7 Ln i rs cd s . Fg €AST.80 AEGION1+r MhK DISTRMT c 1820 OR 272 >+i7lroi•5 anipe>w iti7a.av! -1300 I:aw.es tj lip �f 4it'�.LY_�eG�—...,�✓_ !P1a{1595J�- .+ti ,+� Yy,'4��1 _� �9�•t i.`�ppX,�,,- -•ka �'J� a 1 .. � �by�",.SrYoscAt # f' '4' a5� _._' �� P-�t � €fig ��, `' �--'' •f� ' dd R'q . . el�0ice. •��``�, { _'° 'D_ ` t� -���fir, Y y ti°�ytr Ge `$� 'y i � aro• i QQ ....... _ .n cm tr to 1 IV T7 _ fr* 7 ,� � 4�r ` J F+7 z eh esti`•• u�i M t��o A 2 7 I f 1 b inn D hi /M1r,Y1, 1l1I}t{.1n. I S `-0 5} W 7 1•fY m� no=s %-" Tn - u c�i m r his i hip n• � �s� m�M y m n' ld I tt.v�3_ CNSY V7hx 3 I L } Appendix A Jones & Stokes 5/22/2002 Report on a Biological Field. Survey 9117/2002 Monk & Associates Review of - Biological Resources Report 4/18 & 4/21/2003 E-Mail Transmissions from Janice Gan California Department of Fish & Game bees stores .May 22,2002 Paul N.McCloskey,Jr. 399 Bradford Street, Suite 102 Redwood City,CA 94063 Subject: results of the Biological Field Survey of the Shepherd/Dorn Property, Contra Costa County, Dear Mr.McCloskey: This letter documents the results.of the biological,field survey conducted at the ShepherdlDorn property in Contra Costa County,California. The property c6mpris6s 49 acres anis located'at`9501 Morgan Territory Road..A portion.of the property is.-%rithin the boundaries of Contra Costa Nater District's (CCWD)Los Vaqueros Watershed. :The property's owners plan to subdivide the current smgie parcel into four separate parcels. Two of the proposed parcels each.contain an existing residence .A s"mgle family home and associated well and]each field areproposed for each of the other two parcels: Contra Costa County is in the-process of completing the enyironn ental TM. ofthe proposed protect and requested additional.site-speeific-infbrmatibn related to the occurrence or potential occurrence bf special- status species(i.e.,state or federally listed,species or species of concern). Jones&Stokes:conducted a reconnaissance-level biological survey at the Shepherd/Dom property to address Contra;Costa County's request. Methods and results of the survey are described below. Methods Review Existing information Jones &.Stokes biologists conducted a pre-field investigation to review existing sources of information and prepare lists of special-status species that could potentially occur in the project area: The following sources of infoi-mation were consulted.prior to conducting the field survey: ■ The California Departraent_of Fish_andl~G'_s)_Natt i..J.)iy i Databas-e_ C DB for. - -4�— ,.e, a�s a'l rranu e qua an e an the`eigh sorroun g quadr rages C�oixial aturaly —� Diversity Database 2002). • The California Native Plant Society's(CNIPS's)Inventory of.Rare and Endangered Plants of California(6th.edition)..(California Native Plant Society 2001). Y Environmental documents and momtoring reports from the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Project(Jones & ' Stokes Associates 1988, 1991; Contra-Costa Water District 1993, 2002;Brady and Associates./LSA Associates 1999). • Relevant Jones &Stokes file data. 2600'\'Stree 4 _ Sacramento; Chi 95818-1914 • tel. 916 7.37.3000 fax 916 737.3030 Paul N.McCluskey,Jr. May 22,2002 Page 2 Conduct reconnaissance-Level Biological Surrey A Jones&stokes.wildlife biologist conducted a reconnaissance-level survey on May 8,2002 at the 49- acre Shepherd/Dom property, The purpose of the.survey was to evaluate the biological conditions of the property and determine the presence or potential presence of special-status wildlife species. Concurrent with the wildlife survey, a Jones&Stokes botanist/wetland ecologist conducted a floristic survey and habitat assessment on May 8,2002. The purpose of the survey was to identify special-status plants and/or their habitats on the property, In addition to the floristic survey,the ljotanist also conducted a survey.to identify potential waters of the United States(including wetlands)subject to jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean:Water Act(CWA). Waters of the United States v,�ere.id:eniified based on observable characteristics such as prevalence of wetland vegetation and/or wetland hydrology indicators. A formal wetland delineation was not,completed as part of this study. The biologists walked me" andering transects throughout the 49-acre parcel and recorded biological, ,resources that exist coir the property. In general,survey intensity varied depending on.species richness, habitat.type and duality,and the probability of special�statu1.s species occurring in a particular habitat:type. .Areas itnr iediately surrvpnding the corral,hooses,barns,or.other stCuctures were not su�.veyed due to the low probability:,of these areas being habitat for special-status.species. The wildlife biologist examined burrows for sign t�f burrowing owl and trees.for the presence of golden eagle or other raptor nests. An existing pond in the,northwest corner of the property was eyaluateii far its potential to support.California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander. A list of plant and animal species observed on the project site was also compiled(Appendix A), Photographs were taken of each of the four proposed parcels, Results Previously Recorded Occurrences of Special-Status Species In the Project Vicinity Plant.Species Information from.the CNDDB and CNP,S database indicates that 30 special-status plant species occur in the vicinity oftheproject area All plant species listed in the C;NDDB search of the Tassajara and adl acent'7:5-minute quadrangles are included in Table I. No records of special status plants are known. rewer=-s-westemitar,-a*ataio-_.