HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09132005 - D4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
R.'fe Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY AICP Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ` sy County
co
DATE: September 13, 2005
SUBJECT: Rescheduled Hearing on the Recommendation of the County Planning
Commission on the Meritage Lane Planned Unit District Residential Project, at
#850 & 900 North Gate Road, in the Walnut Creek area. (Loving & Campos
Architects — Applicant; Tim & Courtney Jochner — Owners) (County File
#RZ043143 & File #DP043023) (Sup. Dist. III)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. RECOMMENDATION
1. OPEN the public hearing and take testimony on the Meritage Lane Planned Unit District
Residential Project.
2. CLOSE the public hearing.
3. FIND the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project to be adequate for the
purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and ADOPT the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURES
ACTION OF BOARD ON 1.3 <S'' APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OT
IV
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:_ SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
Contact: Rose Marie Pietras[(925)335-1216] ATTESTED
JOHN SWEETE , CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Orig. Community Development Dept. SUPERVISO AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
cc: Norm Dyer, Loving &Campos Architects
Tim and Courtney Jochner BY ,DEPUTY
Public Works Dept., Eng. Services Div.
City of Walnut Creek,Community Development Dept.
September 13, 2005
Board of Supervisors
Meritage Lane Subdivision, File#RZ04-3143 &#DP043023
Page 2
4. ACCEPT the recommendation of the County Planning Commission (CPC), as contained in
Resolution No. 13-2005.
5. ADOPT the Rezoning (County File #RZ043143) of the subject site from the General
Agricultural District (A-2) to the Planned Unit District (P-1), as recommended in the CPC
Resolution No. 13-2005 and APPROVE the Preliminary and Final Development Plan
(County File #DP043023), subject to conditions.
6. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2005-.3`1 311 qiving effect to the aforementioned rezoning.
7. ADOPT the findings as contained in the County Planning Commission's Resolution No. 13-
2005 as the basis for the Board's action.
8. DIRECT the Community Development Department to post a Notice of Determination with
the County Clerk.
11. BACKGROUND
On February 22, 2005, the County Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend
that the Board of Supervisors approve a P-1 rezoning and final development plan for a 15-lot
single family residential development on 20 acres in the Walnut Creek/North Gate area subject
to minor modifications.
The Commission also approved the related subdivision application, contingent on the Board's
approval of the rezoning and final development plan. Since no appeal was filed on the
Commission approval of the subdivision, that decision is final.
Initial Scheduled June 14 Hearing Before the Board
This item was originally scheduled for the Board's June 14, 2005 meeting. At that time,owners
of several adjoining parcels appeared and expressed concern to staff about the ultimate storm
drainage system that would be required for this project. Consistent with the requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance,the project has been conditioned to require the design and completion
of improvements to collect storm water runoff conveyed to this site,or generated by the project,
and to safely convey the runoff to an adequate manmade or natural watercourse. Staff
indicated to the neighbors that the project may involve designing a storm drainage system that
used one or more of their properties. The neighbors expressed concern about this aspect of
theproject to staff, who conveyed their concern to the Board at the June 14th meeting. At that
time, staff recommended that the matter be continued to allow the applicant and the neighbors
the opportunity to resolve the issue.
Following the June 14th meeting, staff reported that an agreement had not been reached. At
staff's recommendation, the Board has rescheduled the hearing on three different occasions
(June 28th,July 12th, and August 2nd)to allow interested parties sufficient time to discuss their
respective concerns.
September 13, 2005
Board of Supervisors
Meritage Lane Subdivision., File#RZ04-3143&#DP043023
Page 3
111. RECENT DISCUSSIONS WITH INTERESTED PARTIES
The applicant, Loving and Campos Architects, has been meeting with a half dozen neighbors
and staff to discuss various storm drain proposals. To date, a resolution that is agreeable to all
parties has not been reached.
