Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08092005 - D5 ._L TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS •" -��.. J Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP .,..3: � �~ ,` Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ��•.,. y County c• DATE: AUGUST 9, 2005 SUBJECT: Hearing on (1) a Recommendation of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on a Proposed Planned Unit (P-1) District Rezoning and Final Development Plan affecting 5.8 acres, and (2) an Appeal of a Conditional Approval Decision of a related Tentative Subdivision Map Application by the Planning Commission filed by Palmer Madden and Susan Paulus (Applicants & Owners), in the Alamo area. County Files #RZ043144, #DP043025, and #MSO40008 (Sup. Dist. III) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION 1. RECOMMENDATIONS After accepting any public testimony, and closing of the public hearing: A. As recommended by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission: 1. For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a. FIND on the basis of the whole record before the Board 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; CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER C5� VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT _UNANIMOUS(ABSENT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE AYES: NOES: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SHOWN Contact: Bob Drake(925)335-1214 ATTESTED Oe 9 Cc: Palmer Madden&Susan Paulus JOHN SWEETEN,CLERF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DeBolt Civil Engineering AND COUNTY MINIS RATOR Community Development Dept.(orig.) Public Works Department,Eng.Serv.Div. B ..,DEPUTY August 9,2005 Board of Supervisors File#MSO40008 Page 2 b. ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration as adequate; and c. ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program. 2. ADOPT the proposed rezoning of the site from General Agricultural (A-2) to Planned Unit (P-1) district. 3. APPROVE the Preliminary and Final Development Plan Application, subject to conditions. 4. ADOPT the findings contained in Resolution No. 22-2005 adopted by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission as the basis for approving this project. B. DENY the appeal of Palmer Madden and Susan Paulus. C. SUSTAIN the Planning Commission conditional approval of the minor subdivision application for a three parcel division, subject to conditions. D. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2005-21 giving effect to said rezoning. E. DIRECT staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. OR (In lieu of Recommendations "B" and "C") Consider granting the appeal, approving the recommended entitlement actions listed above; but modifying the project conditions of approval as presented in Exhibit A to allow for controls on residential design as generally proposed prior to modification by the Planning Commission. 11. FISCAL IMPACT None. The developer is responsible for the cost of processing the development permit request. III. BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS A. Overview This hearing is to consider a three-parcel residential, ridgeline rezoning/subdivision project located west of the Alamo business district. The site lies in a transitional area between smaller residential parcels to the east and larger parcels to the west, and mid-way between the valley floor and the higher ridgeline of Las Trampas Ridge. To the northeast side of the property is a clustered development, Jones Ranch, where residential development has been established at the lower elevations and the hillside area adjoining this site is a common, deed-restricted area. The proposed parcels for this project range from 1.3—2.8 acres in size. The access road serving the three parcels runs along the top of the ridge, and the building sites for each parcel lie along the southeastern side of the top of the ridge. Slopes below the building sites are proposed to be deed restricted by a scenic easement. D.5 August 9,2005 ADDENDUM The staff report for the hearing on the proposed planned unit district rezoning and final development plan filed by Palmer Madden and Susan Paulus (applicants& owners)was presented by Catherine Kutsuris of the Community Development Department. Ms. Kutsuris noted for that staff recommended some modifications to ensure clarity, to which the applicant's attorney was in agreement. The recommended modifications are as follows: 1. On Exhibit A, • First threeara a h's, insert the word"primary" before the word residence; p �' p • In the first paragraph insert the word"floor"before area to indicate living floor area; • In the fourth paragraph, under section A, add the following section; "living floors areas for lots A through C above do not include garages, detached second unit, and accessory structures." • Last paragraph on this page and the first two lines say"Proposed development of accessory structures and residential second units may be considered", strike the word proposed and the phrase may be considered and. 2. Add a new condition that says"to the extent that there may be a conflict between these conditions, and the design guidelines, including the Jones Ranch correspondence, these conditions shall supersede." 3. On item number 3 5, a Public Works condition, insert an additional statement to say " The applicant shall replace the south culvert as required by the Public Works Department", as requested by the applicant, and declared acceptable by the Public Works Department; 4. In the design guidelines, delete the reference to the prohibition of second residential units, which is included in the design guidelines. As moved by Supervisor Piepho and seconded by Supervisor Uilkema, by unanimous vote the Board took the following,actions: FOUND 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; ADOPTED the Mitigated Negative Declaration as adequate and ADOPTED the Mitigation Monitoring Program; ADOPTED the proposed Rezoning of the site from General Agricultural (A-2)to Planned Unit (P-1) District; APPROVED the Preliminary and Final Development Plan Application, subject to conditions; ADOPTED the findings contained in Resolution No. 22-2005 adopted by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission as the basis for approving this project; GRANTED the appeal of Palmer Madden and Susan Paulus; ADOPTED Exhibit A as conditions, with minor amendments as read into the record today; ADDED additional statements as outlined above; ADOPTED Ordinance No. 2005-21 giving effect to said rezoning; and DIRECTED staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. Exhibit A Alternative to Planning Commission Modifications to Residential Size Controls Palmer Madden and Susan Paulus Project Alamo A. Replace COA #41 with the following: Restrictions on the Size of Residential Structures For Lot A, the residence (excluding any basement) may not exceed 6,000 square feet of living area. For Lot B. the residence (excluding any basement) may not exceed 10,000 square feet of living floor area. For Lot C, the residence (excluding any basement) may not exceed 5000 square feet of living floor area. The maximum structure height of the primary residence on each of the three parcels shall be in accord with the restrictions contained in Condition#10.E. Proposed development of accessory structures and residential second units maybe considered and shall be subject to compliance with applicable requirements as otherwise contained within the Ordinance Code. (CCC Ord. Code §§ 82-4.212, 82-4.214, and 82-24.002, et seq.) Any proposal to modify the ordinance restrictions on the size or height of an accessory structure, not containing a residential second unit, shall require County approval of an application to amend the final development plan. E-2 B. Add the following to Condition #7 (Submittal of Deed Restrictions) 7. D. Notice shall be given that development on each lot is governed by the building size requirements including Ordinance requirements identified in Condition #41. GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\IAS04-0008 Exhibit A.doc RD\ August 9,2005 Board of Supervisors File#MSO40008 Page 3 The applicant has worked with the community (including the Alamo Improvement Association and nearby Jones Ranch residents) to develop a project that would be acceptable. The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission conducted a hearing on this project on May 25, 2005. No one appeared in opposition to the project. Nevertheless, after taking testimony,the Planning Commission expressed concern about potential excess building mass from this project, and voted to both recommend approval of the project to the Board of Supervisors, and to approve a related subdivision project, but subject to modified conditions including caps on the overall allowable square footage of buildings, including accessory buildings. The applicants object to the restrictions on the size of residential development that were modified by the Commission and have appealed the Commission's subdivision decision to the Board of Supervisors. B. General Plan Considerations The applicants who live on Las Trampas Road on a parcel abutting the subject property, have been considering a proposal to subdivide their 5.8 acre vacant ridgeline parcel into 3 parcels on an unnamed private lane. The property is split into two General Plan designations with Single Family Residential Very Low(SV)0.2-0.9 dwelling units per net acre), for the easterly portion and Agricultural Lands (AL) (minimum five acre parcel; or 0.2 dwelling units per acre),for the western portion. The total number of units permitted is derived from the combination of two General Plan density designations to allow the creation of three lots and three dwelling units on the aggregate parcel size.Approximately two-thirds of the property is designated Single Family Residential Very Low. The remainder is designated for Agricultural Lands. Designated Scenic Ridgeline- It should also be noted that the General Plan Open Space Element designates the ridgeline on which this site is located a scenic ridgeline. Scenic ridgeline plan policies require that these ridgelines are to be"protected"(aesthetically and otherwise), but that those policies do not necessarily prohibit development on scenic ridgelines. C. Submittal of Application and Initial Processing of Project The applications for this project were submitted on March 23, p 2004 and deemed complete on September 7, 2004. After the applications were received by the County but before the application was deemed complete, the applicants worked with the Alamo Improvement Association (AIA). The principal issues from the community's perspective have been drainage and residential design/visibility because the site is on a major ridpotentially ridge P Y visible to developed areas of Alamo and to 1-680. The applicants had presented their house size and design ideas to the AIA in the form of draft design guidelines which reduced maximum allowable building heights from 35 feet to 28 feet and added other restrictions on colors, materials and landscaping. The applicants had erected temporary p rY August 9, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#MS040008 Page 4 story poles representing the building heights to aid the public in assessing the visual impacts of the project. After some review and modification in April 2004, the AIA was willing to recommend in favor of the design guidelines, but also recommended that residential second units not be allowed on the site. D. Environmental Review For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act,staff conducted an initial study to determine if the project might result in any significant impacts to the environment. That study identifies three potentially significant impacts which are: Aesthetics, Geology, and Biology. However, following additional study, measures were identified that would reduce those impacts to less than significant levels and the applicant agreed to include those measures. Please see the Initial Study for the discussion of the impacts and the proposed mitigations that can reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Extensive biotic mitigations measures are proposed as part of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, as well as mitigations for the aesthetic and geologic impacts. As a result, staff proposed the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for this project. Thep ublic comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration ran from December 13, 2004 until January 12, 2005 to allow a 30-day review period. There were several comments received from area residents. These comments and responses are attached. E. Applicant Work with Neighbors When the notice for a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was sent to the nearby Jones Ranch property owners in December 2004, a renewed dialogue began primarily over potential aesthetic and drainage impacts. The story poles were erected a second time. Additional project modifications and mitigations were worked out by the applicant and the Jones Ranch neighbors just prior to the May 25, 2005 public hearing before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. Those terms provide for: • Design review of proposed residential development subject to specified criteria subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building permit. Further, prior to the Zoning Administrator decision, the Alamo Improvement Association is to be provided an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed plans; and • A cap on the size of the main residence for each of the three parcels. (Refer to Condition #7 of the May 16, 2005 Design Guidelines) Although staff was not a party to the negotiations with either the AIA or the Jones Ranch HOA, it is staffs impression that neither group raised significant concerns about the subject of accessory structures per se, being more concerned with the possibility of excessively large houses being visible from off-site, as well as with drainage. August 9, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#MS040008 Page 5 IV. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING: The residential design terms that the applicant had worked out with the neighbors were incorporated into the staff recommendation to the Planning Commission. However, the applicant did not propose, nor did staff recommend, that the prohibition on residential second units recommended by the Alamo Improvement Association be applied to this site. At the May 25, 2005 public hearing, the applicant indicated agreement with the staff recommendation.Although there was no testimony against the project,the Commission raised concerns about the large sizes of the proposed houses and about the potential for C "appurtenant") accessory structures adding to a concern of excess building mass on these visually prominent sites. The Commission felt that more controls were warranted for all of the parcels and imposed additional controls on building mass that were articulated for each of the parcels. Consequently,the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission modified the conditions of approval as follows: 1. For Lot A, excluding the basement, the residence may not exceed an aggregate of 6,000 square feet of floor area not just the living area. (As written, this cap would include an attached garage but not a detached garage or other detached accessory structure (e.g., cabana). It would also allow a residential second unit that would be in excess of the cap of the building mass for the residence, but as otherwise regulated by the Residential Second Unit Ordinance.) 2. For Lot B, (which has the largest buildable area)excluding the basement,the residence and any appurtenant structures may not exceed in aggregate 10,000 square feet of floor area. (The Lot B floor area limits aggregate square footage of all structures on the lot, not just the primary residence. The Commission action requires that any accessory structures or a residential second unit be subject to the overall cap, but did not otherwise prohibit those types of structures. Unlike Lot C, the Commission action left the building mass cap for this parcel unchanged at 10,000 square feet of floor area. 3. For Lot C, excluding the basement, the residence and any appurtenant structures may not exceed 5,600 square feet of floor area. (The Lot C floor area limits restrict aggregate square footage of all structures. The Commission action requires that any accessory structures or residential second units be subject to the overall cap, but otherwise did not prohibit those types of structures. It also raised the cap of allowable building mass from 5,000 square feet of floor area to 5,600 square feet.) In accord with staff's recommendation, the Commission did not prohibit residential second units for this development as had been proposed by AIA. The Commission also modified several conditions of approval concerning building height and setback from the private lane; those modifications were not appealed. August 9, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#MS040008 Page 6 Based on these changes, and other changes that appear not to have caused any controversy, the Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the rezoning and final development plan to the Board, and to approve the subdivision (Ingalls—absent). Additionally,the Commission added Condition No.41,which was appealed,which modified the building mass limitation proposed by the applicant on two of the proposed parcels: V. APPLICANTS' APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: The Commission's actions on the rezoning and final development plan are recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. However, the Commission action on the subdivision is a decision that would remain in place unless appealed. The applicant objected to the broader residential design controls imposed by the Planning Commission on all of the project applications, including the subdivision. By the appeal letter dated June 3,2005 and a supplement dated June 10,2005,the applicants set out their reasons why they object to the limitations on house sizes contained in Condition of Approval No. 41 imposed by the Planning Commission. The conditions of approval recommended by staff to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission reflected the structure sizes agreed to by the AIA. However, the limits were in a document cited by reference, rather than in the basic County conditions of approval.Therefore, if the Board reverses the Commission's action, it would be preferable to keep whatever house size limitations are arrived at by the Board within the Condition of Approval No. 41 rather than deleting the entire condition of approval. VI. REVIEW OF APPEAL POINTS The appellants have raised several issues that are summarized as follows: A. Appeal Point The applicants had worked with the Alamo Improvement Association and project neighbors before the matter was heard by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission and had reached agreement regarding size limitations. In the form that the AIA had agreed to, the sizes of the garages and accessory structures were not an issue and did not count into the total size limitation for the house. The appellants fee/the Commission's changes are damaging to the project and are not necessary. Staff Response:The applicant/appellant is correct that the Alamo Improvement Association had accepted living quarters limitations of 6000 square feet for Parcel A, 10,000 square feet for Parcel B and 5000 square feet for Parcel C.These totals would be in addition to garages and accessory structures which were not restricted other than by the height and setback limitations of the P-1 zone and tied to R-65 restrictions. A condition of approval requires August 9, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#MSO40008 Page 7 review and comment by the AIA before action by the Zoning Administrator for the future houses. However, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission is not bound by the AIA's agreement and the Commission g expressed concern that excessively large accessory structures could become an aesthetic issue. By requiring a total square footage maximum, the applicant or future lot owners could decide how they wanted to spend their allowable square footage between living quarters and non-residential structures. It should be noted that both the staff recommendation and the Planning Commission action on the project provided for the following limitations on accessory structures. These restrictions are consistent with zoning requirements that apply to other residential P-1 development in the County, except as may otherwise be limited by vested rights under Subdivision Law or a development agreement with the County. 1. (Non-Second Unit)Accessory Structures—Structure height is a maximum of 15 feet as measured from natural grade, and for lots larger than 20,000 square feet in area, the maximum floor area coverage is 600 square feet. (Ord. Code §§ 82-4.212, 82-4.214 & 84-2.006) It may be possible to exceed these standards; however that would require submittal of an application to amend the Final Development Plan requirements including provision of development plans of the proposed accessory structure, and County approval of those plans.' 2. Residential Second Unit Ordinance— In June 2003, in response to the requirements of State law, the County adopted a modified Residential Second Unit Ordinance. That ordinance allows residential second units to be established within a number of residential zoning districts, including the Planned Unit District provided that the Ordinance standards are met. Those standards include the following: • The total floor area of the second unit must not exceed 1,000 square feet. • A second unit may be an addition attached to an existing or newly constructed accessory structure. However, a second unit may be attached to an accessory structure only if the accessory structure meets all of the following requirements: (i) The total floor area of the accessory structure does not exceed 400 square feet, not including the second unit. (ii) The accessory structure is limited to garage space. (iii) The accessory structure complies with all requirements relatingto yards (front setbacks, side, and rear) and building height that are applicable to the primary residence in the zone in which the property is located. [ref. Ord. Code § 82-24.012 (c)]. 'The County modified the zoning ordinance to provide for these specific restrictions on the size of accessory structures in 1996. August 9, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#MS040008 Page 8 Further, there is no provision under the Residential Second Unit Ordinance to vary these or other Residential Second Unit standards. Therefore,the largest detached accessory structure containing a second unit that would be allowable on this site, or elsewhere within Contra Costa County, is a 1400 square foot accessory building. Staff sees no compelling reason why this project should not be subject to the same development restrictions that apply to similarly zoned property in the County. B. Appeal Point The applicant further points out that this already is an area of extremely large houses, some larger than those now proposed. Staff Res nse: The applicants have raised the equity issue that their 3-lot Minor Subdivision could be considered as an infill into the much larger 19-lot Alamo Ridge subdivision which does not have similar house and accessory size restrictions. While true, Alamo Ridge was approved in the 1980s when there was less concern with ridgeline protection. However, all the lots within the Alamo Ridge project are at least five acres in area. Also that project was approved in the early 1980s prior to the adoption of the more restrictive General Plan update in 1991. C. Appeal Point Combined with other conditions regarding building placement., heights and landscaping., the accessory structures would not be visible from Central Alamo or 1-680. Staff Response: Staff would agree that the carefully worked out building height language combined with tree retention and new landscaping would prevent future structures from being seen from Central Alamo or 1-680, as well as from the Jones Ranch subdivision.The Planning Commission seemed more concerned with a potential problem of oversized accessory structures becoming an aesthetic issue per se even if they were substantially screened from distant views to the east. D. otherAspectsof the Project Not Appealed The combined project consists of a rezoning to P-1 and a preliminary and final development plan which would require Board of Supervisors approval even if a subdivision condition was not appealed. The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission as well as staff have recommended approval to these components of the total project.The reason the subject project includes the use of the Planned Unit District (P-1) is because the General Plan designations that cover the area would not allow a rezoning to a conventional district such as R-65 because a portion has a General Plan designation of Agricultural Lands with which R-65 would conflict. The P-1 would allow the blending of the potential unit yield of the two General Plan designations. The details August 9,2005 Board of Supervisors File#MS040008 Page 9 of these calculations are contained in the attached staff report to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. Additionally,the use of the P-1 allows various exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance which would otherwise require several variances. In particular the setbacks are less than the R-65 zone and retaining wall heights exceed the normal restrictions but these exceptions can be accommodated by the use of the P-1. There is one related actual variance resulting from the height of retaining walls to be constructed on the adjacent property to the north along the private entry road. That adjacent property is zoned A-2 not P-1. VII. CONCLUSION: The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission has found the project to be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and any related General Plan policies that apply to the area. They recommend approval of the rezoning to P-1 and approval of the preliminary and final development plan. They also determined that the findings could be made for the minor variance and the exception to cul-de-sac length. An unusual amount of effort was given to addressing the impacts on abutting properties. The principal remaining dispute relates to the Commission having set structure size limitations which the applicant has appealed. VIII. ALTERNATIVE BOARD ACTION If the Board finds that the appeal has merit, and can make the required findings, the Board may grant the appeal and replace Condition 41 with the text as provided in Exhibit A. The Applicants may feel that with this P-1 approval they should be entitled to build larger or more accessory structures or residential second units than are permitted on other P-1 or residentially zoned properties in the County. On that aspect of the project, there is no compelling reason to treat this project differently from other properties in the County. So as to leave no doubt on what may be permitted, instead of just deletion of this condition,the Board could substitute language that clarifies that these types of structures would be subject to applicable ordinance restrictions. Also, for purposes of the public record, it would be useful to incorporate the residential size limits from the (Applicant's Design Guideline document) into the project Conditions of Approval. These restrictions should also be included in covenants that will run with the subdivision parcels. Exhibit A contains alternative permit language that the Board could apply for these purposes. RESOLUTION No. 22-2005 Resolution No. 22-2005 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, REGARDING THE PALMER MADDEN AND SUSAN PAULUS APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION MSO400089 AND OF A REZONING FROM THE GENERAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (A-2) TO A PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (P-1)9 AND A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE SITE CONSISTS OF 5.8 ACRES, ADJACENT TO 1900 LAS TRAMPAS ROAD IN ALAMO, COUNTY FILES # RZ043144, DP0430259 AND MSO40008, FOR A 3-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (DISTRICT III). WHEREAS, Can March 23, 2004 Palmer Madden and Susan Paulus filed applications with the Community Development Department for a rezoning to the P-1 zone, a preliminary and final development plan and a 3-lot residential subdivision on a private lane extending off of Las Trampas Road in the A-2 district in the Alamo area, and WHEREAS, Staff has determined that based on an Initial Study the proposed project could have potentially significant impacts on the environment but that mitigation measures were incorporated into the project approval and agreed to by the developer so that the impacts would be reduced to less than significant. A notice regarding the proposed adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted and distributed in conformance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15072, and; WHEREAS, After notice of the public hearing having been lawfully given, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission held a hearing on May 25, 2005, at which time an person interested was provided the opportunity to testify and present evidence to the any Planning Commission, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission ADOPTS the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration as adequate for purposes of satisfying this project's compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; and FINDS on the basis of the whole record before the Commission 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; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that based on inclusion of the additional design restrictions on residential development as requirements of the permit, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission MAKES the following project findings: Resolution No. 22-2005 FINDINGS A. Growth Management Performance Standards Is I Traffic - To improve regional traffic circulation and safety, the applicant shall construct an on-site roadway system to current County, private, rural road and driveway standards. Applicant shall widen the existing north access road to a minimum 20-foot width. And applicant shall construct a paved turnaround at the end of the proposed private road. Because the project will not generate more than 100 peak-period trips,no special traffic congestion analysis is required. 2. Water-- The County pursuant to its police power and as the proper governmental entity responsible for directly regulating land use density or intensity, property development and the subdivision of property within the unincorporated areas of the County, shall require new development to demonstrate that adequate water quantity and quality can be provided. The site lies within the service area of the East Bay Municipal Utility District. The District has stated that it can adequately serve the project once the necessary improvements are made. The applicant shall bear all expenses associated with constructing a water system capable of meeting the fire flow and water demand requirements of the water district and of the fire district. 3. Sanitary Sewer-The County pursuant to its police power and as the proper governmental entity responsible for directly regulating land use density or intensity,property development and the subdivision of property within the unincorporated areas of the County, shall require new development to demonstrate that adequate sanitary sewer quantity and quality can be provided. The site lies within the service area of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. The District has responded that they can serve the project subject to their standard fees, specifications, and conditions. 4. Fire Protection-Fire stations shall be located within one and one-half miles of developments in urban, suburban and central business district areas. The site is located within a designated suburban level of service designation. Automatic fire sprinkler systems may be used to satisfy this standard. The site is more than one and one-half miles from a fire station and the new homes are required to be sprinklered. The applicant's engineer has designed the project to meet the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. 5. Public Protection—The project will not result in a population increase of 1000 people, therefore there are no special capital improvements contributions required 2 Resolution No. 22-2005 IV2years of the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval. 2 Proiect Fin The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the county general plan; The project as conditioned is consistent with the Land Use Element designation and with the goals and policies of the General Plan as it pertains to this site. 3. Project Fin In the case of residential development, it will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and co-, -iunity; The planned custom homes will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability. The three new dwellings will be in harmony with the large-lot residential homes in the general area and with the planned Alamo Summit project to the north. The yards and setbacks will provide adequate separation between residences and there is adequate separation between subject development and existing developments. 4. Project Fin The development of a harmonious integrated plan justifies exceptions from the normal application of this code. The project generally conforms to the R-65 zoning district regulations. In exchange for allowing the blending of the two applicable General Plan designations for the property, the project will be subject to an unusual level of design restrictions to protect the scenic ridgeline qualities of the site. (Ref§ 84-66.1406 of the County Code) D. Findings for Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map 1. Required Finding - The Planning Commission shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find 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. Protect Fin - The proposed project provides for single family residential development in accord with the allowable density designated by the General Plan for this site. As a P-1 Planned District, the project would be required to cluster the development to the most level and stable portions of the site and dedicate the development rights to the County for the open space area. The project will be required to install road and drainage improvements in accord with the Subdivision Ordinance standards prior to construction of any residences. 4 Resolution No. 22-2005 2. Required Fin That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size, shape,topography,location or surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. Project Finding- The special circumstance is that the topography of the area within the 20 foot setback of the A-2 district for the two properties north of the subject property is so steep that when a roadway of the width required by the Fire Protection District is constructed the combined height of the wall and guard rail would exceed 6feet. The alternative of`not providing a guard rail would endanger public safety. 3. Required Fin That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Project Finding- The intent of the A-2 zoning district is to allow for agricultural and large lot single-family residential development that provides compatibility with the surrounding uses. The area of the over-height wall is not near the existing single family residence on the abutting pro+p►erty and would provide safer vehicular access. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission (1) RECOMMENDS that the Board of Supervisors approve the proposed rezoning of the site from General Agricultural,A-2. to Planned Unit District (P-1); and approve the proposed preliminary and final development plan, as conditioned; and (2) APPROVES the proposed subdivision, including off-site road improvements and exception to subdivision ordinance cul-de-sac standards, subject to conditions. 6 Resolution No. 22-2005 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission will sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California; The instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were given by motion ,of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on Wednesday May 25, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners- Couture, tiloson, Mulvihill,,Neely, McPherson and Matsunaga NOES: Commissioners- None ABSENT: Commissioner Ingalls ABSTAIN: Commissioner None NEAL MATSUNAGA, CHAIRMAN Chair of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California On June 3, 2005, the Community Development Department received an appeal of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's action on the subdivision application MS040008 from Palmer Madden and Susan Paulus. ATTEST: DENNIS M. BARRY, Secretary County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa County, State of California StaffReports:MS040008Reso22-2005 7 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND PROJECT DESIGN GUIDELINES FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE MADDEN/PAULUS PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT REZONING FILE #RZ043144, and FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN #DP043025, and VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #MSO40008 PER SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MAY 25,2005 (Debolt Civil Engineering,Applicants,Palmer Madden and Susan Paulus,Owners)in the Alamo Area FINDINGS A. Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Traffic - To improve regional traffic circulation and safety, the applicant shall construct an on-site roadway system to current County, private, rural road and driveway standards. Applicant shall widen the existing north access road to a minimum 20-foot width.And applicant shall construct a paved turnaround at the end of the proposed private road. Because the project will not generate more than 100 peak-period trips, no special traffic congestion analysis is required. 2. Water-- The County pursuant to its police power and as the proper governmental entity responsible for directly regulating land use density or intensity, property development and the subdivision of property within the unincorporated areas of the County, shall require new development to demonstrate that adequate water quantity and quality can be provided. The site lies within the service area of the East Bay Municipal Utility District. The District has stated that it can adequately serve the project once the necessary improvements are made. The applicant shall bear all expenses associated with constructing a water system capable of meeting the fire flow and water demand requirements of the water district and of the fire district. 3. Sanitary Sewer-The County pursuant to its police power and as the proper governmental entity responsible for directly regulating land use density or intensity,property development and the subdivision of property within the unincorporated areas of the County, shall require new development to demonstrate that adequate sanitary sewer quantity and quality can be provided. The site lies within the service area of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. The District has responded that they can serve the project subject to their standard fees, specifications, and conditions. 4. Fire Protection-Fire stations shall be located within one and one-half miles of developments in urban, suburban and central business district areas. The site is located within a designated suburban level of service designation. Automatic fire sprinkler systems may be used to satisfy this standard. The site is more than one and one-half miles from a fire station and the new homes are required to be sprinklered. The applicant's engineer has designed the project to meet the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. MSO40008 DP 043025,Madden Project Conditions of Approval 5. Public Protection—The project will not result in a population increase of 1000 people,therefore there are no special capital improvements contributions required of this project. 6. Parks and Recreation—No neighborhood parks or playfields are proposed in the project, therefore,the applicant will be required to pay the in-lieu park dedication fee of$2000 per dwelling unit. 7. Flood Control and Drainage—The new development will finance the full costs of drainage improvements necessary to accommodate peak flows due to the project. The drainage improvements requested by the Flood Control District and by the Public Works Department are incorporated into the conditions of approval.No part of the development falls within the 100-year flood plain as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. (Ref: the Growth Management Element of the General Plan) B. Rezoning 1. The change proposed will substantially comply with the general plan. Proiect Fin —The project as conditioned is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan as it pertains to this site. 2. The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts. Proiect Finding— The project's single-family residential use is consistent with the General Plan designation of this site. The proposed use as conditioned will also be compatible with the future residential development to the south and north and to the existing single family housing to the east. 3. Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed,but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. Proiect Finding- The proposed housing will assist in meeting the housing development targets identified in the Housing Element of the General Plan. (Ref§26-2.1806 of the County Code) 2 MSO40008 DP 043025,Madden Project Conditions of Approval C. Findings for Approval of a P-1 Zoning and a Final Development Plan 1. Proiect Finding The applicant intends to start construction within two and one- half years from the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval; The applicant has indicated that they intend to commence construction within 2 %z years of the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval. 2. Proiect Finding The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the county general plan; The project as conditioned is consistent with the Land Use Element designation and with the goals and policies of the General Plan as it pertains to this site. 3. Proiect Finding-In the case of residential development, it will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community; The planned custom homes will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability. The three new dwellings will be in harmony with the large-lot residential homes in the general area and with the planned Alamo Summit project to the north. The yards and setbacks will provide adequate separation between residences and there is adequate separation between subject development and existing developments. 4. Proiect FinThe development of a harmonious integrated plan justifies exceptions from the normal application of this code. The project generally conforms to the R-65 zoning district regulations. In exchange for allowing the blending of the two applicable General Plan designations for the property, the project will be subject to an unusual level of design restrictions to protect the scenic ridgeline qualities of the site. (Ref§ 84-66.1406 of the County Code) D. Findings for Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map 3 MSO40008 DP 043025,Madden Project Conditions of Approval 1. Required Finding - The Planning Commission shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision,together with the provisions for its design and improvement,is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans required bylaw. Proiect Finding - The proposed project provides for single family residential development in accord with the allowable density designated by the General Plan for this site. As a P-1 Planned District, the project would be required to cluster the development to the most level and stable portions of the site and dedicate the development rights to the County for the open space area. The project will be required to install road and drainage improvements in accord with the Subdivision Ordinance standards prior to construction of any residences. (Ref. 94-2.806 of the Ordinance Code) E. Allowing aCul-De-Sac Longer Than 700 Feet per Section 92-6.002 1, Required Finding That there are unusual circumstances or conditions affecting the property; Proiect Finding— The new private lane serving the subject property is cut off by steep topography and by development having occurred in other directions without providing access through to the area. 2 Required Finding That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; Proiect Finding—If the 700 foot maximum were strictly enforced the property which extends over 2000 feet in from Las Trampas Road would be deprived of substantial property rights. This result would be inconsistent with General Plan policies promoting infill development and with the land use designation for the subject property- 3 Required Finding That the granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. Proiect Finding—A principal purpose of a cul-de-sac maximum length is to promote improved emergency vehicle access. This purpose is being achieved by the provision of additional fire protection being built into the development such as an automatic residential fire sprinkler system,fire hydrants and turnouts. (Ref; 92-6.002 and 94-2.608 of the County Code) 4 MS040008 DP 043025,Madden Project Conditions of Approval F. Findings Required for a Variance for Retaining Wall and Fence Taller than 6 Feet in a Required Yard 1. Required Finding: That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Project Finding- The granting of this variance is not a special privilege. The construction of retaining walls and guard rails on public and private roadways in hill areas occasionally causes a total wall height that exceeds the maximum 6feet height of the A-2 zone. 2. Required F That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. Project Finding- The special circumstance is that the topography of the area within the 20 foot setback of the A-2 district for the two properties north of the subject property is so steep that when a roadway of the width required by the Fire Protection District is constructed the combined height of the wall and guard rail would exceed 6feet. The alternative of not providing a guard rail would endanger public safety. 