�-_ ..._._: helianthella,and-large-flowered fddleneck,occur within 5 miles of the property. Wildlife Species Information from the CNDDB indicates that 20 special-status wildlife species occur in the vicinity of the project area. All wildlife species listed in the CNDDB search of the Tassajara and adjacent 7.5-minute quadrangles are included in Table 2. In addition, several bird species were added to this.list.based on their distribution and habitat requirements. Table 2 also contains the listing status, distribution, and habitat of each of these species. There were no records of any special-status wildlife species on the project site. There are,however-, several species on the list,.including California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, western pond turtle,Alameda whipsnake, and golden.eagle,that occur within 5 miles of the sit;. Except for bald eagle,all ofthe special-status wildlife species known to occur on `Paul:.McCloskey,Jr. May 22,2002 Page 3. adjacent lances owned by:the CCWD were included in the CNDDB list(Brady and Associates/LSA A.ss�iciates 1999). Reconnaissance-Levet Biological Survey vegetation +CommueslHabitats The subleet property lies. n the.San Francisco Bay Area geographic subregion of the California Floristic provs`nce Ockman 1993)..- Theproperty is located approximately 6 miles north of Livermore adjacent to Morgan Tei�rtory Read and enc ompasses approxiip telt'49 acres of rolling terrain at an approximate elevation of 2,ifs0--2,250 feet.(640-685 meters)above mean sea.Level. There are no.strearris on the property (ane pond 3s lcicated on the northeast corner of the site and one veinal.pool'is located in or near the southwest coiner csfthe propeity. In addition to the vernal pool,annual grassland and oak woodland habitats'were identified on the property and are discussed below. Anrivai drassisnd Annual grassland is common on the.property.and in the region. The annual grassland is characterized by nonnative annual grasses and forbs,with native grasses:and forbs scattered throughout the property. Annual grassland on the property is dorninated by wild csat,rpgtrt biome; soft chess, and Italian ryegrass. Corrnniorr forbs.observed ine.lude filarees, California plantain,blow wives,miniature lupine,and rancher's fireweed. Mnuak.grasslands provide fl ragin habitat.for�vv`ide-ranging species such asred-tailed hawks, coyotes, gray faxes;and bobcats. These depend on grassland prey species that include California voles,California grotind,squirrels,•gopher snakes,and western fence lizards. In addition,manly species that nest or roost in .adjacent woodlands may forage in grasslands,including western bluebirds,western kingbirds,and several species of bits.Some species also breed in annual grassland if special habitat features such as cliffs, caves,ponds,or woody plats are mailable for breeding,resting, or as escape cover(Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). Oak Woodland Oak woodland occurs in only one location in.the eastern portion of the property(a portion of proposed parcels C.an,d D). The oak.v- 6odla id_is characterized by.a mature canopy of blue oaks, coast live oaks, and bads.-Typical s precies.nssr crated_ ecies C.Gm n4flY-a ual-grassland: _ ----- Oak woodlands provide food and cover for many species of wildlife. Oaks provide aninrpontarrt food resource(acorns)for some birds and mammals(Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). Oak woodland provides forage opportunities for a variety of bird species that feed on acorns and foliage insects. Primary cavity- nesting birds(e.g.,woodpeckers)excavate nest holes in living and dead trees,which are subsequently used by other cavity nesting species such as the Ainerican:kestrel,white breasted nuthatch,and western bluebird Oaks also provide suitable nesting habitat,particularly for red-shouldered hawks (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). j. Paul N.McCloskey,Jr. May 32,20.02 _ page 4 Aquatic Habitat b e pond.and ane vernal pool�e 1oc�ted�.the study area. The pend measures approximately 50 by 30 feet and is li�cated on proposed:parcel C Mahe northeast corner ofthe project area. The pond is characterized by open.unvegetsted water and a muddy bank with very little vegetation. The vernal pool measures approximately 75 by 15 feet and is located in or near the southwest corner.of proposed parcel B. Whether or not this pool was.located within the property could not be determined i ed using the,available parcel xnap,but it appears that the verrisl pool is located in or immediately adjacent to the.southwest corner ofproposed parcel B near Morgan Territory Road.