Thea Iicant has requested that this item be brought back before the Board for consideration
with the understanding that they will continue to work towards an understanding of the drainage
requirements with the neighbors during the condition of approval compliance phase of the
project.
IV. DISCUSSION
The Subdivision Ordinance does not require that the design of the drainage system be
completed until after the Tentative Map is approved and before the applicant files a Final Map
with the County. The Subdivision Ordinance allows the applicant three years to file a final map
which includes the design of a drainage system that will be acceptable to the County. The
Subdivision Map Act allows the County to grant extensions of that time period before the three-
year period lapses. During this time,the applicant will have the opportunity to design a system
that satisfies all parties.This is typical of most subdivision applications that are approved in the
County. It is extremely rare, in staffs experience, to have a subdivision where the parties
involved do not reach agreement on the terms of off-site right-of-way. In these cases, the
developer may seek Board authorization for the County to exercise its powers of condemnation
to secure property rights as needed to convey the runoff from the development across
ad'joining properties.Typically the parties resolve their differences during the improvement plan
review stage and the project moves forward. The Board can approve the Planning
Commission's recommended actions without precluding further discussion between the
applicant and the neighbors.
&ACurrent Planni nocurr-plan\Board\Board Orders\dp043023-REV-9-06-2005.rpt.doc
RMP\RD\dk
� � ,r
RESOLTIaN Na. 13-200
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY
OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN ZONING BY
NORM DYER, LOVING & CAMPOS ARCHITECTS, INC., (APPLICANT) TIM &
COURTNEY JOCHNER (OWNERS) IN THE ORDINANCE CODE SECTION
PERTAINING TO THE PRECISE ZONING (File #RZ043143), PRELIMINARY
AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (File #DP043023), AND VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP (Subdivision 8824) APPLICATIONS FOR THE MERITAGE
LANE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT FOR. THE WALNUT CREEK/NORTH GATE
AREA OF SAID COUNTY.
WHEREAS, on March M, 2004, the Community Development Department
received related project application requests that were filed by Norm Dyer, Loving &
Campos (Applicant) Tim & Courtney Jochner (Owners) for a 15-unit single family
residential project on 20-acres in the Walnut Creek/North Gate area to:
(1) Rezone 20 acres from General .Agricultural (A-2) to Planned Unit (P-1)
District(File#RZ043143);
(2) Preliminary and Final Development Plan(File#DP043023); and
(3) Vesting Tentative Map approval(SUB 8824).
WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for review and comments between
December 16, 2004 and January 25, 2005 and the Planning Commission adopted the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program at their meeting on
February 22, 2005; and
WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was
scheduled before the Planning Commission on Tuesday February 22, 2005 where all
persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, February 22, 2005, the County Planning Commission
having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted
in this matter;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission:
1. FINDS that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring Program are adequate for the purposes of compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and adopts same;
2. RECOMMENDS that the Board of Supervisors:
Gouni yy Planning Commission Resolution No. 13-2005
Meritage Lane Planned Unit District Residential Project
Walnut CreekliYorth Gate area
A. APPROVE the proposed rezoning of the site from the General
Agricultural (A-2) District to the Planned Unit(P-1) District; and
B. APPROVE the proposed preliminary and final development plan
subject to recommended conditions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission
APPROVES the"Vesting Tentative Map application to allow 15 lots on 20-acres, subject to
conditions, including a requirement that the approval is contingent on conforming action
by the Board of Supervisors of the P-1 rezoning and preliminary and final development
plan applications.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this recommendation and
subdivision approval are as follows:
A. REZONING FINDINGS:
1. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the
General Plan.
Protect Finding: The project site is currently zone General Agriculture (A-
2), and designated Single Family Residential — Very Low (SV) land use
district in the general plan. Though the zoning and land use designation
are compatible the basis for the P-1 rezone allows for an architecturally
and aesthetically pleasing product, while at the same time providing for the
consistency with the General Plan. It should be noted that other properties
within the immediate vicinity are approved to the Planned Unit District (P-
1) with the SV general plan designation. The proposed rezoning to P-1,
Planned Unit Development for the purpose of developing 15 single-family
homes substantially complies with the SV land use designation.
2. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district
are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent
districts.
Protect Finding: The County Code specifically lists residential' uses as
being appropriate for P-1 districts and states that P-1 districts are
compatible with the SV land use designation. The subject property lies in
the vicinity of the North Gate Road— unincorporated Walnut Creek area of
the Couiity.
The majority of the properties along this vicinity of the North Gate Road
are semi-rural with both sin le-faniily residences and equestrian facilities.
2
Gotttqy Planning Commission Resolution No. 13-2005
Meritage Lane Planned Unit District Residential Project
,Walnut CreeklAlorth Gate area
3. Required Finding: Community need has been demonstrated for the use
proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial
success.
Proiect Finding: The County demonstrates a need for housing
opportunities of all types. This rezoning of this property to P-I .will allow
the higher density consistent with the SV designation while providing a
highly desirable and aesthetically pleasing product.
B. Findings to Establish a Planned Unit (P-1)District
Adoption of P-1 Zoning and Approval of a Preliminary or Final Development Plan.
1. Required Finding: The applicant intends to start construction within two
and one-half years from the effective date of the zoning change and plan
approval.
Pro'sect Finding: The applicant has expressed a desire to begin
construction after required permits and approvals have been obtained.
2. Required F The proposed planned unit development is consistent
with the County general plan.
Project Finding: The general plan designation for the project site is Single
Family Residential — Very Low. The Final Development Plan describes a
development of 15 single-family units that meets the general plan density
requirements.
I Required F 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.
Prosect Finding: The North Gate Road area of the County is characterized
as semi-rural with single-family residences and equestrian facilities. The
proposed development will build homes of architectural quality and will be
in harmony with the design of surrounding developments being built in the
area.
The desirability of the project lies in its aesthetic quality and its lot
configuration. The project provides for a density level consistent with the
general plan that also produces single-family residences. The single family
residences providenz and p
fior adequate on site guest parking private _yard
areas. The addition qf the landscaping plan ivill increase the visual and
bounty Planning Commission Resolution No. 13-2005
Meritaore Lane Planned Unit District Residential Project
15
Walnut Creek/North Gate area
aesthetic characteristic of the project. The use of underutilized property
helpsfitlf
ll the County Housing En
.Element within the General Plate.
C. Growth Management Element Performance Standards Findings
I Traffic: The project will generate less than 100-peak hour trips and does
not trigger a Measure C traffic study.
2. Water: The project is within the boundaries of the Contra Costa Water
District. Water service is available for the project.
I Sanitary Sewer: The project is within the boundaries of the Central
Sanitary District. Sanitary sewer service is available for the project.
4. Fire Protection: Prior to the approval of a final map, the applicant is
required to demonstrate that all of the proposed development is located
within one and one-half miles of the fire station, or that the development
within the project that is more than one and one-half miles from the fire
station shall be required to provide automatic fire sprinkler systems. The
nearest station is Station 7 located at 1050 Walnut Avenue, Walnut Creek.
5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element standard is .155
square feet of Sheriff facility station area per: 1,000 population. Therefore,
there is no policy requirement to contribute to Sheriff facility
improvements.
6. Parks & Recreation: At the building permit issuance for the homes, the
applicant will be required to contribute a park dedication fee in accordance
with ordinance requirements. Currently, the park dedication fee is
$21,000.00 per new residence.
7. Flood Control & Dr The project will be reQuired to meet all collect
and convey requirements.