3. Required Finding: That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Project Finding- The intent of the A-2 zoning district is to allow for agricultural and large lot single-family residential development that provides compatibility with the surrounding uses. The area of the over-height wall is not near the existing single family residence on the abutting property and would provide safer vehicular access. 5 MS040008 DP 043025,,Madden Project Conditions of Approval CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General 1. This approval which includes the preliminary-and final development plan, the three-lot minor subdivision and a variance for a retaining wall and fence higher than 6 feet but not exceeding 8 feet in a required yard in the A-2 district, and a cul-de-sac longer than 700 feet, is based upon the exhibits received by the Community Development Department listed as follows: A. Vesting Tentative Map by DeBolt Engineering dated revised May 12, 2005. B Drainage Area Reduction Exhibit by DeBolt Engineering dated Izz-U= A Warch 7, 2005. The approval is also based on the following reports and documents: C. Biological resources report by LSA Associates ,December 15, 2003. D. Alameda Whipsnake Mitigation Plans,LSA Associates dated.July 28,2004, and May 20,2005. E. Supplemental biological report by LSA,Associates October 14, —2004. F. Arborist Reports from Atlas Tree Service dated April 26, and November 8, 2004. G. Soils report by Engeo,Inc, dated January 21, 2004, and supplement dated August 30, 2004. 6 MS040008 DP 043025,Madden Project Conditions of Approval 2. Approval Contingent on Consistent Approval of Related Rezoning Application-This subdivision shall be approved contingent upon approval of the rezoning request File #RZ043144 from General Agricultural, A-2 to Planned Unit District, P-1. If the site is not rezoned this approval shall be null and void. 3. Applicant Indemnification of C -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 employees 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. Compliance Report-At least 45 days prior to filing a Parcel Map or issuance of agrading permit, the applicant shall submit a report on compliance with the conditions of approval with this permit for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. A. 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. The report shall also indicate whether the applicant believes that he has done all that the applicant is in a position to do to comply with the applicable condition. (A copy of the computer file containing the conditions of approval may be available; to obtain a copy, contact the project planner at 335- 1204.) B. Unless otherwise indicated, the applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the conditions of this report prior to filing a final map. %.0 5. P ent of any Supplemental A Which are Due- ,pvlication Processing Fees This application is subject to an initial application fee which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 120%of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must 7 MS040008 DP 043025,,Madden Project Conditions of Approval 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. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If the applicant owes additional fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. 6. The subdivider shall grant deed the development rights for the area designated as scenic easement to the County per the tentative map dated revised May 12, 2005. The proposed grant deed instrument shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The erection of structures,, including but not limited to buildings, obscure fences, swimming pools, tennis courts,, and sports courts,is prohibited in scenic easement areas. Scenic easements shall be dedicated to the County for the areas shown on the development plans using the scenic easement instrument approved by the Zoning Administrator. The easement instrument shall provide that no grading,other development activity or removal of trees may occur in that area without the prior written approval of the Zoning Administrator. 7. Submittal of Deed Restrictions-At least 30 days prior to filing a Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit deed restrictions for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that contain the following restrictions that shall run with the land: A. Notice shall be given that the 2.21+/- acre Scenic Easement area located on Parcels A,B, &C is not owned in common by the owners of Parcels A-C and that each respective owner is responsible for the area of Scenic Easement within their parcel. B. Notice shall be given that the development on each lot is governed by the design review guidelines contained in Condition No. 10. C. Notice shall be given that the property owners are responsible for the road maintenance as indicated in Condition No. 31-29, and for the common or community parking spaces shown on the approved tentative map. The notice shall declare that the parking spaces are not to be used exclusively by the property owners upon whose lot they occur,but that they are guest parking available to all parcels served by the road. 8 MS040008 DP 043025,Madden Project Conditions of Approval 8. Submittal of Alternative Street Names - At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map,a proposed street name shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department,Graphics Section(Phone#335- 1270). Alternate street names should be submitted. The Parcel Map cannot be certified by the Community Development Department without the approved street name. 9. Geotechnical Report—General. A. At least 30 days prior to recordation of Parcel Map, submit a final geology, soil, and foundation report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for review and approval of the Planning Geologist. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report. This report shall include evaluation of seismic settlement and other types of seismically-induced ground failure by recognized methods appropriate to soil conditions discovered during subsurface investigation. It shall also evaluate the hazard posed by debris flows and undocumented fills and provide appropriate recommendations for remediation of geotechnical/geologic hazards. It shall also provide recommendation for grading, foundation and drainage that are sensitive to geologic constraints. B In conjunction with the geotechnical engineer,provide improvement plans for the private road and utility corridor that is needed to comply with the private road standards of Contra Costa County. C. Applicant shall record a statement to run with deeds to property ac- knowledging the approved report by title, author(firm), and date, calling attention to approved recommendations, and noting that the report is available from the seller. D. Grading shall be kept to a practical minimum. Where needed, retaining walls or reinforced earth can be utilized with proper design. E. All graded slopes shall be contour-rounded to mimic natural terrain features. 9 MS040008 DP 043025,,Madden Project Conditions of Approval F. Prior to issuance of the grading permit,provide a grading remediation plan and report for the approval of the Building Inspection Department(BID). The report shall evaluate all major graded slopes and open space hillsides whose performance could affect planned improvements. The slope stability analysis shall be performed for both static and dynamic conditions using an appropriate pseudo-static horizontal ground acceleration coefficient for earthquakes on the Calaveras fault in accordance with standard practice as outlined in DMG Special Pub. 117, 1997 or equivalent. G. During grading,the geotechnical engineer shall observe and approve all keyway excavations,removal of fill and landslide materials down to stable bedrock or in-place material, and installation of all subdrains including their connections. All fill slope construction shall be observed and tested by the project geotechnical engineer, and the density test results and reports submitted to the County to be kept on file. Cut slopes and keyways shall be periodically observed and mapped by the project geotechnical and civil engineers who will provide any required slope modification recommendations based on the actual geologic conditions encountered during grading. Written approval from the Contra Costa County BID shall be obtained prior to any modification. H. Regular progress reports and a grading completion report—shall be submitted to BID by the project geotechnical engineers. These reports shall include the results and locations of all compaction tests, as-built plans of all landslide repairs and fill removal including geologic mapping of the exposed geology of all excavations showing cut cross-sections and sub-drain depths and locations. The lists of excavations approved by the engineering geologist shall also be submitted. Building permits shall not be issued without documentation that the grading and other pertinent work has been performed in accordance with the geotechnical report criteria and applicable Grading Ordinance provisions. I. During grading,unstable colluvial soils and landslide deposits within developed portions of the properties shall be re-graded to 10 MS040008 DP 043025,,Madden Project Conditions of Approval effectively remove the potential for seismically induced landslides in these materials,as recommended in the approved geotechnical reports. J. All measures identified in the approved geotechnical reports to provide for slope stability shall be incorporated into the final grading plans. Prior to issuance of the grading permit,the County Geologist shall review the plans to verify that these measures are incorporated and that there is no unacceptable hazard from unstable slopes or post-development grading. K. Prior to issuance of building permits on parcels of this subdivision, submit an as-graded report of the engineering geologist and the geotechnical engineer with a map prepared by a civil vil engineer showing engineering geology/lithology details, final plans and grades for any buttress fill with its keyway, subsurface drainage, subdrain cleanouts, disposal and pickup points, and any other soil improvements installed during grading, as surveyed by the project survey or civil engineer, and in accordance with requirements of the geotechnical engineer. (Mitigation Measure) L. Consistent with the final geotechnical report, specific criteria and standards for foundations shall be provided based on the results of the subsurface exploration and laboratory testing. These measures shall be implemented during design and construction where appropriate to minimize expansive soil effects on structures. Potential foundation systems include pier and grade beam;use of appropriate engineering design measures to control vertical and horizontal movement of slabs;pad overcutting to provide uniform swell potential; and soil subgrade moisture treatment. M. Prior to issuance of building permits or installation of utilities, chemical testing of representative building pad soils shall be submitted to determine the level of corrosion protection required for steel and concrete materials used for construction. The following measures shall be implemented where appropriate to protect against corrosion: use of sulfate-resistant concrete and use of protective linings to encase steel piping buried in native soils. (Mitigation Measure) 11 MS040008 DP 043025,Madden Project Conditions of Approval 10. At least 45 days prior to the issuance of a building permit for new residential development, the developer shall submit to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval detailed design drawings including building elevations,site plans,floor plans,exterior colors and materials,final grading plans and landscaping plans.The Zoning Administrator's decision in acting on the plans shall be primarily based on the following design guidelines and additionally on the Design Guidelines dated May 16, 2005, the six conditions contained in the Jones Ranch HOA's letter dated May 5, r 2005, and the attached e-mail exchange between the Jones Ranch HOA and Palmer Madden dated May 9, 2005: The overall purpose of the design review is to reduce visual impacts of the new construction when viewed from off-site,particularly from the 1-680 corridor and from Central Alamo, generally meaning the Danville 01 Blvd./Stone Valley Road intersection. The location of the buildings on the approved building envelopes, house elevations and landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Alamo Improvement Association for comment prior to submittal to and action by the Zoning Administrator. A. Cut building into slope to reduce the effective visual bulk. B. Step the building up the slope rather than have a single floor height. C. Locate house away from the most visible edge of the pad. D. Minimize under-story height or foundation on the downhill side of house. E. The maximum height of buildings shall be 28 feet,measured from 33d�iaL, a- AW xam Car.♦th a Ar- n an a ar.&:michp- e grade ..XJLAWJLAI- AW VT WAL 5P JLWA WPJLJL%W So" %4AWAJLF.,3 WJL J.JLJLJLA%.FAA%O %.-I tha.vidga fX artheast side)along the northeast building envelope line ULAW&A%&t.7%f V&1%WJL b..PA when viewedperpendicular to the buildiniz envelope line. (Mitigation Measure) (Chimneys and;vents -ga anenanees indir may extend above the maximum ........ated-roof *,*Firatif.t height).1H.Lavviax1rox tLp. Znni:na A Jmi=ijztv:3tnr-may allcou a aventex W VV W T%WX� %,AAW AL-dWAAA&A 5 A 3L%.&A&&JLAJLJLba%IJL%.*%IWJL AAA"J %..*JLJL%LIF V T "tya WSAISIWA A,n-t*"t An tha da3lunhill cidda Q:CtI-A jztmetff AWK5AXI, WAX 116,AJLW %&%-f WV AAAAAJLA kJ-&TI&%f %RJL %'JLJL%o %0 T V%W thi W 6-0%.F%0&%,A.JL V T%0 La%"I pnyvida4 tLe inei a Lai iQ J130-tQ tha additinu CXIn:%A4PX F X W V A%A-W%A %IJLJLW AAAWA A AX%OAbAJL%I Ahj %.&"W %IW %IAAW"%A%&X%IAWAA %.fiL AW VT WA Lautalc ar u=JPr-ctA=X avain C%:" dAmEnLill cid"aftha ctmetwe AW V WAUJ WA *.JSIW.L'T SAIA%046&%�WAA %&%.F VV AJLJLJLJLJLA UJJL%A&.W %.FA IWLAW 30 12 MS040008 DP 043025,Madden Project Conditions of Approval OIL flilp At no point may building exceed M-feet in height above F. Break up the building mass into smaller elements. Large vertical planes are discouraged. Flat exterior wall surfaces should not exceed 20 feet in height. G. Step back second stories. H. Avoid large gable ends on the northeast side or other visible elevations particularly toward central Alamo. I. Other than the walls as shown on the Vesting Tentative Map, avoid tall retaining walls. Break up into several small walls with landscaping in between. J. Exterior colors should be medium to dark and minimize reflectivity (50%maximum reflectivity). {Mitigation Measure) K. Encourage shadow patterns created by architectural elements such as large eaves,trellises, arbors and articulation of the building walls. L. Extend architectural treatments around to the sides and rear of the houses. M. A landscaping plan shall be provided for review and approval and said plan shall be designed to soften the appearance of the structures and to provide significant evergreen screening in order to minimize visibility of the structures from off-site. Replacement trees as required by Condition 17-A shall be used to screen the dwelling from off-site particularly from the east and northeast. Plantings when visible on the ridge from off-site should be harmonious with native vegetation. N. Screen storage areas and out-buildings, or locate in unobtrusive locations. 0. Lighting should be minimized and limited to down lighting. 13 MSO40008 DP 043025,Madden Project Conditions of Approval P. All retaining wall shall be within the approved building envelopes. Q. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit,the developer shall submit for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator plans for an open,rural style fence along the common property line with the Jones Ranch open space parcel. The approved fence shall be constructed prior to occupancy of the first house of the subject subdivision. 11. There shall be a minimum of 10 feet of plantable soil separating the paved portion of the private road serving Parcels A and B and any structure on that a lot. There shall be a minimum of 5 feet of plantable soil between the paved private road right-of-way and any structure on Parcel C. 12. On Parcel A there shall be a minimum of 15 feet of separation between the community parking spaces and any residential structure on Parcel A(but not a non-residential detached structure such as a garage, gazebo, or pool house). The design review required by Condition No. 10 for Parcel A shall consider the need for screening of the residence from the parking area by the use of sound walls and/or dense evergreen landscaping. 13. BIOLOGY - Thirty days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, detailed mitigation plans shall be prepared addressing impacts to the referenced special-status species. The plans shall be prepared by qualified biologists in consultation with representatives of the USFWS and CDFG, and provide for the protection,replacement, and management of habitat for the listed special status species. The plans shall be approved by the USFWS and CDFG, in accordance with federal and state law. Evidence of resource agency approval shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for any portion of the project that includes the Alameda Whipsnake. At minimum,the plans shall include the following provisions unless other provisions are approved in writing by the USFWS: ALAMEDA WHIPSNAKE MITIGATION PLAN This mitigation plan for the Alameda whipsnake includes preservation of lands as permanent open space and implementation of measures that will reduce or prevent take. Preservation will insure that open space areas within the range of the Alameda whipsnake will remain in their natural 14 MS040008 DP 043025,,Madden Project Conditions of Approval condition for continued use by them. Measures to reduce or prevent take will ensure that individual animals within the local Alameda whipsnake population will not be killed during construction or after project development. (Mitigation Measure) PRESERVATION STRATEGY (The preservation component of this mitigation plan requires the purchase of off-site mitigation lands in an approved mitigation bank and the protection of undeveloped portions of the property with a conservation easement.) Off-site Land Purchase The project proponent,Palmer Madden shall contribute the sum of $40,000(forty thousand dollars)to the purchase of credits in an approved Alameda whipsnake mitigation bank for the protection of whipsnake habitat as designated by the California Department of Fish and Game. Conservation Easement Lands The project will protect the 2.21 acres of the site which is not within the development envelopes of the lots as permanent open space with a conservation easement. This conservation easement will be held by Contra Costa County. MEASURES TO PREVENT TAKE Specific protective measures will be implemented as part of the Project for all area that will be cleared during grading or construction on site. The project will incorporate the following measures into its development plans to reduce and/or prevent take of individual Alameda whipsnakes. Exclusion Fencing. Prior to any construction of a building-,--a,a fence will be placed around the construction area to prevent the entry of Alameda whipsnakes into the construction area. The fence will extend at least three feet above the ground with at least 6-inches buried underground. Funnel type exits that will allow animals to leave the construction area but prevent 15 MS040008 DP 043025,Madden Project Conditions of Approval their re-entry will be placed along the fence at intervals of 50-feet. This fence will be erected prior to development activities and remain in place until all construction is completed. The fence may be temporarily removed during extended breaks in construction activity,but must be replaced prior to resumption of any construction activity. A biologist will be on site during all fence construction activities. This biologist will have the authority to halt fence construction, if necessary,to prevent take of Alameda whipsnakes and to relocate any snakes that may be in harm's way during fence construction. After completion,the fence will be inspected weekly by a biologist to ensure its integrity. Trapping and Relocation.The area inside the exclusion fence, (the construction area)will be trapped using drift fences and funnel traps and all Alameda whipsnakes captured will be relocated outside of the construction area. Trapping shall be conducted pursuant to USFWS/DFG approved trapping protocols and details of the trapping protocol will be finalized in coordination with the Service and the Department. Trapping will be done by a USFWS approved biologist. Biological Monitor.A biological monitor shall be present in areas where clearing and grubbing of the project site is occurring and whenever grading activities area being conducted in areas adjacent to scrub habitat. The biological monitor shall have the authority and ability to halt grading and other construction activities as necessary to move to a safe location any Alameda whipsnakes encountered. A biological monitor shall brief the construction crew on the potential presence of Alameda whipsnakes in the Project area, and educate on-site workers in the identification and habitat requirements of Alameda whipsnakes,measures implemented t'o avoid and minimize take of Alameda whipsnakes, including the biological monitor's authority to halt grading and construction activities, and the ramifications of take of listed species. FUNDING MECHANISM The Project proponent will fiord all of the mitigation work described in this Plan, including creation and monitoring of the mitigation areas and implementation of the construction protection measures. 16 MSO40008 DP 043025,Madden Project Conditions of Approval The plan will be submitted for review and approval of the California Department of Fish and Game, and U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. 1. Prior to impacting the Alameda whipsnake or its habitat, incidental take authorization(Section 7 consultation or Section 10 permit) or a"not likely to effect" letter would be required from USFWS. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit,the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a copy of incidental take authorization or a"not likely to effect"letter from the USFWS for the Alameda whipsnake. All measures required by USFWS to reduce, offset, or avoid impacts to the Alameda whipsnake shall be implemented prior to issuance of a grading permit. 2. Prior to impacting the Alameda whipsnake or its habitat, an"incidental take"permit (Section 2081 permit) or a letter of"no effect"regarding the Alameda whipsnake would be required from CDFG. In lieu of such a permit, CDFG may process a "consistency determination"pursuant to Fish and Game Code §2080.1. Such a determination would indicate that the State's interests in protecting State listed species are met by the federal biological opinion(i.e.,the incidental take statement)issued by USFWS and thus no Section 2081 permit is required. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a copy of an incidental take statement or consistency determination, or a letter of no effect from CDFG for the Alameda whipsnake. If CDFG issues a Section 2081 permit for the project, or processes a consistency determination, all mitigation measures required by CDFG to reduce, offset, or avoid impacts to the Alameda whipsnake shall be implemented prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. The following additional measures are required to address impacts to the Alameda Whipsnake for development of this subdivision project and provides measures to address clearing of the chaparral vegetation for road widening, the exclusion fence for Alameda Whipsnakes, and traffic mitigation(speed)measures. Chaparral Clearing The access road to the proposed lots would be widened according to the 17 MSO40008 DP 043025,Madden Project Conditions of Approval requirements of Contra Costa County. This access road bisects occupied habitat of the Alameda whipsnake.To ensure that no Alameda whipsnakesare u� red during the widening of the road,the following procedures shall be implemented. 1) A pre-construction survey for Alameda whipsnakes will occur on the same day of and immediately prior to the clearing of the vegetation for the road corridor. 2) Once the pre-construction survey has been completed,the clearing of the vegetation for the road corridor will begin.All chaparral vegetation will be cut and removed by hand labor. 3) A biological construction monitor will observe the clearing of the chaparral vegetation.The construction monitor will ensure that no Alameda whipsnakes are injured by the vegetation clearing. The construction monitor will have the authority and ability to stop the clearing to allow Alameda whipsnakes to exit the construction area. The construction monitor shall also have the authority and ability to physically move Alameda whipsnakes from the construction area,if need be. Clearing would resume upon the instruction of the construction monitor. 4) Grading of the road corridor will also require conducting a pre- construction survey and presence of a biological monitor during the wading operation. 5) The Alameda Whipsnake Mitigation Plan,prepared on July 28, 2004 by LSA Associates provides for the briefing of the construction crew as follows A biological monitor shall brief the construction crew on the potential presence of Alameda whipsnakes in the project area,educate on-site workers in the identification and habitat requirements of Alameda whipsnakes,describe measures implemented to avoid and minimize take of Alameda whipsnakes, describe the biological monitor's authority to halt jarading and construction activities,and discuss the ramifications of take of listed species. Exclusion Fence for Alameda Whipsnakes The mitigation measures in this section address the design and location of the exclusion fence for Alameda Whipsnakes. 1) The design and location of the exclusion fence for Alameda whipsnakes shall be approved by the US Fish and Wildlife Service(only if they choose to consult on the project through Section 7 or Section 10 of the Endangered ered Species Act). 18 MS040008 DP 043025.,Madden Project Conditions of Approval 2) The exclusion fence shall be located around the perimeter of each of the three home construction sites.Exclusion fences are not pLoposed for the access road and storm drain construction areas. 3) A biological construction monitor shall conduct a pre-construction survey for Alameda whimnakes within the construction areas for the three proposed homes on the same day as and immediately prior to installation of the exclusion fence for Alameda whimnakes. 4) A biological construction monitor shall determine the location of the exclusion fence around each of the three proposed building sites.The 1 ne construction monitor shall ensure that Alameda Whipsnakes are absent from the area within the whipsnake exclusion fence. 5) Once the exclusion fence for Alameda Whipsnakes has been installed and the survey for Alameda whipsnakes ensures their absence from the construction area,monitoring e construction area of the homes can cease. Traffic(Speed)Mitigation Measures The following measures pertain to the Weed of construction equipment along the access road to the home sites. 1) Construction equipment shall not exceed aspeed of 10 miles per hour when driving along the access road and while driving on the Madden/Paulus,project site. 2) &Medjimit sign shall be located along the access road to the MaddenfPaulus property,at the intersection of Las Tr as Road,to remind drivers entering project site of the 10 mile per hour speed limit. Similarly,a speed limit sign shall be located at the end of the access road,where it reaches the first lot,to remind drivers exiting the.prof ect site of the 10 mile per,hour Weed limit. Tree Removal Impacts: Road and home construction will result in the removal of up to twelve(12)native oak trees. This construction could also impact other native oaks growing adjacent to the access road and home sites. 0 Mitigation Measures. 19 MS040008 DP 043025,Madden Project Conditions of Approval Please refer to the report titled"Tree Preservation/Removal Recommendations, 1900 Las Trampas Road,Alamo Property"prepared by Atlas Tree Service dated April 26, 2004 for the measures proposed by the proj ect. NestinRRaptors Impacts: The trees on the project site could be used by a variety of raptor species as nest sites. Construction could disrupt a nesting attempt. (Mitigation Measure) Mitigation Measures: 1. If construction activity(grading, road construction, home construction) occurs within the raptor nesting season (February 1 to July 31), a pre- construction survey of the property for nesting raptors will be conducted within 15 days prior to the beginning of construction. 2. If raptors are nesting on the project site, a minimum 250-foot non- disturbance 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(s) (a minimum of once a week) 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. Once the raptor biologist determines that the eggs have hatched and the chicks are old enough to thermoregulate on their own (typically at two to three weeks of age), the fenced buffer zone may be reduced to 100 feet,provided the adults can tolerate the reduced buffer area. A qualified raptor biologist would need to monitor for signs of distress in the adults. No disturbance shall occur within the buffer zone until a qualified raptor 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 st. Special Status Plants Impacts: The project site could support one or more special status plant species. Project grading,road construction and home construction on the site could result in the loss of these plants. 20 MS040008 DP 043025.,Madden Project Conditions of Approval As indicated in the Biological Resources report,the project site is unlikely to support any of the special status plants that could potentially be present due to the absence of a specialized substrate and the impact of long-term grazing of the property(currently by horses). LSA conducted surveys for the one species known to be present in the immediate project area in 2004 (Diablo helianthella)and it was not detected. Other late season blooming species which could potentially occur on the site should also have been detectable at this time. These include Santa Cruz tarplant(Holocarpha macradenia),robust monardella(Monardella villosa ssp. globosa), and Gairdner's yampah(Perideria gairdneri). These species were also not observed during this late season survey. The following mitigation measures are intended to address the possibility that one or more of these species could occur here. (Mitigation Measure) Mitigation Measures: 1. Conduct two special status plant surveys on the project site in early April and June during the blooming season of the potentially present spring blooming species. 2. If one or more populations or individual plants are found, implement the following: A. If the plant is federally or state listed,redesign the project to avoid the impact or consult with the appropriate federal (USFWS)or state(CDFG) agency to develop a specific mitigation plan that will establish a new stand(s)in locations suitable for the long-term survival of the plant(s). The mitigation population will have a target ratio of 2:1,two plants at mitigation site for every plant removed by the project after a five years monitoring period. Seed or propagules will be collected from on or within one mile of the project site. B. If the plant has no fon-nal protection,minimize or eliminate the loss of individual plants by attempting to redesign the project. If avoidance or minimization is not possible, institute a plan to establish the same number of plants to be lost at a new location on the project site using seed or propagules collected from on or within one mile of the project site. Establishing a new stand of the plants will require preparation of a plan to be submitted for review and approval by the County. 21 MS'040008 DP 043025,Madden Project Conditions of.Approval Tl-� Aaddrumc . mo�nn»ren TV AAAF-� TV AA.J y r • rAu'd n�r1r nn ri nn +��avr►l� nett �r�r►r.r�fnr 1_nw+cidn Z� ;r�nr�r�t�an and ♦rn���. 6.i,j1V►7y biii\i 41{.411iW eastifest • r • I• I Ilww��l A 4'A i -A2 tYl r 6d J144a im +Lb rA d 4-,fl .-i • M will ammur-An+11-ta .. . n 7 4111 Phapp=A] yagetafiem wig r • • 614=0=11 u0matAtiA • the'-ye etaficm.L.WI W • JL A&W GUMmAill Loup-A-0 Q141-4v awl AL.Lu x uk Qum tLa r Q3ItLg4-;tAx And gal-3 4#,x�L;AXQ* • Al r ;rirr A fh .� . ._., A I,Y,.,. .ill.• ,, e Ads t; • cLmll 16r,pf:+uiat^►Ats_n#r>>n♦i A1'f_nrow pf.♦iGf petal ti til iV�./V 44 Ri 1 1 %u1UP, nriar+;on 61. 22 MSO40008 DP 043025,Madden Project Conditions of.Approval 1 1 '-I-a man;rrri ,sr+.� l h„n t;h,, h�+k,a�_�nl,�ni rti+�+ o+'+r+ia hr A l n•r+ ad a y1 cLLi:m ma. Eta,S T V#. �+ll` LL14/1 b.Vi WAA 1%OJLLwV iwJl l�1f.i111V\.iM. ��A WL/V1AKiiVV 1��nY'l!'fMhlTar�1.. fl�.a 1'[S: UiQ cad fAr- i A ns+—Intir- *tcw QLQJJ acm4mat g, 1 r.l 4 r, I eh ■ tiLi.►7 /ri+ittn4in►N 1�ae�c.��nc�. u l%OLF ..r.nenn 1•hlf�♦1�f'1«sca 1..hYM1ri r+;♦on 1 l f ri Ct �"1 hY1 7 7; ma-at « JjQ i C 23 MS040008 DP 043025,,Madden Project Conditions of Approval city ref ala I a I-Amr.QmPad limit 14. The applicant shall extend sewage lines to serve the residential units. The applicant shall submit sewer line improvement plans for approval prior to County issuance of the grading permit. 15. The applicant shall extend water lines to the proposed development and design fire hydrant locations to satisfy the San Ramon Valley Fire District. The applicant shall submit water line and fire hydrant location improvement plans for County and Fire District approval prior to County issuance of the Grading Permit. Pre-Construction Tree Protection Measures (There are nine trees along the entry road approved for removal. The two trees proposed for removal on the Parcel B building site are discussed below). 16. The recommendations of the approved arborist's report shall be implemented by the applicant. 17. Contingency Restitution Should Trees Be Damaged - Pursuant to the requirements of Section 816-6.1204 of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance,to address the possibility that construction activity damages trees, the applicant shall provide the County with a security (e.g., bond, cash deposit) to allow for replacement of trees intended to be preserved that are significantly damaged by construction activity. The security shall be based on: A. Tree Replacement - Replacement native oak trees at a 3:1 ratio, minimum 15-gallons in size, shall be provided in the vicinity of the private roadway on either Parcels A-C or the adjacent parcel to the north with the intent of screening future dwellings from off-site particularly to the east and northeast, subject to prior review and approval of the Zoning Administrator; B. Determination of Security Amount-The security shall provide for all of the following costs: 24 MS040008 DP 043025,,Madden Project Conditions of Approval * Preparation of a landscape/irrigation plan by a licensed landscape architect or arborist; • A labor and materials estimate for planting the potential number of trees and related irrigation improvements that may be required prepared bY a licensed landscape contractor with the contractor's "wet-stamp"; and • An additional 20% of the total of the above amounts to address inflation costs. C. Acceptance of a Security-The security shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. D. Initial Deposit for Processing of Sec - The County ordinance requires that the applicant cover all time and material costs of staff for processing a tree protection security(Code S-060B). The Applicant shall pay an initial fee deposit of $300 at time of submittal of a security. The security shall be retained by the County up to 24 months following the completion of the tree alteration improvements. In the event that the Zoning Administrator determines that trees intended to be protected have been damaged by development activity, and the Zoning Administrator determines that the applicant has not been diligent in providing reasonable restitution of the damaged trees,then the Zoning Administrator may require that all or part of the security be used to provide for mitigation of the damaged trees. At least 18 months following the completion of work within the dripline of trees,the applicants arborist shall inspect the trees for any significant damage from construction activity,and submit a report on his/her conclusions on the health of the trees and,if appropriate,any recommendations including further methods required for tree protection to the Community Development Department. E. Prohibition of P -No parking or storing vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials, construction trailers and no 25 MS040008 DP 043025,Madden Project Conditions of Approval dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the drip line of any tree to be saved. F. Construction Tree Damage - The developments property owner or developer shall notify the Community Development Department of any damage that occurs to any tree during the construction process. The owner or developer shall repair any damage as determined by an arborist designated by the Director of Community Development. Any tree not approved for destruction or removal that dies or is significantly damaged as a result of construction or grading shall be replaced with a tree or trees of equivalent size and of a species as approved by the Director of Community Development to be reasonably appropriate for the particular situation. G. SLapervision of Work by an Arborist-All work that encroaches within the dripline of a tree to be preserved shall be conducted under the supervision of a certified arborist. H. Trees 40 & 41-,-Parcel B - In the design of the house, submitted for approval to the Zoning Administrator as required by Condition No. 10, a reasonable effort shall be made to retain and protect these two trees. However, when all the design guidelines are taken into consideration,if it appears that the intent of the design guidelines to protect scenic views would be satisfactorily served by a design which causes the removal of these two trees,the Zoning Administrator may allow the removal, subject to the 3:1 replacement ratio required by Condition 17-A. I. Tree 39 The road improvements along Parcel B to serve Parcel C may cause the loss of Tree 39. If in the opinion of a professional arborist,this tree would not survive construction activity,the Zoning Administrator may allow the removal,subject to the 3:1 replacement ratio required by Condition 17-A. Construction Period Restrictions 26 MS040008 DP 043025,Madden Project Conditions of Approval 18. Construction Period Development Activity Restrictions-Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction, noise, litter, and traffic control requirements: A. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 a.m.- 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays. B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible. C. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control,,tree protection,,construction traffic and vehicles,erosion control,and the 24-hour emergency number,shall be expressly iden- tified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of major grading and construction activity. A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed. D. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. E. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to week days between the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM. and prohibited on Federal and State holidays. 27 MS040008 DP 043025.,Madden Project Conditions of Approval F. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site. G. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide a letter to the Community Development Department indicating that he has fully disclosed these requirements to all contractors and subcontractors within this project. H. A water truck must be employed during all grading operations to wet the work area and to wet temporary soil stockpiles. The applicant shall submit a written verification to the County that a water truck will be used during grading operations for dust control and that covered debris boxes and tarps will be utilized during the construction of the residential units to minimize the potential for nuisance scatter of windblown debris. 19.— Discovery of Archaeol al Resources-If any significant cultural materials such as artifacts,human burials,or the like 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. 20. Fire Svrinkler Requirement- Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall provide evidence that an automatic fire sprinkler system acceptable to the Fire Protection District will be installed in the new dwelling. 21. Except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval,development and use of the residential parcels(A-C)shall be guided by the regulations of the Single Family Residential,R-65 zoning district,subject to final review and approval of the Zoning Administrator at the time of issuance of building permits. PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION MS 04-0008,DP043025 28 MS040008 DP 043025,Madden Project Conditions of Approval Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8,Title 9, and Title 10 of the County Ordinance Code. Any exceptions must be stipulated in these conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the revised tentative parcel map submitted to Public Works,Engineering Services Division, %MAJ C 'jus %F AA Julu 2c"Mof May 12,2000 ly %ONO W COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE PARCEL MAP., General Requirements: 22.— Applicant shall submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer 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. Access to Adjoining Property: Proof of Access 23. Applicant shall furnish 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. Private Road: 24.— Applicant shall construct an on-site roadway system to current County private rural road standards with a minimum traveled width of 20 feet within a 25-foot access easement,except as modified on the approved Vesting Tentative Map for Parcel C. Portions of the private road having gades of 16%or greater shall be constructed with gooyed concrete-subject to the review and 4pproval of the Public Works Department. 25. Applicant shall widen the existing north access road to a minimum 20-foot width. 26. Applicant shall construct a paved turnaround at the end of the proposed private road. 27. If the turnaround is to be located on the adjacent property,,as shown on the tentative map,a deed disclosure shall be recorded on the property prohibiting the construction of a gate which could block emergency access. 29 MS040008 DP 043025.,Madden Project Conditions of Approval Sight Distance: 28.— Provide adequate sight distance at the intersection of the northern private access road and Las Trampas Road for a design speed of 3 5 miles per hour,or as approved by the Public Works Department. 29.— Provide adequate sight distance along the private road for a design speed of 15 miles per hour. Parking: 30._ "No Parking"signs shall be installed along the private road subject to the review of Public Works (except for areas wider than 20 feet and shown on the approved tentative map as community parking). Maintenance of Facilities: 31. Property owner shall record a Statement of Obligation, in the form of a deed %..f notification,to inform all future property owners of their legal obligation to maintain the private roadway. Street Lights. 32._ Property owner shall apply for annexation to County Service Area L-100 Lighting District by submitting: a letter of request; a metes and bounds description; and pay the current LAFCO fees.Annexation shall occur prior to filing of the parcel map.The applicant shall be aware that this annexation process must comply with State Proposition 218 requirements, which state that the property owner must hold a special election to approve the annexation.This process may take approximately 4-6 months to complete. Underground Utilities: 33. All new utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground. Drainage Improvements: Collect and Convey 30 MSO40008 DP 043025,Madden Project Conditions of Approval 34. The applicant shall collect and convey all stormwater entering and/or originating on this property without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility,to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks,or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements: 35. Any new drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance _ gn with specifications outlined in Division 914 and in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department. 36. Storm drain dissipators on each parcel shall be located in such a way as to avoid existing slide areas and/or areas susceptible to erosion. 37. Applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across the driveway(s) in a concentrated manner. 3 8. Drainage releases shall be obtained from all downstream property owners accepting runoff from the project site. 39. To reduce the impact of additional storm water run-off from this development on San Ramon creek, one cubic yard of channel excavation material will be removed from the inadequate portion of San Ramon creek for each 50 square feet of new impervious surface area created by the development. All excavated material shall be disposed of off-site by the developer at his cost. The site selection, land rights, and construction staking will be by the Flood Control District. OR Upon written request, the applicant may make a cash payment in lieu of actual excavation and removal of material from the creek. The cash payment will be calculated at the rate of$0.10 per square foot of new impervious surface area created by the development. The added impervious surface area created by the development will be based on the Flood Control District's standard impervious surface area ordinance. The Flood Control District will use these funds to work on the creek annually. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES): 31 MS040008 DP 043025,Madden Project Conditions of Approval The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures f the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal, 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—Region H or Central Valley—Region V). Compliance will include developing long-term best management practices(BMP's) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate some or all of the following long term BMP's in accordance with the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program for the site's storm water drainage. - Stencil advisory warnings on all catch basins. - Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. - Slope driveways and weakened plane joints to sheet flow onto planted surfaces where feasible. - Shallow on-site swales. - Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program to buyers. - Other alternatives as approved by the Public Works Department. Restrictions on the Size of Residential Structures 41. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition #7 of the May 16, 2005 Design Guidelines from the Jones Ranch Home Owners Association,buildings within this subdivision shall be subiect to the following size restrictions. A. For Lot A,the residence excluding the basement may not exceed an aggregate of 6,000 square feet of floor area. B. For Lot B,excluding the basement,the residence and any appurtenant structures may not exceed in aggregate 10,000 square feet of floor area. C. For Lot C,excluding the basement,the residence and any Murtenant structures may not exceed 5,600 square feet of floor area. D. (The Planning Commission did not accept the recommendation of the AIA that a prohibition be placed on second units on these lots). 32 MSO40008 DP 043025,Madden Project Conditions of Approval ADVISORY NOTES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT. A. Comply with the Drainage Fee Ordinance requirements for Drainage Area 13 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. These fees must be paid prior to filing the parcel map. B. Comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements for the Alamo Area of Benefit,SCC Regional Area of Benefit,and Tri-Valley Transportation Fee Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. These fees must be paid prior to issuance of building permits. C. 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. D. 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. E. 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 90-day period after the project is approved. The ninety(90)day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or the 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. 33 MSO40008 DP 043025,Madden Project Conditions of Approval F. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Central Sanitary District. G. Comply with the requirements of the East Bay Municipal Utility District. H. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department. I. Comply with the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. J. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. K. Agreements with neighboring home owners associations and community associations. Enforcement of these agreements is not the responsibility of Contra Costa County. 1. Letter from Jones Ranch HOA dated May 5, 2005, and letter from Paulus/Madden dated May 9, 2005.* 2. Design Guidelines from dated May 16, 2005 reviewed by the AIA Planning .Committee. 3 E-mail exchange dated May 9, 2005 between the Jones Ranch HOA and Palmer Madden. L. Vesting Tentative Map Rights and Fee Estimator Service - 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 September 7, 2004, the date the vesting tentative map application was accepted as complete by the Community Development Department. The vested rights also apply to development fees which the County has adopted by ordinance. These fees are in addition to any other development fees which may be specified in the conditions of approval. The fees include but are not limited to the following: Park Dedication- $2000 per residence. Child Care- $400 per residence. An estimate of the fee charges for each approved lot may be obtained by contacting the Building Inspection Department at 335-1192. L. Expiration of Vested Rights: 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 34 MSO40008 DP 043025,Madden Project Conditions of Approval 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 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 application shall be accompanied by the applicable filing fee. 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(8)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. Rev. G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\MSO40008COA-rev 6-2-2005-b.doc RD\ 35 I i ,` Michael Henn Community Development Department 05 MA Y. -9 P11 2,- 31 County Administrative Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re MS 040008, RZ043144, DPo43025 Dear Mr. Henn, I am writing on behalf to the Jones Ranch Home Owners Association in Alamo. We have now had the opportunity to visit this proposed subdivision and to meet with Palmer Madden. He and his wife have agreed that the Proposed Conditions of Approval attached to this letter can be conditions of their subdivision. If these become Conditions of Approval of the subdivision, we do not object to this subdivision. Dated: May 5, 2005 ones anc OA Proposed Conditions of Approval 1. The homes in the Paulus/`Madden subdivision shall be built in conformance with the attached Design Guidelines. Exhibit A. 2. This subdivision shall have a storm drainage system as shown on the accompanying map. Exhibit B. To the greatest extent the County will allow, all storm drainage from this subdivision shall be directed towards Las Trampas creek. Design Guidelines Alamo Ridge Extension DRAFT 5/16/05---After AIA Planning Committee Review 1. The Goal of these Guidelines a. The overall goal of these Guidelines is to ensure that the homes to be built on these three lots are constructed in a manner consistent with the homes that exist in the Alamo Ridge Subdivision. b. The site plan is shown on the Debolt drawing dated: May 3,2004 c. The location of all major trees is shown on this same plan. d. The schedule of trees to be removed is set forth in the arborist report dated: Apri126, 2004 e. The soils report is set forth in the Engeo Report dated: January 21, 2004 2. Implementation of these guidelines Before any improvement is made that requires a permit, the applicant shall obtain approval from the Contra Costa Zoning Administrator as required by the Conditions of Approval for the subdivision. Both architectural and landscape plans shall be submitted for approval. The Zoning Administrator shall review the application in order to determine that it is consistent with these Design guidelines. The Zoning Administrator shall not approve any proposed project that is inconsistent with these Guidelines unless, in writing, the Zoning Administrator determines that the proposal, while it is at variance with these Guidelines, still achieves the Goals of the Guidelines. 3. Site Planning With one exception mentioned below, (other than the construction of utilities) no construction of any sort may be allowed inthe area of the Scenic Easement. Upon approval of the Zoning Administrator, a gazebo or similar small non residential (less than 12/12 feet in size and less than 15 feet in height) structure (but not a pool house or guest house) may be permitted proximate to the "building Area" but in the Scenic Easement. If this is permitted, the Zoning administrator may approve a plan that shows a walkway to the structure. 7. Residence Size For Lot A. the residence (excluding the basement) may not exceed 6!,000 square feet of living area and a maximum height of 28'. For Lot B. the residence (excluding the basement) may not exceed 101,000 square feet of living area and a maximum height of 28'. For Lot C. the residence (excluding the basement) may not exceed 5000 square feet of living area and a maximum height of 28'. The maximum height of buildings shall be 28 feet, measured from existing or finished grade whichever is lower for the area along the ridge (Northeast side) Chimneys, vents or similar appurtenances may extend above the maximum height indicated roof height. However the Zoning administrator may allow a greater height on the downhill side of the structure (West/Southwest) provided the increase in height is due to the addition of understory area on the downhill side of the structure, allowing a maximum height of 3 5 feet. 9. Prohibited Materials 1. Aluminum siding 2. Reflective glass 10* Retaining Walls All retaining walls shall be constructed of materials similar to those that have been used to date in the Alamo Ridge subdivision. These include: poured in place concrete, block walls covered with stucco or rock veneer, redwood walls and pre-poured textured block walls. 11. Foundations All foundations shall be approved by a soils engineer. 12. Landscape Every effort shall be taken by the owners to protect all of the trees that are on in the building area. Before the removal of any tree over 6 inches in diameter a permit must be obtained from the County of Contra Costa. Owners shall follow all of the recommendations of the Arborist report mentioned above. 13* Hardscape All hardscape elements (i.e. patios, walks, mow bands, etc.) shall be shown on the plan when a request for a permit for construction of the house is submitted to the Zoning Administrator. Hardscape is not allowed in the area of the Scenic Easement, except only if a gazebo or similar structure has been approved, a path to the structure may be approved. 14* Gates FINDINGS MAP Findings Map A=2 P=I �' �s TAMP P=1 S RD R-6 A=2 R-65 A Rezone From A 2 To P-1 AlnmoArea I, N. Mntsunogn Chair of the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission,State of California, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of paqe R-14 of the County's 2005 zoning map indicating thereon the decision of the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission in the matter of DeBolt - RZ043144 ATTEST: Secretary of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, State of Calif. ORDTNANCE NO. 2005-21 (Re-Zoning Land in the The Contra Costa County Burd of Supervisors ordains as follows. SECTION]: Pale R-14 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map(Ord.No. 78-93)is amended bre-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein (see alsoCommunity Development Department File No. RZQ4 3 1,44, .� FROM: Land Use District A-2 General A r*c Iture, TO: Land Use District P-1 Planned Unit and the Community Development Director shall change the Zonina Map accordinerly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. $42.003 Am2 PWI r • a s i f f N N f !II/I R-66 Asw2 SECTION ll. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance beconnes eI"fective 3o days afterpassage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and: acrain t it in the a newspaper published in this County. PASSEL` on .�� by tiew ollo ing vote: Supervisor. Ave No Absent Abstain I. J. Gioia 2. G. B. U.ilkema 3. M.N. Pieho " 4. M. LeSaulnier 5 F. D. Glover { ATTEST. J001 Sweeter,County Administrator ,�, r and Clerk the Board of Supervisors 07 Chairman ofI5e__"Board B ' OR- ep- (SEAL) ORDINANCE 804144 - DeBolt APPEAL LETTER t JUN 0 3 2005 CLERF:RE,VID OF St.t�ERvISMIs Appeal to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors We appeal from the Wednesday May 25, 2005 decisions of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, regarding items 3, 4 & 5 on its calendar: RZ043144; DP04302.5 and MS 040008. We also appeal from any other decision made about our proposed subdivision. The basis for our appeal is that we agreed to the conditions that were proposed by the staff after literally years of negotiations with our neighbors, the Alamo Improvement Association and the County staff. We had AIA support, no opposition from even a single neighbor and a staff recommendation. As originally drafted, the conditions contained requirements that we did not really like but, as part of the overall compromise, we agreed to them. The changes made by the Planning Commission to the conditions are unreasonable, they adversely affect our property rights and value, and were not supported by the evidence. While we do not yet have the final form of the amended conditions, based on the first draft, the Planning Commission imposed additional restrictions that are not justified. Of greatest concern to us is that the Planning Commission imposed further limits on the size of the homes without regard for the fact that, after two years of negotiations, the sizes we had agreed upon with all of our_neighbors, the AIA and the staff were reasonable. Once we see the final written form of the Conditions, we will provide more detailed comments. Dated: Friday, June 3, ?005 san Paulus 1900 Las Trampas Road Alamo, CA 94507 925.838.8593 Susan L. Paulus & Palmer Brown Madden 1900 Las Trampas Road Alamo, CA 94507 Voice: (925) 838-8593 Fax: (925) 831-2099 E mail: slpnbm(u)netvista.net Members of the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County Mr. Michael Henn Community Development Dept. 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 June 10, 2005 Appeal from the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission MS 040008, RZ043144, DP04305 Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors: I write to detail the reasons for our appeal of that part of the decisions by the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission that, without any supporting evidence, unreasonably limits the size of the homes to be built on these three lots. After two years of negotiating with our neighbors, the Alamo Improvement Association and the County staff over the size limits to be imposed on these homes, two AIA site visits, three AIA meetings, the erection of story poles, the creation of expensive photomontages, and several site visits by our neighbors, we finally reached agreement with all concerned about the size of these homes. The agreed-to sizes are no greater, and in some instances are significantly smaller, than the homes in the neighboring Alamo Ridge subdivision. The staff reviewed this agreement and recommended it to the Planning Commission. Not a single person appeared at the hearing in opposition to our planned subdivision. I also note that, in the process, we agreed to take the final house plans to the AIA for review before submit building plans. Despite these agreements with all concerned, the conformity with our neighboring subdivision, the staff's recommendation and the lack of any opposition, the SRVPC cut back the building sizes by an average of 39 percent. They did this by not limiting the specified square footage to "living area" and, for Lots B & C, by including appurtenant structures in the square footage that is allowed. They did so with no evidence to support the decision and without prior notice to us. At the SRVPC hearing not one person spoke in opposition to our proposal. We had both AIA and staff support for our proposal. I, therefore, was completely surprised when, after my presentation was completed, a member of the Commission urged a reduction in the size of these homes. When I was given an opportunity to reply, I did the best I could given that I had no warning. The Planning Commission then ended the hearing portion of the meeting and deliberated amongst themselves. They ultimately voted unanimously to approve the project. But they imposed substantial and unreasonable restrictions on the home size with which we cannot agree. None of the demonstrative evidence we offer in this letter was presented to the SRVPC, because we had no notice the size of the homes would be challenged. It is hard to imagine any property owner who has been more agreeable than we have been during this lengthy subdivision process. Time and again, rather than fight, we have reached agreements. But we must appeal the decision to reduce the size of the allowed homes. The Agreed-Upon, Staff-recommended Building Size Limits We, our neighbors, the AIA and the staff agreed to the following limits on building size: "For Lot A. the residence (excluding the basement) may not exceed 6,000 square feet oLlivina area. For Lot B. the residence (excluding the basement) may not exceed 10,000 square feet of living area. For Lot C, the residence (excluding the basement) may not exceed 5000 square feet of living area. The word "residence" means a living space and does not include a garage, gazebo or pool house. " By applying the limit only to the "living area" these limits allowed for extra square footage to be used for non-living areas, such as garages, gazebos or pool houses. The Decision of the SRVPC The language adopted by the SRVPC is as follows: For Lot A, the residence (excluding the basement) may not exceed 6,000 square feet. For Lot B. the residence and appurtenant structures (excluding the basement) may not exceed 10,000 square feet. For Lot C. the residence and appurtenant structures (excluding the basement) may not exceed 5600 square feet. This language omits the words "of living area" for all three lots and it adds the words "appurtenant structures" for Lots B and C. As is explained below, by making these changes, the SRVPC reduced the allowed building sizes on average by 39%. What Could Be Built Under the Agreed-to and Recommended Limitations As you know, our design concept from the beginning has been to blend in with our nearest neighbors including the Alamo Ridge subdivision. If one looks at the homes in our neighborhood, one will find: (a) large garages (2) large gazebos and (3) large pool houses. The nearest neighbors to this project have a house that must be 20,000 sq. ft. The building limits on our lots that had been agreed to with our neighbors and the AIA and recommended by the staff are no larger, and in some cases are substantially smaller than, the building sizes in the neighboring Alamo Ridge subdivision. While it is not certain what people would build on these lots, for the sake of demonstration, we have prepared plot plans that show possible footprints of homes and appurtenant structures that could have been built under the original size restrictions agreed-to by all concerned and recommended by the staff. See Ex A, the drawing prepared by DeBolt Engineering. For each calculation, see first the size determinations made by DeBolt's office in Ex. B and then the sheet of calculations, Ex. C. We had not prepared this information before the SRVPC hearing because we had been given no prior notice that home size would be an issue at the hearing. For Lot A. we show a two storey home/garage that has 6,000 sq. feet of living space plus 5,440 sq. ft. of garage/ storage/pool house. This is a total covered area of 11,440 sq. feet. By the way, there is a very nice two story pool house in the Alamo Ridge subdivision and the Ness home has a 1,000 sq. ft. storage area. (For what I am calling the "demonstrated size", see Ex. A.) Note that the entire footprint for this demonstrated home and pool house take up less than 5,940 sq. ft. This is less than 4% of the lot size of 2.8 acres and only 42% of the building envelope. This lot is very well shielded. (To see how well shielded these lots are, see the photomontage prepared by our environmental consultants, LSA, Ex. D.)To the East is the Jones Ranch acres open space. To the West are acres of the Alamo Ridge open space. To the North are acres of our neighbor's open space. To the South is a natural Swale and trees, separating the lot from our Lot B. The house on Lot B cannot see the home on Lot A. The only home that will really see this home is one that will be built in the future on our lot to the North. We own that lot. We do not object to this building size. We think that it is appropriate. For Lot B, we show a two storey home that has 10,000 sq. ft. of living space, plus 6,025 sq. feet of garage/storage/pool house space, for a total coverage of 16,025 sq. ft. The foot print of this home covers only 1 1% of the total lot size and less than 42% of the approved building envelope. This home can be seen by no other home, except by three equally large or larger homes that are '/4 mile away and over 150 feet uphill. These three homes are in the Alamo Ridge subdivision where, from some angles, in the demonstration one could look down to see this home. For Lot C, we show 5,000 sq. ft. of living space, with 4,640 sq. feet of garage/storage/pool house, for a total area under cover of 9,640 sq. ft. This area under cover is only 6% of the lot size and only 45% of the approved building envelope. This lot, like Lot B, can be seen only from a couple of distant homes in the Alamo Ridge subdivision. In summary, under the language agreed to by us, neighbors, the AIA and the staff, the size limitation applied only to the residence. This allowed the owner to build a garage, gazebo, pool house or unoccupied storage areas (such an attic over a garage) in addition to the residence. Using the examples above, the agreement reached between ourselves, the AIA, our neighbors and the staff would have comfortably accommodated 11,440 sq. ft. of covered area on Lot A (6000 sq ft living space + 5,440 sq. ft. of garage, storage and pool house). Lot B would have comfortably accommodated 16,025 of covered area (10,000 of living space + 6,025 of garage, storage and pool house). Lot C would have comfortably accommodated 9,640 sq. ft (5,000 sq. ft. of living area + 4,640 sq. ft. of garage, storage and pool house). The Adverse Impact of the SRVPC Decision The restrictions adopted by the SRVPC cut those numbers on average by 3 9%: Lot A was cut 3 1% (reduced from 9,640 sq. ft. to 6,000 sq. ft.). Lot B was cut 37% (reduced from 16,025 to 10,000 sq. ft.). Lot C was cut 41% (reduced from 9,640 sq. ft. to 5,600 sq. ft.). Thus, by dropping the words "of living space" from all three lots and adding the words "and appurtenant structures" for Lots B and C, the SRVPC either effectively precludes the building of such structures (if the house sizes remain the same) or substantially reduces the permissible size of the homes (in order for a garage, storage space or pool house plus home to fall within the allowable size limit). This impact is substantial and harmful. It adversely affects our rights and the property value because prospective purchasers cannot build as large a home or must forego the appurtenant structures, even though much larger homes and structures exist next door to this property. Because of the agreement of all concerned and the staff's support on the building size, and its conformity with the neighborhood, the SRVPC's decision to reduce the building size is unreasonable. Finally, there having been no evidence put forward to justify the reduction, the limitation on building size is unsupported by the evidence. To the contrary, the evidence supports the agree-to limitations recommended by the staff. These three lots are very well situated to accommodate these possible large homes. There is a market demand for such homes. The lots are in a neighborhood where the building sizes are as large or substantially larger. These lots are well shielded. There is no reason to deny the original agreed upon limits. Conclusion We ask the Contra Cost County Board of Supervisors to reject the building size reductions ordered by the SRVPC and to reinstate the building size allowance that was: (1) approved by the AIA; (B) either not opposed (by some) or agreed to (by other) neighbors; that (3} was recommended by the County Staff. In addition to this principal concern, we did have some drafting issues, which were addressed in my note to staff dated 6/5/05. To the extent we are unable to resolve those minor issues before the Board meeting, we reserve the right to raise any of those points before the Board. Very Truly Yours, aqulstrL a a en Susan Paul 82-24.012 Development standards. Page 1 of 2 Title 8 ZONING h pter 82-24 RESIDENTIAL E _ Q._ N.1TS 82-24.012 Development standards. A second unit permit will be issued only if it complies with the following development standards: (a)Yards and Building Height. (1) In single-family and multi-family residential districts, second units must comply with requirements relating to yards (front setbacks, side, and rear)and building height that are generally applicable to residential construction in the zone in which the property is located. (2) In P-1 planned unit districts where an approved final development plan specifies requirements relating to yards (front setbacks, side, and rear)and building height, second units must comply with the requirements specified in the plan. In P-1 planned unit districts where an approved final development plan does not specify requirements relating to yards and building height, second units must comply with requirements relating to yards and building height that are generally applicable to residential construction in the R-6 zone. (b)Lot Size. The minimum size of a lot with a primary residence and a second unit is six thousand square feet. Applications for a second unit permit are exempt from the requirements of Ordinance Code section 82-10.002(c). (c)Size and Configuration. (1)The total floor area of the second unit must not exceed one thousand square feet. (2)A second unit may be in one of the following configurations: (A)An internal conversion of a garage or other area within the existing primary residence. (B)An addition attached to the existing primary residence. (C)The creation of a detached structure on the lot separate from the existing primary residence. (D)An addition attached to an existing or newly constructed accessory structure. A second unit may be attached to an accessory structure only if the accessory structure meets all of the following requirements: (i)The total floor area of the accessory structure does not exceed four hundred square feet, not including the second unit. (ii)The accessory structure is limited to garage space. (iii)The accessory structure complies with all requirements relating to yards (front setbacks, side, and rear)and building height that are applicable to the primary residence in the zone in which the property is located. (d) Lot Coverage. (1) In single-family residential districts, the second unit must not cause the maximum total structural lot coverage to exceed forty percent. In multiple-family residential districts, the second unit must not cause the maximum total structural lot coverage to exceed twenty-five percent in the M-6 through M-17 districts or thirty-five percent in the M-29 district. (2) In P-1 planned unit districts where an approved final development plan specifies maximum total structural lot coverage, the second unit must not cause the maximum total structural lot coverage to exceed the specified percentage. In P-1 planned unit districts where an approved final development plan does not specify maximum total structural lot coverage, the second unit must not cause the maximum total structural lot coverage to exceed forty percent. (e) Living Provisions. A second unit must provide complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. The second unit may include one kitchen, living room, and dining room, and no more than two bathrooms and two bedrooms. (f) Entry. The second unit must have a separate entrance located on either building side or rear http://www.ordlink.com/codes/ccosta/_DATA/TITLE08/Chapter_82_24_RESIDENTIAL ... 7/27/2005 82-24.012 Development standards. Page 2 of 2 and not visible from the street front area. (g)Off-Street Parking. A lot containing a second unit must provide an additional off-street parking space to serve the second unit. The additional space may be in tandem, or the additional space may be in the existing driveway if the additional space is outside the existing setback or side yard. The exception under Ordinance Code section 84-4.1202 shall not apply to lots for which a second unit permit is issued. (h)Architectural Compatibility. The second unit must incorporate the same exterior design, building and roof materials, and colors as the primary dwelling unit. "Exterior design" includes architectural style and exterior features, such as trim,windows, and roof. (i) Permanent Foundation. A permanent foundation is required for all second units. (J)Sewage and Water. If a private sewage disposal system, water system or both are proposed to be used, it must meet all applicable county regulations and be approved by the health officer before a second unit may be established. Verification that the standard has been met is required prior to final inspection. (Ords. 2003-17 § 31 87-67 §3). http://www.ordlink.com/codes/ccosta/_DATA/TITLE08/Chapter_82_24_RESIDENTIAL_... 7/27/2005 STAFF REPORT Agenda Items # Community Development Contra Costa County SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY MAY 25, 2005 I. INTRODUCTION PALMER MADDEN & SUSAN PAULUS (Applicant &Owner); The project consists of the following related applications: A. County File#RZ043144, The applicants request a rezoning of 5.8 acres from the A-2 Agricultural district to the P-1, Planned Unit District. B. County File#DP043025,, The applicant requests a preliminary and final development plan to develop a total of 3 single family residences; 2.21 acres will be protected as open space by a scenic easement. C. County File#MS 040008 The applicants propose to subdivide one parcel of 5.8 acres, currently vacant, into 3 residential parcels varying in size from 1.3 acres to 2.47 acres, each parcel to be developed with a detached single family home, with an exception to allow a cul-de-sac longer than 700 feet in total length. Additionally, a variance is requested to allow a retaining wall over three feet in height and a combination wall and guard rail over six feet in height within a required side yard of an A-2 zoned property(APN 198-220-048) There will be an internal private road system with an entry gate. The property is located adjacent to 1900 Las Trampas Road, approximately 1.1 miles west of Danville Boulevard, in the Alamo area, (A-2) (zA: D-13) (CT: 3440.00) (Parcel 198-220-051). II. SUMMARY OF REVIEW The subject project has been subject to an unusually long pre-application and pre-hearing process. The site is located on a ridge above the existing Jones Ranch subdivision. Initially there was a significant degree of concern and opposition regarding potential drainage, soil stability and visibility/privacy impacts. However, the process begun by the notice of the proposed adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration produced a dialogue between the File #MSO40008 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission May 25,2005 applicants and the neighboring property owners and their homeowners association, the Jones Ranch HOA. Through meetings, field trips and the erection of"story poles"the applicant and the neighboring HOA have agreed that the association does not oppose the approval of the project provided certain design and drainage issues are agreed to. The applicant is in agreement with the conditions requested by the HOA. A letter from the Jones Ranch HOA is attached as well as an e-mail exchange further clarifying the agreement. The AIA has previously given a conditional recommendation of approval. The staff report was prepared in anticipation of the need for a lengthy, point- by-point discussion and resolution of each contested issue. Since the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission is the decision-making body, these discussion points have been retained in the report. However, with the apparent agreement being reached with the project neighbors, it would appear that the degree of input at the public hearing will not be as great as previously anticipated. III RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to: A. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors: 1. On the basis of the whole record before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, find that there is no substantial evidence that the project with the mitigations imposed will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis; and that the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based may be found with the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. 2. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for this project for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. Approve the proposed rezoning to the Planned Unit (P-1) District. 4. Approve the proposed Preliminary and Final Development Plan with conditions. 5. Approve the related findings recommended by staff. S- 2 File #MSO40008 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission May 25, 2005 B. Approve the tentative map with conditions including that: (1)Approval is contingent upon Board approval of the P-1 zoning and conforming final development plan approval: C. Adopt the related tentative parcel map findings. D. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program. IV. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Environs The site is located off Las Trampas Road, a private road,within a 60 foot right-of-way, narrowing to 40 feet, extending westerly from Danville Boulevard. The site is located on a major Northwest/Southeast trending ridge located northeast of Las Trampas Road. (For the sake of simplicity, this report will consider the ridge to be running North-South). The property is served by an unnamed private lane extending easterly and uphill from Las Trampas Road. Las Trampas Road extends westerly from Danville Boulevard. The road is public for the more easterly 0.7+/-miles, after which the road becomes a gated private road. The area is characterized by large, newer homes on parcels ranging from 1.14 acres to 23.94 acres. Three adjacent parcels are also owned by subject applicant. These adjacent parcels are located to the north,west and south. The parcel located to the north and the parcel to the south are vacant and are proposed to be developed along with the subject property and served by the same private lane. The parcel to the west fronts directly on Las Trampas Road and contains the owners' residence. The subject property is adjacent to an existing development of large-lot single family residences named Alamo Ridge also served by Las Trampas Road. This current minor subdivision application would extend that type of development to the south. Because of the two existing, vacant parcels, one to the north and one to the south, the combined, large-lot, custom home development of five houses (3 in the subject project plus the ridge area lots to the north and south) would extend about 1800 feet in a north- south orientation along the ridge. To the east and northeast at a much lower elevation is a single family residential project known as the Jones Ranch subdivision. Access to that area is from a different direction entering from Via Romero to the northeast. Since the subject project is located on the ridgeline, some portion of the drainage naturally flows in each direction, partially toward Las Trampas Road and partially toward S- 3 File #MSO40008 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission May 25,2005 Jones Ranch. Further to the north, is an undeveloped but approved 37-lot single family project named Alamo Summit with access from Ridgewood Road. Existing Uses on Subject Property: The applicant proposes to subdivide one parcel of 5.8 acres into three parcels varying in size from 1.3 acres to 2.47 acres, each lot to be developed with a detached single family home. The parcel is currently vacant and is accessed from a fire road that extends into the property from the north. That existing, unnamed private lane currently serves one parcel (Seeno residence, 1980 Las Trampas Rd). The subject property is moderately steep with slopes of 45% to 60%, coming directly up from Las Trampas Road and the small creek that runs parallel to the road. However, the ridgeline itself is more gentle and undulates slightly and provides a location for a private road that generally has gradients of less than 15%. There are two steeper areas on the roadway where the grades would be 15% and 20%. Each proposed lot contains a fairly level area on the ridge top proposed for a house site but located very close to the road. Downhill from these sites the slopes become very steep and the soils are less stable. The site has a broken cover of oak trees with intermittent grass-covered open areas with a meadow-like appearance. Denser oak forest extends to the east into the Jones Ranch project. B. General Plan Desi ation Single Family Residential Very Low (SV) 0.2-0.9 dwelling units per acre), for the easterly portion; Agricultural Lands(AL) 0.2 dwelling units per acre), for the western portion. The total number of units permitted is derived from the combination of two General Plan density designations to allow the creation of three lots and three dwelling units on the aggregate parcel size. Approximately two thirds of the property is planned Single Family Residential Very Low (0.2 to .99 units per net acre). The remainder is planned for Agricultural Lands (.2 units per acre) These calculations produce: 0.6 to 3 units from the SV area; and 0.4 units from the AL area, adding up to a potential density range of 1.0 to 3.4 units. The proposal for 3 residential units is consistent with the density allowed by the General Plan. C. Existing and Proposed Zoning The property is currently zoned A-2 which has a five acre minimum parcel size and would only allow one single family residence on the entire parcel. The proposal is to zone the property to the P-1 (Planned Unit District). By doing so, it would maximize the number of units by taking advantage of the two General Plan designations that are designated on the property. S- 4 File #MSO40008 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission May 25,2005 D. C_QA Status Proposed Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration The application was submitted on March 23, 2004 and deemed complete on September 7, 2004. An Initial Study was prepared for the project which identifies three potentially significant impacts which are: Aesthetics, Geology, and Biology. Please see the Initial Study for the discussion of the impacts and the proposed mitigations that can reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Extensive biotic mitigations measures are proposed as part of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, as well as mitigations for the aesthetic and geologic impacts. The public comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration ran from December 13, 2004 until January 12, 2005 to allow a 30-day review period. There were several comments received from area residents. These comments and responses are located in the Discussion Section of this report (See Section VII, below). E. Nearby Active Projects Alamo Summit is an approved but unbuilt 37-lot subdivision located to the north with access from the northeast on Ridgewood Road. F. Regulatory Programs 1. Active Fault Zones: The subject properties are not within an active fault zone. The closest active fault is the Calaveras Fault located about 3 miles to the southeast. 2. Flood Hazard Area: The area is in Flood Zone C. All development is located outside of the flood zone. 3. Creek Setback Regulations: There is a small creek running along Las Trampas Road which would generate a structure setback requirement. While the access road to serve the subject property crosses the creek, the road is existing and no construction or development is proposed for this area. V. PROPOSED PROJECT According to Palmer Madden and Susan Paulus,the project applicants, the proposal consists of plans and studies developed by professional civil engineers, soil engineers, architects, arborists and biologist and other design professionals. A. Proposed Division - The project would subdivide the 5.8 acre site into three residential lots ranging in size from 1.3 to 2.47 acres. The site is S- 5 File #MSO40008 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission May 25, 2005 gently sloping along the ridge top area with steep slopes extending down to the west toward Las Trampas Road. Approximately 600 cubic yards of earth will be moved for road construction/widening. Approximately 2000- 3000 cubic yards will be moved for slide repairs,but the grading is proposed to balance on-site, resulting in no significant off-site earth hauling. These grading estimates do not include the creation of house pads. Houses that step down the hill would require a lesser amount of grading. The lower portions of the three parcels are proposed to be placed under Scenic Easement agreements where further development would be restricted by recorded restrictions. B. Proposed Road Design—A total of five new lots would be served by the extension of the unnamed private lane that currently serves the Seeno residence located to the northwest. The proposed width for the street pavement would be 20 feet within a right-of-way of 25 feet, narrowing to 16 feet along Parcel C. The existing paved private driveway will need to be widened from the present 12 +/- feet to 20 feet. The road provides for a loop type turn-around, rather than a cul-de-sac, at the terminus to be located on the adjacent parcel to the south within the same ownership. The existing private lane which is already gated will remain gated. C. No sidewalk is proposed along Las Trampas Road or the new private lane. Las Trampas Road contains a public hiking easement to allow public access to Las Trampas Regional Park. D. Residential Design- The applicant has indicated that the project concept is to secure subdivision approval conditioned by design guidelines and house size and height maximums but allow latitude for the ultimate house design. The two vacant parcels, one to the north and one to the south, are not subject to design conditions of approval that would affect the three proposed lots. E. Proposed Landscaping—None shown other than the retention of existing trees, except for the 11-12 trees proposed to be removed. See Aesthetics Mitigations under Discussion in the following section. F. Soils Investigation - The project is accompanied by a report from Engeo, a soils engineering firm, on the project. The report indicates that the project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The County's Consulting Geologist has submitted a review of the Engeo report and agrees that the project is feasible but does ask for additional studies to be conducted after approval but before the commencement of construction. There are landslides and surface slippage on the property located on the lower portions of the parcels. The slippage is located below the building sites in areas downsloping toward Las Trampas Road, not toward Jones Ranch. S- 6 File #MSO40008 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission May 25, 2005 Parcel A has an identified slide just below the proposed house site. Recommendations for slide repairs and soil stability measures are contained in the soils report. G. Drainage - The current drainage plan is conditionally acceptable to the Public Works Department. Generally the ridge road downslopes from 660 feet above sea level along the entry road on Parcel A to 590 feet at the southern terminus. From the ridge road the site slopes more steeply both toward Las Trampas Road to the west and toward Jones Ranch to the east. The existing entry road on the Seeno property north of the subject property collects some drainage which historically drained to the west and diverts it to the east towards Jones Ranch. VI. AGENCY COMMENTS A. Flood Control District—The Flood Control District proposes conditions of approval that address flood and drainage issues, including that the site is in Drainage Area 13 and is subject to additional fees to offset downstream runoff. Additional conditions of approval are requested to implement the concerns. B. County Public Works- The Public Works Department has reviewed the application and revised tentative map received on July 26, 2004 and submit the following comments: Background The proposed project is a tlu cc parcel subdivision adjacent to 1900 Las Trampas Road (a private road) in the Alamo area. Traffic and Circulation The site is accessed via a private road off of Las Trampas Road. Dedication of right of way and construction of frontage improvements do not apply to this project. The proposed private road shall be constructed in accordance with the Board of Supervisors adopted policy on "Private Rural Road Standards". The proposed road width and alignment shown appear to comply with these requirements. The substandard easement width of 25 feet has been deemed adequate by the Fire District. A portion of the proposed private road passes through a restricted development area previously deeded to the County. There is a recorded 25-foot access easement to allow construction of a road in this area (see 160 PM 45). As the result of a restriction from an earlier minor S- 7 File #MSO40008 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission May 25, 2005 subdivision that was approved in the area, there is an existing "view easement"restricted area located on a high area of the currently proposed Parcel A in which the height of a structure shall not be more than 25 feet(MS25-90). Drainage Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code requires all storm water entering and/or originating on this property to be collected and conveyed without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate storm drainage system which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. Las Trampas Creek, which is adjacent to Las Trampas Road along the subject property, is the point of discharge for a majority of the proposed drainage systems affiliated with the project. The applicant should be aware of the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal, construction, and industrial activities and the Clean Water Program. Provisions should be made for storage of hazardous materials as well as equipment storage and maintenance to prevent discharges into the storm drain system. C. County Consulting Geolo ist- A soils report has been reviewed by the County Geologist. With the qualifications and conditions suggested, the County Consulting Geologist by his report dated September 23, 2004 (attached),notes that there are existing landslides that will require repair but concludes that the project is feasible from a geotechnic;a.l and geological perspective. D. East Bay Municipal Utility District - The October 29, 2003 and January 10, 2005 responses indicates that the site is within the District and they would be able to serve the project. The applicant shall bear all expenses associated with constructing a water system capable of meeting the fire flow and water demand requirements of the water district and fire district. E. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District - The Fire District's response dated April 27, 2004, sets out the conditions that are necessary to conform to the applicable codes and policies. The new homes shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system. F. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection—The site lies within a Moderate Fire Hazard State Responsibility Area as designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The S- 8 File #MSO40008 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission May 25, 2005 department's response dated November 23, 2004 has found that the project meets the intent of Public Resources Code 4290 which relates to wildland fires in the jurisdiction of the CDF. G. Central Contra Costa SanitarM District- The District's response dated September 15, 2004, indicates the district's willingness to serve the project subject to district fees and conditions. H. County Health Services Department-No comment. I. Alamo Improvement Association- The AIA has reviewed the proposal on April 14, 2004 and May 23, 2004. The association recommends approval of the project subject to a list of design guidelines including review of the future homes by the AIA. J. California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information System—The April 2, 2004 response recommends that no further study for historical resources is needed. VII. DISCUSSION 1. Land Use and General Plan Considerations- There several General Plan policies for the Alamo-Diablo-Blackhawk area which relate to the subject project including the following: Policy 3-135: Promote the individuality and unique character of each community based on existing community images. Policy 3-142: When rezoning in Alamo, the appropriate single family residential zoning will include R-20, R-40, R-65, R-100, and P-1. Alamo and Diablo have special characteristics which preclude clustering in established areas. Policy 3-144: Developments shall be reviewed to ensure the continued rural character of the area. Other policies which relate to the project are from the general county-wide policies: Policy 3-28: New residential development shall be accommodated only in areas where it will avoid creating severe unmitigated adverse impacts upon the environment and upon the existing community. S- 9 File #MSO40008 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission May 25, 2005 Policy 3-8: Infilling of already developed areas shall be encouraged. In accommodating new development,preference shall generally be given to vacant or under-utilized sites within urbanized areas,which have necessary utilities installed with available remaining capacity, before undeveloped suburban lands are utilized. Because the existing Alamo Ridge development is to the north and west, and the approved but un-built Alamo Summit project is further to the north, and the existing Jones Ranch project is to the east, subject development can be considered an infill project, although at a lower density than that term is normally used. The subject ridgeline site is uphill from existing single family residential development. As a result there is increased concern regarding impacts on those below. Jones Ranch residents have raised concerns of drainage impacts from runoff from the subject property. These residents also have raised visibility impact and privacy concerns that need to be addressed. 2. Specific Comments Received on the Mitigated Negative Declaration - During the December 13, 2004 to January 12, 2005 public comment period, staff received the 7 attached comments regarding the Initial Study from the following: 1. Mike Moody, 430 Via del Rey 2. Luke and Mary Ellen Bosworth, 1665 Via Romero 3. Lucretia Marcus, Jones Ranch Homeowners Association 4. Peter and Karen Thur, 1671 Via Romero 5. Damien and Kevin O'Rourke, 1638 Via Romero 6. Glen Yeung, 1657 Via Romero 7. Letter from East Bay Municipal Utility District The six letters from the homeowners in the nearby Jones Ranch raised numerous concerns. Since many of the concerns overlapped between the letters, the following list includes all the concerns collectively raised between the letters: Aesthetics: • The large homes proposed will be visible and have a negative impact on the Jones Ranch homes below. • Eleven trees are proposed to be removed and most of the existing trees on the ridge to remain are deciduous so that the new homes will be particularly visible during winter. • The unsightly new road will be visible from the homes below. 5-10 File #MSO40008 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission May 25,2005 • The parking of cars and the traffic from cars on the project road will have visibility impacts on the homes below. Soil Erosion: • Grading and development will create erosion impacts towards Jones Ranch. • Tree removal will worsen the erosion hazard in the direction of Jones Ranch. Drainage: • There are existing drainage problems from runoff from this ridge adversely affecting Jones Ranch, which will be worsened by new development. • The project road should be placed on the west side of the ridge to send road drainage the other way. Soil Stability: • The soil stability will be reduced by the construction of the project road with its retaining walls on the Jones Ranch side of the ridge. • The hill is rated as having"highest landslide susceptibility" and high risk for erosion on County maps. Other: • Overflow parking will cause cars to trespass on property owned by the Jones Ranch HOA. • Pedestrians from the new development will trespass on Jones Ranch owned property. • The Jones Ranch owned property will be subject to higher weed abatement costs because the subject property will have houses on it. • Increased noise from construction and from the later occupancy of the new homes will have adverse impacts on Jones Ranch properties. • Piece-meal development will occur because the same owner(Madden) owns two adjacent vacant parcels. Response: Staff responses to the issues raised in the letters are contained in the following discussion points. The East Bay Municipal Utility District letter informed the County that the District can supply potable water to the project subject to the fees and standards of the District. 3. Aesthetic Considerations, Visibility Impacts and Potential Mitigations — The proposed project is relatively consistent with the newer development in the general area, particularly the Alamo Ridge development located further up Las Trampas Road. Several of these Alamo Ridge homes are fairly visible from central Alamo and I-680. However, since Alamo Ridge was approved in S-11 File #MSO40008 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission May 25, 2005 the 1980s, there has been increasing concern with the aesthetic impacts of ridgeline development. A significant scenic vista as seen from central Alamo and I-680 could be affected by very prominent development of the main ridge located along the eastern margin of the subject property. The unnamed ridge is shown on the Contra Costa County General Plan(Figure 9-1) as one that is designated for protection from development that would harm its scenic quality. General Plan Open Space Element policy 9-E: To protect major scenic ridges, to the extent practical, from structures,roadways, or other activities that would harm their proposed scenic qualities. The proposed homes would be sited on the ridge top, or slightly off the ridge, to the west;but, depending upon house size and height, the structures would be substantially screened by existing trees from public viewing places to the east in the Alamo/Danville area, provided the houses are relatively short and designed so as to minimize off-site visibility. The majority of the screening trees are deciduous so that visibility would be greater in the winter. The construction that might be permitted by unaltered Zoning Ordinance residential standards (i.e. 35' height, no regulation of exterior colors) could be in conflict with the General Plan policy regarding protecting designated scenic ridges from development. The new construction would be also visible at some distance from a few homes situated at similar or higher locations to the south and west within the Alamo Ridge development, as well as from areas within Las Trampas Regional Park,but the development would not be visible from any public roads in they directions. Staff believes the intent of General Plan Goal 9-E is to protect the scenic ridgelines from the viewing locations at lower elevations. As a P-1 project the architectural compatibility and style can be regulated so as not to allow a substantial adverse impact. In order to achieve the desired mitigation of off-site visibility impacts, the preservation of trees should be required as well as controlling building heights and designs. A frequent approach in the case of homes in sensitive ridgeline locations is to require additional regulations of building height, colors, reflectivity of surfaces and lighting, as well as to require landscaping to soften the visibility impacts. The applicant has agreed to limit building height to 28 feet when viewed from the east, as compared to the 35-foot maximum of the residential zones The applicant has had story poles up, set at 28 feet with orange netting, on at least two occasions and generally staff has found that the homes would not be visible from Jones Ranch at all. The heavy tree cover on the east-facing slope combined with the convex shape of the ridge blocks project visibility from S-12 File #1MI,S040008 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission May 25, 2005 lower locations that are very close to the bottom of the ridge, like Jones Ranch. As one travels further east the orange netting could occasionally be seen between trees but not over any trees. Several other existing houses could be seen much more visibly than would the future homes on the subject property. The applicant has indicated that the new houses are proposed to be two-story houses up to 28 feet in height. • Parcel A is proposed to be developed with a single family residence containing 6000 square feet of living quarters and presumably a 3-car or larger garage. • Parcel B is proposed to be developed with residence containing up to 10,,000 square feet of living quarters and presumably a 3-car or larger garage. t_11) • Parcel C is proposed to be developed with residence containing up to 5,000 square feet of living quarters and presumably a 3-car or larger garage. Potential swimming pools,pool houses, gazebos and similar accessory buildings may be approved by the Zoning Administrator. Earth tone colors and natural materials of low reflectivity are proposed. In certain similar recent subdivisions in fidgeline areas, additional design review requirements have been imposed to require the Zoning Administrator to evaluate the project against certain criteria. The proposed conditions of approval contain the tollowing design review guidelines under which the future houses would be evaluated prior to the issuance of a building permit. The following design guidelines include the recommendations of the Alamo Improvement Association, except for the AIA recommended prohibition of second units. Existing State law and the County's adopted Second Unit Ordinance would govern for this subject. Proposed condition of approval: At least 45 days prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Zoning Administrator shall review and approve each house for conformance with the following design guidelines as well as reviewing the plans with the AIA approved design guidelines dated May 16, 2005, and the six conditions contained in the Jones Ranch HOAs letter dated May 5, 2005. The overall purpose is to reduce visual impacts of the new construction when viewed from off-site,particularly from the 1-680 corridor and from central Alamo, generally meaning the Danville Blvd./Stone Valley Road intersection. A. Cut building into slope to reduce the effective visual bulk. S-13 File #MSO40008 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission May 25, 2005 B. Step the building up the slope rather than have a single floor height. C. Locate house away from the most visible edge of the pad. D. Minimize under-story height or foundation on downhill side of house. E. Keep buildings relatively short(28 foot maximum measured from existing or finished grade whichever is lower, for the area to be covered by the home, to the top of the roof) and avoid steep roof pitches. (Chimneys, vents or similar appurtenances may extend above the maximum indicated roof height.)). However, the Zoning Administrator may allow a greater height on the downhill side of the structure (West/Southwest)provided the increase in height is due to the addition of lower levels or understory area on the downhill side of the structure, allowing a maximum height of up to 3 5 feet. F. Break up the building mass into smaller elements. Large vertical planes are discouraged. Flat exterior wall surfaces should not exceed 20 feet in height. G. Step back second stories. H. Avoid large gable ends on downhill side or other visible elevations particularly toward central Alamo. I. Avoid tall retaining walls. Break up into several small walls with landscaping in between. J. Exterior colors should be medium to dark and minimize reflectivity(50% maximum reflectivity). K. Encourage shadow patterns created by architectural elements such as large eaves, trellises, arbors and articulation of the building walls. L. Extend architectural treatments around to the sides and rear of the houses. M. A landscaping plan shall be provided for review and approval and said plan shall be designed to soften the appearance of the structures and to provide significant evergreen screening in order to minimize visibility of the structures from off-site. N. Screen storage areas and out-buildings, or locate in unobtrusive locations. o. Lighting should be minimized and limited to down lighting. P. All retaining wall shall be within the approved building envelopes. S-14 File #MS040008 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission May 25, 2005 not adequate for the worst of the storms of the 1990s. The Public Works Department uses the statistical"10-year storm" event as the one for which drainage improvements are sized,with the understanding that larger storms could be accommodated with surface flooding but without flooding homes. Absent detailed hydrographic studies of the larger watershed, it is not clear how significant the downstream problem is. Nevertheless, in response to these concerns,the applicants and their engineer are proposing that they be allowed to divert some existing runoff away from the Jones Ranch area and direct it toward Las Trampas Creek along Las Trampas Road. The first of the proposed diversions occur along the entry road to the north on the Seeno property where currently the runoff is intercepted by a berm along the downhill side of the road. It is proposed to divert about 69,000 square feet of watershed now draining towards Jones Ranch to the west. The second diversion would occur along the private lane within Parcel A. In this area, the road is just east of and downhill from the ridge so that the runoff would flow east. The applicant is proposing to install an inlet in the road and an underground pipe to divert the water to the west side of the ridge. About 13,050 square feet would be diverted by this measure. The Public Works Department has reviewed these proposals and has indicated that the changes are acceptable and could be accommodated within the existing conditions of approval. With these changes there would be a net decrease in runoff toward Jones Ranch. Also with these changes, staff would not recommend that the ridge road be moved further west as some letters recommended because doing so would not improve drainage, and it would push the house sites too far down the hill to the west into les6 stable areas. 6. Parking Sufficiency—Letters received indicate concern with inadequate parking and the fear that cars will be parked on the Jones Ranch open space area located immediately east of the ridge. Besides the fact that retaining walls and grade differentials will make the Jones Ranch property almost inaccessible for cars, a fence has been agreed to prevent parking on the Jones Ranch open space area. The proposed houses will have three or four car garages and the potential to park three or four additional vehicles in tandem by parking in the driveway in front of the garage doors. However, the proposed 20-foot wide private street standard would not allow for on-street parking. For possible guest or overflow parking, the developer is proposing a six-car common parking bay within the street right-of-way to be located on Parcel A. A widened area for three parking spaces is shown to the south of Parcel C. File #1MISO40008 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission May 25, 2005 The standard typically used for custom home subdivisions without on- street parking is the provision of six spaces including tandem spaces. The developer is going beyond that with nine additional on-street spaces. Going further beyond that does not appear to be justified because of the adverse impacts of large expanses of parking and the limited level area for buildings and road. Staff is unaware of any reason to expect that the future residents of the subject project will have more cars or more need for guest parking than residents elsewhere. 7. Tree Replacement and Aesthetic Mitigations -The site is well wooded with native oaks,both Coast Live Oak and Valley Oak. The arborist's report identifies over 140 trees larger than 20 inches in circumference. Generally the proposed home sites are clear of trees. The principal cause of the request for the removal of 11 trees is the need to provide a new private street with 20 feet of paved width. The trees proposed for removal range from 10 inches to 32 inches in trunk diameter. The existing driveway on the Seeno property and the existing jeep road on the subject property are currently one-lane wide. All the trees proposed for removal, except two, are proposed to be removed in order to widen the road. The two trees proposed for removal other than for road widening occur on Parcel B. Given that the potential building envelope shown for Parcel B is about 220 feet long and contains about 18,000 square feet, it does not necessarily appear that these two trees identified as Trees 40 and 41, cannot be avoided. Both are Quercus Lobata, one 32"in trunk diameter and the other 14". While it should be possible to work around these trees, the actual layout of the final house and access approved by the Zoning AdminisUa.tor may make the development difficult. Rather than a strict condition of approval requiring retention of these trees, it is recommended that a condition of approval require that in the design of the house, submitted for approval to the Zoning Administrator, a reasonable effort shall be made to retain and protect these two trees. However, if,when all the design guidelines are taken into consideration, it appears that the intent of the design guidelines to protect scenic views would be satisfactorily served by the removal of these two trees, the Zoning Administrator may allow the removal. These two trees are on a lower part of the house site and their removal would not affect views from Jones Ranch. For the nine trees in the path of the road widening,removal is generally unavoidable. Staff has looked at minor adjustments in alignment in order to save a particular tree and generally find that another tree on the opposite side of the road becomes threatened, or steeper topography would require more grading or the construction of larger retaining walls. Most of these trees proposed for removal by road widening occur on the adjacent property to the north. While technically not a part of the subject property, 5-17 File #MS040008 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission May 25,2005 staff recommends that tree mitigation by replacement with new trees occur on the subject property at a ratio of 3:1 (27, 15-gallon oak trees placed at locations approved by the Zoning Administrator with the intent of further screening the new houses from the east). Staff also recommends that the final house design approvals include requirement for a landscaping plan for each house directed toward softening and screening the views of the houses particularly when viewed from the east. There is a 1 01h tree that may be removed because of road widening. The applicant has requested that the private road be allowed to be narrowed to 16 feet to save Tree 39 along side the house site on Parcel B. The Public Works Department objects to reducing the adopted 20 foot standard. A condition of approval would allow the removal of this tree if it is determined that Tree 39 cannot be saved. r"I 8. Grading and Retaining Walls Along,Roadway—The ne comments from Jones Ranch residents on the Mitigated Negative Declaration raise the issue of the construction of retaining walls causing erosion or otherwise destabilizing the hillside in an area above their homes. While construction in unstable areas can sometimes worsen a situation, the walls in this case would result from the construction of the private road along Parcels A and C. The area along the ridge is relatively stable and the retaining walls would be of a height to require a building permit and an engineer's report. The construction of walls would be a preferable alternative to grading in these sloped areas. The walls along the ridge are generally about 2-3 feet in height but are as high as 6 feet at a spot just east of the Parcel A building site. Because of the existing tree cover to the east,the walls would not be visible to the Jones Ranch residents. 9. Soil Stability and Erosion Hazard— Similar to the concern with drainage, comments from Jones Ranch residents on the Mitigated Negative Declaration raise the issue of unstable soils and increased erosion hazards from development. The Contra Costa County Geologist has reviewed the applicant's soil's report and agrees that the project is feasible but does ask for additional studies to be conducted after approval but before the commencement of construction. There are landslides and surface slippage on the property located on the lower portions of the parcels. Parcel A has an identified slide just below the proposed house site. Recommendations for slide repair and soil stabilization measures are contained in the soils report. The identified slippage and slide repairs are on the west side of the ridge away from Jones Ranch. S-18 File #MS040008 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission May 25, 2005 10. Biologic Impacts - While it was not a subject of the comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration,the biological assessments submitted by consultants, and subject to a peer-review by consultants representing the County, have indicated that the area is probable habitat for the Alameda Whipsnake, a species which has been listed as threatened by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. Additionally, the site may contain plant species listed as "special-status"plants by the California Native Plant Society. Extensive mitigation measures are contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan and included in the conditions of approval. Other conditions restrict the timing of tree removal and grading to prevent disturbance of nesting sites for raptors. 11. Noise and Other Disruptions During Construction—There will be the usual noise generation associated with grading and construction resulting from this project. However, the distance to the nearest back yards on Via Del Rey in Jones Ranch is at least 250 feet. Because the access to the subject property is from a different direction than from Jones Ranch, there should be no construction traffic affecting the residents to the east. The greater impact would be on the neighbors along Las Trampas Road. Construction hours are limited by conditions of approval to 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM Monday-Friday and excluding holidays. Dust control during grading is regulated by the Grading Ordinance and enforced by the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department. Complaints about dust, if any, should be directed to that department. 12. Piece-Meal Development-The subject property owners also own the 4.97 acre parcel to the north and the 5.54 ;dwe parcel to the south. Some of the Jones Ranch letters express concern with the prospect of these two adjacent parcels being further developed or divided. Whether subject property owners or someone else owns these two parcels, they are existing vacant legal lots of record and they can be expected to someday be built upon. Both parcels are zoned A-2 and are not big enough to split as zoned. The parcel to the north has a General Plan designation of Agricultural Lands which would not allow a rezoning to a zone that would further development beyond one parcel. The parcel to the south, theoretically could be subject to a rezoning and minor subdivision request because the majority of it is in the Single Family Residential Very Low (SV) 0.2-0.9 dwelling units per acre General Plan category. While there is no way of predicting what might be proposed on the adjacent parcel, it is staff s opinion that there is not another good building site on the ridge other than the one at the end of the Fire Protection District' required turn-around shown on the tentative map. There may be another potential site lower on the property near Las Trampas Road. S-19 File #MS040008 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission May 25, 2005 13. Cul-de-sac Length Exception Request—Section 92-4-018 of the Subdivision Ordinance limits the length of a cul-de-sac to 700 feet, and also limits the number of lots that can be served to 16. An exception per Section 92-6.002 et. seq. would need to be granted for length of cul-de-sac since the length of the proposed private lane, cul-de-sac system measuring to the closest portion of road served by a secondary emergency access, is over 1700 feet. Section 92.6.002 of the Subdivision Ordinance allows an exception to be granted if the required findings can be made. Staff believes that an exception can be granted because the purpose of the regulation which is primarily to protect the public health and safety by improving emergency vehicle response time is being met by other means. In particular, the homes will be equipped with an automatic residential sprinkler system, and an existing fire lane connects through the abutting property to the north out to Ridgewood Road. An exception is also necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the property owner. 14. Variance to Height Regulations for the Entry Road Located on Abutting Properties- The existing entry road currently serving the adjacent property at 1948 Las Trampas Road will need to be widened from the existing 12- 13 feet to 20 feet to meet the requirements of the Public Works Department and the Fire Protection District. Because of the downslope along the road,the widening will cause the need for retaining walls at several points. Where the retaining wall occurs within the 20 side yard of the adjacent property, there is a height regulation of the A-2 zone of 3 feet for the retaining wall and 6 feet for the combination retaining wall and any guard rail put on top of the wall. A retaining wall of over three feet and a combined wall and railing height of over six feet and potentially as high as eight feet will occur at the worst case. While this situation would not normally require a variance if it were part of a P-1, Planned Unit District, the abutting property is not part of the subject property being rezoned P-1, and as such would not be covered by the project approval that would otherwise allow exceptions from the normal Zoning Ordinance regulations that a Planned Unit District can authorize. Consequently, a variance is being included in the recommended action so that the road can be widened to meet the Fire Protection District's standards. VIII. REQUIRED FINDINGS TO APPROVE PROJECT Attached is a listing of the findings required either under the general plan or under the zoning/subdivision ordinance for approval of this project. They include findings for approving a rezoning, findings for approval of a development plan under the P-1 zone, findings for the approval of a subdivision, growth management findings, findings for allowing a cul-de- S-20 File #MS040008 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission May 25, 2005 sac longer than 700 feet, and findings for a retaining wall over 6 feet in height.. IX. CONCLUSION The single family residential infill project falls within the General Plan residential land use density range. The project provides desirable amenities and infrastructure improvements for the area. Therefore, staff believes the proposed development plan and subdivision with recommended conditions of approval will result in a project consistent with the General Plan policies for the area. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designations which cover the area. The residential character and density of development is consistent with that prevailing in the Las Trampas Road area of Alamo. The exception to the Subdivision Ordinance restriction on the length of a cul-de-sac, and the number of lots to be served by a cul-de- sac can be granted because the existing development in the area and because additional life safety measures are incorporated into the project approval. With the use of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts, and would further the goals of the General Plan. Infrastructure improvements to roadways and drainage will improve the neighborhood. The applicant has worked with neighboring property owners to resolve design and drainage issues. MH/dk G:\curr-p1an\Staff Reports\MS040008-staff report.doc S-21 P� y 5 1 w Q- j co 77 J� I ,� a slow ! s 1 I J 5 I 2 1I I O Q� � 4!201 � 7 Q z I I 4 0 a 0 �g � gigCA co i Ln _ CD 0 1 Q 5C W;�•0 tD CD S.SeEr w..i�¢o {7i 2,00 AQ g g :3 CD aoar� CD .i 0 � �•� 19 Ln 3°toz w t Q co r C� CD tl� 0o t Ln �� 7 0 CID Q Q� �'5 c) tT"Yti o 3. jo. N'�7•� w tW7+ ' n� s`o+UN 0 o-a tr Z ,f C Al _ zl As cInv if �.- .. At VIA 41 jy� la4 4 klti. � , +r. , S{r,.f } # 1+r....,� ,n • k" S Y•;hL' .+MEN .;�n„t +: 4v'"�4t�3r L,..,tl F ,iiy. ? al" ,..,r ��,!a{,�`t j� E >'�f t y,t1a :: 's.- 4 R g - Figure 9-1 Scenic Ridges and Waterways CAROUINEZ ST'RAIT`S •. •' i� SUISUN BAr 4 C ♦. "?r' ..i^�'w%' goat tres+��'•.�,,w,� �. 69 .ars s►+r jai ! �•�,_� }rcYcco +tti �� �• r PC .. ` TP 90 ', a�a+ter vaut r s �t rr � r' • ` "d ice. r i * S•tr rr, S � w t r s \•Ys / •rsee : SUM sssra: �. a wt�i.• ��3.a�v+ } ti J Mt Diobio SAN FRANCISCO BAY y +r' 3U B TEC T k I DC-� 1• %\ \\ SCENIC RIDGES \ \ SCENIC WATERWAYS ... •�r 9-9 Revised 11/95- State of California-The -)urces Agency ARNr ' SCHWARZENEGGER,Governor DEPARTMENT OF Furl AND GAME htt,._p:/iwww.dfg.ca.aov POST OFFICE BOX 47 YOUNTVILLE,CALIFORNIA 94599 (707)944-5500 April 9, 2004 Mr. Bob Drake, Project Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Mr. Drake: Palmer B. Madden Residential Project 1900 Las Trampas Road, Alamo RZ04--3144, DP043025, MSO40008 Contra Costa County The Department of Fish and Came has reviewed the subject project, and we have the following comments. A complete assessment of the flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area, with particular emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, and locally unique species and sensitive habitats, should be provided. Rare, threatened and endangered species to be addressed should include all those which meet the California Environmental Quality Act definition (see CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380) . The assessment should identify any rare plants and rare natural communities, following DFG' s Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Natural Communities (revised May 8, 2000) . The Guidelines are available at www.dfg.ca. gov/whdab/pdfs/guideplt.pdf In reviewing the application materials, it appears that the project may adversely affect the State listed threatened Alameda whipsnake and/or its habitat. An assessment of the site by a qualified biologist is needed. The assessment should evaluate the suitability of habitat onsite and show locations of the nearest known whipsnake occurrences. Please be advised that a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit must be obtained if the project has the potential to result in a take of species of plants or animals .listed under CESA, either during construction or over the life of the project. Issuance of a CESA Permit is subject to CEQA documentation; therefore, the CEQA document must specify impacts, mitigation measures, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. If the Conse�ng Cat fornia's Wild[fe Since 1870 NW[M,1a N' Mr. Bob Drake April 9, 2004 Page 2 project will impact CESA listed species, early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to the project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA Permit. Please also be advised this project may result in changes to fish and wildlife resources as described in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 753 .5 (d) (1) (A) - (G) 1. Therefore , if you are preparing an Environmental Impact Report or an Initial Study and Negative Declaration for this project, an environmental filing fee as required under Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 (d) should be paid to the county clerk on or before filing of the Notice of Determination for this project. If you have any questions, please contact Carl Wilcox, Habitat Conservation Manager, at (707) 944-5525 . Sincerely, Robert W. Fl oe r ke Regional Manager Central Coast Region ' http://cer.oal.ca..gov/. Find California Code of Regulations,Title 14 Natural Resources,Division 1, Section 753 MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT January 10, 2005 05 JAN 18 PM 31, SO Michael Henn, Project Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 41h Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Henn: Re: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration— 1900 Las Tra.1r-11as Road (County File DP043025, MSO40008 and RZ043144), Alamo East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMLJD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for 1900 Las Trampas Road (County File DP043025, MSO40008 and R.Z043144) in Alamo. EBMUD has the following comments. EBMUD's Holly Pressure Zone, with a service elevation range between 645 and 845 feet, will serve the proposed development with house pad elevations ranging between 555 feet to 655 feet. In order to provide water service from the Holly Pressure Zone, a main extension of approximately 3,400 feet from the existing water main in Las Trampas Road to the proposed development and a major flow regulator station will be required, at the project sponsor's expense. The project sponsor requested water service to the development under Water Service Estimate 04-065 which is currently being processed. Engineering, planning, design and installation of water mains and major facilities requires substantial lead time that should be provided for in the project sponsor's development schedule. If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact David J. Rehnstrom, Senior Civil Engineer, Water Service Planning, at (510) 287-1365. Sincerelv. WILLIAM R. KIR K P ATRICK Manager of Water Distribution Planning WRK:OAH:sb sb05_012.doc cc: Palmer Madden & Susan Paulus 1900 Las Trampas Road Alamo, CA 94507 375 ELEVENTH STREET. OAKLAND . CA 94607-4240. TOLL FREE 1-866-40-ESMUD DARWIN MYERS AssocIATES ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH N ENGINEERING GEOLOGY September 23, 2004 Mike Henn, Project Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 2nd Floor N.Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Geologic Review Services Contract Madden-Paulus Property/MS040008,RZ043144 &DP043025 APN 198-220-009 &-010 and 198-220-043 &-0441 1900 Las Trampas Road Alamo Area,, Contra Costa County DMA Project 4 3069.04 Dear Mike: - At your request we have reviewed pertinent published maps, along with Safety element policies and geotechnical reports. We previously made a site visit and issued a review letter.' At that time the application was a request for a lot line adjustment. The project has subsequently evolved into minor subdivision,rezoning and development plan. Background 1. Approach On August 18'1 made a site visit to view field conditions and discussed the project objectives with the applicant. Subsequently, I reviewed the geotechnical report prepared for MS 25-90'and made a limited review of published literature.' We have a good working knowledge of the site as we served as a subcontractor to Alan Kropp &Associates for the 1990 investigation. It was one of the last investigations that I performed,prior to entering into contract with Contra Costa County to serve as the County's peer reviewer. I do not have conflict of interest. 1 Darwin Myers&Associates,Inc. Proposed Lot Line Adjustment-LL020054,Palmer B.Madden Property,APY 198-220-009&-010 and 198-220-043&-044, 1900 Las Trampas Road,Alamo Area, Contra Costa County. DMA Project#3058.03(dated August 20,2003). 2 Alan Kropp&Associates,Inc.,1990. Geotechnical Investigation,Madden Parcel,Alamo, California. AKA Job#486-3,,L16317(report dated October 30,1990). 3 Crane,R.,1988. Structural Geology of the San Ramon Valley and Environs in Field Trip Guide to the Geology of the San Ramon Valley and Environs,,Northern California Geologic Society. 1308 PINE STREET N MARTINEZ, CA 94553 0 925/370-9330 Page 2 2. Bedrock Geol Ron Crane a retired petroleum company geologist issued maps of Contra Costa County and adjacent portions of Alameda County that present an interpretation of geologic structures and stratigraphy based on a three-dimensional understanding of geology. Specifically, oil companies combine mapping of surface geologic data with deep geophysical data and exploratory oil wells that are thousands of feet deep. The deep wells have provided well logging records and core samples for paleontologic lysis (i.e.,including identification of micro-fossils). Figuxe I presents the Crane Geologic Map (scale I inch= 0.5 miles). According to this map,the site is in the outcrop belt of Miocene sandstone(Tmss). This unit is described as arkosic graywacke, locally pebbly, locally fossiliferous, with interbedded siltstone. A northwest trending fault is mapped along the southwest property boundary, coinciding with the alignment of Las Trampas Road. Because data developed by the oil industry focuses on interpretation of deep geologic structure(not the activity status of faults),the fault traces shown are represented as solid(green) lines in both bedrock areas and alluvial-filled valleys (i.e.,the intent of the Crane map is to show the location of faults and not to comment on their activity status). The fault shown along the southwest side of the site appears to be a splinter of the ancestral Calaveras fault. ' According to the U.S. Geological Survey and California Geological Survey,there are no active faults in the Alamo area. Bedding on the site strikes northwest and is either steeply dipping to the southwest over-turned to the northeast. 3. Alan"Kropp &Associates (AKA) In 1990 Alan Kropp &Associates issued a geotechnical report for a portion of the site. The A1,'A *investigation focused on evaluation of geologic hazards and providing only general criteria for development of proposed Lot B of MS 25-90. (Lot A was a developed residence where no construction was being proposed.) On Lot B (now APN 198-220-044), a total of 13 test pits were excavated. The logs of these test pits are presented in Figures 8 and 9 of the AKA report. These logs indicate that bedrock was penetrated at a shallow depth M, test pits TP-3 _4,:0 _4, _7, -8 and-12. Slide debris was encountered in TP-1, _2, _3, _6, _9, _K, -11 and-13. Based on the data gathered, a 2.5-acre dormant landslide was mapped on Parcel B. There are 24-inch diameter oaks growing within the slide area. These trees post-date the major movement. Although a large slide was confirmed on Parcel B1,two potential building sites were identified on the 5.3-acre site. These are in the area of TP-3 and TPA, where slopes are less than 15 percent and bedrock at/near the surface. DARWIN MYERs AssocIATES Page 3 Geologic and Seismic Setting 1. Bedrock Geolo�,y In 1994 the U.S. Geological Survey issued a digitized geologic map of Contra Costa. County that emphasized bedrock formations.' This map used existing published mapping as a point of departure for their study, and performed thousands of hours of research resolving geologic problems. It indicates that the property is located within the outcrop belt of marine sedimentary rocks of Miocene age. The property is within a hillside area that is mapped as the Neroly Formation and Briones Formation. By extrapolation from nearby measurement,bedding is inferred to strike approximately N45'W and be nearly vertically dipping. In 1995 the US Geological Survey issued a professional paper that characterizes the composition and engineering properties of rock and soils that most influence slope stability.' According to this report,the composition of the Neroly formation consists of five units which can be described as follows: ... (1) Sandstone, largely medium grained, some coarse grained, rare very coarse grained, well to moderately well sorted, largely clean, some tufaceous producing low permeability, much has typical blue coatings on grains. . . . In places contains calcite-cemented shell beds that form resistant ridges. Includes minor concretions to large. (2)High-matrix fine-grained sandstone, tufaceous, some grading to sandy mudstone. (3)Mudstone to sil tstone. (4) Shale. (S) Conglomerate,probably largely of pebbles, well rounded, in probably variably clayey sandstone matrix; and conglomeratic sandstone. Sandstone (composition 1) is equally abundant to somewhat more abundant than the combination of high-matrix sandstone (composition 2) and mudstone (composition 3). Shale is rare. Conglomerate and conglomeratic sandstone are minor overall. Some cemented beds in place, absent in others. With regard to permeability,the sandstone has largely low intergranular permeability, about one- third moderate, rare high in coarse-grained and very coarse-grained beds;high matrix sandstone and mudstone low to very low. In summary,most bedrock low, some very low, some moderate, minor high. According to Ellen and Wentworth the rock is weathered to depths of 3 0 feet or more. The rock is chiefly sandstone that is non-expansive,but clayey rock within this formation is considered to be significantly expansive. In summary, fresh sandstone is "hard", and mudstone intervals have"hard"to"firm"pieces. Where weathered, sandstone is "hard"to "firm",but calcite cemented sandstone and concretions are hard. Mudstone intervals loses appreciable strength and are subject to erosion and sliding. a Grayrner,R.,D.L.Jones&E.E.Brabb,1994. Preliminary Geologic Map Emphasizing Bedrock Formations in Contra Costa County, California. U.S.Geological Survey Open File Report 94-622. 5 Ellen,S.D.and C.M.Wentworth,1995.Hillside Materials and Slopes in the San Francisco Bay Region, California. U.S.Geological Survey Professional Paper 1357. DARWIN MYERS ASSOCIAT S � E 6 Page 4 2. Landslide Deposits The most recent landslide map of the site and vicinity is the product of the California Geological Survey(formerly California Division of Mines and Geology).' A point of departure for the CGS map was a previous landslide map issued by the U.S. Geological Survey.' The primary purpose of this study was to provide information about landslide hazards to local officials engaged in land-use planning and in evaluation of subdivision and building permit applications. According to the CGS map,there are both confirmed and questionable landslides on the site. The CGS report also presents a Relative Landslide Susceptible Map. It is a derivative map that considered such factors as steepness of slope, and whether or not evidence of landsliding was observed;the apparent stability characteristics of the geologic materials (in this case the CGS's assessment of the engineering geologic characteristics of the Neroly Formation); and a variety of associated factors that can affect stability(e.g., expansive soils,proximity of a fault zone, proximity of creeks, etc.). Using these criteria, a four-value scale was prepared to indicate relative slope stability, ranging from Area 1 (least susceptible)to Area 4 (most susceptible). According to this map,nearly 100 percent of the site is in Area 4. This map has been prepared to aid in general land use planning. It is neither intended nor suitable for detailed evaluation of individual sites. Such evaluations require engineering geologic studies and soils engineering investigations for property planning of specific construction projects. However, sites classified as Area 4 warrant engineering geologic investigations that specifically address slope stability because of the potential effects that modifications of the land can have on slope stability. The Engeo reports present the applicant's response to this geologic hazard. Safety Element 1. Liquefaction The Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone that encompasses recently active and potentially active traces of the Calaveras fault is mapped approximately 3 miles to the southeast of the property. The fault is considered capable of generating an earthquake of magnitude 6.5+. With regard to liquefaction potential,the Safety Element of the General Plan divides Contra Costa County into three categories: "generally high", "generally moderate to low", and 6 Majmunder,H.H.,1996. Landslide Hazards of the Las Trampas Ridge and Parts of the Diablo Quadrangles,Alameda and Contra Costa Counties California. DMG Open-File Report 95-15. 'Nilsen.T.H.,1975. Preliminary Photointerpretation Map of Surficial Deposits,Las Trampas Ridge 7.5- A�linute Quadrangle,Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. U.S.Geological Survey Open File Map 75-277-24. DARWIN MYERS ASSOCIATES 1 ) Page 5 generally low". According to this map,the parcel is in the "generally low"susceptibility category. The Safety Element includes a number of policies indicating that at-risk areas require evaluation of liquefaction potential and effective mitigation of the hazard posed to new development. Operative General Table I Plan policies are presented GENERAL PLAN LIQUEFACTION POLICIES Table 1. 10-18 This General Plan shall discourage urban or suburban development in areas susceptible to high liquefaction During the processing of land dangers and where appropriate subject to the policies of 10- development applications,the 20 below,unless satisfactory mitigation measures can be provided,while recognizing that there are low intensity uses County requires rigorous such as water-related recreation and agricultural uses that evaluation of liquefaction potential are appropriate in such areas. in areas of"high potential", and 10-19 To the extent practicable,the construction of critical less comprehensive investigations facilities,,structures involving high occupancies,and public facilities shall not be sited in areas identified as having a are demanded x a the"moderate to high liquefaction potential,or in areas underlain by deposits low"category. Evaluation,of classified as having a high liquefaction potential. liquefaction potential is not 10-20 Any structures permitted in areas of high liquefaction damage shall be sited,designed and constructed to required for sites in the"generally - minimize dangers from damage due to earthquake-induced low"category. liquefaction. 