`Vernal pools,are grassland depressions that pond water intermsttently.riurangihe rauy'season and dry out during late spring and summer. A venial pool is typically inderlain by ori impervious soil layer that prevents water from' infiltrating into.tl3e lower soil.layers causing surface ponding The vernal pool was dry at the time of the survey;but an,obvious.depression ccsntainnig hy.40phytic plant species fr a,plant species adapted to, growing in wetland conditidnO was observed These species mcluded popcornflower, speedwell,and shin ng.peppergrass. Vernal pools are the natural environment for fairy shrimp,tadpole shrimp, and several species of amphibians. Vernal pools and seasonal wetlands provide foragi_ghabitat far a number.of bird species, including great egret,killdeer,black-necked stilt,and greater yellowlegs. Waters of the United States (including Wetlands) Based on the obsen-able characteristics described above,both the pond and vernal pool could qualify as waters of the United States.subject to;jurisdiction-under Section 404 of the CWA. No other waters of the United States.(e.g.,streams or drainages)were located in the study area. Based on the parcel map received by Jones&Stokes,it appears these features will not be affected by construction associated with:the.subdivision:.If these features,will not be filled or disturbed as part of the project ,neither a formal wetland delineation.nova Section 404 CAVA permit will be required. Occurring and Potentially Occurring Special-States Species Plants The botanical survey coincided with the identification periods of 20 of the 30 special-status plants-listed _ Jn�Table -Na speciaistatz�s4mIs wee cdaZur during the.survey is included in Appendix A. All plants on this list were identified to the taxonomic level necessary to determine whether they qualified as speo%al-status plants or.were plant species with unusual or siccant range extensions. Some of the listed taxa were not identified to the species level, either because they were not in flower at the time of the survey, or because they were identified as belonging to genera that do not include any special-status species. Surveys were conducted outside the blooming period for 10 of the 30 species identified as potentially occurring on the property. Three of these 10 species would have been identifiable in vegetative form (such as shrubs or distinctive growth forms)during the May survey, and seven occur on specialized substrates such as alkali, serpentine,or adobe soils that are not present in the study area. Based on this assessment,there is a lour potential for these species to occur on the property. Paul N.McCloskey,Jr. May22,2002 Page s Wildif fe Suitablehabitat is present for:18 ofthe 26 special-status species listed in Table 2. Only.one special-status vyildlife species(California hoived lark)was positivelyideni est during the Biological'survey. A list of all wildlife species observed during the survey is ificluded.in Appendix A. Potential for special-status wildlife species to occur in the protect area was based on uearbyrecords froth the.CNDDB,doct�inents . from the Los Vaqueros Project, and presence and duality of suitablehabi#at it the proj ect site. A brief discussion of the.potential'for occurrence of each of the'I 8.special=status species is presented below. Bridges'.Coast Range shoulderband snail.., This snail is a federal species of concern. It occurs on open hillsides in rock piles surrounded by grass No rock pIIes were observed on,tFie project site;thus,the potential for this species to occur on the site is considered low. Venial poral fairy shrimp and California Linde' ells The vernal pool fa uy shrimp is.a federally threatened�species and Californialindenella; s a federal spec�es'ofconcern "The tierrial pool in of-near the southwest coiner cif the property provides.suitable habitat If r California linderiella and vernal.pool fairy shrimp. According to the construction.'drawing, a pioposed leach field is to be located on the top:of an adjacent hill,at a distance greater an,3100 feet froiri the vernal pool. The pool should be protected from sediment dept sitioii that could.occur curing construction.of the leach field. Molestaa blister beetle. The moles tan blister beetle is a federal:species of concern. Itoccurs in Contra Costa County and is associated with composite flgwers, Annual grassland in the project area may provide suitable habitat-for' olestan blister beetle since these types of flowers are present in this habitat. California tiger salamander, California red-legged,frog, and western pond.turtle. The.California tiger salamander is a candidate for federal listing and the Cal_ifonnia red-legged frog is a federally threatened species. The western poria turtle is a federal species of concern. All three of these species are designated as California species,of special concern.:''The pond'on the northeast:comer of the property provides suitable habitat far Califoinia tiger salamIand er, California red-legged frog, and western pond turtle. These three species are,known:to:occur on adjacent lands atoned by CC 'D and Bast Bay . Regional Park District(Contra Costa Nater District 2002,,5.Bobzien pers. etin.). Probable California tiger salamander larvae were observed in the existing pond on the site,but the presence of this species could not be�confiriz ed because the animals,were npt captured: -his pond is well outside the current construction footprint and is not expected to be impictea by the project. Alameda WhipsnAe. Alameda whiipsnake is federally listed as threatened and state listed as threatened. Alameda whipsnakes are found in scrub and chaparral habitat with rook ou#crops in valleys,foothills, and __ � ,_.___ _. foothills, ._. �____ se a s Ala tesla-and cin �a Cas#a-C:_2o=&s:- #lou -asd, �psnak--es--are i �r-°to -------.— occur on adjacent land owned by CCWD- .