10-21 Approvals to allow the construction of public and private 2. Slope Stabilily development projects in areas ofbigh liquefaction potential shall be contingent on geologic and engineering studies which define and delineate potentially hazardous geologic County General Plans historically and/or soils conditions,,recommend means of mitigating these adverse conditions,and on proper implementation of have classified major slope areas in the mitigation measures. excess of 26 percent as "not readily developable"and"undevelopable", recognizing the cost and engineering difficulties of grading in areas of steep slopes (Policy 10-29); and density is to decrease as slopes increase above 15 percent(Policy 10-28). Landslides and ground slippages may be triggered by strong ground motion accompanying a major earthquake. Areas that are subject to slides and slippages from other natural causes may be very hazardous under earthquake conditions. Earthquake effects will be more extensive if a major earthquake occurs during the rainy season when ground conditions are favorable to landsliding and ground slippage. Whether a landslide will or will not occur at any specific, presently stable slope usually cannot be predicted under"natural conditions"because of the range of natural conditions and changes which occur with time. However,,land which has experienced landsliding in the past is believed to be generally more slide-prone, and also is more sensitive to man-induced changes, such as grading, watering,removing or changing the type of vegetation,, and changing drainage patterns, among many possible factors. The Safety Element contains a number of policies that are directed to protect development from landslide hazards and minimize grading of steep slopes. Those which appear most applicable to Madden property are presented in Table 2. DARWIN MYERs AssocIATES Page 6 Engeo Inc. Table 2 SELECTED SAFETY ELEMENT On behalf of the project,the GROUND FAILURE AND LANDSLIDE HAZARD POLICIES applicant has submitted four CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN: 1995-2010 eotecbnical reports.' They 10-22 Slope stability shall be a primary consideration in the ability of land 9 to be developed or designated for urban uses. provide technical data and 10-23 Slope stability shall be given careful scrutiny in the design of engineering analysis of developments and structures,and in the adoption of conditions of approval and required mitigation measures. different aspects of the proposed project. These 10-24 Proposed extensions of urban or suburban land uses into areas oJ characterized by slopes over 15 percent and/or generally unstable reports are summarized land shall be elevated with regard to the safety hazard prior to the individually below. 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 I. January 21. 2004 protected through implementing zoning measures and other appropriate actions. 10-26 Approvals of public and private development projects in areas This study focused on potential subject to slope failures shall be contingent on geologic and building sites on proposed engineering studies which define and delineate potentially.hazardous conditions and recommend adequate mitigation. Parcels A. B and C. The scope of work *included the logging 10-27 Soil and geological reports shall be subject to the review and of four borings (labeled B-4 approval of the County Planning Geologist. 10-28 Generally,residential density shall decrease as slope increases, tluough B-7). The borings especially above a 15 percent slope. were each 16 feet deep. They 10-29 Significant hillsides with slopes over 26 percent or more shall be penetrated 1-foot of soil considered unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading or other land disturbance. underlain by deeply weathered 10-30 Development shall be precluded in areas when landslides cannot be bedrock that is described as adequately repaired. interbedded sandstone and 10-31 Subdivisions approved on hillsides which include individual lots to claystone. be resold at a later time shall be large enough to provide flexibility in finding a stable buildable site and driveway location. With regard to geoloic and 10-32 The County shall not accept dedication of public roads in unstable 91 hillside areas,or allow construction of private roads there which seismic hazards, Engeo would require an excessive degree of maintenance and repair costs. provides the following assessment. Seismic Hazard. The risk of liquefaction,,regional subsidence or uplift is rated low to unlikely. Engeo,Inc.,2004. Geotechnical and Geologic Feasibility Study,MaddenlPaulus Property,Parcels A through D,APN 198-220-009,Las Trampas Road,Alamo, California. Engeo Job#2557.1.052.01 (dated January 21,2004); Engeo,Inc.,2004. Geotechnical and Geologic Feasibility Study,MaddenlPaulus Property,A.PN 198-220- 010; Upper Site,Las Trampas Road,Alamo, California. Engeo Job#2557.1.052.01 (dated January 26,2004); Engeo,Inc.,2004. Geotechnical and Geologic Feasibility Study,MaddenlPaulus Property,APY 198-220- 009,Lower Site,Las Trampas Road,Alamo, California. Engeo Job#2557.1.052.01 (dated February 10,2004); Engeo,lnc.,2004. Geotechnical and Geologic Feasibility Study of Proposed Utility Alignment, MaddenlPaulus Property,Las Trampas Road,Alamo, California. Engeo Job#2557.1.052.01 (dated March 10,2004). 07- 7.,DARWIN MYER-3 Assoc-IATES Page 7 46 Ground RMture. Since the site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone,the risk of fault rupture is rated remote. • Ground Sh Although the site is subject to earthquake ground shaping,the UBC provisions are intended to allow structures to resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage but with some non-structural damage; and to resist major earthquakes without collapse but with some structural and non-structural damage. On page 5, Engeo provides LTBC seismic parameters used by engineers m' desim of structures. g • Ex moderately expansive. Expansive Soils. Soils are • Corrosion Potential. The soils on-site are classified as having a high corrosion potential. Hence, Engeo recommends,corrosion testing prior to foundation or utility construction. Engeo provides preliminary reconunendations for the future structure, which 'includes deep foundations for residences and special design system.for slabs, and an efficient drainage 4-1 - 2. January 26. 2004 and February 10. 2004 These reports present the results of an investigation of the upper and lower sites on API's 198- 220-010. The upper site is a knoll possessing a crestal elevation of+565) feet;the lower site is a pad adjacent to the northeast bank of Las Trampas Creek, with a pad at elevation+433 feet. The investigation of the upper site included Boring B-8, which penetrated weathered sandstone bedrock from the surface to the full depth explored(26 feet). The lower site was explored with two probes (P-1 and P-2). P-1 was located on the creek bank. It penetrated 13 feet of stiff to very stiff silty clay(colluvium.)underlain by weathered, oxidized silty claystone/clayey siltstone. P-2 was located on the existing pad. It penetrated 32 feet of silt to very stiff silty clay(colluvium) overlying weathered silty claystone bedrock. The primary conclusions of the Engeo reports may be summarized as follows: • The uphill site is considered feasible for development of a residence,protected against downhill creep of soil mantle by: a)providing significant setbacks;b) constructing buried caisson walls; or c) drained,top-of-slope buttress fills. They also provide recommendations for retaining wall design. • 'nie lower site is considered geotechnically feasible. The major considerations are to protect the improvements from slope movements uphill of the building area and creek bank retreat. Engeo provides recommendations for foundation design(pier and grade beam extending into rock). Engeo also states that deep foundations may also be considered to support exterior structural slabs where such features are supporting brittle flooring systems or where vertical slab movements are not desirable, such as in the case of pool decks. 3. March 10. 2004 This report examined the suitability of an existing unpaved drive for the *installation of utilities between the upper elevations of the Madden/Paulus property and existing utility structures within DARWIN MYERs AssorCIATE.S. Page 8 the Las Trampas Road right-of-way. This existing unpaved driveway is to remain, with its use limited to utility line connections. The Engeo report indicates that the major problem area is a slide that extends across the driveway. Engeo provides recommendations for the utility trench, which includes buried caissons anchored into rock on the downhill side of the utility trench alignment within the slide area(or a tensar reinforced buttress fill). DMA Evaluation 1. Construction Permits The Engeo report evaluates geologic conditions in the area of the potential building sites. The report does not provide sufficient details for issuance of grading or building permits. A lot-by-lot geotechnical report will be required to provide specific criteria and standards to guide site grading, drainage and foundation design. Note that off-site road improvements may be necessary for the existing private road northwest of the site, if it is to meet County ordinance code and fire district requirements. That earthwork may require finther geotechnical analysis. 2. CEQA Compliance Although the Engeo reports are not adequate for the issuance of construction permits, they are adequate to identify potential impacts and associated mitigation measures. Our evaluation is presented in Appendix A. We trust this letter provides the evaluation and connnents that you requested. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, DARWIN MYERS ASSOCIATES Darwin Myers, CEG 946 Principal cc: Gary Faria,Building Inspection Department Palmer Madden Jim Diggins, DeBolt Civil Engineering Eric Harrell, Engeo Inc. CANIMMM"w"Ittermt Fi DARWIN MYERs AssocIATES „,f ::. .,} :,w.{,f +k ..::.'rY ''>;' j'y}, t. .;,�': „•"'"r1 gf1', $£''.A a:f'�'' �4' :f Y n _. % dd '.�.4pp r 1:4� ,' 4 .( :.£�- :•ii•i. 'rWv .4C .t 'S{ .S]"x,: $":t. 4 :}'ry4,r k �{,:±:4Y,,:R ”<�N;- '�'4C+ .££, 64, {.'' .i 4 A._.�'!Y:}..., ,.... .. yn.'4y,..{' 1. - aaaddd������...���...,...�...,,,, •,n};.}.h, .;� ,'iJ :..{:,.- p-{- :a;{b. 4;;, .�;.. °�':•A\ 'a.'., G ri..b.'. 1 n, { ,!... ..:•y..:5.7.E:, n{. x';-:i`h};k.: �y�S r::;: x F"" s z •, •...^. .:•-•.{::- -" .r- .:... .4 i+':yr.rs.''4 .tiYrx ��"y��{x?�:: •'.:h ...:P. ..{? 4 X ..... ':•;r ...w.:.. xF,. .'. .: Y } -:{. ... :...t0:.V -.4:.,:;. % at3..; ,4, n v v',,,.,• v. .. t}n+Kw,}:; ..}:xf:x:,yY;E•..:,?;:; ry.;:;:;.^ .{Y!-`.a •✓{':• :.:.i {; '1,.: 'y':",;W '.nyi X"; .{, <:. :a:.{ :. .::n,.•.: ...f ..... 5:.,a :?T'`.'i;?F?27 ..:.... "+6: yt ::'R..0. ..y.. :." ..n..:..n :. .....}.,.,...v.;..,... �v.v.. ..}... :V a^.,',':: ! 2G-,. ..rh.f..,�' { ,.{;.:}x•:,,. .0 n..;..^{,,. ...,...-.:-,,,,.,,..v:::.. .,.,x{sv.: :.: L t }• %• ':fi.:2', ..,., 4..::at-.: .:Sc.x:Rn-:}--::;{{•,v.:.v• v:T,-,yr.r,., '`,$o?'k'ay- ,AR -v;;.. -'.: :r ar:{.- .,...`: ..�r :., .. ..... ... 4v:n,<v.v vsY::•.::-...:.h ..xx .<{•: .. ,-•v: :} :R <{ .- (01 }i+'is. • •,K!}' {35 ,n:.,v.+ :::...H ,v.•{?a}.�:.a• :v., ,. f y„ '�}�.;,., ; .5 :fir ^,� •a::.,.:.. .. <.::..;;. ,i- ,<+}'r .. �`,}?+:�:.a ., - ,P'.y •x., }t L:: .,x..: Vic. ' .1-� + •. :v.a.:Y. ::..-.i•a t!:?tiv.,:w t. +T,n:v.: :: _ ': x:.�i .R .;,, ,..: ..-.v:• ::%.'.ter 3. : ,., .t ,t:.r:.. , '},., Y.,..... .;. " .:•Y'#°1'. v ,,. .. ..a.r.:.. :..'`• f. ',:i s -m',x. R.,.:::.-.E �s' ', : :is .::,:.}y. -:..']s Ys$. , .3.... ,. \ .... �a :i-RGi':'•• I,. Y .....:.£:.::•y, - .t..,:...:..t:3•:. ,.,. s}'.L::`•.Y}:.....,:.,,• ..wc;k.,!'k'{E...>,... ...rba,.. x .,�;+„ r 4 :r•::-..,•:•:: c{,;:..,^{:•: :.,.3:§..o:.;.r r:,r.n}:a't.{. x ::,x #�' r:. K :..it-.} _,,..;}.,:, -.r.- :....:..,,. R ..,.,, .-.., : t•.•ntRC Yd••-ty;n:.;.r...t }..$...:}.: F ']'0,{•.4:•:;:::.: y :{• .:.. t•'W,o�a ..::G,•s:n"::. :bs...>.`f• :-....,...........�`.:..,.v. r• bk• wxK C .,. .v.:.v,< .:.�. ..,..,{,x. }.<.._{v. ..•:.a.::.:.}:.,:{7 v �ti- �' ...-. _..•..£�•. .:..f" :',ec.. '.r:.. 4ta::- .r•3'.:.f ....t•Q :.x::{..-S:..:. ...V r.s47., $•4{a}.-:-:..:::v :k•.vm.:x.. - : �y} ,{, .r. : 'x:.T. :.. , }....fi Xa },.. N: , .....,.:h,.::.. ,-. :n. .,.::f. of}.:{:,'k}77..,{a£a,. ..::,h:• .-. v: o- K•..x }.{}..£` .. ^:}.: ,.,.v;;.:. .::: :F,x}.�..:.:+.::.ti:k]k t. ,. .;3.Y{.,Gry. .. :t::.::, a.. '>'. ..$.. YF....:T:x.:. x:..:n...- :n.. .,. ;i•.,r%:vvr :: i" .. :v:wl;,y,- 4•{• ?f:.: ,Ys: .:..:.....r.:,•r...'•"'r+{.:..,. .. ::: .r. ...,. ...,..:.. n .:.ba.�'4}x-.,r,},.- F: d:..:',_ '.X:•?,,. S } 4 }• (} }� n " ;k.{. n.7..S 4. x-�S( r.. .'.tv]:.:.n.. ..... ai, ....t::t•:..}:, ,.. :.v...: it...+- .::m ..,::.., ...... ...,! .,::,Sn.nES,.'•...:... .. .r:,.a'»?Y.#C.. ,,�t`' 4: 2 :rr. a,�K:...ita w ` i• .,...: is.,.. :;..... .,yam..}Y:i-:,:: :,,.:.' ; •:•£y-k•:?:'a.:�., -'O' . .k ;+t, `:,:;. p v . {_. W :•. .- .. ::...:.,.... .: -;r,,. :.,'.. -.:r tri::.: I a, '. -:... :. :.. - w ,. .y . . !S ..: .. :.. .v.....:.. ` {t t,. .,,y,.Y ... -. ''.. .. t •t . :... ,-: .., ,tom, (' -: l : M{^i ,y :F� N fi twj: :: :>..r YW .:.. „{' f,.. 3tbai. �t', 4 q.K { td , ':' a„ •aY.i'k4�,,.,'•wt:{xy-k ,:t�-1h {. { ..:yu. �' - 'ry„i » ...., z. O .,i: 9ik ,,,,+�+++ F v s, z �'y'y•..: .. �.: as f.F Fes`. „ ,}` . s ;.$.{ . I. �NalfM :... {....-..'fi ....r•, .,x.{ .';?:, ... •€. ,- '�:7ti, , - 0 '.Y.i'�„'.!:; s�a%: n ,. _.,ep+-fr : : ',; .?Y, :,.. 4.{^ t' v Sq,i. {T a: ,<°'•4F r., A', :. t- ;n .. . '{ .:. .{ .0 f { ,f .,. ,. 1{ 4 »-. 4' .. 4 7 :vr !a i : fY iv r. { ':.. _ . :'+' { r {C. f, % }: .' }4 }a ,v: ,': :: .:... :, »:.'- r.,.:.... ....:a: .:.5... v. .:..:•...,..,..,......... L. ''t.., k:$•C:?t!-%k-},. f .. .... : {„la:. .. :: :.}: >:: R {:rT4i fir. .,-. :...- - r. s ..: :,.:....... -:.,.,:.. : , h .a._ - .. _.-. .. { . .-.. s: .. . ::t. .. ..- :. ... y}��j�i�.. :. .....,C �+ .bx'.{ A { }sn p�' ::+ {. ,., .. :.: t' f ., KH :;r. ,a;; .. y,:. .: ........ , ... 1 ,.: :i..:. :. - :.i a:,:.:., : ... :.:: -...-..- - .:...' }:•-ray�'x},,,,'?: :+. .::s••:{..y--• ry,..' y / i�^#, '•{ �: x � .. - -....:: - :. ..s ?: :;::tit.,. } ' �. u fi M� x iI r x;. may, , u '} `, T< : a .. a, r, :.,.. .....}:: .. fi �* .y. :..n fiat{... n..�s ::A?: :.::.,,...: :.: 'i :., .,:.:.::::......,,•.:. : $.,..; .}, :.,..::• £,.�+:.,:.:.:;r .fin... <.. •f:r; ...., ,,, :.n.- .: tf , ...oft .:... ... .:.,,....n.. :,<.. ..,.; ::, :... .... ..., .:.....,w•...��...:..:.:.-.. �» .M:. :'L.r Try s. -..t..: ...- :}L .,� :....... .....Y. „r: 'r�''.:. .. .,. ..:...n... - ...- ... :...:..... .. .. n..-.: n . .4 :. � .., t .:w: r .:..,:....,..... :.::.:.,... 4, .. : ':•' .. i. ..:.Lf: ::... .; ;:::.. : rr: 4 '} f n:• {E'' v :fes l ::.. ,. .. .;.,� :, .: :..;: .. .: ..:::. :.;:, :.f .n.., ... - .... - : { r ..::.N. .. .::,. .':,.... :.::, -: ..:.: i yr fir. :,.. .......,r ........, .r. .,., ,...., ...,R•:... .. t, :. : .. ?.: r:! : :,. ::,..::. t..::: : { ;,k F:.. .. -f ...::}} {.... p y{'{. xu:� f. ,, :• :. "" '' {r {.. :: Y {r' .. K f �,SC.. .. yv - .} ., - .- .. .. d Y :L 1,„ a f S �� F { .... r .. ,1"' .L :,Yr .. .:: .-y... �r F ;fix,,,.. NY{:, f ,$ ..; {}a �p F f !!' ,,. ' :... ,wp,. .�C A .{. f y..:..: yam►. •a1�'� ��.. b 9F . si. Y y� } I ,yam .. .. ..,,,:: J...v I .. ... .. .. Y pp i. {F r'- > }• a✓ {X�! '{.+ter d n .:+ x a' 4 cn sa; K y£ :,. ..a P :. :.r:, ..:.. ' a; f. ES. :. .:: :.£. 4avG• w::. .. .. ....;....r .. .:... ...... tic f M}. i.} �Lnn w�.t ! C. ], y� syr ,q.� ,}y f5:. .;1' u t + .. F }dr .r l t y :.' 4 a i.� YS Yom; K f :{Y j .: .. .... '} f.. _ »' ! zr I a; * w► le , r:; F le r Y Y 3 '.� i' I { ! y I*`r ;:.« ..'; :,�3 :'f,'4�'` r4.. Y£. +'3"{{`' ,, pe;�'x`,"� ,s £ S #� MMS Y .n.. .{ F :' :.,:: '. o}.,, ref sd r 4. - : � ., s. h v::.. .. -A :•L: A,. i ». v� n•.».{• ;� ;E^. . ..-.: :. } .:, ..., .. ,.. E.i4r:,.; ) - ��p ` ' - .....: .fir yb ,. n » :•.ilk rf : { A,: J ,{. r{Y �, ¢ . . f f M �° Il . , bob ;r' sr i . :a, •t a/. Y,-' .I�r. iyf""'.,• - :.; .,gi .a:,'�`� ri^- F '.''£a'':.6•:£,'::?;r._p c 'f4 : .ate .o' + ,2I. .{ ..3^ + ;"v _-ya,�'fi'�r iG: . . ':' �"" ( Y;^ ;y :;F' {./, .moi F � ?':.7 .},,qtr f�,i.,r' ,,..,. :x:>:t: J''/�'' .Y:; r K rx }.' ; F Y Iy4w�}.. : 'n :n,:'' Kv�'}'ar' -:. M �{f �, r" r? a`. ., '+ r' �," yam` .t i`,bt . - ^,, -, �^ jc. ' %� �• ;:•:n _ �r F ; .: '!"',"�w „ ::::114 £ •'�' .r..>. • 1+'' r..''"`f :. � w --.:it,:r.S/;';i,....s£5;/i-M.-,: ` ie•Ib f3 �"TA r s.... ,.::. .y ,, . n.:...':.:.-. :.:..:. Jt .. .F° ' .. "I '- . -... , 1:.,�::.w::....:...wr..,..,..:..+,.w,rrr..........................................................•.................a.•..•-.r......w ,....:.r:nw•..:.......,,.....w:,..r..w.,...,...........,..L Dennis M. Barry,AICPOemun't1Contra mmunity DeWeio men t Director Develoc)ment Costa DepartmentCountyRECEIVEDc� � County Administration BuilcOVSEP AM 4 E--_..,,�,�. SEP ` 20049: 651 Pine Street ;. 4th Floor,North vying �- � -5.. � " OCCSD.., MVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Martinez,California 94553-0095' (925)335-1210 �•r's.•-. -c'y Date. t w Phone. co AGENCY COAMENT REQUEST We request your comments regarding the attached application currently under review. DISTRIB}BION Please submit your comments as follows: Building Inspection HSD,Environmental Health, Concord Project Planner HSI},Hazardous Materials,;�t,,,�'.-- P/W -Flood Control ize) County File PIW - or Svcs En ineerin (Full Size g {F ) Number. � Date Forwarded PIVD'Traffic(Reduced) Prior To: PlW Special Districts (Reduced) Comprehensive Planning Vire have found the following special programs Redevelopment Agency apply to this application: Historical Resources Information System CA Dative Amer. Her. Comm. Redevelopment Area CA Fish & Game,Region -7S US Fish &Wildlife Service Active Fault Zone ... Fire District Sanitary District Flood Hazard Area,Panel# L4 3S , Water District C-- ; u t� .City bp,-w\/k L'L-C' 0 60 dBA Noise Control C School District. 'AP 'icy ,f' L.LeV t C� Sheriff office - Admin. & Comm. Svcs, CA EPA Hazardous waste Site Alamo Improvement Association El Sobrante Plg. & Zoning Committee Traffic Zone A4 AC DOIT- Dep.Director, Communications ,CEQA Exempt CAC R-7A Alamo Categorical Exemption Section Com unity Organiztions 6.C�0611 � Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by lave or ordinance. Please send co ies of your response to the Applicant & Owner. No comments on this application. Our Comments are attached Comments. Signa _ i7l (" ' �'' Ag,en'y S:current planning/templates/forms/agency comment request Date �f Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. nffir-P iq rincPH the 1.qt '�rrl A nth i+ririau.q of Par.h month CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 255 GLACIER DRIVE,MARTINEZ,CALIFORNIA DATE: April 13, 2004 TO: Bob Drake,Project Planner, Community Development Department FROM: Paul R. Detj ens,Associate Civil Engineer,Flood Control q11;9 SUBJECT: 30-Day Comments:MS 08-04, 1900 Las Trarnpas Road,Alamo FILE: 1003-08-045 1003-38-03 We have reviewed the vesting tentative map for the three-unit development,Minor Subdivision 08-04,located in Alamo,which we received on March 29,2004. We commented January 15,2004,on the previous plan for this property, which was outlined on the vesting tentative map for Minor Subdivision 38-03. Our 30-day comments are as follows: 1. The proposed project is located within Drainage Area 13 (DA 13), for which a drainage fee is due in accordance with Flood Control Ordinance Number 86-36. The Board of Supervisors previously adopted this fee and by ordinance, all building permits or subdivision maps filed in this area are subject to the provisions of the drainage fee ordinance. The fee for this project is based on $0.17 per square foot of newly created impervious surface area. Based on the lot sizes on the tentative map, we estimate the drainage fees to be approximately$5,500. This fee pays for drainage improvements that help mitigate the increased runoff generated by new development. These fees should be collected during the development process prior to filing the parcel map. 2. The District is not the approving local agency for this project as defined by the Subdivision Map Act.As a special district,the District has an independent authority to collect drainage fees that is not restricted by the Subdivision Map Act. The District regularly adjusts its drainage fees to reflect increasing construction costs. The drainage fee rate does not vest at the time of tentative map approval. The drainage fees due and payable will be based on the fee in effect at the time of fee collection. 3. The development is in the San Ramon Creek watershed. We recommend that all developments in the San Ramon Creek watershed be required to mitigate their adverse drainage impact upon the natural creeks. Toward that end,we recommend the following be added to the Conditions of Approval for the application. Mitigate the impact of additional storm water runoff from this development on San Ramon Creek by either of the following methods: Removing I cubic yard of channel excavation material from the inadequate portion of San Ramon Creek upstream of Livorna Road for each 50 square feet of new impervious surface area created by the development. All excavated material shall be disposed of offsite by the developer at his cost. The site selection, land rights, and construction staking will be by the Flood Control District. OR,UPON WRITTEN REQUEST BY THE DEVELOPER Provide for a cash payment in lieu of actual excavation and removal of material from the inadequate portion of San Ramon Creek upstream of Livorna Road. The cash payment will be calculated at the rate of$0.10 per square foot of new impervious surface area created by the development. The added impervious surface area created by the development will be based on the Flood Control District's standard impervious surface area ordinance. The Flood Control District will use these funds to work on San Ramon Creek annually. 4. If the developer chooses to pay the San Ramon Creek mitigation fee,calculations for total impervious surface should be prepared and submitted to the Flood Control District. 5. The.developer should design and construct storm drain facilities to adequately collect and convey stormwater runoff,without diversion of the watershed,entering or originating within the development to the nearest adequate man-made drainage facility or natural watercourse. If you have any further questions,please call me at(925)313-2394 or Wes Cooley at(925) 313-2304. PRD:WC:cw G:\GrpData\FldCtl\CurDev\CITIES\Alamo\MS 08-04.doc c: G.Connaughton,Flood Control B.Faraone,Flood Control E.Whan,Engineering Services K.Fernandez,Accounting Debolt Civil Engineering 811 San Ramon Valley Blvd.,Suite 201 Danville,CA 94526 2 Dennis M. Barry,AlCP Comrnuniily Contra Community Development Director Development Costa Department County r County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing lo Martinez,California 94553-0095 0. (9250)335-1210 Date: Phone: AGENCY COMM ENT REQUEST We request your comments regarding the attached application currently under re Tiejr. DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows: Building Inspection HSD,Environmental Health,Concord Project Planner HSD,Hazardous Materia1%.f,,,.j PAY -Flood Control (Vh1lSize) County File" � _! �.- PIW -Engineering Svcs (Full Size) Number: �` � ��l r�+�► � �� �- Date Forwarded ,D PINIT Traffic(Reduced) Prior To �J-q P/W Special Districts (Reduced) I Comprehensive Planning We have found the following special programs Im Redevelopment Agency apply to this application: Historical Resources Information System CA Native Amer. Her. Comm, Redevelopment Area CA Fish & Game, Region "S. US Fish & Wildlife Service Active Fault Zone Fire District.St`v*.' Sanitary District Flood Hazard Area,Panel# '�- t Y, Water District, City b0,Q\/kLL_C_, %P3 60 dBA Noise Control School District.S'A 6.) V 4 vo i~��: Office -Admin. & Comm. Svi CA EPA Hazardous Waste Site Alamo Improvement Association El Sobrante Plg. & Zoning Committee Traffic Zone MAC DOIT-Dep.Director, Communications CEOA Exempt CAC R-7A Alamo Categorical Exemption Section Cam?Z.nity Orgamztions, 'I"ti- Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance. Please send copies-of your response to the Applicant & Owner. ./-'No comments on this application. Our Comments are attached (N Comments: C p i Signature • Agency, oF f S:current.planning/templates/forms/alyenc)? Date e e) . comment request Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month IV A N MON VALLE Y FIRE PR 0 fi E fiION DIS fiRICT "za PROJECT NAME MADDEN-PAULUS PROJECT FP # 03327 ADDRESS 1900 LAS TRAMPAS RD. X-REF.# CONTACT: BOB DRAKE PHONE: OCCUPANCY CLASS R-3 DESCRIPTION -SINGLE FAMILY ]HOME CONSTRUCTION TYPE VN DESCRIPTION WOOD FRAME CHECK ONE: ❑ NEW CONST F-1 TENANT IMP Z PLANNING APPLICATIONS F] ADDN F1 AFES ❑ FIRE ALARM F-1 OTHER RT T),/UT A"KT A C,*P'KT("V PrVN.TTI? A PnQT A (--%C)T T\TTV ApN.T44- ✓A-d.&_/ JL_ I AGENCY# RZ 04-3144 DP 04-3025 MS 04-0008 APPLICABLE CODES/ORDINANCES 2001 CBC-CFC SRVFPD, ORD. #18 ADD'L INFO: BLDG AREA FLR AREA 3 LOTS # OF FLRS SPECIAL FEES WATER ACCESS EBMUD ACCESS GATES LOCK BOX OTHER REVIEWED BY: MIKE MENTINK (DJ) DATE APRIL 27, 2004 ATTENTION: Bob Drake FIRE DISTRICT COMMENTS: 1. Verify that an emergency vehicle easement exists over the existing fire trail. 2. Provide access to open space and fire trails that may be obstructed by the new development. (CFC, 2001, Sec. 902, S.R.V.F.P.D. Ord. #1 8)(S-4) 3. Fire apparatus roadways (public, private streets, roads and in some instances driveways used for vehicle access) shall extend to within 150 ft. (45.72 m) of any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of any building (CFC, .,- 1")001, Sec. 902.2.1).(S-5) 4. Fire apparatus roadways in excess of 150 ft. (45.72 m) in length shall make provisions for approved fire apparatus turnarounds. (CFC, 2001, Sec. 902.2.2.4)(S-6) 5. Fire apparatus roadways (public, private streets, roads, and in some instances driveways used for vehicle access) shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet (6 m) and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches (4 m). Streets under 3 6 feet (I I m) shall have red curbs and be posted with Sims or red curbs and stenciled on one side and under 28 feet(8.5 m) on both sides of the street. Stencil and signs shall read as follows: "NO STOPPING FIRE LANE- CVC 22500.1". (CFC, 2001, Sec. 902.2.2.1)(S-7) 6. Fire apparatus roadways (public,, private streets, roads and in some instances driveways used for vehicle access) shall be capable of supporting the imposed weight of fire apparatus (40,000 pounds) and shall be provided with an all weather driving surface. Only paved or concrete surfaces are considered to be all weather driving surfaces. (CFC, 2001, Sec. 902.2.2.2)(S-8) 7. Fire apparatus roadways (public, private streets, roads and in some instances driveways used for vehicle access) serving up to 2 dwelling units shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 16 feet (5m) and a minimum unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches (4m) (CFC, 2001, Sec. 902.2.1 and Sec. 902.2.2.1)(s-9) 8. The maximum grade for a fire apparatus roadway is 20%. Roadways with grades of 15-20 %shall either be grooved concrete or rough asphalt. Grooved concrete shall be 1/4"wide, 1/4" deep, and spaced 3/4" on center. If rough asphalt is used, provide a letter stamped by the civil engineer stating that the skid resistance is better than or equal to the grooved concrete specification. The rough asphalt surface alternative also has to be approved by the appropriate city, town or county department. (S.R.V.F.P.D. Ord. #18, CFC, 2001, Sec. 902.2.2.6)(S-10) 9. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN: Fire apparatus roadways (public or private streets or roads used for vehicle access) shall be installed and fire hydrants in service prior to commencement of framing: PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF FRAMING, CONTACT THE SAN RAMON VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT TO SCHEDULE AN INSPECTION OF ROADWAYS AND FIRE HYDRANTS. (CFC, 2001, Sec. 8704)(S-11) 10. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN: Provide a weed abatement program before, during and after construction. Maintain grass or brush clearance of 1.00 ft (30.48 m) from combustible construction and 30 feet (9.144 m) from street and property lines. (CFC, 2_001, Sec. 1103.2.4, S.R.V.F.P.D. Ord. #18)(s12) 11. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, submit (2) full sets of building plans to the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District for review and approval. (CBC, 2001 Sec. I. S.R.V.F.P.D. Ord. #18)(p-Is) Supplemental "Fuel Modification" criteria available upon request.(p-19) 12. Homes constructed of type V NR under 3600 square feet (334.5 square meters), a minimum 1500 gpm (63 liters per second) fire flow at a minimum 20 psi for a two hour duration shall be standard. Homes constructed of type V NR 3600 square feet (334.5 square meters) and under 4800 square feet (446 square meters), a minimum 1750 gpm (95 liters per second) fire flow at a minimum 20 psi for a two hour duration shall be standard. Homes from 4800 square feet (446 square meters) to 5000 square feet (465 square meters), a minimum of 2000 gpm (I 10 liters per second) at 20 psi for two-hour duration shall be standard. Homes over 5000 square feet (465square meters) refer to CFC Table A-III-A-I. (CFC 1998, Appendix III- A5) Homes of 5000 or more square feet (465 square meters) shall have installed an approved residential automatic fire extinguishing sprinkler system. Provide flow data from EBMUD to demonstrate that the fire flow is adequate. (P-23) 13. Any/all gates across Fire Jistrict access ways shall have a minnnum 12 foot (3.7 meters) clear, unobstructed linear width and a clear vertical height of 13 feet 6 inches (4.1 meters). All locking devices shall provide for Fire District emergency access. All gate plans shall be approved by San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District prior to construction. (CFC 2001, Sec. 902.2.2.7, S.R.V.F.P.D. Ord. #18) (P-27) 14. Residential Automatic Fire Extinguishing Sprinkler Systems are required in residential occupancies of 5,000 sq. ft. or more(464.5 sq.m.). (S.R.V.F.P.D. Ord. #18)(P_35) 15. Plans are acceptable contingent upon compliance with the above-listed comments.p 100) 16. Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve any aspects of the design or installation that do not strictly comply with all applicable codes and standards. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District is not responsible for inadvertent errors or omissions pertaining to this review and/or subsequent field inspection(s) i.e., additional comments may be added during subsequent drawing review or field inspection. Please call if there are any questions.(c-106) Mike Mentink, Deputy Fire Marshal San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District 925-838-6686 No Fee STATE OF CALIFORNIA--THE RESOURCES Xx%-ACY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGOM Governor DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION SANTA CLARA UNIT 15670 Monterey Rd. Morgan Hill,Ca 95031 Webefte:wmfirexa-gov 29 PH (408)779-2121 November 23,2004 Mr. Michael Henn Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. 651 Pine St. Martinez, Ca 94553 Subject: File# MS040008 Mr. Henn, I have visited the site and reviewed the plans for Mr. Palmer Madden's proposed project on Las Trampas Road. After discussing the project with Mike Mentink, Deputy Fire Marshall, San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, I belive that this project meets the intent of Public Resources Code 4290. Robert Van Wormer Battalion Chief CDF Santa Clara 11851 Marsh Creek Rd. Clayton, CA 94517 (925)672-6400 (408)472-1616 Cell CONSERVATION IS WISE-KEEP CALIFORNIA GREEN AND GOLDEN, ALAMO KPQ0VEK..._ff Foc rine Country W% p.O. BQx 271 * ALAMO, 01-LIPOWA 94507 * (925) 866-3606 } 04 JUN -9 PM 1: 26 May 23, 2004 BY FAX TO 335-1222 Community pDept.Development } 651 Pine St., 4 Floor, N. wing Martinez, CA 94533-0095 Attn: Bob Drape R e: VR 00004-1014 1900 Las Trampas Rd Request to review an application for the rezoning of a 5.8 acre parcel from A-2 (min. 5 acres) to R-65 (min. 65,000 sq. ft.) and a minor sub- division division of the property(roi l d s►ilig1e --a-- i int 3 paI U I �a�y Ing ii� size from 2.8 acres to 1.5 acres. A-2 zoning. Dear Mr. Drake: Subject application was reviewed by the Alamo Improvement Association's Planning Committee on May 23th, 2004, and by our board the following night. Application has been reviewed at several committee meetings. The committee found that the surrounding areas have a mix of A2 and R65 zoning. The proposed subdivision would be considered a transition area and would not materially affect the density of the area. The application is recommended for approval with the following conditions.- 1) onditions:1) Maximum height for all structures shall be no more than 28 ft. 2) There shall be no second units permitted. . 3) The actual location of the buildings on the proposed building pads, architecture and landscaping plans shall be subject to review by the AIA. 4) All retaining walls shall be within the proposed building pads 5) No structures to be placed closer than 10 ft. to the roadway serving lots A& B and closer than 5 ft. for lot C shall be allowed. 6) Applicant is to secure a County approved drainage plan prior to commencement of construction. The applicant agreed to the above conditions at our meeting. Sc rely, Joger F. mit , Chairman Planning Committee cc- AIA Secretary Debolt Civil Engineering Palmer Madden & Susan Paulus FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT 699 Old Orchard Drive, Danville, California 9452 664AY4 P30,0,45 (925) 552-5986 • FAX (925) 552-0598 �;tUJtM f May 21,2004 Bob Drake,Planning Division Contra Costa County County Administration Building 651 Pine Sreet 4''Floor,North Wing Martinez CA 94553-U0095 RE: County File Number DP 043025,MS 040008,Assessor's Parcel Number 198-220-009 Bob, Thank you for allowing the District the opportunity to conunent on the above-mentioned project. The project located at 1900 Las Trampas Road,Alamo,CA,is within the San Ramon Valley Unified School District. The resident schools for this project are Rancho Romero Elementary, Stone Valley Middle,and San Ramon Valley High School. Due to overcrowding in the District it is possible that students residing in this subdivision may be diverted to other schools. The project will be subject to higher developer fees as a result of the impact of Senate Bill 50(Greene) on new residential developments. SB50 states that if the District conducts a School Facilities Needs Analysis report and meets certain other requirements it may impose a statutory developer fee that may be significantly higher than those previously permitted Level I fees of$4.24 per square foot of residential and$0.34 per square foot of commercial development. On June 24,2003,the Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 102/02-03,Establishing School Facility Fees in Accordance With The Provisions of Senate Bill 50. Based on the School Facilities Needs Analysis Report,dated May 8, 2003,the District is justified in collecting Level 11 Developer Fees of$4.62 per square foot of construction for single-family housing and$2.20 per square foot for multi-family housing. This report was unanimously approved by the Board of Education on June 24,2003, and became effective immediately. Therefore, the above-mentioned project is subject to the higher fees. Should you have any questions or require additional information,please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Cheryl Harton Facilities Technician PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: July 29, 2004 TO: Mike Henn, Project Planner, Community Development FROM: Keith Hoey, Engineering Staff, Engineering Services SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION MS 04-0008 STAFF REPORT & CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (DeBolt Civil Engineering/Las Trampas Rd./Alamo/AP# 198-220-009) FILE: MS 04-0008 We have reviewed the application and revised tentative map received by your office on July 26, 2004 and submit the following comments: Background The proposed project is a three parcel subdivision at 1900 Las Trampas Road (a private road) in the Alamo area. Traffic and Circulation The site is accessed via a private road off of Las Trampas Road. Dedication of right of way and construction of frontage improvements do not apply to this project. The proposed private road shall be constructed in accordance with the Board of Supervisors adopted policy on "Private Rural Road Standards". The proposed road width and alignment shown appear to comply with these requirements. The substandard easement width of 25 feet has been deemed adequate by the Fire District. A portion of the proposed private road passes through a restricted development area deeded to the County. There is a recorded 25-foot access easement to allow construction of a road in this area (see 160 PM 45). The restricted area is a "view easement" in which a structure shall not be more than 25 feet in height. Drainage Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code requires all storm water entering and/or originating on this property to be collected and conveyed without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate storm drainage system which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. Las Trampas Creek, which is adjacent to Las Trampas Road along the subject property, is the point of discharge for a majority of the proposed drainage systems affiliated with the project. 4i!7/3 EBMUD REVIEW OF AGENCY PLANNING APPLICATION TH1S ISNOT-A PROPOSAL TO PRONTO t , Ptl ; • I The technical data supplied herein is based on preliminary information,is subject to revision and is to be used for planning purposes ONLY. DATE 10/29/03 EBMUD MAP(S) 15546492 EBMUD FILE: S-7624 AGENCY: Community Development Department AGENCY FILE: 030019 ® TENTATIVE MAP Contra Costa County ❑ DEVELOPMENT PLAN Att: Donna Allen ❑ REZONING/GPA 651 Pine Street, 4t'Floor ❑ OTHER Martinez, CA 94553 Mr^L„'".AM'r- !ar.;es E.Digins OWNER: Palmer B.Madden Et Susan L. Paulus DeBolt Civil Engineering 1900 Las"frampas Road 811 San Ramon Valley Boulevard Alamo, CA 94507 Danville, CA 94526 DEVELOPMENT DATA LOCATION: 1900 Las Trampas Road,Alamo Application to subdivide 6 acres into four single family residential TOTAL ACREAGE 4.6 ac NO. OF UNITS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT 4 ® Single Family ❑Multi-Family ❑Commercial [--]Industrial ❑Other Residential WATER SERVICE DATA PROPERTY ® In EBMUD ❑ Requires Annexation ELEVATION RANGE OF STREETS ELEVATION RANGE OF PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED 444'-480' 444'-640' ® ( x ALL, PART) ❑ ( ALL, PART) of development may be served from of development may be served by EXISTING MAIN(S) MAIN EXTENSION(S) LOCATION OF MAIN (S): Las Trampas Road LOCATION OF EXIST. MAIN (S): PRESSURE ZONE SERVICE ELEVATION RANGE PRESSURE ZONE SERVICE ELEVATION RANGE Danville(F3A) 250'-450' CQMMENTS Property currently has water service.If additional water service is required,the applicant should contact EBMUD's New Business Office to request a water service estimate to determine the cost and conditions for providing additional water service to the property.Due to EBMUD's limited water supply, all customers should plan for shortages in time of drought. FOR INFORMATION REGARDING: THIS REVIEW CHARGES Et OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE Contact The EBMUD Water Service Planning Section (510)287-1084 Contact The EBMUD New Business Office(510) 287-1008 ® Water Service Planning / /County ® New Business Office ®Applicant /UAI�_ I ® BL ® Owner MARIE A.VALMORES, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER ❑ Aqueduct WATER SERVICE PLANNING SECTION i OD j OC) � i + r s SO'46'59"E 2724.51 r a 503.09 �m i N 51)5' ray T19' 1 R• z 703.84 182.56 ao w 360 •_ \bn' cm co UTI 2 a r., t"v s•; � i CJ'1 1 /J'�/yflf j ty ~•, � ,.t;P f is ^' �\./ "�£( �� 4�\ j.-+ _.,� s u cc // CO i r' p� n,.►za ��iI �.;n \ I" •.. � \ ,V A ( Z' \ �,','►� t, �� f� n i/ v� / !�'� +'r'> � n S5*#2 16"W 45'tt5 3 itsZ'lq` \bl,� i`� / r 3 / / r'+', � LP rPi'T 2 ��8 !7 01 i ( t•g cu Ot]ti• a`o I rn /�N y �O �,s�, r p 1 .t C' m °1• N to / � �, ?,N / '•a Oa x� �`'..?-'' „�°., \ •'`'�'^'y '.o, ,,��'+T G E_ .,r rr. Ln r4 x' it 4.. i., f `i .'!!v t n r '�^,•. ,:+ ,11^' r r N0'4-• a "�J I/P a / cas 1 s J /t cr J.'0� ril i444 20 U,E) :o, \ �! �! P / + 145'14-212A46 ru/ i8''J 15 W r > 131 �}j 1J\ �j�,/,��,��� r /q3 is u C:k V, / Q NO.4012"W /;7. I f 1p 4�I tr i11 \\ l \ r`- / w� �� 7.�" z o u �•'' /r / •� QO r N l '�: f J lJI,O y 1 rA t~ to S!?�..w!f//`"c'r' +f► �1 t^'" ff / � n'iG ?U2.8O \T� Jh� _ vd, r N5.1Q.7. pct! >> -� �l , q y #. \ F y+ 7#. c..rr rn N4 021 V'i l« ,.?. '3.27"[z� r: °"" /+ `�'+ f 20•`1 1 i ''r - ``�-m r"i 1 t1. to i' (up 's. ';A 'j+ / cru A s^+`—' / ., o �p /• acv N/ +.s'. .i Y, m x /J/J� t.n• � 1 fr' �o+ 9r rA m 49 rLAI r O 9rlmDWI ' o 1 f E '; J 1.E) F�t :ct CIA 250.15 t �"'/`\?1 ��1�i N5.11'51"[ l! 2SSq'rB / Rt tip C>' r ♦o nt ¢ _„V � rV 'r•`" ,�a 40• O i N.B N.0 Mp — r f r , '9 1 te \V h'-�r��4e• Ln tA ^r41 ID LP r�vi / a i �rjL' ybw o� coo e� °'rte a./ �, fo, r rT.1, M rw s�6.196 9q�p 1,1r% 4,l>. 9. ry ~ m n cy, /drn+ ! r~, ,A o d; Q"1 C>LPJ(7)n A l J fir. /t„ A C.0 2 f• em 31'4 /`t,�" :°� '► L` Q1-� rIlia r.s tt"' \\ -1 4'{4. .a:'`t Jyr•O dv r ' CZ o c p 1 ry 00 -p►�y _ cGrn 141 2* / ry w .jy ye coT I �.,V/ .rte��•�1 F �. i� l�f� y!� N Ln y. n i 4 C) n 'rte n 7C m "a ri D 0,34 w i p m " .-m''�`� i D f0 C3 rte, C)(Ag ver in�', d te mar"'•, O CG7 D �'► C1t `�' pA s to c`A I � le _0 Fri CA n � Drl fv i Af w r Ali ► i'r f/ /ir//jffl tlfJ'! t j r �" t i V y. �� � � � ter.,. t• 1� t"$I+ ///1 f f f;�,�1 r`f�f � r - 'r �jt. / -- aes `+40 s,,, t� ,,, ��,,. ��K1► � 1 r `'?• a � � � � �' } j , i` ! 'S�.!f J 1 '1 t t t i�(!;I ' � !f �� �` f low � ...•i ! r rY j t/ (�1 t 1 1 1,t?t � k. �` � �r , � .!'j, , is � � � 3 55 + t !I f r !I i r 1 jt r ! �C ./ , � tea+ •• - ' , i i :._.�. + t'fill (.!!!!r!r+l•/r!+/!t/1 ` t } t� �*a ' '. •"' �ili i ��/r l�r j t r/J / I ;J / .5' fs--r�- .. t� «� , tlii�l r!r' r!I rj.tl� � r ;•�- ! � :,,� fill dr- 1 r �trt� 1.• ;1111 wCie �,�` ' ' ( ir—fg• j rr riti�lril�ltl•-.t 1 1�4 � � ir. '. ca x _ f. �1ii1lltl� t�'4 iter ti ac ;cr r1 , I Jilt'' 109 • •, �' �1 '�� t�;., 't` 147 `•j< <I! �"°��:!•t!�r� ( ti w •. ; It f - \ / / 'r/!!�.v�///!! t1 Yf I(JJJJJJ/f/�f !j 1 y r '�� 1` ••..A' •r-•' -a +' f r f! �f,,"'"�-'"�„"� f'%tel''i!•1!i�l")!!1 1 '+}.., � }.. •-^ ;x:r�a--Nirr�+tt�>tr' i f�!rj � :�/j� '!!'."ii%''t�i i j i � � � /- {� / •"f".J 1.%!t tet/r � t-•..,,�_ /•!'/r/„� rr.,/(�• $�j• { i t I ' �,,,` � fes^\ t'�� L•I :s:.r!✓ 7 11 T'. ~ \r'`\"�1'-�\``'`ems •~"1w.� 1`." 1`,4' -' 1 t-1•-1 1!(S'� 'k► `•. �\.s.,,-�� i\11 a�4�t t�_ t I is l t/ 1•yrt\ t t ,'`�;L •y ��+t � � \1 ,J•..`� \ }•'''t�' a�r11`1!\1t`��``t`��`t;'Q�>>� t (;i 1 i !� '- �� . U i �. A' .' '. i l W� J :^►, '-„—`_+; .+• ,� 4 "�'$$•✓t`�t11�t t�t``'►�1`+�i'1 i jilt }11 � 1`�1 _,.. }" ''� `• � �pr " . � '°: _ �°\ •it" t1�°..°.r ,t;t�} i 1�}� �; , r II x. r j ...� .i• �.t� 1 t i �� i r 1 4 11 1 1�,1111 1 ii i��i!y r�j 4 r+ • � � _ �,,,+!,[ s-. - — '• \ r i-� t�• , = ti,l• i i1 lilili rl 1�It► ''+! r?• « «. \ _1 1=! i i 1 1 t. �1 I 1 !1 1 ! 1( � �! ' .r1 �� � i �• t 1 '-:� (r 1!! a J/j 1 1 j i t! �;!1 r t o c�j • F'� z !-` t t} !\r1'� 1 11�1tt(!!!lllllfljl�l[f'!ilil C N a �"� 4 1 i li 1i= yy.{r =' • � � _.` '• � '� � i .�� 1 � i 1�i r lr t!�i!!;i!+!�!ij 1 �ii.� •� ^�c,� �. __a � i n` :� 1 ► 1 ! r!;t1hrl 'tlltl:i�� ( ! jtk ' •4 O t�' « � f�J.rr �j.�!rr s tf 1 t r � r� � t `"r � Kr �t e:'��riif� � ♦/r/r;,�! Q Fat` "� i / t• �! // r ► +1 �„ �- x It It I l I- , i �1 t� r \A CL i i• �+ i i' t ` �� i iir y i ► W a LJ i'd;S�h`►'s�s� i = Q ti +1 w rt- '• � ", i t 4 i`i f "'�\� t \` ✓ 4 �1 'Q ' it LE • ',+� � 4'1•. :� + � j r 1 t tiff````•--�\���rJ\��,`\t\\\ ,,i•''' � i � .�• W �M� ss / I = , f��.!►9 d:l_.3.O i 31, M f i`'� �,i��,`� �,�*;• ,, _C ... --�+""-5►:-._ ; Ir 12'm so ca IL ILI if ~� •.. �,� �.sem;a' r !.. .n'� • r 3 ISIt CIL ti. ;4P IUL .16 - t � 1^ •f� fir" ��i��-•.��\ \� t 1�� � � � I / •� � � cry ` , •k ! �\ , ,\ I tL cc 40 CL dx_ Q CC 16 i 1 to 1 ior, qc uj ' •. � i f i+11;11 � � � '; ! � . •f i ... t� tel' •/ �i ! � f . ..=oma., \� �• � - •� i f - 1 w MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Com-m u n ity Contra Dennis M. Barry,AICD -Community Development Director Development Costa Departmenti -- ; 'County ; i ( i t ' County Administration Building L) L 651 Pine Street 4 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 "OUNTY CLERK Phone: (925) 335-1210DATE`bp�iw�� YPLN�� r•.. .-•'co DEPIU1 Tyr 'NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION County Files #RZ043144, #DP043025, MS040008 Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the "Guidelines for Implementation of the California Enviroiunental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County has prepared an initial study on the following pro)ect: The application relates to the approximately 5.8 acre property and pro)ect, located at 1900 Las Trarnpas Road, irk Tshe 11- ,incorporated community of Alamo (A-2.) (ZA: D-13) (CT: 3440.00) (Parcel 198-2.2.0 PALMER B. MADDEN & SUSAN L. PAULUS (Applicants and Owners); County File #RZ043144: The property, contaim*np, 5.8 acres is proposed to be rezoned from the A-2 k' (General Agricultural) zone to the P-1, Planned Development District. PALMER B. MADDEN & SUSAN L. PAULUS (Applicants and Owners); County File DP043025. The applicant requests approval of a preliminary and final development plan to develop a total of 3 single family residences on 5.8 acres, 2.21 acres are proposed to be dedicated as open space. PALMER B. MADDEN & SUSAN L. PAULUS (Applicants and Owners); County File #MS040008: The applicant proposes to subdivide one parcel of 5.8 acres, currently vacant, into 3 residential lots varying in size from 1.3 acres to 2.47 acres. There is proposed to be an internal private road system with an entry gate. Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month The proposed project has potential significant impacts on the environment in regards to Aesthetics, Geology, and Biological Resources. Revisions in the project plans and proposals agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a less than significant effect on the environment. A copy of the mitigated negative declaration and all documents referenced in the negative declaration may be reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department, and Application and Permit Center at the McBrien Administration Building, North Wing, Second Floor, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, during normal business hours. Public Comment Period - The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents extends to 5:00 P.M. Januar) 12, 2004. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address: Michael Henn 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 adoption at a meeting of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to be scheduled at a later date. It is anticipated that the hearing will be held at the San Ramon School Valley School District Board Room, 699 Old Orchard Drive Danville. Name: Michael Henn Title: Project Planner cc: County Clerk's Office (2 copies) Attachment: Site Plan with Area Map y Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: County File#DP043025, MSO40008, &RZ043144 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,North Wing-4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Michael Henn, Project Planner (925)335-1204 4. Project Location: 1900 Las Trampas Road, Alamo,CA 94507 APN: 198-220-009 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Palmer Madden& Susan Paulus 1900 Las Trampas Road, Alamo, CA 94507 6. General Plan Designation: Single Family Residential Very Low(SV) 0.2-0.9 dwelling units per acre), easterly half; Agricultural Lands (AL)0.2 dwelling units per acre), western half. 7. Zoning: A-2, General Agricultural District 8. Description of Project: The applicant proposes to subdivide one parcel of 5.8 acres into 3 residential lots varying in size from 1.3 acres to 2.47 acres, each lot to be developed with a detached single family home.There will be an internal private road system with an entry gate.The property is proposed to be rezoned from the A-2 (General Agricultural) zone to the P-1, Planned Development District. The development would also be subject to approval of a preliminary and final development plan. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is located on a major Northwest/Southeast trending ridge located east of Las Trampas Road. It is served by an unnamed private lane extending easterly and uphill from Las Trampas Road.Las Trampas Road extends westerly from Danville Boulevard. The road is public for the more easterly 0.7+/- miles, after which the road becomes a gated private road. The area is characterized by large newer homes on parcels ranging from 1.14 acres to 23.94 acres. Three adjacent parcels are also owned by subject applicant.These adjacent parcels are located to the south, west and east. The two to the east and to the west are vacant and are proposed to be developed along with the subject property and served by the same private lane. The parcel to the south fronts directly on Las Trampas Road and contains the owner's residence. Vegetation on site varies from oak woodland, to grassland and native chaparral. 10. Other public agencies whose approval Contra Costa County Public Works Department,San Ramon is required (e.g., permits, financing Valley Fire Protection District, Central Contra Costa approval, or participation agreement). Sanitary District, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning _ Transportation/ _ Public Services Population&Housing Circulation _ Utilities & Service X Geological Problems X Biological Resources Systems Water _ Energy & Mineral X Aesthetics Air Quality Resources _ Cultural Resources Mandatory Findings of _ Hazards _ Recreation Significance _ Noise No Significant Impacts Identified 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 have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment,but at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. CWW 19--- 0 q Signature Date - Michael Henn CCC Community Development Department Printed Name SOURCES In the process of preparing the Checklist and conducting the evaluation,the following references(which are available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department,651 Pine Street 4th Floor-North Wing,Martinez)were consulted: 1) Contra Costa County General Plan, 1996 2) Title 8,Planning and Zoning Ordinance 3) Title 9,Subdivision Ordinance 4) Community Development Department Digital Map Library 5) Site visit,June 2004 6) Minor Subdivision MSO40008 and Development Plan 043025&Project Description 7) Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines, 1999 8) Design Guidelines,submitted by applicant, dated July 14,2004. 9) Referral response from Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,dated September 15, 2004 10) Memorandum from San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, dated April 27,2004 11) Memoranda from the Alamo Improvement Association dated April 20,2004&May 23,2004. 12) Memorandum from California Historical Resource Information System, dated,April 2,2004 13) Referral Response from Contra Costa County Sheriff,dated September 8,2004 14) Soils Report by Engeo Inc.dated January 21,2004 and supplement dated August 30,2004. 15) Comments regarding soil stability from Darwin Myers and Associates,dated September 23, 2004. 16) State of California,Department of Conservation Important Farmland Map,2000 17) Contra Costa Water District Interim Service Area Listed Species Occurrences&Potential Habitat Map,2000 18) USGS, Las Trampas Ridge, 7.5 minute Quadrangle. 19) 2002 Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites(Cortese C)List—State of California 20) Arborist Report from Atlas Tree Service dated,April 26,2004 and November 8,2004 21) Public Works Department Findings and Conditions of Approval dated July 29,2004 22) Memorandum from the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District dated April 13, 2004 23) Referral Response from East Bay Municipal Utility District dated October 29,2003 24) Memorandum from the San Ramon Valley Unified School District dated May 21,2004 25) Memorandum from the California Department of Fish and Game dated April 9,2004 26) Memorandum from the California Native American Heritage Commission dated November 18,2003 27) htt-p:/'/WWW.bioloL:Ylcaldiversitv.org 28) Biological resources report LSA Associates,December 15, 2003 29) Alameda Whipsnake Mitigation Plan,LSA Associates,July 28,2004 30) Supplemental biological report from LSA Associates, October 14,2004. 31) Letter from the California Division of Forestry and Fire Protection dated November 23,2004. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a X scenic vista? (Source#1, 5, 8) b. Substantially damage scenic resources, X _ including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?(Source#1, 5, 6, 8 ) C. Substantially degrade the existing X visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source#5, 6, 8) d. Create a new source of substantial light X or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Source#6 ) SUMMARY:No Impact after mitigations are imposed. a) Potentially Significant Impacts: Discussion: A significant scenic vista as seen from central Alamo and I-680 could be affected by any prominent development of the main ridge located along the northeast margin of the subject property. The unnamed ridge is shown on the Contra Costa County General Plan (Figure 9-1) as one that is designated for protection from development that would harm its scenic quality(General Plan Policy 9-E). The proposed home sites are on the ridge top, or slightly off the ridge, to the west but, depending upon size, the structures would be substantially screened by existing trees from public viewing places to the east in the Alamo/Danville area,provided the houses are fairly short and designed so as to minimize off-site visibility. The majority of the screening trees are deciduous. Construction that might be permitted by unaltered Zoning Ordinance residential standards (i.e. 35' height ) would be in conflict with the General Plan policy regarding protecting designated scenic ridges from development. The new construction would be also visible at some distance from a few homes situated at similar or higher locations to the south and west within the Alamo Ridge development, as well as from areas within Las Trampas Regional Park, but the development would not be visible from any public roads.Visibility from the west is not considered a potentially significant impact. As a P-1 project the architectural compatibility and style can be regulated so as not to allow a substantial adverse impact.In order to achieve the desired protection from off-site visibility,the preservation of trees is required as well as controlling building heights.The normal design review process could regulate building colors, reflectivity of surfaces and lighting. The applicant has agreed to limit building height to 28 feet as compared to the 35 foot maximum of the residential zones Mitigation Measures: Building height shall be limited to 28 feet to prevent tall houses from silhouetting on the ridgeline. The reflectivity of exterior surfaces shall be limited to 50%. Additionally the screening oaks shall be retained and protected during construction. b) The removal of a small number of oak trees (11) with diameters from 12 to 32 inches is proposed to widen the existing jeep road in order to meet private street standards, but because the affected trees are distant from house sites, the removal would not have any significant effect on off-site visibility or expose the homes to greater visibility.As mitigation for the tree loss, planting of new trees and other landscaping shall be required. The replacement trees shall be provided on a minimum 3:1 basis and the trees shall generally match the species of those removed. C) The new residential development would create an appearance for the site that is similar to and consistent with the residential character of the adjacent area that has been developed within the 17-lot Alamo Ridge development.. d) The project could create new sources of glare during the day and new sources of light at night. The conditions of approval for the project will require that exterior colors and materials be of low reflectivity and that all nighttime exterior lighting to be directed downward and away from neighboring properties. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997) prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland, X or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?(Source#16) b. Conflict with existing zoning for X agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source# 5, 6, 16) C. Involve other changes in the existing X environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Source # 55 65 16) SUMMARY: No impact a—c) The site contains no farmland although it potentially could be used for grazing. The site is located in an area designated "Grazing Land" on the Contra Costa County Important Farmland 2000 Map.However,the map indicates that a 40-acre minimum grazing size unit is assumed. Subject site contains 5.8 acres.The Contra Costa County General Plan designates the area for Very Low Density single-family residential uses. III. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation X_ of the applicable air quality plan? (Source 1, 5, 7) b. Violate any air quality standard or X contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source# 1, 7) C. Result in a cumulatively considerable X net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Source# 15 3, 55 7) d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial _X pollutant concentrations?(Source# 5, 7) e. Create objectionable odors affecting a _X substantial number of people? Source#5, 6) Summary:Less Than Significant Impact a) The proposal does not conflict with implementation of an applicable air quality plan. b--c) The region is currently in non-attainment for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM,o). Additional cumulative vehicle trips would be produced that would add to existing air pollution levels.However,because of the small scale of the project,the impact would not be significant. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulates air quality in the Bay Area and has set thresholds of significance for air emissions.This project would not exceed those thresholds. Potential residential development of this site has been included as part of the Contra Costa County General Plan and therefore has been included in the air quality plan for the region. The residential use is not an inherent producer of PMIO pollution. However, construction activities could cause a temporary increase in ambient levels of PMIO. Because grading and excavation would be required, there could be an impact from dust and fine particulates commonly associated with earth movement. The project will be conditioned to require that Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation impact Impact measures be taken to reduce PM,o emissions during construction. These conditions will include,but may not be limited to,watering the site daily,washing tires to prevent tracking of mud and dirt, sweeping and collecting loose particles on-site and requiring that dump trucks be covered when hauling loose materials. The Building Inspection Department's Grading Division will also enforce measures to reduce particulate pollution. d) No sensitive receptors are located in the vicinity of the project.Although the site is within a lightly built up area,the actual construction will be separated from neighboring dwellings by considerable distance and topographical features. e) No objectionable odors will be emitted as a result of the project. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either X 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? (Source# 17, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30) b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any x riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or-by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?(Source# 5, 6) C. Have a substantial adverse effect on X 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?(Source# 5, 6 ) d. Interfere substantially with the movement X of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source# 17, 25, 27, 28, 29) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact e. Conflict with any local policies or x ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Source#5, 6, 20) f Conflict with the provisions of an x adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? (Source# I SUMMARY: Less than Significant when the indicated Mitigation Measures are imposed a) The applicant has submitted a biological report that does indicate that the site is potential habitat for species listed as Rare,Threatened,or Endangered by the State of California or the US Fish and Wildlife Service, namely the Alameda Whip Snake which is listed as threatened by both State and Federal agencies. There is also concern with the potential for there being special status plants on site. The removal of a small number of trees (11)may disrupt breeding raptors if grading or construction occurs during the breeding season. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO THE ALAMEDA WHIP SNAKE The biological report by LSA Associates identifies the site as potential habitant for the Alameda Whip Snake.They have been observed within 1000 feet of the site and the site contains habitat suitable for the snake. Development of three new large houses and the necessary access roads, utility trenching and accessory uses has the potential to cause a substantial adverse effect through habitat modification on the snake which is listed as Threatened by-both the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE ALAMEDA WHIP SNAKE: This Mitigation plan for the Alameda whipsnake includes preservation of lands as permanent open space and implementation of measures that will reduce or prevent take. Preservation will insure that open space areas within the range of the Alameda whipsnake will remain in their natural condition for continued use by the snakes. Measures to reduce or prevent take will ensure that individual animals within the local Alameda whipsnake population will not be killed during construction or after project development. Preservation Strategy The preservation component of this mitigation plan requires the purchase of off-site mitigation lands in an approved mitigation bank and the protection of undeveloped portions of the property with a conservation easement. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Off-site Land Purchase The project proponent, Palmer Madden will contribute the sum of$40,000(forty thousand dollars)to the purchase of credits in an approved Alameda whipsnake mitigation bank for the protection of whipsnake habitat as designated by the California Department of Fish and Game. Conservation Easement Lands Prior to clearing land, issuance of a building permit, or a grading permit, or recording of a Parcel Map,the applicant shall convey a conservation easement to Contra Costa County for the open space area identified on the Tentative Parcel Map using the scenic easement instrument approved by the Board of Supervisors. The easement instrument shall provide that no grading, other development activity or removal of trees may occur in that area without the prior written approval of the Zoning Administrator. The project will protect the 2.21 acres of the site which is not within the development envelopes of the lots as permanent open space. This conservation easement will be held by Contra Costa County. Measures to Prevent Take Specific protective measures will be implemented as part of the Project for all area that will be cleared during grading or construction. The project will incorporate the following measures into its development plans to reduce and/or prevent take of individual Alameda whipsnakes. Exclusion Fencing. Prior to any construction a fence will be placed around the construction area to prevent the entry of Alameda whipsnakes into the construction area. The fence will extend at least three feet above the ground with at least 6-inches buried underground. Funnel type exits that will allow animals to leave the construction area but prevent their re-entry will be placed along the fence at intervals of 50-feet. This fence will be erected prior to development activities and remain in place until all construction is completed. The fence may be temporarily removed during extended breaks in construction activity,but must be replaced prior to resumption of any construction activity. A biologist will be on site during all fence construction activities. This biologist will have the authority to halt fence construction,if necessary,to prevent take of Alameda whipsnakes and to relocate any snakes that may be in harms way during fence construction. After completion,the fence will be inspected weekly by a biologist to ensure its integrity. Trapping and Relocation. The area inside the exclusion fence, (the construction area)will be trapped using drift fences and funnel traps and all Alameda whipsnakes captured will be relocated outside of the construction area. Trapping shall be conducted pursuant to USFWS/DFG approved trapping protocols and details of the trapping protocol will be finalized in coordination with the Service and the Department. Trapping will be done by a USFWS approved biologist. A-10 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impa t Incorporation Impact Impact Biological Monitor. A biological monitor, approved by the Zoning Administrator but paid for by the applicant, shall be present in areas where clearing and grubbing of the project site is occurring and whenever grading activities area being conducted in areas adjacent to scrub habitat. The biological monitor shall have the authority and ability to halt grading and other construction activities as necessary to move to a safe location any Alameda whipsnakes encountered. A biological monitor shall brief the construction crew on the potential presence of Alameda whipsnakes in the Project area, and educate on-site workers in the identification and habitat requirements of Alameda whipsnakes,measures implemented to avoid and minimize take of Alameda whipsnakes,including the biological monitor's authority to halt grading and construction activities, and the ramifications of take of listed species. FUNDING MECHANISM The Project proponent will fund all of the mitigation work described in this Plan,including creation and monitoring of the mitigation areas and implementation of the construction protection measures. The plan will be submitted for review and approval of the California Department of Fish and Game, and U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. 1. Prior to impacting the Alameda whipsnake or its habitat,incidental take authorization (Section 7 consultation or Section 10 permit) or a"not likely to effect"letter would be required from USFWS. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a copy of incidental take authorization or a"not likely to effect"letter from the USFWS for the Alameda whipsnake. All measures required by USFWS to reduce, offset, or avoid impacts to the Alameda whipsnake shall be implemented prior to issuance of a grading permit. 2. Prior to impacting the Alameda whipsnake or its habitat,an "incidental take"permit(Section 2081 permit) or a letter of"no effect"regarding the Alameda whipsnake would be required from CDFG. In lieu of such a permit, CDFG may process a"consistency determination" pursuant to Fish and Game Code §2080.1. Such a determination would indicate that the State's interests in protecting State listed species are met by the federal biological opinion (i.e., the incidental take statement) issued by USFWS and thus no Section 2081 permit is required. Prior to issuance of a grading permit,the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a copy of an incidental take statement or consistency determination, or a letter of no effect from CDFG for the Alameda whipsnake. If CDFG issues a Section 2081 permit for the project, or processes a consistency determination, all mitigation measures required by CDFG to reduce, offset, or avoid impacts to the Alameda whipsnake shall be implemented prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. A-11 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Nesting Raptors Raptor Protection Measures related to the Removal of Eleven Trees POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS: Eleven trees are proposed to be removed primarily to widen the existing jeep road to private road standards. These trees on the project site could be used by a variety of raptor species as nest sites. Construction could disrupt a nesting attempt. Mitigation Measures: 1 If construction activity(grading,road construction,home construction) occurs within the raptor nesting season (February 1 to July 31), a pre-construction survey of the property for nesting raptors will be conducted within 15 days prior to the beginning of construction. 2. If raptors are nesting on the project site, a minimum 250-foot non-disturbance 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(s) (a minimum of once a week)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. Once the raptor biologist determines that the eggs have hatched and the chicks are old enough to thermoregulate on their own(typically at two to three weeks of age),the fenced buffer zone may be reduced to 100 feet,provided the adults can tolerate the reduced buffer area. A qualified raptor biologist would need to monitor for signs of distress in the adults. No disturbance shall occur within the buffer zone until a qualified raptor biologist has determined that the young have fledged(left the nest), and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones,typically by August 1st. Special Status Plants POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS: The project site could support one or more special status plant species. Project grading,road construction and home construction on the site could result in the loss of these plants. As indicated in the Biological Resources report, the project site is unlikely to support any of the special status plants that could potentially be present due to the absence of a specialized substrate and the impact of long-term grazing of the property (currently by horses). LSA conducted surveys for the one species known to be present in the immediate project area in 2004 (Diablo helianthella) and it was not detected. Other late season blooming species which could potentially occur on the site should also have been detectable at this time. These include Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha A-12 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact macradenia),robust monardella(Monardella villosa ssp. globosa), and Gairdner's yarnpah (Perideria gairdneri). These species were also not observed during this late season survey. The following mitigation measures are intended to address the possibility that one or more of these species could occur here. MITIGATION MEASURES: I. Conduct two special status plant surveys on the project site in early April and early May during the blooming season of the potentially present spring blooming species. 2. If one or more populations or individual plants are found,implement the following: A. If the plant is federally or state listed,redesign the project to avoid the impact or consult with the appropriate federal (USFWS)or state(CDFG) agency to develop a specific mitigation plan that will establish a new stand(s)in locations suitable for the long-term survival of the plant(s). The mitigation population will have a target ratio of 2:1,two plants at mitigation site for every plant removed by the project after a five years monitoring period. Seed or propagules will be collected from on or within one mile of the project site. B. If the plant has no formal protection,minimize or eliminate the loss of individual plants by attempting to redesign the project. If avoidance or minimization is not possible,institute a plan to establish the same number of plants to be lost at a new location on the project site using seed or propagules collected from on or within one mile of the project site. Establishing a new stand of the plants will require preparation of a plan to be submitted for review and approval by the County. IV. Biological Impact Analysis (continued) b) Riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities do not occur directly on the site. There is a small unnamed creek along Las Trampas Road that is crossed by the existing easterly access road,but the project does not include new work in this area. C) No development is proposed within the creek channel. d) The site is located in a developed low density residential area.Development would not interfere with the migration of fish,birds or other animals. The site is potential habitat for the Coopers Hawk which is listed as a species of special concern by the State of California, and this species does Migrate,but the small number of trees to be removed would not appreciably impact the availability of nesting sites.Mitigation measures are considered under(a) above. e) Although I I trees are proposed for removal the removal is subject to the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance,the ordinance provides for review of tree removal when part A-13 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact of another discretionary development application,such as a subdivision. Therefore the proposal does not conflict with any such policies or ordinances in that the trees to be removed are addressed in the tree removal request which is part of this project application. While the trees are native oaks they are largely in well wooded areas and would be replaced with new oaks. f) There is no such plan for this area. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Guidelines Section 15064.5? (Source# 12,26) b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the x significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? (Source# 12,26) C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X_ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Source# 12) d. Disturb any human remains, including X_ those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Source #12, 26 Summary:No Impact a—b) A copy of this application was forwarded to the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) for comments. CHRIS stated that the site has a low possibility of containing historic resources and recommend no further study. The applicant has provided a response form the Native American Heritage Commission which notes that there are no recorded Native American sites in or adjacent to the subject area. C) No unique geological features are apparent on-site. Should paleontological resources be uncovered during grading or other on-site excavation(s),earthwork within(30)yards of these materials shall be stopped until a certified professional archaeologist/paleontologist has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s)if deemed necessary. d) No human remains are apparent on-site. Should remains be discovered,, construction work shall be stopped and the coroner shall be contacted immediately, per Public Resources Code Section 15064.5(e). A-14 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project? A. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 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 loss 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 property? X E. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? X A-15 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Discussion Al. The nearest fault considered active by the California Geological Survey(formerly California Division of Mines &Geology)is the Calaveras fault,which is mapped approximately 3 miles southeast of the site. No faults are mapped through the site and the risk of fault rupture is nil. A2. According to the Safety Element (p. 10-23)the site is in an area rated"moderately low" damage susceptibility. The risk of structural damage from ground shaking is regulated by the building codes and County Grading Ordinance. The UBC requires use of seismic parameters which allow the structural engineering analysis for buildings to be based on soil profile types (see UBC, 1997, Volume 2,Div. 5,page 2-23). Quality construction, conservative design and compliance with building and grading regulations can be expected to keep risks within generally accepted limits. A3. According to the Safety Element (p. 10-27),the site is rated"generally low"liquefaction potential. Because risks are relatively low, quantitative geotechnical evaluation of this hazard is not required. Experience has indicated that in the "generally low"category only 1 acre out of every 1,000 acres has the unique set of conditions needed for liquefaction to be a hazard. A4. A. With regard to landslides,the site has been mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey (Nilsen, 1975) and the California Geological Survey (Majmundar, 1996). This published mapping indicates suspected slides within the area planned for development or general vicinity. However, a relative landslide susceptibility map issued by the California Geological Survey classifies most of the site "highest landslide susceptibility." B. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPPO)is required for projects that disturb 1 acre or more. The SWPPP outlines the BMP's that are proposed to control both short-term (construction period) and long-term storm water pollution. Similarly, an Erosion Control Plan is routinely required for at-risk projects in hillside areas that disturb 1 acre or more. According to the Soil Survey of Contra Costa County,the risk of erosion is high. C. Review of the existing geologic data by the County peer review geologist indicates that the project is feasible. However, the slopes exceed 26 percent over most of the site, and in areas of steep slopes General Plan Policy 10-29 discourages extensive grading. The details of the specific standards and criteria for site grading, drainage and foundation design are to be provided in the Final Geotechnical Report,which is routinely made a condition of approval. D. According to the Soil Survey of Contra Costa County (page 90, Table 6),the site soils can be expected to exhibit a low to moderate expansion potential. Expansive soils shrink and A-16 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact swell as a result of moisture changes that can cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements and structures founded on shallow foundations. Building damage due to volume changes associated with expansive soils can be reduced by depending the foundations to below the zone of moisture fluctuation, i.e.,by using drilled piers for dwellings and by placing slabs on select, granular fill. Detailed foundation design criteria are not provided by the Engeo feasibility report. It should be recognized that expansive soils are an engineering issue, and not a land use or feasibility issue. E. Each residence is to be served by a public sewer system. Environmental Analysis Impact. There are landslides mapped on the site, and the hillside area is classified as highest landslide susceptibility. However,the building sites are not in the slide areas,but they may be threatened by slide activity, either upslope or downslope.Nevertheless,based on subsurface data and engineering analysis, Engeo concludes that the project is feasible. However,the Engeo reports do not provide specific standards and criteria for site grading, drainage and foundation design. The preliminary data provided by the applicant needs to be confirmed by a final geotechnical report. Mitigation Measures A. At least 30 days prior to recordation of Parcel Map, submit afinal geology, soil, and foundation report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for review and approval of the Planning Geologist. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report. This report shall include evaluation of seismic settlement and other types of seismically-induced ground failure by recognized methods appropriate to soil conditions discovered during subsurface investigation. It shall also evaluate the hazard posed by debris flows and undocumented fills and provide appropriate recommendations for remediation of geotechnical/geologic hazards. It shall also provide recommendation for grading,foundation and drainage that are sensitive to geologic constraints. B. In conjunction with the geotechnical engineer,provide improvement plans for the private road and utility corridor that is needed to comply with the private road standards of Contra Costa County. C. Applicant shall record a statement to run with deeds to property 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. D. Grading shall be kept to a practical minimum. Where needed, retaining walls or reinforced earth A-17 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact can be utilized with proper design. E. All graded slopes shall be contour-rounded to mimic natural terrain features. F. Prior to issuance of the grading permit,provide a grading remediation plan and report for the approval of the Building Inspection Department(BID). The report shall evaluate all major graded slopes and open space hillsides whose performance could affect planned improvements. The slope stability analysis shall be performed for both static and dynamic conditions using an appropriate pseudo-static horizontal ground acceleration coefficient for earthquakes on the Calaveras fault in accordance with standard practice as outlined in DMG Special Pub. 117, 1997 or equivalent. G. During grading, the geotechnical engineer shall observe and approve all keyway excavations, removal of fill and landslide materials down to stable bedrock or in-place material, and installation of all subdrains including their connections. All fill slope construction shall be observed and tested by the project geotechnical engineer, and the density test results and reports submitted to the County to be kept on file. Cut slopes and keyways shall be periodically observed and mapped by the project geotechnical and civil engineers who will provide any required slope modification recommendations based on the actual geologic conditions encountered during grading. Written approval from the Contra Costa County BID shall be obtained prior to any modification. H. Regular progress reports and a grading completion report shall be submitted to BID by the project geotechnical engineers. These reports shall include the results and locations of all compaction tests, as-built plans of all landslide repairs and fill removal including geologic mapping of the exposed geology of all excavations showing cut cross-sections and sub-drain depths and locations. The lists of excavations approved by the engineering geologist shall also be submitted. Building permits shall not be issued without documentation that the grading and other pertinent work has been performed in accordance with the geotechnical report criteria and applicable Grading Ordinance provisions. L During grading, unstable colluvial soils and landslide deposits within developed portions of the properties shall be re-graded to effectively remove the potential for seismically induced landslides in these materials, as recommended in the approved geotechnical reports. J. All measures identified in the approved geotechnical reports to provide for slope stability shall be incorporated into the final grading plans. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the County Geologist shall review the plans to verify that these measures are incorporated and that there is no unacceptable hazard from unstable slopes or post-development grading. K. Prior to issuance of building permits on parcels of this subdivision, submit an as-graded report of the engineering geologist and the geotechnical engineer with a map prepared by a civil engineer showing engineering geology/lithology details,final plans and grades for any buttress fill with. its A-18 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact IncoEporation Impact Impact keyway, subsurface drainage, subdrain cleanouts, disposal and pickup points, any other soil Y improvements installed during grading, as surveyed by the project survey or civil engineer, and in accordance with requirements of the geotechnical engineer. 2. Expansive and Corrosive Soils Impact: The potential building sites and roadways are underlain by moderately expansive soils that are subject to soil creep. Further evaluation of foundations is warranted to address differential fill thickness, total and differential settlement within building pads,and measures to control moisture around foundations, and other foundation-related issues. Additionally,the Soil Survey of Contra Costa County classifies the soils as having a high corrosion potential to uncoated steel and concrete. Mitigation Measures A. Consistent with the final geotechnical report,specific criteria and standards for foundations shall be provided based on the results of the subsurface exploration and laboratory testing. These measures shall be implemented during design and construction where appropriate to minimize expansive soil effects on structures.Potential foundation systems include pier and grade beam;use of appropriate engineering design measures to control vertical and horizontal movement of slabs;pad overcutting to provide uniform swell potential; and soil subgrade moisture treatment. B. Prior to issuance of building permits or installation of utilities, chemical testing of representative building pad soils shall be submitted to determine the level of corrosion protection required for steel and concrete materials used for construction. The following measures shall be implemented where appropriate to protect against corrosion:use of sulfate-resistant concrete and use of protective linings to encase steel piping buried in native soils. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public X_ or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Source#6, 19) b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Source# 6, 19) C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle A-19 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact hazardous oracutelyhazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source#5, 6) d. Be located on a site which is included on a X list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65862.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source# 19) e. For a project located within an airport land X use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. (Source# 1, 5) f. For a project within the vicinity of a private X_ airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source# 5) 9. Impair implementation of or physically X_ interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source# 1, 6, 3 1) h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source# 6, 10, 3 1) SUMMARY: Less Than Significant Impact a) The proposed subdivision will not transport or dispose of hazardous materials. b) The proposed subdivision will not release hazardous materials into the environment. C) The site is not within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. d) The site is not listed on the State of California 2002 Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites (Cortese C)List. e--f) The site is not within proximity of an airport. g) The project would not interfere with implementation of an emergency response plan or evacuation plan. h) The project is located within the wildlands interface and is subject to wildland fires. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has reviewed the project and visited A-20 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact the site to determine compliance with the Open Space Fire Safe Regulations (Title 14: Division 1.5,Chapter 7,subchapter 1.Article 1-5). That agency reports that the project meets the intent of those regulations as well as Public Resources Code 4290.In addition a variety of fire protection measures including the provision of residential sprinkler systems are proposed and/or being required by the Fire Protection District so as to minimize the impact to less than significant. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or X_ waste discharge requirements? (Source#6, 21, 22) b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies _X 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 (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (Source#6) C. Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern 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? (Source#6,21,22) d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? (Source# 6,21,22) e. Create or contribute runoff water which X_ would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?.(Source#22) f. Otherwise substantially degrade water X A-21 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact quality? (Source#21,22) g. Place housing within a 100-year flood X hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Source#22) h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area X structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source #21, 22 ) I. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Source#22) j. Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? X (Source# 6,21) Summary:No Impact a) The residential use would not discharge wastewater.The new residences can be expected to produce a minimal amount of polluted runoff due to leaks from automobiles,use of backyard pesticides, etc. This pollution would be negligible and is considered insignificant. b) Water would not be drawn from an underground aquifer. The project would be served by a public water system(EBMUD). c—d) Drainage patterns would not be altered. The site currently drains towards its southwesterly boundary and that would continue. The project includes a drainage system that would exit onto properties to the south and west in a manner acceptable to the Public Works Department. The increase in impervious surface and the piped system will increase and accelerate the peak storm flows.The applicant will be required to submit an outfall facility with erosion control measures acceptable to the Flood Control District. e) The Ordinance Code requires that storm water runoff be collected and conveyed to an adequate natural watercourse or an adequate man-made system that empties into a natural watercourse. The project contains a piped drainage system. The project sponsor shall be required to verify the adequacy of the down-stream system to the satisfaction of the Flood Control District prior to filing the parcel map and construct new facilities as determined to be necessary. f) The project would not otherwise degrade water quality. The applicant has worked with the Flood Control District and agreed upon specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)requirements. These BMPs include: _ Stencil advisory warnings on all catch basins. Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. A-22 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Slope driveways and weakened plane joints to sheet flow onto planted surfaces where feasible. Shallow on-site swales. Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program to buyers. Other alternatives as approved by the Public Works Department. g—i ) No portion of the site that is within a 100-year flood hazard area. No development areas are threatened by flood hazards. j) Such events would not occur in the project area. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING—Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? X (Source# 5) b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, X policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including ,but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source# 1, 6) C. Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Source # 1) Summary:No.impact a) The proposal would not divide an established community. b) The project site is located on the boundary of two General Plan Land Use designations. The total number of units permitted is derived from the combination of two General Plan density designations to allow the creation of three lots and three dwelling units on the aggregate parcel size. Approximately two thirds of the property is planned Single Family Residential Very Low(0.2 to .99 units per net acre).The remainder is planned for Agricultural Lands(.2 units per acre).These calculations produce: 0.6 to 3 units from the SV area; .and 0.4 units from the AL area, adding up to 1.0 to 3.4 units. Therefore, approval of the project and density is not in conflict with plans, regulations or policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts. C) No such plans exist for the area. X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the A-23 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known X mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source# 1, 5) b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- X important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source# 1) SUMMARY: No Impact a—b) No mineral resources are located in the area. XI. NOISE-Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of X noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source# 1, 5) b. Exposure of persons to or generation of X excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? (Source# 5) C. A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source# 1, 5) d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase X in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source# 6) e. For a project located within an airport land X use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source# 1) f. For a project within the vicinity of a private -X - airstrip, would the project expose people A-24 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?