(CNDDB 2002),there is no scrub or chaparral habitat with rock outcrops in the project area. Therefore,it is unlikelyIthat Alameda whipsnakes would occur in the project area except for occasional dispersing animals. Prairie falcon and northern harrier. Prairie falcon and northern harrier are California species of special concern. Prairie falcon.and northern harriers could forage i.n the annual grassland habitat on the project site. There is no nesting habitat on the site for prairie falcons and no northern harrier nests were observed during the field.survey. These species have been observed at the Los Vaqueros watershed adjacent to the project site(Jones & Stokes 1988,personal observations). x Paul N.McCloskey,Jr. May 22,2002 Pae .Golden eagle, Cooper's hawk,and.white_ialled.Lite Golden eagle,and Cooper's hawk are California species of special concern Golden eagle and white tailed late are fullyprotected raider the'Califoi7aia Fish and Game Cade, Golden eagles are also protected wider the bald and Golden Nagle Protection Act Patches of oak woodland an the property provide`sui ble.`nesting habitat for golden eagle,Cooper's Hawk,white-tailed kite,and other,raptors, these species could also forage M in annual grassland habitat in the project area. Cooper's hawksand white tailed kites have.been observed at the Los Vaqueros watershed and golden eagles are known to nest.at the watershed(Jones.&Stokes 1988,Contra Costa Water District 19.3,,personal observation). Several nests were observed io trees on the pro3ect site; however,none were large enough to be raptor nests per afred tailed l�awas observed lying . . overhead,but did not exhibit any nesting activity at the site The parol}es of oak woodland are Ibcated on the portion of the property that has been pre ciously developed;no trees are located within.the current-project footprint. Western b rrovvrng owl 'western burrowing owl rs a federal species of concern arzd.a .4 .ornia species of special concern, Annual grassland at the project site provides.su table habitat for western burrowing owl. Burrowing owls often use Califo .ia_ground squirrel burrows as nesting habitat. California ground squirrel burrows are present at several areas wxthr the property,;These burrows were exaed,for signs Of occupancy by western burrowing owl;no sign of tins specres_was observed at the burrow entrances. However,burrowing owls are known to occur within 3 mi es ofthe project area at:the Los Vaqueros watershed(personal observation). CaMornia horned lark. California hained.lark is a California species of special concern. Annual grassland at the project site provides.suitable habitat for California horned lark. This species was observed during the field survey on one of the hilltops near the.southern border of th,e property. Loggerhead shrike. Loggerhead shrike is a California species of special concern.,Latches of oak woodland on the property provide suitable nesting habitat for loggerhead shrike Loggerhead shrikes could forage in the annual grassland habitat on.the_project site.,No.loggerhead shrikes were observed during the field survey;howevex,they are known to.occur on the Los vaqueros watershed(J.Alvarez pers.comm.). Tricolored blackbird. Tricolored blackbird is a federal..species ofconcern and a California species of special concern. This species nests in colonies m,emergent marsh vegetation or upland sites consisting of blackberries,nettles, or thistles. Tricolored blackbirds have nested on.adjacent lands owned by CCWD (Jones&Stokes 1991,J.Alvarez Pers.;conim.). leo suitable.nesting habitat is present for tricolored blackbirds in the project area;however,.they.could occasionally forage there, San Joaquin kit fox.. San Joaquin kit fox is federally listed as endangered and state listed as threatened. Annual grassland at the project site provides.suitable habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. San Joaquin kit foxes are known to use California,ground squirrel burrows,for shelter and reproduction(Ll. S.,Fish and wildlife Service 1998), California ground squirrel burrows are present at several areas within the property. These burrows were examined for signs of occupancy by. an Joaquin kit fax,but no sign of this species was observed at the burrow entrances. Although the,project area is within the known range of the San Joaquin kit fox,very few obsen tions have:been recorded west of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir (Sproul and Flett 1993). In addition,kit fox have not been observed at the Las Vaqueros watershed since 1991 (Contra Costa Water District 1993). Paul.N.McCloskey,Jr. :May 22,2002 Page 1 Eight of the 26 special-status wildlife species listed in Table 2 would not occur or are unlfkely,to op6m in the project area be oflow habitat suitability,and lack of known occurrences.in the vicinity of the project area. These species are lon orh fairy shrimp,curved-foot hygrottts diving beetle,California horned lizard, San Joaquin whipsnake,bald eagle, Swain son's hawk;San Joaquin pocket mouse, and Berkeley kangaroo rat. The project site lacks one.or more critical elements.required by these species. Therefore, it is unlikely that any of these eight species Would occur on the project site. If you have any questions regarding the field survey or this letter report;:please contact Brad Schafer (botanylwetland issues)or Jennifer Alvarez(wildlife issues)at.9161503-6681. Sincerely, Jennifer Alvarez Wildlife Biologist JAJco Enclosures Paul N.McCloskey,Jr. May 22,2002 Page s References Printed References Brady and Associates/LSA.Associates,Inc. 1999. Los Vaqueros Resource Management Plan, January 1999. Final draft. Prepared for Contra Costa Water District, Concord, CA. California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of rare and endanger�d plants of California (sixth edition). Rare Plant.Scientific Advisory Committee,David P.Tibor,Convening Editor. Sacramento, CA. California Native.Plant Society. California Natural Diversity Database. 2002. RareFind 2,Version 2.1.2(January 25,2002 update). Sacramento,CA:California Department of Fish and Game. Contra Costa Water District and U. S.Department of the Interior,Bureau of Reclamation.,Mid-Pacific Region. 1993, Stage 2 Environmental report/environmental impact statement for the Los vaqueros Project,Contra Costa County,Calif6rnia. Final. October 1.993. Concord.-and Sacramento;_A, Technical assistance provided by,Tones& Stokes Associates,Inc.;Montgomery Watson Americas; Woodward-Clyde Consultants; and Sonoma State University. (JSA 9021 L) Sacramento,CA. Contra Crista Water District, 2002. Los Vaqueros project 2001 annual California red-legged frog and predator control monitoring report, January. (J&S 01-356) Brentwood,CA. Prepared with assistance from Janes&Stokes,Sacramento,CA. Hickman, J.C. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson manual. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press. Jones&Stokes Associates,Inc. 1988. Plant communities and special-status plants and animals of the Kellogg Creek watershed,Contra Costa County,California:Results of field inventories and habitat evaluations. (JSA 87-031.) Sacramento, CA, Prepared for Los Vaqueros Project, Contra Costa Water District, Concord,CA. 1991. Results of supplemental biological inventories conducted for the Los Vaqueros Project in and adjacent to Kellogg Creek watershed. (JSA 20-211.) Saciamento,CA. Prepared for James M. Montgomery,Consulting Engineers,Inc.,Walnut Creek, CA, aim (cos}=-1-988. u�ito vviiirlfe3aabitats rsf-Cuiifr�rnitt_�� Sacramento,CA: California Department of Fish and(Jame. Sproul,M.J.and M.A.Flett. 1993, Status of the San Joaquin kit fax in the northwest margin of its range. Transactions of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society 29:61--69, U. S.Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Region 1,Portland, OR. t Paul N.McCloskey,7r. �i1ay 22,2002 Page 9 Personal Communications Alvarez,Teff, Wildlife Biologist. The Wildlife Project,Modesto,CA. March 8,2002—oral presexitation fat the 2002.annual meeting of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society Bobzien, Steve. Ecological Services Coordinator,East Bay Regional Pari-District. March 8,2001--oral presentation at the 2002 annual meeting of the Western Section of the`Alildlife Society. a 2 _ o to iC + vs c5 zn tv FJ Co -03O3 ° a y, v; .° G w CO. ar ro c OCL4 tSe�,+ C3 w a r- 9 v .14 IWO ta � •" ° �II.,� � "� �.� U U � � ° '" � Cyd � � � � i� �'' ro " cco tits Y a o m c . wA w .c� �° tra > � c� Zrw .r wo ti.. i� •v b �� U1 � .M 15 m� ' cam, r w �v "S 1, 4CL cesM cry o 10, C4 IZI IS .� p r yam..R � a O L) ''•, �. � .,+�� O ,� Cdw �.y � tn 'n TO J y t � its s✓ � :-+ � y" � '~C�', C'' � U �'� �� ��"" y �a SCi ��`^ w a CL 4 ae a Ld W. c ° vx 0 .L7 en v U � 00 -8 ;5+fid •� ,tC, t y O w L CI µ G7 p, [C eipr � O, *ma�yy O.++�' rjy. � L•"' "� � 'G ,,� � � boa g ar . .. .. zC .p a to 0 C� v �? 0 t.7 c m° C�3 •vri � rr3 ° +� � �u.t rnv� L? � �v5 W � v� W � > cd ps ws Mo. ii Hid Ou i u " !.2 78 71 i 79 .m c 3U gyres .os " `" RE, C d mt3 . � C ,In y c L:lro � a ,gym m ° ❑ `� ` n ars c� Z3 � q_ o i I. o CL y a O L7 G w° b a� U V to L, c :w o bo 78 78 „ t473 to y u5 'rs 'U E d � ro � t! tI R! fl II L4 I{ 11 #I tl 1( m ie s. P4 I Fq U 70 p : v • booF. u 6- ul cc tU F rte° m a Cs C7 972 ^rs'4o � r—: 'CL 10 o o n " a o a rt tJ�7 C9 cw W au4' a zo Lo to ca G e r C4 to ts $ is•c cn � n � -p `"" ..� .� c� � '� •°' � s o �`sus oIt ttl 78 CJ3 O S c c r c a a a LJ a as ,; 42 ri C brae tsz 4 o a� ti w e p iro > 3 U s U h0 Ado a 6i n.. s : >LOa . m SOto tj tt q C c. to CS'•5" y''� rpi Ems] ate. Cb3 �i< ~ b gb. 0 4' `t7 � C3 "C:,� *Lj en b 'sy �n t9 y • " g 42 J 4° O �. tt ❑ vi p ca u b.D 2,2 43 Vol u H di � xo c at.•- O ai : '��^ rc . I„� ar D ., La Z 42 L2 q 1 `�' "�•� � � >� �� �"' � •� a L3 � �,o� �X67 :� ��'tJ a� P o w � Qz 41. U � moo a U tllj u� C414 gnw .3 ® zY tj lot tm o ze a a n w , 43 I to 0 �.,.� � .w.� •m,,;,,,'�� .+ {"' � +�.'."Cy .A to .L 'L3 c9 p C�i W r+ y+ a+ fu E4 0 00 Z G � � +rh: ��'CIS .�.,�`� c6 '�� -'� � �_ ttt 3y'''•' •L", Gi„� c7 .Ed b0'6r ... 61 C'". `�7 Zi t CJ 12 G cJ u" G ad c�Op iU G Q C s am' C5 'p? CGh w .�. "�j,. Y w� ?'s ES ES ui y� rM�.tl• 15 L�'f. C'i: V2' G ot2. o • i� RZ :+°gin c male tz ••ff lu fl ernC!1 6 ,L'rJ C 7 i-•� 'C LJ �-i. a U Px.Am m 8.e tlI U rs U Z ca LC i u. E Y cc cu � � � h 'G ra L7 DO � u� �. 42 m r� z n m , b u cl rs . •, �`' CQ b as aS ta C '« 1 ` to 0 Alf •�.� .�. w. ay sa '� '". as ?� rn13 t+4 a u y ra ta a C1 0 rig '"o s°'e 11 a bo78 ° 1 n eu o 15 ca rA ca d Ed y .�, c . !� 9.414 zY ai� ; ¢moi c ' o .' ccs - o I �° C.1 rI) � U ." OR ttc �7 .13 05 rz 03 w ,ts p C wcz d _ a j o .� p, to 5 R cid U chi �� � o• � �� .� � 9 w by .