(Source#1, 5) SUMMARY:Less Than Significant Impact a) The project site is not within or near exceeding the 60 dBA CNEL noise standards from 1-680, or Danville Blvd. b) The residential use would not produce substantial amounts of ground borne noise or vibrations. The existing conditions in the area would not expose future residents to substantial ground borne noise or vibrations. C) The residential use is not inherently noisy and would not lead to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the area. d) Noise from construction activities(grading,foundation work,framing,roofing,etc.)would temporarily increase the ambient noise level in the immediate area. Construction would be limited to daytime hours during weekdays and would be prohibited on weekends, which would lessen the impact on nearby residents as staff assumes that most people will be away from home during the day.In this case construction noise impacts are considered to be less than significant because of their short duration and low intensity.The project would also be subject to standard conditions of approval that relate to reduction of construction noise. e—f) The site is not near an airport or private airstrip. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an X area, either directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source#1, 5, 6 ) b. Displace substantial numbers of existing X housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source# 5, 6 ) C. Displace substantial numbers of people X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source#5, 6) Sumniga: No Impact A-25 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact a) The development of 3 residences consistent with the General Plan would not induce substantial population growth. b) The site contains no housing. C) No persons would be displaced as a result of the project. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services (Source# 10, 13, 24,): 1. Fire Protection? X 2. Police Protection? X 3. Schools? X- 4. Parks? X 5. Other Public facilities? X Summary:No Impact a. 1—2.The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District and the Contra Costa County Sheriff serve the site. This development is not anticipated to cause a substantial increase in demand for either service. The property is already taxed to support fire protection and that tax rate would increase with the higher tax assessment for the property upon development. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has reviewed the project and visited the site to determine compliance with the Open Space Fire Safe Regulations (Title 14: Division 1.5, Chapter 7, subchapter 1.Article 1-5). That agency reports that the project meets the intent of those regulations as well as Public Resources Code 4290. Development would be subject to Sheriff s Department fees.New facilities would be built according to community need. 3. School district fees for residential development would be assessed prior to issuance of building permits. The San Ramon Valley Unified School District has commented on this proposal. . 4. A park dedication fee in the amount of$2,000 per unit would be assessed prior to issuance A-26 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact of building permits for the purpose of mitigating impacts to park facilities. 5. The project is not anticipated to cause significant impacts to other public facilities. XIV. RECREATION - a. Would the project increase the use of X- existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Source#5, 6 ) b. Does the project include recreational X- facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source# 1, 6) Summary:No Impact a) The County Code requires that park dedication fees be paid to mitigate impacts to park facilities. Currently, $6,000 ($2000 per d.u) would be collected for this project prior to issuance of building permits. b) No common recreation facilities are proposed. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic which is X substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Source #6,21) b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, X a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency A-27 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact for designated roads or highways? (Source#21) C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, X including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Source# 1) d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design X feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous inter- sections) or incompatible uses(e.g., farm equipment)? (Source#6,21) e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X_ (Source# 10) f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Source#) 9- Conflict with adopted policies,plans, or X_ programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? (Source# 1, 5, 6) Summary:Less Than Significant Impact a—b) The traffic from the 3-lot project will not result in significant traffic impacts. C) The proposed buildings are not tall enough to affect air traffic patterns. d) No hazardous design features or incompatible uses are proposed. There is a potential that queuing cars at the entry gate could obstruct traffic along Las Trampas Road. The applicant shall provide at least 40 feet of space behind the gate to allow at least two cars to line up without blocking traffic. The sight distance at the intersection with Las Trampas Road will require approval of the Public Works Department. e) The Fire District is satisfied that widening the access road to 20 feet of paved width would provide adequate emergency vehicle access. f) While the project would comply with the normal single family residence 2:1 parking requirement, since the private access lane would not allow on-street parking a condition of approval shall be required to provide at least six spaces on each lot including tandem spaces. g) The development would not conflict with County policies, plans or programs regarding alternative transportation systems. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements X__ A-28 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Source# 9) 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?(Source#9, 23) C. Require or result in the construction of new _X stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source#21, 22) d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlement and resources, or are new or expanded entitlement needed? (Source#23) e. Result in a determination by the wastewater X 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? (Source #9) f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Source# 1) 9- Comply with federal, state and local statutes X— and regulations related to solid waste? (Source # 1) Summary:No Impact a) The operation would not discharge untreated wastewater. b5 d, e) The East Bay Municipal Utility District and the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District were notified of this project and submitted comments. Adequate capacity exists in both districts and that no new facilities are required. C) The Contra Costa County Flood Control District has responded that a contribution should be made to fund downstream improvements needed to mitigate the impacts on the San Ramon Creek drainage system. f—g) The development would produce normal household trash that would be dumped in an approved landfill. A-29 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - a. Does the project have the potential to degrade X the quality of the environment, 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? b. Does the project have impacts that are indiv- _X idually 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)? C. Does the project have environmental effects X_ which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? d. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, curtail the range of the environment, or to achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? SUMMARY:Less Than Significant Impact a. Based on the evaluation of this Initial Study, the proposed project would not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the natural environment. While the proposed 3-lot subdivision is located on a site that is environmentally significant because of biological resources and aesthetic impacts could be significant because the site is located on a scenic ridge,the mitigations imposed would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. During the construction phase of the project there is a potential for minor short-term effects, however,these possible impacts are considered less than significant and an expected part of construction and would be addressed by the conditions of approval to lessen the effects to the extent possible. With the mitigations provided regarding aesthetics,biological resources and A-30 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact geology, there would be no significant environmental impacts from the 3-lot subdivision. b. In relation to existing development and projects that have already been approve, the applicant proposes an infill project and the development of that proposed project would not have the potential to cause significant cumulative impacts. Relatively minor impacts such as air emissions and noise may occur from construction activities,but these effects would be of short duration and not cumulatively considerable. C. There would be no substantial adverse impacts on humans. d. With the mitigations agreed to and imposed and subject to the standard conditions of approval,the project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, curtail the range of the environment, or to achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long- term environmental goals GACurrent Planning\StffRpts/Initial StudyDP043025.doc A-31 Cd cu Cd co ti- to Cl C)6. 4--A C6A 0.) 4) ,00e cd C: 4.) 4- tn 0 t) . 1:5 co 0 Cd 4t: Cd 4) Cd co I (L) 00 tj Cd -,I Cq 4) Cd tn 00 �o cd 4.5 4-0 cd 0 cd Cd Cd ce. cd 0.) 0 Cd 0 tf) C4 0 ..-0 '.0 e c-- tp 0 Cd ."A%Z 1-0- Ln co tn 0111 X-" co --4 :-- t.- 0 ..— . Co Q) —Ca (n cd 00 C* C�- ca, tZ. in ctdcl, tn 4-1 C*-;�, C. En oti) 4�r 0 On ct3 tf) tn tA-A 0 (*- ;eo rA 0 ca cd C13 *-j Ln M C* C* td 46 Ln cd Ln 4�5 Q W.0 0 0.) Ct* -1.ZI 0.) :1 to C43 Cd ccs 0 ca t cn C) cd 06) 0 S Ca (n iz C/) co cd 0.) on En Poo C* 0.) cla ca 4-4 En cd co .(n C* 0 C13 C', C, co C13 03 -;�- crs tz= in cd PA tt C) 0 C, tn En eA C* 03 CCJ 0 ° o3 vt� � Cd 3; 0-4 ,Oak 0 cu cu C-4) cu CU �o C's >1 cu 4) C13 aj cu CFJ cu = cu 0 v 4 a r CZ tz > aj Q) U cu cu O cry cla cu CU 0 0 w +. od cc C.) U) &.. = . cn CU 4-1 — 0 ca ell. (U -C v 4-0 cts 0 to 0 0 0 0 cn = 44 co 0 ca Q 0 00 ca C) CL Cl* CIO ti; C) cn cc 44 ci = Q TV 0 tw.— 0 C: cz I= >., — to 4� m 0 con V) ci ob M — (L) cla > cc cra ct 0 cTj Cts +� = m 0 E N Im. = = 0u v co crj ca CQ qj cz CTj C-) = cc "0 o m 0 ci C.,7 Co e. ca V C-) Qj cts ca .2 —0 cu v ca > cc cz > C.) C-) Cq CTJ cn ca cn cla Cl. cn u CZ Cc 0 ca CU a cn m cn to Ca = *.4 >-, 0 M t cn C, u cn o > '.4 *..& = = .-*.. " — 0. f— m to = E = U Qj — �: c1b co v cn co ca m V) 0 mv CZ 0. u 0 cz ca (n (n 0 cz Cl. o . cn cn cn ca • 0 = -" Q.) c En v Qj cC/I u CIO U CL 0 0 0 U 4 a U) .,cu -4� m En En Qp C'n 0 (U 0 vi *..A Q C) rn C/3 tao ccs Ca 03 Gi cn .11...........................'I"ll...........................'I"ll ................... ............. .......... th 03 0 cu 0 C/3 cts 0 0 -011. 0 :z Cd 0 in O."n cd e- cd V cts Cd �3 ca ::= :3 C13rn 4-1 'D Z r. 0 .E) cd r, (A Oma+ 155 0 (n tn U T3 co 0 cd U) U Cd Cd :3 Ln • V) (n (n En 4- U. Co O cd e:) o rn to cn V�Z, C: ,::� "t:� cl 4.-# , 0 o 0 := 0 0 cts C13 Cq cd rn —tn "C'd cd 0 CO 03 r(nn V. © F. o 0 C13 U CA 0 - ;', C* 0 w +.A cdR C13 0 Ln 03 C, CIO. -C-1 co 0 0 Cd U O Ntq xzbb 4..A 0 �o ...A 0-- 1114 - > --cd 0 C13 ,0 CO co 1"4 0 Cl. cd (L) td M 0 C13 -1Z Ln -0 LI.A �14 IZ 4., od lr� *-0 -, C13 C:� u C* 0 Cd cd cd CO u :Z 0 Cd 0 cis 0 o 0.) Cl* 0 +.o (n V-- (n ..- 03 0 rn Ct* crs U-4 co �; t- 2 .- P. = V 0 �14 0 -X:) 'o C:l u 4 45 IL) tk.4 CO co tm u (4n 03 0 Cd Cd C* 0 --cs u tDo e, to :z -- 4.- 0 Cl. �= U ell. Cd L'.4 4- 0 Cd o cd C13 u 0.) 0 4;� r cl C) 0 > 1�- tl* Cd CI- = r- 0 s 0 0 C,- 4-1 un C 0 � cts ::1 co u Ln r, C* Cd 0 U Q• a� v, � o E—':z C* C) 03 cn V 11............... ........... ........... .................. Cd V) cd � T o o � V � � n p.� �, � �C� °V '� o . ��,► �� v a � to ,,� � 45 .01 Cd cd cd 0 t:l tn 0 Jo tn 'd o 0 0 t 0 cd cd cd cd cd tA cz ,-, o cr C* W tn En C-- C* C* ed Zn 4-.A ;, '.-Ca 0 (1) 0 e U? 1p. a) (L) t�- 0. ,0-�o Cq cd ca v O et:) mo cd coo cd a) Os a.) C00A , u ::� cd tn - en !� 0 0 -;,- C-1 V tA IL) Cd CO Jo 6 Gb t� CIS 0-0 Cd y C�- On 0 9�1 C*. 'o o 5: 0 Cd CZ o co C3 o t:M i� .t: 0 s.A Q C) .:: ,.. C-- C) 0 -1Z 03 !� 0 It:; .11 o 00 c!y e, '!� C�- C) 4-0 *11 �: r- ed 45 Ob 0) C* o oa ,-C cn 0 o �t3,s �2; Cd o Q> CO tf) 0.) cd .0 p. - 1� +-" Z: -'6 0.) t 06> o :5 0 . el-I 00 C-A tn tn 0 cd )5D P64 (n w 03 Cd En Ln ....................... ctsa cn C13 M 0 0 0C,3 cz 0 tn 4- i. to 0 CO 0 Cd CO M b by 03 X: to.. to to 4.-A 0 cla 10 t4o co Cd Cd a) 03 r,- C13 ct3 C-4 (n a) CV3 U (n co �r- *-, a) (4-4 *--1 'p "C ,. •O ccs '" t4 C's o3 0 00 ;> :z 0 E.- I I F W 03 03 C;3 O .-0 0 a)CO 0 03 (n Co V) v m 0 Cq (n 4.) cd cd _ V) cd (L) 0 to 0 .s-c-,* En 0 cu Cl) Q., z�.. � � °> W •v T3 ash � � ,?� © �' � �� .'_' � Lncd d C* C-4 ood "t3 Z cn CM ca 0 0 "No u 0 Cta 41tEn Ln 4--o L 4-4 CA C13 .?+ tip.• yy, r V ` v •b ¢' rT-bN p „vu. c*� o C13 0 �o Poo 03 a) 0 4-0 cd En cz C* ZA 4" 2 jam( En C,3 �actsv 1-- -5 tn 4-4 C'iny In ca cz cn 0 Cd Cl. cn Cj O co cn cz cz o0 0 r- 0 =ca "tU a., cz - U3 > cd cz CIO co r. co 0 r- 4-0 co 4. cr to to rn 0 c co co 0 = = 4-j U, Co cc 0 CO —M =us 43 cn En E co o En > 0 > r. U tn 6" (U En co U co cz co M -41-0 cz tn 0 z cq w (U "0 cz E �*, 0 -it 4 E E 2 M = 0 to C—n ma (U cz cz 0 = U CZ ccs En tn CJ U cz 0 cn 0 0 cn co cn vi 0 En >ca 4-4 L4:, *-A r- Ij cz = En cn r- 0 — cz U cz cz cz .1 4--o > cz v cn f,:I. tQ Ct rb (n cz V m cla CJ co E C,3 (n = q. ctdv En C). cn CIO Cia Q to 4am,) co r Co 0 2 Cl 4. — 0 . > C'* 00 > cr c 1 0 7- tiw .= v tn V cz E Z Cc r V U 0 0 cz 0 Ef) cz o ,= -I- C-) '10 CL, tD X 0.) C5 0 — = 0td al > U M N w M �n cq 0 0 tn 0.) C-) CL En 0 tn = i = = 0 co0 co 4.j M (L) V) 4.) in En 0 to to r— > E E > .-0 > m 0 U 0 -0 pow 0 0 M 6-W Ln C/) CL in ci 0 En > o 0 > a sem. cz cz tn r) m cz n. U cn 4- 0 Q) as 0 4"' > (U cn QU. ZI Es 0 0.) cn U C) 0 Cts>1 CZ P, Cto co C) >I ter.,, C) m cz 0 cz6.4 0 > Ct V m cu mCt 0 -0 V CZ as ca (U cn M (n in ccUCl- ;.., tn cn Co E Cl0 ti. ;-, cQ CZ cc tn cn 4--, = tn czM tn r 0 cl. U ;�-N V " *." cis cz —1- '1" M ca v cz 64 U v co ca m co Q (n v r- tn 0 ............... Cd C* 0 Cd 0 '.0 6 5 C) 0C) tZ. VC-*d cd -- '0 1,.. Ob OB t«cd 0 (in Cd 0 cd cd A-0 t� ".1 00 LIO Q L) C* ca C* 0 ca Cd 0 -tz C) .0 0 o 'cd 0-4 1 En CCs 10 ":n 0 .t�- 0 Cd -!�� �: qoA cd r, 0 cd Cd Cd t -, t�D 0 0 0,) tdstd 0 0 C> cd 0 0 0 ca 00 V.* Cd !::. L) - C: CO Q) to (L)O T3 0 Cd 06) 4) 1!9 9 ca td to S ... - ,- a) ,10 co C* ED0 'o-A 00 4--A iz- C) on ccs '0 Cd ''p ;3 0 I'>. en, Ln cd CO CCS *�- CJ Ca•+ a. U t.Jtn C: tA .10 6 w f)nCd P 0.) -lc3 cd Cd ":Z- ISZ- 0 ;;p Cd '0 0 s ;:, 0 ll�; ::3 C) ,rte-'S 4-4 tn vt� 0 .�.A r, ..- Ln 4.-A C: V-4 - (D -5 1 0-- r. t)�-C—d V.. cd vt� V- U to to ' r- 0 0 --tn 4�r I) (-- .. 0 Cd lvi, u iz ir- cd ::� 4) ?IN !� 0 60 0 tA 401 0* , 01 C�- r- 0 0 C: -,;� 0 0 Ln taD K3 0 0 vo- 0 C* 0 ca cd ✓ vl tn U b 0 3� 0 0 -.,:s ca 0 .5; (n #-- 0 0 tl) ;;p 0 0 0 1, t� �l '. r) 0 -0 cd Cd tn 0 Cd , tn tn 1,- 0 C) s 0 0 Cd 4 0 to -;: bD 0 tn 0 V) ca .A 0 ioo , cts c d t..., cd C: in 3� ca td ed C* 0 0 s Cc$ 0 48 tn 0 tj ca CO 0 u. o 0 0 OO 0 v O O '� ....' co En tCS CA C,3 CA tn 0 0 cd En 03 0 cz O 0 En tn Cd C13 :3 rc� Ln (U to cn cin co V) 'Jo IM C13 0 110 m = v ::� In. cl 0 tn '14 cu C!J T3 ► (L) cts ob t/3En 5 co Cd En En 0 0 = -,— 44 0.) cd En En C13 co 0 tZ In u 0 En 46> rz r. Q) C: Cis ;0.., 0 *." r- 0 v oi cd cd • CU cla 13 0 0 tn 0 > C13 cts 0 cd 4C-1 tn 0 0 4-A t�N ta. crs oj ct, A 4-0 cd CL cd C) Cl) co 4-1 01) co a;, > > *..# 0 E/) 0 4-0 CM 0 V.. , 64 4-4 4..0 cd (n X) t4o 0 0.,.o M r. 0 = (n co cl Ln cl cl, = = -�; Ecn 0 CZ tn > ;-4 co 0 C13 �Cn cts o tn IL) CL o- :3 to •= 0 o CL (f) 0 (L) cd 0 0 0 0 0 En cts Z. cts r. N cll (n PIN 7:: En C13 Cd C* 0 CL Q) -t) 0 Uob cd cl, cd . ._- 'r 122 0 C'3 (*� (1) 0 -cl CO 40 Z6 *-A cl. vi C13 0 cn En = cn 03 C13 W W W En CO CL :3 - %= 0 0 'o 0 En En :z Ct3 Ef) En co (n :Z V +- - IV) ;,." U 0 cd > cd 03 V) 03 (n cn 03 a) co :;- ;, w - (L) 5:L :5 4-0 cd u C,3 cn +..0 0 0 0 -.> r- := En co t) o Cd M on LZ all ....................ZOO O tp c) o U- It: o 72 to's tp b tp t4.A COMMENTS ON CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION �G� Peter & Karen Thor 1671 Via Romero Alamo, CA 94507 QS JAN I I PM 2** � t Michael Henn �,�; � � ; I_: Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 January 9. 2005 Dear Mr. Henn: As residents of Jones Ranch in Alamo, we are concerned about the impact of the Palmer Madden subdivision/development project on our residence. First among our concerns is the potential for drainage problems and soil instability. Our property is bordered by a large v- ditch that directs the run off from the hillside behind us. We have experienced what happens if this ditch becomes blocked. We have spent an entire weekend cleaning out mud and debris when one large rock blocked this ditch during a storm. Needless to say the thought of disrupting an already fragile hillside to build a road and/or homes has us worried. Who would be liable should there be a mudslide due to erosion caused by construction? Would it be Palmer Madden or the county that approved the development plan? Home and road visibility from Via Romero is another area of concern in regards to this project. Alamo prides itself on being unincorporated, not having street lights and large subdivisions covering the hillsides. It is indeed this aspect that has attracted most of us to reside here. What are the restrictions governing this development so that it's visual impact is kept to a minimum? Finally, it is our understanding that the proposed subdivision is for one of four parcels that is owned by Mr. Madden, thus future development seems likely. The issues stated above can only be reiterated as to the impact any future development would have on us and other Jones Ranch residents. Thank you for noting these issues as the county considers approval for the proposed Madden development. Peter & Karen Thor ie `' V u i I i V L V V V V ' V V I IYI 11 LL I L!11 V 11 V IL I l V V IYI IYI V I l l V l l 11 V 11 V 11 V ' V V V! I I/ L From: Luke and Mary Ellen Boswell Fellow homeowners, As you may, or may not be aware, there is a proposed development project on the ridgehne above Jones Ranch that has the potential to adversely affect the ridgeline aesthetics (that is, our views). Of greater concern, however, the project may have the potential to affect hillside erosion and Jones Ranch drainage. At the present time Palmer Maddens proposes subdividing one of his four lots (the four lots together total approximately 20 acres plus)into three lots, all over one acre. In addition, he is requesting to build an access road that nuns almost on top of the ridgeline, which presumably means that we could see traffic on the goad from Jones Ranch. What concerns us about the project is the potential for drainage problems,hillside stability, and home and road.visibility`from Jones Ranch. Drainage concerns involve every homeowner that is included in our v-ditch system. Increased drainage or blockage in one area can adversely affect homeowners in another area dowti the v-ditch line. For example, once our drain was blocked and the runoff down the v-ditch line washed out the Chaine's landscaping. Like it or not, we are all connected in tennis of our v-ditches and drains. r i After speaking with Michael Henn who is in charge of this project at the county, I was told the following. 1. Mr. Madden is on the borderline of being allowed to subdivide one of his four parcels into two or three lots. Negative community feedback could be the deciding factor that lunits this to two lots. We must remember; however, his proposal is only for one of his four lots, thus future further development of his other parcels is inevitable,hour much he is allowed to develop may depend on how much community resistance the county receives, that is why it is imperative that as homeowners below the development, with the potential to be adversely affected, we notify the county of our concerns. 2. There are no county laws restricting road construction on the ridgeline. According to Mr_ Henn the ridgelin.es offer the most stable placement for roads, and it is only through negative community feedback that these projects are curtailed. Ideally, it would be better for our view if the road was placed below the ridge on the other side, but this would be more expensive to develop for Mr. Madden, and may have potential increased environmental impact on the other side of the ridge. 3. The county has no information at this time of Mr. Madden's future plans for his other three lots totaling at least 15 acres. Each of his four parcels is over hve-aures. 4. Mr. Henn has heard nothing from the Alamo Ridge homeowners. J d l lI UU U J Ol f'IVI IN C I D R U VV 0 C R U U IVI IVI U IN I UMI I U I V J 14 u - 0�) 0 1 The letter we received from the county is a "Notice of public review and intent to adopt a proposed mitigated negative declaration." This declaration is basically an environmental impact report. If anyone wants to respond to this declaration(it must be done by Jain 12, 2005),the issues are not about the project as a whole, (we will get the chance to express our feelings about the entire project probably in Feb or March at another hearing)but in our letters we should focus on environmental conCerns, such as drainage, visibility and, hill side stability,because that is what this public review is addressing. If you want to air your concerns (and according to Mr. Henri n the county really wants to hear what we have to say)write to: Michael Henn Con naunity Development Department - Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street,North wing, 4th Floor Martinez, CA. 94553 GE5 JAN 10 to"M January 4, 2005 Michael Henn Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine St., North Wing, 4"' floor Martinez.) Ca. 94553 Re: County Files#RZ043 144, 4DP043025, MS040008 Dear Mr. Henn: This letter is written on behalf of the Jones Ranch Homeowners Association, which owns property contiguous to the Madden/Paulus property, which is the subject of the above referenced application. The Jones Ranch Homeowners Association opposes the application for the following reasons: 1. A road alona, the ridgeline will unnecessarily increase the likelihood of drainage and landslide problems for Jones Ranch. Jones Ranch has an elaborate V-Ditch system that its sub-divider was required to install. We are certain the developer installed no greater protection than required by the county, we hope he installed what was required. The arnount of run-off from the ridge, presently undeveloped, is substantial. Any increase will overtax our drainage system. While Madden/Paulus indicate that drainage would be away from the ridge, placement of the road on the ridge will necessarily increase the amount of water going into the Jones Ranch system. Whenever there are heavy rains in the County there are landslides. Many of the areas that slide are areas that were built with County approval and met the then current engineering requirements. A landslide from the ridge will have a disastrous effect on Jones Ranch, taking out landscaping and endangering the stability of the homes. The road should be built below the ridgeline, closer to the proposed homes that it will service. The additional cost to the developer to build the road below the ridgeline, to the west, is small in comparison to the cost should a problem arise in the future owing to the placement of the road on the ridgeline. 2. A road along the ridgeline is aesthetically unacceptable. Contrary to comment in the application, the road will be visible from public streets ( Via Romero, before one enters Jones Ranch is a public street and the ridgeline is very visible from it) and very visible from Jones Ranch. In the winter the tree cover is quite sparse. The proposed homes will be large, multi-million dollar structures. Neither the owners of existing properties or the citizens of Contra Costa County should be required to see a road to service these homes, when at an additional cost to the developer, a road can be built that will only be visible to the people who use it. 3. A road on the ridgeline will result in cars parking on Jones Ranch property. There are several sections of Jones Ranch property bordering the proposed road that are quite flat. Madden/Paulus expressed interest in purchasing those areas from Jones Ranch. The Association did not wish to sell because of its concerns about drainage, landslide and the proximity of any roads or structures to its property. With a road on the ridgeline, and the stated requirement that no parking would be allowed on the road (problematic to enforce) Jones Ranch property will become a natural parking lot. Jones Ranch homeowners immediately below will be subjected to noise. These problems are eliminated, or certainly greatly diminished, if the road is west of the ridgeline. 4. Fence necessary. Irrespective of the County's decision concerning the location of the road, the applicant should be required to put in a permanent fence along the boundary between the subject parcel and Jones Ranch. Such a barrier should be designed to prevent dumping, trespassing or parking on Jones Ranch property. 5. Erosion. Removal of any trees as indicated in the application will increase erosion and the likelihood of slides onto Jones Ranch property. 6. Weed abatement. To date Jones Ranch has not had to pay for any weed abatement because there are no structures within 30 feet of its property. Access to this portion of Jones Ranch is difficult and will be rendered even more difficult when still another locked gate is installed as proposed. Should weed abatement become necessary, the owners of the new homes should be required to pay for it and to either arrange for the abatement or provide Jones Ranch with access so it can arrange for it. 7. Tree coverage. The application places great reliance on the existence of trees to provide coverage of the proposed road. As noted above, that coverage is sparse during the winter months. These trees are also subject to disease. It simply does not make sense to assume that trees will hide the eyesore of a road along what is now a beautiful ridgeline. Such a road benefits only the developer and secondarily the few houses it will service. The County should protect the ridgeline views for all of the citizens and residents of the County. The application fails to inform as to Madden/Paulus' plans for their entire t be ariy legal requirement that they commit or property. While there may not state their future plans for their entire 20 acres, their failure to do so makes it impossible accurately to determine the full effect of the current proposal. If this application is the first in a series to increase the allowed density on all of the applicants' parcels, the members of Jones Ranch feel that they and the County should know that when evaluating the current application. Ve truly _yours, e o irectors, Jones Ranch Homeowners 925-831-6172 cs r i U 0 1 1 : at JL 1 Ke rar.rl CK 1'I0001.1. I"ICM_JIft_Z) tui January 4, 2005 Michael Henn Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine St.,North Wing, e floor Martinez,, Ca. 94553 Re: County Files gRZ043144, #DP043025, MS040008 Dear Mr. Henn: This letter is written on behalf of the Jones Ranch Homeowners Association,, which owns property contiguous to the Madden/Paulus property, which is the subject of the above referenced application. The Jones Ranch Homeowners Association opposes the application for the following reasons: 1. A road along the ridgeline will unnecessarily increase the likelihood of drainage and landslide problems for Jones Ranch. Jones Ranch has an elaborate V-Ditch system that its sub-divider was required to install. We are certain the developer installed no greater protection than required by the county; we hope he installed what was required. The amount of run-off from the ridge, presently undeveloped, is substantial. Any increase will overtax our drainage system. While Madden/Paulus indicate that drainage would be away from the ridge, placement of the road on the ridge will necessarily increase the amount of water going into the Jones Ranch system. It also will 'increase the likelihood of a landslide into the yards of a number of Jones Ranch homes. The road should be built below the ridgeline, closer to the proposed homes which it will service. Whenever there are heavy rains in the County there are landslides. Many of the areas that slide are areas that were built with County approval and Jan 12 05 11 : 41p Mike Patrick Moodti 925-314-9703 P. 3 met the then current engineering requirements. A landslide from the ridge will have a disastrous effect on Jones Ranch. The additional cost to the developer to build the road below the ridgeline, to the west, is small in comparison to the cost should a problem arise in the future owing to the placement of the road on the ridgeline. 2. A road along the ridgeline is aesthetically unacceptable. Contrary to comment in the application, the road will be visible from public streets(Via Romero, before one enters Jones Ranch is a public street and the ridgeline is very visible from it) and very visible from Jones Ranch. In the winter the tree cover is quite sparse. The proposed homes will be large, multi-million dollar structures. Neither the owners of existing properties or the citizens of Contra Costa County should be required to see a road to service these homes, when at an additional cost to the developer, a road can be built that will only be visible to the people who use it. 3. A road on the ridgeline will result in cars parking on Jones Ranch property. There are several sections of Jones Ranch property bordering the proposed road which are quite flat. Madden/Paulus expressed interest in purchasing those areas from Jones Ranch. The Association did not wish to sell because of its concerns about drainage, landslide and the proximity of any roads or structures to its property. with a road on the ridgeline, and the stated requirement that no parking would be allowed on the road(problematic to enforce) Jones Ranch property will become a natural parking lot. Jones Ranch homeowners immediately below will be subjected to noise. These problems are eliminated, or certainly greatly diminished, if the road is west of the ridgeline_ 4. Fence necessary. Irrespective of the County's decision concerning the location of the road, the applicant should be required to put in a permanent fence along the boundary between the subject parcel and Jones Ranch. Such a barrier should be designed to prevent dumping, trespassing or parking on Jones Ranch property. 5. weed abatement. To date Jones Ranch has not had to pay for any weed abatement because there are no structures within 30 feet of its property. Access to this portion of Jones Ranch is difficult and will be rendered even more difficult when still another locked gate is installed as proposed. Should weed abatement become necessary, the owners of the new homes should be required to pay for it and to either arrange for'the abatement or provide Jones Ranch with access so it can arrange for it. 6. Tree coverage. The application places great reliance on the existence of trees to provide coverage of the proposed road. As noted above, that coverage is sparse during the winter months. These trees are also subject to disease. It simply does not make sense to assume that trees will hide the eyesore of a road along what is now a beautiful ridgeline. Jan 12 05 11 : 41p Mike Patrick Moody 925-314-9703 p. 4 7. The application fails to inform as to Madden/Paulus' plans for their entire property. While there may not be any legal requirement that they comrnit or state their future plans for their entire 20 acres,their failure to do so makes it impossible accurately to determine the fall effect of the current proposal. If this application is the first in a series to increase the allowed density on all of the applicants' parcels, the members of Jones Ranch feel that they and the County should know that when evaluating the current application. Very truly yours, The Board of Directors, Jones Ranch Homeowners 925-831-6172 I ezjo� 1 s -r Contra Costa County Community Development Department Attention: Mr. Michael Henn - r' 0 AM It 57 651 Pine Street,Forth wing--4 Floor Martinez, California 94553 Bear Mr. Henn: It has come to our attention that a project just above our Subdivision is in the works. We were told about the project by Luke and MaryEllen Boswell also residents of Jones Ranch. We are very concerned that the proposed project located at 1900 Las Trampas Road, Alamo, Ca. 94507 APN: 198-220-009 will cause some very serious problems with regard to our homes including, but not limited to : soil erosion, landslide potential, water runoff into our storm drains and the Alamo Creek.. For the past 16 years, Palmer Madden has tried to buy property from Jones Ranch Homeowner's Association for this very project. We always turned him down. It is impossible for us to imagine that Jones Ranch would not be adversely affected by this as the adjacent property. We also will see it from our house, as well as vehicles being driven along the Ridge line. Ridge line property is something that is of great concern to everyone in this county. orinda and Lafayette have some of the strongest rules guarding against homes being built that have potential for slides and soil erosion. We hope that Martinez shares these concerns and request that this development be evaluated accordingly. The Alamo Creek which runs throughout Jones Ranch has changed measurably since we moved here in 1989. Initially,the Creek was dry seasonally. when developments began above us, including but not limited to the Rossmoor project, it created a situation where the Creek is wet 12 months of the year. We were so concerned one summer that we contacted several agencies to try and determine why we were having rushing water. Given this situation, additional water directly into our Creek or from the hills directly behind most of the homes in Jones Ranch, is of tremendous concern. When Jones Ranch was built the security of owning the 23 acres which surround us was one of the major factors in convincing homeowner's that this was a great place to live and secure from further development just above our heads. Now, it appears that this is threatened and could endanger our homes and property. As mentioned on page A-16our property is subject to "Highest landslide susceptibility." The other concern is the storm drain systems and the impact upon us. We already have water running down from the hills 12 months of the year into our storm drains which is not directed into the Creep. There is no way that we will not see a great deal more water as a result of the project. we would like to be advised of the next steps in this process and if, in fact, we have any say as to whether or not it is approved. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Damien D. 0"Rourke Kevin C. O'Rourke 1657 Via Romero *� Alamo, CA Pli 305- 8 94507 January 14, 2005 Mr. Michael Henn Project Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, North Wing--4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 RE: County File#DP043025, MSO40008, & RZ043144 Dear Mr. Henn, Firstly, please accept my apology for not submitting this letter before the January 12, 2005 deadline. I hope that despite this late submission, you will take my concerns about the Madden/Paulus project as seriously as you did the others submitted by my neighbors in Jones Ranch, Currently, Mr. Madden and Ms. Paulus are planning to subdivide their lot to construct 3 homes as close to the ridgeline that borders Jones Ranch properties as possible. I am concerned about the following issues: 1. Retaining walls to be built to help mitigate potential landslides and/or soil erosion, as well as protect Jones Ranch from new roads will in fact, in and of itself, create a less stabilized hillside on our side of Jones Ranch. 2. effect of soil erosion and soil removal, as well as runoff to our drainage system and property 3. Removal of 11 oak trees will have a negative effect on Jones Ranch property, especially during the winter(i.e. rainy) months with respect to soil erosion as well as the impact it will have on visibility of the proposed new homes. Although replacement trees are called for, will those trees have the same maturity and general coverage as those that are removed in order to provide the same if not better coverage of these proposed new homes and roadway? 4. Mr. Madden's proposal for a new road as close to the ridgeline as possible, in addition to the retaining walls and the visibility of the homes looming over my home will be terribly unsightly as well as decrease the value of my property. 5. Adequate and additional parking MUST not overflow into Jones Ranch common areas. Ridgeline public parking is not acceptable, as it will add to the unsightliness of the development, as well as raise issues of increased noise and potential security concerns. 6. The potential for Mr. Madden to further subdivide his property at a later date in the future may negatively affect my property even further. Although this may not be of concern to you at this point since you cannot predict the future, I am concerned that future development has not been taken fully into account with respect to environmental and infrastructure impact. Although a landowner has the right to do with their property as they please, I ask that you and your department take my concerns into account as you proceed with this project. I cannot expect that this project will not carry on; however, I am hopeful that this impending development does not have negative consequences for me and my family. Thank you in advance for hearing my concerns. Sincerely, Glen Yeung Susan L. Paulus & Palmer Brown Madden 1900 Las Trampas Road Alamo, CA 94507 Voice: (925) 838-8593 Fax: (925) 831-2099 E mail: slppbm(ir,netv i*sta,,net 12/12/05 To : Mike Henn; cc to Mr.. dy w/encl. From: Palmer Madden Re: Jones Ranch questions Mike: I attach the letters of M. Moody, the Boswells, the Jones Ranch HOA, the Thors and the O'Rourkes. I have marked these letters up so that I can offer my comments. By way of a copy of this letter to Mr. Moody, I request that he distribute our comments so that all those who have written letters can have.the benefit of our thoughts. While a variety of concerns are expressed, the two major issues I see are: (1) Storm drainage and (2) visibility. Regarding storm drainage, our project will result in a significant reduction of water runoff onto Jones Ranch. None of our water will be shed onto the Jones Ranch property. Regarding visibility, our project will not have any significant increase is the visibility impact than if it is denied. If this subdivision is denied, the road will still be built to serve the existing three ridge lots. As to the two "extra" lots, Lots A and C: if our project is denied, whoever owns what would be a combined Lot A. B & C can be expected to build a much largerhouse that would now be allowed on Lot B,, including building guest homes, pool houses and the like on the balance of the land. These could all be 35 feet high, instead of the 28 foot limit to which we have agreed. In sum, approving this project would have no significant impact on visibility when compared to denying the project. 1. Fencing We plan to fence between our property and the Jones Ranch property. Our plan is for a three rail boundary fence that would show the property division but would not impede the local critters (deer, etc.) 29 Move the road to the West The road that we propose to use is the road that was there over 30 years ago when we bought this property. It would not be a good idea to move the road. Given the lay of this land, the present design has the minimal impacts. Contrary to the suggestions of some, one cannot shift this road off the ridge top. To do so would require impossibly expensive major retaining walls and would eliminate the good building areas. It must be remembered that if the subdivision is denied, this road will still be built to serve the existing three lots. Accordingly the subdivision approval has no impact on the road, other than, because of conditions that will be imposed as part of the subdivision process, the improvements will have less impact than if one were to build without these conditions 3* Parking We will provide all of the parking required by the Code. It would not be fair to single us out for some requirement to provide more parking than others have to provide. All of the parking will be either on the Las Trampas side of the road, or within the building area for the lots. None of this parking will be visible from the homes in Jones Ranch. 4. Future Subdivision plans We own 4 lots: (1) Our home lot; (2) our Upper lot; (3) the subject Middle lot and (4) our South lot. If we are allowed to do this subdivision, we would have a total of 5 ridge lots. As I mentioned during the tour, I believe our South lot could be subdivided to create a lower lot on Las Trampas Road. While we cannot be obliged to do so, if we could reach an agreement with the Jones Ranch owners, we would be willing to commit that there would be no more than 5 ridge lots: (1) Our north lot; (2-4) these three lots and (5) our South lot. 50 Design Guidelines I have provided Mr. Moody with a copy of these. During the tour he also requested a copy of the subdivision map, which I will be delivering to him along with this note. 6. County Scenic Impact You have this. 7* VisualImpact We did the tours, story poles and photo montage efforts in order to show that these homes will be screened by the existing trees. The Alamo Improvement Association was up on our property at least three times and they have approved our proposal. All that said, no project is invisible. If you look at all the hills around Alamo, you will see some homes on all of the ridges. It would not be fair to deny us this subdivision when all the surrounding properties have been allowed to build. Look at Ridgewood Road, The Alamo Ridge Subdivision, Castle Crest, Round Hill and Alamo Summit. What we are proposing is consistent with our neighborhood. If we do not do this subdivision,, it would not stop all building. We have three ridge lots that could have three homes. I believe that, absent the restriction imposed by this subdivision, the home that would be built on the lot that is the subject of the subdivision would probably be on the scale of the Seeno's home. As a condition of this subdivision, we are accepting many limits on what could today be built. The "extra" two homes we get from this subdivision will be minimized by the required color selection, the limits on the location of the building envelopes, the limits on the size of the homes and the existing trees. In addition,, pursuant to the County's proposed requirement, seven feet have been taken off of the maximum building height. This requirement of 28 feet maximum height is the minimum height that will allow for a modem two story home. 8, Visibility No project is invisible. That said,, we have taken all reasonable steps to minimize visual impacts. All three building areas were selected with this thought in mind, as was the selection of the 11 trees that are to be removed. None of these I I trees screen the property from the homes on Jones Ranch. 9. 11 Trees Yes, these I I trees have been designated. We have provided Mr. Moody with a copy of the tree reports. None of the trees that will be removed affect the visual impact on Jones Ranch. 10. Nesting season buffer This is a habitat issue that has been addressed by the habitat consultant. As I understand it, it means that, so long as there is a nesting bird, one has to stay 250 feet away from the tree. Once the nest bird leaves, one can work nearer to the tree. 11. Geological reports There has been a report on these lots. We provided Mr. Moody with a copy of this report. 12. Geological reports prior to the parcel map This will be prepared before we file the parcel map. It is not yet prepared. Ido not think it is normal to provide this to neighbors. Given the location of these pads, which are all on the Las Trampas side of the ridge, I do not think this should be of concern to the Jones Ranch owners. 13. Storm Drainage The project will use the existing drain on the Seeno property (which drains down to the Jones Ranch property) for the entrance road. All other drainage will be towards Las Trampas road, including some drainage (East of Lot A) that used to go towards Jones Ranch. As I told Mr. Boswell during the tour, if we can reach agreement with the Jones Ranch owners, we would divert the water that is now going to the Seeno's drain that historically shed onto our property. This is the water on the South Side of the Seeno property. The water that is on the East side of the Seeno property, that has historically shed on the Jones Ranch property, would still do so. By doing this, this should reduce the Seeno's drain outflow by half. 14. Piecemeal Issue See #4 above. 15* Noise This property is so far from Jones Ranch and so far uphill that noise issues should be substantially reduced from the usual concerns of adjoining land owners. Yes, there will be some noise during construction. But, there would be noise anyway even if we do not do this subdivision when the homes are built on the existing lots. Regarding times for construct-ion, we would follow any existing Code rules. I don't think it would be fair to impose on us rules that are not applied to other builders. That said, if we could reach an agreement on all other issues with the Jones Ranch owners, we would agree to a condition of approval for our project that would limit construction activities to 5 days a week, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. 