� lL D C3. w D C 78 8 La w to ua O Gs rn u bt Fav -------------- a �» ? 1 78 � e v� otoon - _y, 3� m Ci vi C? �C ca II iI SS 1: If Il U It Ii It N F 1? Iaa m i Appendix A. Continuedpage 2.: 13 Scientific Name Common Laine Eschscholzia californica Ca fornia'FoPpY Filago gallica Darrow-leaved:filago Galium aparine Be. straw Geranium dissectum Cut-leaf geranium Geranium molle Dove's-*foat geranium Grindelia camporum (autiiplant Hir schfeldia.incana ..Mediterranean mustard Hordeum jubatum Foxtail Marley .hrordeurn.murinum ssp. leporinum Foxtail barley Hypochaeris glabra Soft cat's-ear Juncus effusus Rush Lactuca serriola Pricklylettuce :Lasthenia californica Ca3ifornia goldfields - Lilaea scilloides Flowering qui.11wort .Lolium multiflorurn Italianryegrass Lomatium utriculatum Common lom:atiuni Lotus wrangellianus Chile lotus Lupinus bicolor Miniature lupine Lupinus rnicrocarpus Chick lupine Marah fabaceus California manroot Medicago polymorpha Bur-clover Micropus cal fornicus Slender cottonweed Nasella pulchra purple needle ss i'entagramma triangularis Gold-back fern Plagiobothrys canescens Popcoriiflavver plagiobothW stipitatus van micranthus Popcarnflcacver .Plantago erecta California plantain :Plantago lanceolata English plantain Poa annua Annual bluegrass .Polyganurn arenastrum Common knotweed Quercus agrfolia .toast.live oak Quercus douglasii Blue.oak __-_-- - anunclu -aquaift Ranunculus occidentalis Buttercup 4phanus sativus :Wild radish .Rumex acetosella Sheep sorrel Rumex crispus Curly dock Salix sp. Willow Sambucus mexicana .Blue elderberry Sanicula bipinnatifida Purple sanicle Senecio vulgaris Grou dsel Silybum rnarianum Milk thistle Sonchus oleraceus Common stew-thistle Taeniatherurn caput-medusae Medusa head. Trifolium ciliolatum Foothill clover Trifolium dubium Little hop clover Appgndix A. Continued Page 3 of 3 Seienfffic Name Common Name Tr fOliuin hirtum Rase.clover Trifolium microcephallum. Small-headed clover Trifolium repens White clover Tr folium wildenovii Tomcat clover T'riphysaria er antha Johnny-tuck Triteleia laza ithuriel's spear Umbellularia californica California bay Vida tetrasperma Vetch Y'icia 1,411osa Vetch Vulpia microstachys Vulpia WILDLIFE Scientific Name Common Name Ambystoma:californiense California tiger salamander(probable) Bu,fo boreas W.'sier i toad Carassius auratus Goldfish Sceloporus occidentalis Western fence lizard Corvus brachyrhynchos American Craw Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird Archilochus alexandri Black-'chinned hummingbird Sayornis nigricans Black phoebe Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer's blackbird Eremflphda slpestris actin Califfornia;horned lark. Chondestes grgmmacus Lary sparrow Carduelis palma Lessergolfinch -Ands plat whynchos Mallard Zenaida macroura Mourning dove Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk AgeZaiusphoeniceus R64-winged blackbird IvuJture :--_-- 77. Sialia mexicana Western bluebird Stumella neglecta Western meadowlark Apb..elocoma califarnica Western scrub jay Spermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel Odoc ileus hemionus Mole deer Procyon lotor Raccoon (tracks) SEP i 1 2002 2: 42PM HP LASERJET 3200 P.3 MONK & ASSOCIALTES E,iav%rol mental Consultants Septeinbcr 17, 2002 Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 pine Street,N. Vying--4� Floor Martinez,CA 94553 Attention:Mr.Robert.Drake RE: Review of Biological Resources Report Shepard Rezoning/Minor 1Subdivision Morgan Territory Road; County'File#RZ993474 and NIS990002 Dear Mr. Drake: 3. INTRODUCTION Monk&Associates LLC (M&A)has reviewed the applicant's proposal to subdivide approximately 50 acres on Morgan Territory Road into four parcels and to develop houses on; two of the parcels in the future (herein referred to as the proposed project),We have also reviewed other information provided by you for the above referenced project.This information included June 14 and 26, 2001 letters from Contra Costa County to Mr. Tim Diggins ofDeBolt Civil Engineering,Inc.; a Vesting Tentative'Kaap prepared by DeBolt Civil Engineering on June 2911999; and,a May 22, 2002 bioloocal field survey report prepared by Jones& Stopes Associates. The Jones & Stakes report is the focus of this letter. Jones &Shakes'report describes thea property' plant communities and wildlife habitats.It also discusses special-.status species(that is, threatenedi endangered,rare species)known from the region that have potential to.occur in these habitats.While Janes& Stokes did not conduct the ---------1.e .-t�#`-stuffy-,�cessr�-o-ao -ably ossessr#h�-p -�aj�t�- t .tial-�liact�:biologfral _- resources,we were able to determine from theinfbrmation provided iii their report that.the proposed project could result in significant adverse impacts to biological resources pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA).This letter-report discusses these potentially significant impacts. Jones &Stokes'report identifies several biological resources on the property that pose potentially significant issues. These biological resources ate: (1)a vernal pool and a pond(that are potentially regulated by the Regional Water{duality Control Board pursuant to the Porter- Cologne Water(duality Control Act as "waters of the State");(Z)potential fairy shrimp habitat; (3)potential California red-legged frog habitat; (4)potential California.tiger salamander habitat; and, (5)native oak trees that provide raptor nesting habitat.These biological resources, and their potential to be impacted by the proposed projcc`, are discussed below. 1135 S=Dap Ave.,Suite Q t Walnut Crory♦ Califomiz + 94595 (92 5)947-4867 4 FAX (925)9471-1165 QEF' 17 2002 c: 42PM NP LASERJET 32CO O F'`'• ,�:- Review ofSiological Resources Report Shepard RezoaingfWucn Subdiy sion Page 2 2. WATERS QE THE UNITED SPATS AND THE STATE The pond and vernal pool on the property atone time would have be"M regulated by the U.S. Army Gaps of Engineers (Carps) pursuant to Vection 404 of the Clean Water Act, and by the Regional.Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board).pursuant to.Section 401 of the Clem Water Act-However, since the 2001 U.S. Sugrem'e Court case(Solid Waste' Agencv of.Northern Cook Counn,versus U.S.army Carps of`Engineers)in which the Supreme Courrt ruled that,the Corps exceeded its authority under the Clew Water Act when it r6g4ated discliar°g6s of fill material into "isolated"waters.used as habitat.by migratory birds,the,Corps no longer is regulating these isolated vv-ater bodies,Following suit,the Regional Board rs atso no lunger regulating these isolated water bodies pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Fater Act. The Regional Board currently regulates isolated mater bodies as``waters of the State."The Regional Beard defines the term"waters of the State"as any scirface water or: ouncla*aterr, including saline waters,within the bouridaaie-s o the State(star Gado. , 3050(e)),Ponds, seasonal wetlands, and vernal Pools would all tweet the definition of waters of the State.The Regional Board, one of the Porter-Colokn&Authorities, considerscleaia fiill,{fcr example,soil)in water's oftlie State to constitute `pollution:°'Pollution is defined as an, alteration of the quality of lert the waters of the state,which unreasonably as its beneficial uses fWater Cade §13050(1)). The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, Water Code§13260,rerl es,that"any person discharr ng waste,or proposing tri dischaige waste,1vitl any regiQi that could affect the waters of the State to file a report-of discharge"with the Regional Water Quality Control Board through an application for waste discharge(Water Cade Section 13260(a)(1). In accordance with the Porter-.Cologne dater Quality Control Act, ifthe project_applicant intended to fill the pond and/or veinal pool cin the property,prier authorization from the Regional Beard would likely be required.Additionally, since the.R.egional Board maintains a 96 no net loss"wetlands policy,any waters of the State that were filled would.need to be mitigated it a minimum 1:1 ratio(that is, for every acre or fraction of an acre cif wetland habitat unpacted, it must be replaced with an acre or fraction of an acre of�ettlani�}.I3a�ed ou the,Tc�nes &Smokes _reports the pgplicant is not integ4the fi11 either the pond.t r the vernal pool(and there is some g discrepancy as to whether or not the vernal porn is even on the property. regulation to your attention so that you are aware of the state regulation that is in plane to protect these resources. To avoid impacts to these potentially regulated biological resources,the applicant could dedicate a perpetual grant of easement in favor of Contra Costa County around the vernal pool and the pond to prevent them from being impacted in the future. This perpetual casement should also encumber a minimum 300-foot buffer of the surrounding upland habitat so that the watershed for the pool and the pond are not adversely.modified. This protection measure is also discussed below in the section on"fairy shrimp." SSP �1 7 2002 2: 43PM HP LASERJET 3200 P- 5 f MONK& ASSOCIATES ILC Review ofBiolcgical Resources Report Shepard Rezoning13%1inor Subdivision Page 3 3. FAM Y SEIRI '1P Several species of fairy shrimp are knoc,7 to occur in the vicinity of the property:vernal pool fairy shrimp(Branchinecta lynch±), longhorn fairy shim (Branchinecta langiantenna), and California.linrlerieEa(Linderiella occidentalis). Both the vernal pool fhiry shrimp and the longhorn fairy shrimp are federal listed species; hence,they are protected under the federal Endangered,Species Act. California linderieila is a federal"species of roonc.em."Federal species of concern are species in which more information is needed to determine their rarity status. Federal species of concern are not protected under the federal Endangered.Species Act; however, California linderiella could be protected pursuant to CEQA since it is considered a"rare•" species. The vernal pool identified by Jones,& Stokes provides suitable habitat for these three species of fairy shrimp.According'to Tones &,Stokes,the project applicant has no intentions of falling this vernal pool-As such,it is unlikely there would be a discretionary permit t.hat.wo.u1d be required from a federal agency,for the proposed project that would ensure protections for the vernal pool. If the vernal pool supports one of the two.listed fairy shrimp mentioned above, and this pool was filled.,this would result in the"take"of a federal listed species. "flake"of a federal listed species without prior authorization from the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service would constitute.a significant adverse impact pursuant to CEQA1, and:could also result in civil and/or criminal charges pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act. To ensure that fairy sbrimp and their habitats are not harmed by the foreseeable property rnoditications.under review by Contra Costa County, there are two:available options. Option one is that a federally permitted biologist could conduct protocol level surveys for fairy.shrimp following J.