16* Parking We will conform to the County parking rules. As it happens all of the parking would be on the Las Trampas side of the road or within the building envelopes, which are on the Las Trampas side. Given how far down hill the Jones Ranch homes are and the screening provided by the trees, parked vehicles will not be visible to the Jones Ranch property owners. Road Design at Lot A During the property tour, Mr. Boswell raised a question about the design on the road as itpasses Lot A. Our proposal is designed to provide a reasonably sized building envelope for Lot A. If we move the road up to the ridge top, we squeeze down the size of the Lot A building envelope. In the current design, we will have a storm drain that will pick up substantial water that now sheds down on to the Jones Ranch property and takes that water to the Las Trampas side. If, as Mr. Boswell suggests, we move the road up to the ridge top on Lot A, we would not pick up the water that is picked up by the current design. In sum, the design on the road as it passes Lot A benefits not only our property, but the Jones Ranch property as well. 17, Traffic See numbers 2 & 7. 189 Drainage See number 13. 19,0 Stability There is a concern that our project would increase soil problems at Jone, Ranch. That is not true. It would decrease these problems. We do not know that problems the homeowners may have with their existing property. But we do know that soil problems in large part are caused by adding water to the hill side. As is explained above our proposal will reduce the water that is shed on to the Jones Ranch property. 204, Road Visibility See numbers 2 and 7. 21. Drainage See number 13. 22. Ridgeline road See number 2. 23. Ridgeline road See number 2. 24. Ridgeline road See number 2. 254, Parking On Jones Ranch property As explained above, we propose at our expense to pay for a demising fence. 26. Fence See number 25. 27. Erosion See number 13. 28. Weed abatement There is no reason to impose on us the duty to abate weeds on the Jones Ranch property. They have access from their own property to do this work. That said, as part of an overall agreement, we would be willing to find some accommodation with our neighbors on this issue. 294, Trees & Future Development See number 4 & 11. 30. Drainage See number 13. 31. Instability See number 19. 32* Visibility See numbers 7 & 8. 33. Future subdivision plans See number 4. 34* Soil erosion See number 19. 35. Landslide See number 19. 36e Water on to property See number 13. 37* Landslide See number 19. 389 Storm drain See number 13. J a rJAN.10.2005 1 :12:25PM 11COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT%j !92S-314-97N0.248 P.2 January 4, 402005 NUchael He C 0 Development Dep eat Contra Costa county 651 Pine St.,North Wing, 4th.floo'r Martinez, Ca, 94553 Re: County Files#RZ043144,#DPO43025,MSC 40008 Dear Mr. Henn. As you may recall, I recently called you to discuss the proposed Madder0aulus project. Our home is located in Jones Rancb and in particular,,my very stecp lot b directly to the Madden lot(s). I recently reviewed the Environmental Checklist Form(Palmer Madd=Mia aeon Report) Coon ty File#DP043025,MS040008-: RZ043144 and have to both express some concems as well as ask a few quesbons.MY cor=ents/questio4s bolow are in the same order as the Enviro=enW report. la general, * hetic I am concerned about trespassing, erosion=pact on Jones Rmch as well as aest impact of the mo&mes and road(waffic/construction) along the ridgeline, I strongly suggest that the project consider the following., I Pmperly fenced to prevent trespassing b.) Proposed road be slightly moved To the West(or else moved to the West side of the lot,ncar Las Trampas Road)to min=* =' e drainage issues to Jones Ranch on the e=of the project ParldnS issue be resolved to prevent ridgeline road parking. See other detailed connnents below in bold italics. Description of Project Proposes to subdivide one parcel of 5.8 acres into 3 lots ranging fmm 1.3 to 2.47 acres,Recon' from Agricultural to A2 to Planned Development P1 M9 Comment:rm concerned that the project could he approved based on the canvni proposal to develop only one of the Madden lom As such what are the future plans to develop other lots?and the corresponding uOnpact on environmentlinftastructure? Surrounding Land Uses and Settings Surrounding area pgrcels average 1.14 to 23.94 acres JarJAN. 10.20051 :12:25PM MCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,9 S25-314-S7NO.24e P.3 P- Eavironmental Factors PotentizW Affected (requur,ng mitigatiOns) - include Geological, BlologicsJ and Aosthefics Determination Proposed project could have significant effect on the envronment,there will not be a si9aificant effect in hire because the mitigation rae -uros asdescnbed Dave been added to the project, Nfifisated Negative I)edlaration v41 be prepared,, Sources: Comment-Is it copy of Source number 8?(the Design Guidelines available at the County for reidm?) 10 Aesthetics: a.) Substantial Adverse Scenic Vista Impact (potentially significant unless mitigation incorporation). a. Ummmed ridge line is shown on the Contra Costa County General Plan is desisated for protection from development that would ham it's scem*c quaUtv(G==W Plan Policy 9-E) Comment,How can r get a copy of this policy:' b. Substantially screened by existing trees c. Development not visible from any public roads Comment;Im concerned that the trafftcfrom develop-ment would be visible on pubUc roads, con-trary to yourfmdings, as the road is planned to run along the ridge line „err between saiWproperV and Jones.Ranch. We need to ensure that these homes are not visibleom any public roads.In ad4Wun, if 11 sizabk trees are removed to construct the road, the screening described in the report would be lowered. Mtigaticn; Building Hei"ght meted to 28 fe%,reflectivity of homes to be linifted to 50%.,screm Oaks to be retained and protected during constuctioxi Comment Does this mbigad ox ensure that the homes wW not be v&iblefrom r 91 t eirstern side?I don I think this mWgadon is niffldent to ensure aes9h&ic& b.) Damage to Scenic resources (trees,rock outmoppings. V) a. Removal of I I tmes with diameters ranging g from 12 to 32 inches proposed to widen jeep tram along ridgeline. Planting of new trees on a 3:1 baW requirod Comment Are hese 11 trees currently marked? Can tour the vroPeM to evaluate the...dr impact?Madden permission assume4 X1. Agricultural Resources No comments. M. Air Quality r.TAN.10_20051 -.12:25PM M COMMUNI TY DEVELOPMENTy 9 5-314-9 7 NO.248 P.4 P, 4 IV IV. Biological Resources i. PoteotiaRy Signifimt impact to nesfng R4ptors Mitigation;r=oval of 11 trees could affect nesting Hawks, etc., thus rMOgation is special 250 foot nondisturbance buffer around trees. during nesting season(if observed) Feb, 1 to July 03)1 Comment.* twat is a non-disturbance buffer? (does this totally prevent construction woo within the,250 f. bre,ffer sp ?) V, Geology and Soils The report lists potentil si.gni cant impact(unless Mitigation Incorporation) for exposure of people or structures to landslides, soil erosion, location of soil instability The area is rated as `highest landslide susceptibility, We should resenroh the implications,what doeo this rating mean to Jones Ranch.An Eros'oa Control Plan is requires since this is an at-,risk project in a.hiDside location.of 1+acre. ask of erosion is rated High by Sail S=ey of Contra.Costa County. Contozent: When will this report be complete and can we get a copy? Also references a Fir:at geofechnical Report, when will this be dome? and can we et a (ropy? Mitigation, a,) 30 days pnor to recording of Parcel Map,required to submit geology, soil and foundation report for=iew of Plarming Geologist., Comment When will this report be complete and can we get a copy? VL $y►drology and'mater Ouality The report lists only less than Significant Impact issues (no Mitigation required). Comment This seems eery shortsighted when considering the road development along Me ridgefine.Draingge, (especialty along the Eastern side(Jones,Ranch)is a cortcern4cey issue, Land Use and P1 The report does not list any rnitaigat ion requirrents. Commenits My concern is what will be alone with the other Madden lots eventually (what are hisplans to subdivide the other lots?) and will the drainage and access issue's be addressed now, rather than mer. I'm worried about a piecemearl approach. VM. Noise The report do ep not list any issues requiring Mitigation 1ncc rporation. Comment,-I arra concerned about noise from 2,perspectives; construction noise, especially during road construe on along ridgeline and then trac,ff" noise along the ridg'eline after conx*rucdon, especially if other lots are subdivided in the future,. The report does mention that cons&uctdon would be limited to dame hours during weekdays and would be prohibited on weekends.Since tails is a priyare road, haw mill it he enforced? J a rJAN.10.20051 :12:25PM M COMMUN I TY DEVELOPMENTti 3 P-5-314-3 7 NO.248 P.5 5 IX Transportation - The report does not list any issues reg Mitigation Inomporarion, Comment;I am corxcerned about residential event parkin Evers thosigh the private � access lame would not `allow-I ori-street parking and residences are roequired td provide at least six spaces, Pm worried flout enforcement©,f'no-parking on the ridge-line access read as this is a Potential eye.Tare. X. Mandatory Findings of Significance This section simply confirms that with mitigations,the project as a whole has a less than signs icant impact. Regards, M&e Moody; Dec.30, 2004 JAN.12.200515 2:42PMI' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 U N 5 NO.3061 P.2114 From:Luke and Mary Ellen Boswell Fellow homeowners, As you may,or may not be aware,there is a proposed development project on.the ric gel 1 above Jones Rath that has the potedal to advermely affect the ridgeEnc aesthetics(that is, our views). Of sredter concern,however,the project may have the potential to affect hillside erosion Jones Ranch drainage. At the present t Me Palmer Madd=proposes subdividing one of bis four lots (the four lots together total approximately 20 acres plus)into three lots, all over one acre. In addition,he.is requesting to build an access road that nmzs almost on,top of the zidgcHiq�, wbich pres=ably means that we cool ee the road fZom Jones Ranch. t What concerns us about the prole t is the poten for drai siMW de and liome and road,visib- ' 'From Sonas Ranch. 0 Drah�age concern involve,every ho=ownex that is included in our vwditchs ab lac ed image or blockage in one area can adversely affect homeowners in another area dowtr the v-ditch line.For example,once our drain was blocked and the r off down the v.-ditch Bne washed out the Chaipe's landscapm" g. Like it or not we=all comerted iu tc=of our v duces and dr;F4ns. r v • After speaking with ,chael Remo:,who is in chargo of this project at the counter, 1 was told the following. 1. 1wLT.ma&=is on the borderino of being Cowed to subdivide one of his four parcels Wo two or tbzee lots. Negative c 8 feedback could be the deci4ing factor that limits fts to two lots, Wo must reintuber;however,his proposal is only for one of his four lots,thus future further development of his other parcols is inav�table,how=ch he is allowed to develop may depend on how much cornty res ista ce the county receives,dw is why it is=mlacradve that as homeowner's below the devcicp mangy with the poter4al to be adversely affected,etre ootltr the co=ty of oto concerns. 2, 'Where are no county laws r + ,g road c=u ictloxx on the�idgeliuC. Accordins to .fx.�exm the xidgeiues oar the most stable plao meat for roads, and it is only ftongh negative community feedback that these projects are curdled, Ideally, It would be batter for our view if tb,e road was placed below the ridge on the other side,but this would be more expensive to develop fbT Nft. Madde%4 and may have potential increased emMmnmea tal impact on the other side of the ridge. 3. The county has no ation at the time of W. Madden's future plans far his other tbree lots totaling at least 15 acres.Each of his four parcels is over five-aam. 4. Mr.He=has hii�rd nothing from the Alamo Ridge homeowmm, 3 JAN.12.2005J b 2:43PM.j COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.IONS NO.306 P.3 21 AL The left=we received from the countyi's a"Notice of public rm*ew and iutcat to adopt a proposed=ild gated seg adve declaration." This declmtion is basically an enVU'x)==ta1 impact reporL If anyono wants to respond to this declaration,(it must be doe by Jan 12, 2005)2 the issues an rAot about the pwject as a whole, (ire will get the to e;q=e$$ in heg)but if I 0151a 0"Ur &:digs~ about the entire projea pmbably M' Feb or March at JW our letter we should fbew on eaviro=eW4 conce=5 such as agre,visibility and W1 side stability,because that is what this public review is addres4ng. If you W=t to m,z your coacezrw(aud;acoordt to N:4.Hmm the==t-y'really w=ts to bear what we 4ave to say)write to: Kcbael Hti e= Communlry Development Dep mt colatra costa comfy 6:51 Pm* c Street,North Wmg,4th Floor Mm-finez, CA 94553 JAIL.12.2005 2:43PM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NO.30G P.4 I TR A 'C' 05 JAN 10 PM 3*o, CJI i 4nig�y 4, 200�.1; r. AL Michael Henn Community Development Department Contra Costa County 6.51 Pine S1,,North Wing, 0 floor Martinez, Ca, 94553 Re-, County Files#RZO43144, f DP043 025, N4SO40008 Dear Mr. Henn'. This letter is written on behalf of the Jones Ranch Homeowners Association, which owns property contiguous to the Mad4en/Paul4spTOPerty, which is the subject of the above referenced application, The J ones Ranch ssociation opposes the application for the,following reasons: 1. A road along the ridgelin; unnecessarily increase the likelihood of a ftv% 1A ACEA for Jones Ranch. Jones Ranch has an elaborate V-Ditch system that its sub-divider was reqtiircd to install. We are certaip the developer installed no greater protection than required by the county; we hope he installed what was roquired, The amount of run-off from the ridge, presently undeveloped, is substanti4l. Any ii1crease VAI overtax our drainage system. 1AUle Madden?4Wus indicate that drainage would be away from the ridge, placement of Abe road on the ridge will necessarily increase the amount of water going iinto the Jones Ranch system. Whenever there are heavy rains in the County there are landslides. Many of the areas that slide are areas that were built with County approval and met the then current engineering requirements. A landslide from the ridge wffl have a disastrous effect on Jones Ranch, t4king out landscaping and endangering The stability of the homes. The road should be bi4ilt below the ridgeb-ne, closer to the proposed homes that it will service. The additional cost to the developer tQ build the road below the _��o the west, is small in comparison to the cost should a problem "Mhe Wture owing to the placement of the road on the ridgeline. I A road alona thR iidjazelin etically unacceptab Contrary to conunent ant a application, the road will visible from pubTe streets ( Via Romero, before one enters Jones Ranch is a public street and the ndgeline is very visible from it) and very visible ftm Jones Ranch, In the winter the Tree cover is quite sparse. The proposed homes will be large, multi-niBlion dollar structures. Neither the owners of existing properties or the citizens of Contra Costa County should be required to see a road to service these homes,, when at an additional I JAN.12.2005 2:44PM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NO.306 P.5 cost to the developer, a road can be built that will only be visible to the people who use it. 3. A road on the ridgeline will result in cars parking on Jones Ranch property. There are several sections of Jones Rartch property bordering, the proposed road that are quite flat. Wdden/Faulus expressed interest in ptirebasir1g those areas from Jones Ranch. The Association did not wish to sell because of its concems about drainage, landslide and the proximity of any roads or structures to its mfft*!***3 property. With a road on the ridgeline, and the Stated requirement that no parking would be allowed on the road(problematic to enforce) Jones Ranch natural arl ' ot. Jones Ranch homeowners (::7 immediately below uAll be Subjected to noise. These problems are eliminated, or certainly greatly dimir�sbed, if the road is west of the ridgeline. 4. Fence necessary, Irrespective of the County's decision concerning the location o t e road the applicant should be required to put in a permanent fence along 000 the boundary between the subject parcel and Jones Ranch. Such a barrier WZ& should be designed to prevent dumping, trespassing or parking = Jones Ranch property, 5. EroSi Removal of any trees as indicated iTi the application will increase erosion and the likelihood of slides onto Jopes Ranch property. 04006, To date Jones Ranch has not had to pay for any weed atement because there are no sUmetures within 30 Feet of its property. Access 00 to tris portion of Jones Ranch is difficult and will be rendered even more difficult when still another looked gate is installed as proposed- Should weed abatement become necessary, the owners of the new homes should be required to pay for it and to either arrange for the abatement or provide Jones Kanch with access so it can arrange for it. 7. Tree covers The application places great reliance on the existence of tremas o provide coverage of the proposed road. As noted above, that covengge is sparse daring the winter months, These trees are also subject to disease. It simply does not make sense to assume that trees will hide the eyesore of a road along what is now a beautiful ridgeline. Such a ro44 benefits only the developer and secondarily the few houses it v41 Service. The County should protect the ridgeline views for all of the citizens and residents of the County. The application fails to inform as to Madden/Paulus' plans for their*entire property, while there may not be any legal requirement that they commit or state their future plans for their entire 20 acres, their failure to do so makes it impossible accurately to determine the full effect of the current proposal. If this application is the first in a series to increase the allowed density on all of the applicants' parcels, the members of Jones Ranch feel that they and the County should know that when evaluating the current application. Ve truly yours, e o ar irectors, Jones Ranch Homeowners 925-931-.6172 JAN.12.2005 2:42PM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT N0.306 P.1 '-- Peter& Karen T1671 Via Romerops - - - -- - - - Alamo, CA 94507 rnemo 7b7i #of P69" post-It'*band fax transminal Michael Henn Co. Communit}r Development Department eptl `* Contra Costa County �"" �z0 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 January 9. 2005 Dear Mr, Hen1n: As residents of Jones Rancho in Alamo, we are concerned about the impact of the Palmer Madden subdivision/development project on our residence, 00000 First among our concerns is the po#sntiaor drains s and soil instabil' . Our property iS bordered by a large vi, ditch at directs the run off fromw007ie ehind us. Ike have experienced what happens if this ditch becomes blocked. We have spent an entire weekend cleaning out mud and debris when one large rock blocked this ditch during a storm. Needless to say the thought of disrupting an already fragile hillside to build a road and/or homes has us worried. Who would be liable should there be a mudslide due to erosion caused by construction? Would it be Palmer Madden or the county that approved the development, plan.? —Home and road visibility from Via Romero is another area of concern inn regards to this projerk. doO" Alamo prides IN TPI-on inc-drporated,'not having street lights and large subdivisions covering the hillsides. It is indeed this aspect that has attracted most of us to reside here. this What are the restrictions governing tnis development so that id's visual impact is kept to a minimum? Finally, itis our understanding that the proposed subdivision is for one of four parcels that is owned by Mr. Madden, thus future development seems likely. The issues stated above can only is. reiterated as to the impact any future development would have on us aind other-Jones anch residents., Thank you for noting these issues as the county considers approval for the proposed Madden development, Peter& Karen Thor J HN.1 i:�.e005 5:1 OPM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT � NO.313 P.1 v Contra Costa Cour�y Commlawty Develop nt]3epa��rr Attention:lVlr. Michael Kenn AN 11: 57 651 Ph= Strom North W Floor Mmtinez� a 9453 Dear Mr. Het'ul: It come to our oadon that a project just9above our u . n is in.the wort. were told about the project by Duke and NIaryEllen Boswe so residents of Jo Ranch. We are very concerned that the proposed project Gated at 1900 Las as Road,Alamo,Ca.9450 APT: 198-220,009 will cause me v $eriow p kerns WM regard to our homes including,but not limited to :sod ]a dsl�de catia� runoff into our storm drafti,s and the Amo Creek., oar past 1 ears, erNWdcn has tried to buy property from Jones.ranch Honwowner's Association for this very project. We alvuuys ted hinot down.. It is impossible for us to imagine that Jones Ranch would not be adverscly aMeted by this as the adjacert property. We also will.sm it from our house, as wO as vehicles being driven along the Ridge line, Ridge lig property is something that is of grit conmrxa to everyong in this county, Orinda and T4fayette leave sp=of the strongest rules guarding against homes be built that have pates for slides and soil erosion, we hope that Martinez;sb=s these concerns and request th .t this development be evaluated.accordingly.The Alamo geek which runs throughout Jones R=64 has changed ly since we moved hem in 1989. the Creek was dry seasonally. When dovelopnwnts began above us, including but not ' ed to the Ross=or project,it dated a situ ." . where the geek is wet 12 months ofthe year. We w so conee=d one steer that we contacted several agendm to try sued determin why we were having rushing wafter. Crv�n this situation, additional waux direictly ' o our Creek or from the hills directly beh d most of the biomes in hones Bauch, is of WOW concern. when Jones Ranch was built the security of owning the 23 gyres v~rhi surround us was one of major yrs ia convmcin4g homeowner's t this vT a groat place to live a secure from further development just above our Wads. Now,it appe that this is threatened an4 could endanger onr h =&and property. Jmentioned on page ArI6otr property is subject to: (-cffigb-caW5S1' d" 01;tv" concern is the storm drain systems and the impact upon us. We already have lb water nmmng do L ot tfte year into ow storm drains which is not dire . o the Creek.There is no way that we wfll not see a grca deal more water as It of the project. We would 19ke to be advised of the next steps in this process aid if, in fit,we have any s4y as to whether or not in is approved. niwA yo4 for your time, Siucexely, Damien D. O'RQwke Kevin C. t 2Rourke IqlKe rarcriCK MOOO!J tie ZD_J 1 4-U'IUJ csr) u i uz) U I : via January 4, 2005 Michael Henn Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine St.,North Wing, 4th floor Martinez, Ca. 94553 Re: County Files#RZ043144, ODP043025, MS040008 Dear Mr. Henn: As you may recall, I recently called you to discuss the proposed Madden/Paulus project. Our home is located in Jones Ranch and in particular, my very steep lot backs directly to the Madden lot(s). I recently reviewed the Envirom-nental Checklist Fonn (Palmer Madden Mitigation Report) County File#DP043025), MS040008, and RZ043 144 and have to both express some concerns as well as ask a few questions. My conunentsilquestions below are in the same order as the Environmental report. In general, I am concerned about trespassing, erosion impact on Jones Ranch as well as aesthetic impact of the rooflines and road(traffic/construction) along the ridgeline. I strongly suggest that the project consider the following.... a.) Properly fenced to prevent trespassing b.) Proposed road be slightly moved to the West(or else moved to the West side of the lot, near Las Trampas Road) to minimize drainage issues to Jones Ranch on the east of the project. c.) Parking issue be resolved to prevent ridgeline road parking. See other detailed comments below in bold italics. Description of Project Proposes to subdivide one parcel of 5.8 acres into 3 lots ranging from 1.3 to 2.47 acres. Rezoning from Agricultural to A2 to Planned Development P I Comment.-I'm concerned that the project could be approved based on the current proposal to develop only one of the jVadden lots. As such what are the* utureplans to develop other lots?and the corresponding impact on environmentlinfras&ucture? Surrounding Land Uses and Settings Surrounding area-parcels average 1.14 to 23.94 acres Jan 07 05 01 : 06a Mike Patrick Moody 925-314-9703 p. 3 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected (requiring mitigations) include Geological, Biological and Aesthetics Determination - Proposed project could have significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described have been added to the project. Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. Sources: Comment.-Is a copy of Source number 8? (the Design Guidelines available at the County for review?) I. Aesthetics: a.) Substantial Adverse Scenic Vista Impact (potentially significant unless mitigation incorporation). a. Unnamed ridge line is shown on the Contra Costa County General Plan is designated for protection from development that would harm it's scenic quality(General Plan Policy 9-E) Comment.-How can I get a copy of this policy? b. Substantially screened by existing trees c. Development not visible from any public roads Comment.- I'm concerned that the traffic from development would be visible on public roads, contrary to your findings, as the road is plan n ed to run along the ridge line between said property and Jones Ranch. We need to ensure that these homes are not visible from any public roads. In addition, if 11 sizable trees are removed to construct the road, the screening described in the report would be lowered Mitigation: Building Height limited to 28 feet...reflectivity of homes to be limited to 50%.....screen Oaks to be retained and protected during construction Comment.-Does this mitigation ensure that the homes will not be visible from the eastern side?I don't think this mitigation is sufficient to ensure aesthetics. b.) Damage to Scenic resources (trees,rock outcroppings...} a. Removal of I I trees with diameters rangmg from 12 to 32 inches proposed to widen jeep trail along ridgeline. Planting of new trees on a 3:I basis required Comment:Are these 11 trees currently marked? Can tour the property to evaluate the impact el pacr-Madden permission assumed H. Agricultural Resources No comments. M. Air Quality No comments. jan u*t Ub ui : uba mike HatriCK MOOd!d tion-J I 14-ZJ_tUJ P. at TV. Biological Resources i. Potentially Significant impact to nesting Raptors Mitigation: removal of I I trees could affect nesting Hawks, etc., thus mitigation is special 250 foot non-disturbance buffer around trees during nesting season(if observed) Feb. I to July 31)1 Comment: "at is a non-disturhance buffer: (does this totally prevent construction within the 250ft. buffer space?) V. Geology and Soils The report lists potential significant impact(unless Mitigation Incorporation) for exposure of people or structures to landslides, soil erosion, location of soil instability The area is rated as 'highest landslide susceptibility. We should research the implications, what does this rating mean to Jones Ranch. An Erosion Control Plan is requires since this is an at-risk project in a hillside location of 1+ acre. Risk of erosion is rated high by Soil Survey of Contra Costa County_ Comment: When will this report be complete and can we get a copy? Also references a Final geotechnical Report, when will this be done? and can we get a copy? Mitigation: a.) 30 days prior to recording of Parcel Map, required to submit geology, soil and foundation report for review of Planning Geologist. Comment: When will this report he complete and can we get a copy? V1. Hydrology and Water Quality The report lists only less than Significant Impact issues (no Mitigation required). Comment This seems very short sighted when considering the road development along the ridgeline. Drainage, (especially along the Eastern side (Jones Ranch) is a concern key issue. VII. Land Use and Planning The report does not list any mitigation requirements. Comment:My concern is what will be done with the other Aladden lots eventually (what are his plans to subdivide the other lots?) and will the drainage and access issues he addressed now, rather than later. I'm worried about apiecemeal approach. VIII. Noise The report does not list any issues requiring Mitigation Incorporation. Comment.-I am concerned about noise from 2 perspectives; construction noise, especially during road construction along ridgeline and then tra noise along the Iff,C 6 ridgeline after construction, especially if other lots are subdivided in the future.. The report does mention that construction would be limited to daytime hours during week-days and would be prohibited'on weekends. Since-this is a private roam how will it be enforced? ...................... -------------------- .pan U'l Un U 1 : Uba Mike f atr i Ck Moody U?-5-J 1 4-U'IUJ p- b IX. Transportation The report does not list any issues requiring Mitigation Incorporation. Comment:l am concerned about residential event parkins. Even though the private access lane would not `allow' on-street parking and residences are required to provide at least six spaces, I'm worried about enforcement of no-parking on the ridge-line access road, as this is a potential eyesore. X. Mandatory Findings of Significance This section simply confirms that with mitigations,the project as a whole has a less than significant impact. Regards, Mike Moody, Dec.30,2004 Message Page 2 of 3 "highest" in the sentence below. As in" The maximum height is measured Message Page 1 of 3 Palmer Madden From: bellemarc@sbcglobal.net Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 4:58 PM To: 'Palmer Madden' Cc: MHenn@cd.cccounty.us Subject: RE: Madde Paulus project That's fine.That makes it very clear to me.Lucreti -----griginal Message----- _.,,Oo 400tL From: Palmer Madden [maiIto:pbm@netvista.net] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 4:48 PM To: bellemarc@sbcglobal.net Cc: MHenn@cd.cccounty.us Subject: RE: Madde Paulus project Lucretia: Our intent is the same as the Jones Ranch HOA, which is to be sure that on the ridge side the roof line is lower than 28 feet. What we are trying to allow for is a greater height from ground level is on the other side, what I think of as the West side, as the hill falls away from the ridge, the roof line might be higher from the ground level, but it would not be higher than the 28 feet....I hope this makes sense, if it does not, perhaps I could come over to your house tomorrow morning around 11:00 ?? and we could talk about it then??? I did meet today with Mike Henn. He understands what we are both-trying to accomplish. He has proposed the following language, which is OK with us... is it OK with you all??? 28 foot maximum on the ride (North East Side), however, the 28 feet may allow a greater height on the downhill side (West.South West) due to the addingof an understo area on the downhill side of the home, rY up to a maximum of 35 feet. OK??? PBMadden r: k t .-.::..:.:...:::.:.:.:.:: :..-....:...:...........::. -. :: -----original Message----- From: bellemarc@sbcglobal.net [maiIto:bellemarc@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 12:57 PM To: 'Palmer Madden' Cc: MHenn@cd.cccounty.us Subject: RE: Madde Paulus project Palmer,who is to make the decision that there is"no visual impact"? I would think that if the grade"falls away" on the ridge side,then the 28' height on the ridge side would apply.Perhaps,I'm not understanding what natural grade means.Why can't the change just drop out the word 5/9/2005 Message Page 2 of 3 "highest" in the sentence below. As in" The maximum height is measured vertically from the natural grade of the area to be covered by the home to the top of the roof."? -----Original Message----- From: Palmer Madden [mailto:pbm@netvista.net] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 10:08 AM To: bellemarc@sbcglobal.net; MHenn@cd.cccounty.us Subject: RE: Madde Paulus project Lucretia: There is an error in our Design guidelines that you all have approved that actually would allow for higher house than we intended. Mike Henn pointed this out to me. The current version of the Design guideline provides: The maximum height is measured vertically from the highest natural grade of the area to be covered by the home to the top of the roof. This wording would allow a home that is more than 28 feet high on all three of our lots because the lot all have a north to south slope on them. Thus, for example. On the middle lot, Lot B, there is more than 10 feet of fall from the north to the South. So, under this wording, one would have a house than is 28 feet at the north end but might be 38 feet at the south end. This is not good for you guys and was not our intention. We did intend to allow for an increase in height as the lot"falls"to the west, away from you all. This increase will have no visual impact on you all because no structure would be allowed to be above 28 feet from the natural grade. S000, what I propose, and I need to work this out with Mike Henn, is that we would amend the Guidelines at Paragraph 7 to provide: The maximum height is measured vertically from the natural grade on the ridge side of the house. As the lot falls off away from the ridge, so long as there is no visual impact on the ridge side, the home may reach a maximum height of 35 feet. I hope this makes sense to you. PBMadden -----Original Message----- From: bellemarc@sbcglobal.net [mailto:bellemarc@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 2:46 PM To: MHenn@cd.cccounty.us Cc: pbm@netvista.net Subject: FW: Madde Paulus project 5/9/2005 Message Page 3 of 3 Importance: High I'm sorry.1 forgot to give you a phone number,if you have questions:(925)831- 6172,600 Via Romero Lane,Alamo -----Original Message----- From: bellemarc@sbcglobal.net [mailto:bellemarc@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 1:40 PM To: 'M Hen n@cd.cccounty.us' Cc: 'Pbm@netvista.net' Subject: FW: Madde Paulus project Importance: High Mr.Henn attached is the letter from the Jaone Ranch Homeowners' Association regarding the Madden/Paulus proiect.A hard copy of the lefter,design guidlelines and the 2 pagemap for subdivision 6716 (Vesting Tentative Map,Preliminary and Final Development Plan,with the added storm drainage,3/12/05) is being mailed to you today.Thank you for your attention,Lucretia Marcus,Secretary/Treasurer,Jones Ranch HOA. 5/9/2005 GENERAL PLAN s Map output Page 1 of 1 AmIMS HTML Vlemr Mat n T" l F'. R http://ims-c&servlet/com.esri.eshmap.Esfimp?ServiceName=CDDIms&C1ientVersion=,4.0&F or... 5/25/2005 HEARING NOTICE AND NOTIFICATION LIS T NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS ALAMO AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday, August 9,2005 at 1:00 pm., in the McBrien Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,Room 107,(Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: A Hearing on(1)a Recommendation of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to conditionally approve a project consisting of the following related applications (A)a proposed rezoning of 5.8 acres from General Agricultural,A-2,to Planned Unit(P-1)District, County File #RZ043144; and(B)preliminary and final development plan for three single family residences (County File#DP043025); and(2)an appeal filed by Palmer Madden and Susan Paulus of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission decision to conditionally approve a proposal to subdivide 5.8 acres into three parcels(File#MS04-0008); including variances to allow retaining walls over three-feet in height, and a proposed wall and guardrail combination in excess of six-feet in height for a proposed off-site roadway improvement. (APN 198-220-051) (Palmer Madden and Susan Paulus—Applicants& Owners) (Sup.Dist.III) The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, State of California,generally identified below(a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development,County Administration Building,Martinez, California): The subject 5.8 acre site fronts for a distance of approximately 200 feet on the southeast side of a private road located approximately one-quarter mile easterly of the intersection of Las Trampas Road and the private roadway serving#2012 Las Trampas Road,in the Alamo area. For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),a t% Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance(no Environmental Impact Report required)has been issued for this project. If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the County at,or prior to,the public hearing. Prior to the hearing,Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, August 9,2005,in Room 108, at 12:45 pm.,McBrien Administration Building,651 Pine Street, Martinez,,to meet with any interested parties in order to(1)answer questions; (2)review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to identify,resolve,or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff,please call Danielle Kelly,Community Development Department, at(925) 335- 1203 by 3:00 pm on Monday,August 8,2005, to confirm your participation. Date: July 26,2005 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By�k Katherine Sinclair,Deputy Clerk Building Inspection HSD Public Works Interoffice Environmental Health Flood Control Sheriff Historical Resources Information System Public Works Administrative and Co 11, iunity Foundation Center Building 300 Engineering Services Services 1303 Maurice Avenue Rohnert Park,Ca 94928-3608 CA Fish & Game Region 3 US Fish &Wildlife Services San Ramon Valley Fire Protection P.O. Box 47 Division of Ecological Services District Yountville, Ca 94599 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2606 1500 Bollinger Canyon Road Sacramento, Ca 95825-1898 San Ramon, Ca 94583 Central CC Sanitary District East Bay Municipal Utility District Town of Danville 5019 Imhoff Place 375 11 th Street,, MS 701 510 La Gonda Way Martinez, Ca 94553 Oakland, CA 94607-4240 Danville, Ca 94526 San Ramon Valley Unified School Alamo Improvement Association District P.O. Box 156 699 Old Orchard Drive Alamo, Ca 94507 Danville,-Ca 94526 APN 198-214-005-7 APN 198-220-429-5 Jones Ranch Homeowners Mark 1��-224-���-� Mark G &Eileen E Tre Frohnen 25 Old Santa Rita Road##200 Association �� 2205 Las Trampas Road Pleasanton Ca 94588 1934 Contra Costa Blvd. Alamo Ca 94507 ' Pleasant Hill, Ca 94523 ' APN 198-224-452-7 Thomas Seeno Palmer B Madden Peter&Daren Thor 1980 Las Trampas Road 1671 Via Romero 1900 Las Trampas Road Alamo Ca 94507 Alamo, Ca 94507 ' Alamo, Ca 94507 Damien&Devin O'Rourke GlenYeung Mike Moody 1638 Via Romero 1657 Via Romero 430 Via Del Rey Alamo, Ca 94507 Alamo, Ca 94507 Alamo, Ca 94507 Jones Ranch HOA Alamo Improvement Association Luke &Mary Boswell c/a Luceitta Marcus Secret p 166 S. Via Romero Secretary P.O. Box 156 600 Via Romero Alamo Ca 94507 Alamo, Ca 94507 Alamo Ca 94507 ' DeBolt Civil Engineers 811 San Ramon Valley Blvd.,Suite 201 Danville,Ca 94526 CA W' ' • � � tl. 1 � �jJ � J � � w�, �` J 1 � f � � • / l ,, j J 1 tJ t , / 1 � � 1 • .,�' ':�' \ .,,� C4 / 14 Q a `7�0 . t 1 t z CIS Illjiiiill UJ o. ui �. if a o vp I i 1 �` u �Vi ' pisI "k�/ %160 ,' 1 t�1�i i' 7► ��� � :� ; 1� jti� Vii+ ��t+ t j,j t 1l � `�\ _ y. �f w..� ` '►�� q t +t i{t 11 1 1 1. t.t j J t "r� w+T' i iI 1 11 If y.. �' ,► � 1,l�1 / !!4 � O y 06 •i � �..! '� �.v� ���� CIL 19 INV 40 NX\ .00 co l. i i,� \t � `�t� � •,c, 1 � t t / /:, / / / // �jl // ¢ 1 1 �t O ..._, � .\ t /i/ / f./• `� r`����/��-� '/t j J,!/ c.`,`�� � ��°sc 1 1 j ` `r\ �,•'.,� i7 f 1• j. . �� �_,,,�, ,.,� i c ; ..� d4 too a N '.� � �'�p♦\� .-'. !• ;¢D�. "?�-,�',,,,-::,,.`'',,,,'•:"•�: '•,--,�,ti 1\�` \\ \ , \ � \ � t� \ , w � •� ' ,,.fir Wo ��f1f1 .` •'t'`1 ,. �� . '�cr'� \ t `♦ UA N\vy r ` ,. "'"-- �•'� \ \ •\ \1\``\ ,t t t ti\l i. t t t i 1 ca Wo -- ----- �\ `.\ l i { t It 1+i 1 1 t 1 i t,.� i 1 t ! ,,,•, V \ ' Ilk 'c { i1i � ii11 t1�; t1 �� \11 '1 f.-► 4 Lf) :�'+. ` y...._ . �:\ \ \ � :. �•t,� 1.41 i1 t{tt��t,.t 1\� � '�� ! 'Rt � • • tv! t FSC � ,j •�. / 1�9� I� � r ... i r ) h•+fir/ j• 1 .�1 �'�,, f :. ;,• is J,�.t , 1 1{1 � �• � ��`' - o. ifLTY , CO lk 000 up Me 70 mop 4-1 000lo co I � { t j_ 1 r� It � /' ! � � .ti Q,► -••..��'D�4 �� j /�'f 1 !f J t l f t i ! r f, l `"r'' ,� � \ '� \, .r�i Q . ,iia ., 1, !c}/ // ! / f// tt �, ` s �� �1 ` .� `. '�,► 1 .n oIt � t t• ' ,� Qy 5530. .�� -s .....:.... w r . '�'. "ted `•� t. [/" Ilk LAS Ale at � 6 ` -role'gal l S- ., a 13L s '0 AOJO 0.0 V moo �� �,,r•� + ...�......�•.-.....,,,,,,.,.,tib .•� '.01' 00�1*►/ ��� ,""�� `'`► �\►� , d lfit r/ , / '�` • ""'. `�(rQ3 •,,,/'Owl-<!•'",fir/�,j�" �'•i � "� �" t ; ` /X ~~~~ '"*� 10.1 �,. '11--%-- 1''•,,�**41. 4P.. -4% ��,,,.�I,,,,,,�_+,..._..,,, ``�`••. � + .•.w `` 1 ` •� f I /".`., r / T✓' ,, • . fir••• ,r.�• �,,,,..r..+. ---..,.� `.. .•'�"„.,y `�',,,,� `�► ` • —0— OW0000o 0,0 2146. wl A0 AAV �►�O�i' Oef''rte;•�� �,,---" , ' •��'\.~�~♦�` ''.-''��... . ,,..� •�Q� 5 00, ' U •� ,,100, •�.•� ,,. �1�M0• {x1+0• Q' / ,�.- ....'.`'•-'-� N . . '�.� �, � �'• 1 � � . N. /1001 coo 10001, 4. .01, 100e Op Iry 1 00 40'- me- dop ;c•► \ E CLO, WAN16 Q ` •~� ` kxf 3 N 3 Q IS - ,�..,V �- • �• � 1 tit t i � i i ,� '""� r V,•`� dJ 400 e- • ,i • r NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS ALAMO AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday,August 9,2005 at 1:00 pm,in the McBrien Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,Room 107,(Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez,California,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: A Hearing on(1)a Recommendation of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to conditionally approve a project consisting of the following related applications(A)a proposed rezoning of 5.8 acres from General Agricultural,A-2,to Planned Unit(P-1)District,County File #RZ043144; and(B)preliminary and final development plan for three single family residences (County File#DP043025); and(2)an appeal filed by Palmer Madden and Susan Paulus of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission decision to conditionally approve a proposal to subdivide 5.8 acres into three parcels(File#MS04-0008); including variances to allow retaining walls over three-feet in height, and a proposed wall and guardrail combination in excess of six-feet in height for a proposed off-site roadway improvement. (APN 198-220-051) (Palmer Madden and Susan Paulus—Applicants&Owners) (Sup.Dist.IED The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, State of California,generally identified below(a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development,County Administration Building,Martinez, California): The subject 5.8 acre site fronts for a distance of approximately 200 feet on the southeast side of a private road located approximately one-quarter mile easterly of the intersection of Las Trampas Road and the private roadway serving#2012 Las Trampas Road,in the Alamo area. For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CE+QA),a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance(no Environmental Impact Report required)has been issued for this project. If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the County at,or prior to,the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday,August 9, 2005, in Room 108,at 12:45 pm,McBrien Administration Building,651 Pine Street, Martinez,to meet with any interested parties in order to(1)answer questions; (2)review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3)clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to identify,resolve,or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff,please call Danielle Kelly,Community Development Department,at(925)335- 1203 by 3:00 pm on Monday,August 8, 2005,to confirm your participation. Date: July 26,2005 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator B Katherine Sinclair,Deputy Clerk BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL BY PALMER MADDEN AND SUSAN PAULUS OF THE SAN RAMON VALLEY PLANNING OMMISSION DECISION TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE A PROPOSAL TO SUBDIVIDE 5.8 ACRES INTO THREE PARCELS IN THE ALAMO AREA. I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited Certified Mail with Contra Costa County Central Service for mailing by the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California,, first class postage fully prepaid, a copy of the hearing notice, on the above entitled matter to the following: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LIST I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, at Martinez, California. Dated: July 26, 2005 <1 Katle'oiine Sinclair,Deputy Clerk Building Inspection HSD Public Works Interoffice Environmental Health Flood Control Sheriff Historical Resources Information System Public Works Administrative and Community Foundation Center Building 300 Engineering Services 1303 Maurice Avenue Services Rohnert Park,Ca 94928-3608 CA Fish&Game Region 3 US Fish&Wildlife Services San Ramon Valley Fire Protection Division of Ecological Services District P.O. Box 47 Yountville, Ca 94599 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2606 1500 Bollinger Canyon Road Sacramento, Ca 95825-1898 San Ramon, Ca 94583 Central CC Sanitary District East Bay Municipal Utility District Town of Danville 5019 Imhoff Place 375 11 th Street MS 701 510 La Gonda Way Martinez, Ca 94553 Oakland, CA 94607-4240 Danville, Ca 94526 San Ramon Valley Unified School Alamo Improvement Association District P.O. Box 156 699 Old Orchard Drive Alamo, Ca 94507 Danville,Ca 94526 (A-0 APN 198-210-005-7 Jones Ranch Homeowners APN 1�'�-220-029-5 Mark G & Eileen E Tre Frohnen APN 198-220-030-3 3 Association 3925 {Old Santa Rita Road#200 1934 Contra Costa Blvd. 2205 Las Trampas Road Alamo Ca 94507 Pleasanton, Ca 94588 Pleasant Hill, Ca 94523 ' APN 198-220-052-7 Palmer B Madden Thomas Seena 1980 Las Trampas Road Peter&Daren Thar 1900 Las Trampas Road 1671 Via Romero �n Alaa Ca 9450? Alamo, Ca 94507 Alamo, Ca 94507 Damien&Kevin O'Rourke GlenYeung Mike Moody 1638 Via Romero 1657 Via Romero 430 Via Del Rey Alamo, Ca 94507 Alamo, Ca 94507 Alamo, Ca 94507 Luke&M Boswell Janes Ranch HOA Mary C/o Luceitta Marcus Secret Alamo I�npr°ven�ent Association 166 S. Via Romero a�' P.O. Box 156 Alamo Ca 94507 600 Via Romero ' Ala Alamo Ca 94507 Ca 94507 DeBolt Civil Engineers 811 San Ramon Valley Blvd.,Suite 201 Danville,Ca 94526