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's.guidelines.' If fairy shrimp are not ideaitified during these.surveys, and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service is in concurrence with these fendings,then no impacts to fairy shrimp virould be expected from alterations made to this vernal.pool.No ftirther action would be required. Option two would be to.dedicate a perpetual grant of easement -- -- in favor of Contra Costa County around the vernal pool to prevent it from being impacted in the future, This perpetual easement-should also encumber a surrounding upland habitat on theproperty so that the watershed for this:pool is not adversely modified in the future. This perpetual easement would ran with all future landov vers. Such a perpetual easement would likely be the quickest and feast.expensive of the two alternatives. Prier to recordation of the subdivision, either option one or two above should be completed in its entirety.If option one is chosen,, Contra Costa County should request documentation that the U.S. Fists and Wildlife Service has been contacted and issued an"incidental take"permit(if listed faLry shrimp are present),or are in agreement that fair),shrimp do not occur in the vernal pool. t t.'SF AIS(U.S.Fish and Wildlif-6 Sen ice). 1996.Interim sun ey guidelines to penrattees for movery perrmts under section 1(}(s),l}(.A)of the endangered species act for the listed vernal pool brarachimods.April 19, 1396, 11 pps. SEP 17 2002 2: 43PM HP L.RSER.JET 3200 P- �, MONK &ASSOCIAM UC Review of Biological Resat rces Report Shepard Rezo*g/Minor,Subditrision Page d 4. CALIFOP.�L IA RED-LEGGED FROG The Califcm7 red-legged frog is a federal listed thr at ed species and a state species of special concern.This state designation affords no legally mandated protection;however,pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines(14 CCR.§15380), some species of special concern would be considered "rase." Pursuant to its rarity status,any unmitigated impacts to rare species would be considered a "sign ficant effect on the environment"(§15382).Thus, species of special concern must be considered in any project that will,orl,is currently,undergoing CEQA review, andtor that must obtain an environmental permits)from a public agency. In 2000,the U§.FWS de gn*ed critical habitat for the California red.-legged frog. The property lies within known designated California red-legged frog critical habitat. A,ccordine to Jones&Stokes' report,the pond on the property provides suitable habitat f©r the California rest-legged frog.No focused surveys for the California red-legged frog have been conducted on the property so its'presence onsite is vi&ncrv,n.However, since this frog is known From ponds on the immediately adjacent East Bay Regional Park.District property and on the Contra Costa Water District's Los"vaqueros watershed propty,there is a high.likelihood California red-legged frogs ere present on the property. 'While according to Jones & Stokes the project applicant has no intentions of impacting this pond,there are no mechartisn s in place to protect it either.If the pond supports the California red-legged frog, and this pond was.filled, or otkacm ise affected by the project,this would result tri the"take"of a federal listed species and its critical habitat."Take"of a federal listed species without prior authorization from the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service would constitute a significant adverse impact pursuam to CEQA and could also result in civil and/or criminal charges pursuant to the federal Endangered Species'Act.. Tri ensure that the California red-legged,frog and its habitat are protected on the property,there are two available,options..Option one is, a I.T.S.Fish and Wildlife Service pmmitted or"Service __ _ ___.____ .roved"bialoaist ct�uld conduct protocol level.s�eys for California red legged�g — follovizig LT.S.Fish and Wildlife Service's guidelizres , lff Califnts�iared-legget frogs are not identified during these surveys, at3d the 1rT.S.Fish and ' ildlife Service is in concurrence Frith these findings,then no impacts to California red-legged frog would be expected from alterations made to this pond. X,however,the California red-legged frog is identified in this pond, an "incidental take"permit from.the C.T.S.Fish and Wildlife Service would be necessary in order to impact any habitat within 300 feet of the pond(300 feet is the standard buffer that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service places around California red-legged frog habitats). USFWS(U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service).2000.Endangered and threatened`Midlife and plants,Proposed designation of cx tical habitat for the Cal fo nia reit-legged�&og(Rana aurora draytonfi);proposed rule. Federal register vohme 65,no. 1.76. September 11,2000, z TAFVi S(U.S,Fish and-W:I&fe Sen ire}, 1997. Guidanwe tai situ assessment and Meld survegys fr*Californm red- le;gcd L-ugs.1~ebma-. 19, 1997. 6 pps,