(Ref. The Growth Management Element, Chapter 4, of the General Plan)
D. Findings for Consistency with the North Gate Specific Plan
1. Required Findings—No tentative map may be approved, and no zoning
ordinance may be amended within an area covered by a specific plan unless
it is consistent with the adopted specific plan. (Government Code Section
65455)
Project findinar North Gate
&%— The site lies ivithin the planning area of the
Specific Plan. The Plan designates the flatter portion of the site Single
4
6ounty Planning Commission Resolution No. 13-2005
Meritage Lane Planned Unit District Residential Project
Walnut CreekrNorth Gate area
Family Residential—.Low (1.0--2.9 units per net acre), and the eastern hill
portion of the site Single Family Residential Hillside(0--0.66 units per
acres and Hillside Open space (0-- 0.1 dwelling unit per acre). The
proposed 1.5-unit project is consistent with those designations.
Theproject is also providing for other design mechanisms that are
consistent with the Plan policies including:
• Pedestrian and equestrian trail improvements along its frontage
with North Gate Road;
• Delineated structure setback from an active earthquake fault trace
(Concord Fault); and
• architectural design restrictions
Based on these considerations, the project is consistent with the North Gate
Specific Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairperson and Secretary of this 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 County Planning Commission to prepare this resolution
wereven g ib motion,of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 22, 2005
y
by the following vote:
.A Y ES: Battaglia, Clam,Mehin7an, Snyder, Wong, and TeiTell
NOES: None
ABSENT: G addis
ABSTAIN: None
MARVIN TERR.ELL
Chair of the County Plying Commission
County of.Contra Costa, State of California
ATTEST: _.-.--�--
Dennis M. Barry, Secretary
County of Contra Costa
State of California
GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\.Board'tResolutions\rzo43143res.doc
RMPIRD!
5
ncrings Nbp
,I& I P.1]
R-40
n A
R 0 A-2 R-O A=2
P-1
A=2 A=2
R-M
Rezone From A-2 To P-1 Walnut Creek Area
Is M.Terr ll Chair of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission,State of California,do hereby certify that this is a true and
correct Copy paye M-16 of the Co, S
200 0-n!amaD.
W&W 9
indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission
in the matter of Norm byer. Loving Camj2os Architects
-Inc- - RZ0431 3
ATTESr.-
Seaetay dte Contra Costa CD^
f*%L-..,L-- C
9000e
ORDINANCE NO.9 00,50--24'1
(Re-Zoning Land in the
Walnut geek Area)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: Page M-10 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map(Ord.No.78-93)is amended by re-zoning
the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein
{see also Community Development Department File No. RZ043143
FROM: Land Use District A-2 General Aariculture
TO: Land Use District P-1 Planned Unit
and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to
Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.0,03. PM1
ZO
Aw4
R Aw2 R-0 A'2A
1 0
P-1
A=2 A=2
SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within
15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in
thef: r t Zqoslez zezwe.57 a newspaper published in this County.
PASSED on /I 2i22,L-bv the following vote:
Supervisor Ave No Absent Abstain
1. J. Gioia
2. G.B.Uilkeina
3. M.N.Piepho
4. M. DeSaulnier
S. F.D.Glover
ATTEST: John Sweeten,County Administrator
and Clerk the Board of Supervisors
4e1Chairman of the Board
B Dep. (SEAL)
ORDINANCE NO.
RZ043143 Norm Dyer,Loving&Campos
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF.APPROVAL FOR VESTING TENTATIVE
MAP COUNTY FILE#SD048824, FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN COUNTY
DP043023, and REZONE TO PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT COUNTY FILE
.. ..t. .. .. .v. ..., x. .•.... :. v.:.t..•.:ry.+i.•:i..'..n.{•:.•y:vv .:•}•x:•.S}y .}.,:.:}:{:;i 'itiv.
#RZ043143 :... ;. � rI� � NON
.}
R. { ' 4'
A. Growth Management Performance Standards
1. Traffic: The project will generate an estimated 15 additional AM and PM
pear hour trips. Therefore,the applicant is not required to prepare a
traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements.
2. Drainage and Flood Control: Condition#72 requires that the
applicant collect and convey all storm waters entering or originating
within the project to an adequate natural or manmade water course. The
Final Map may not be filed until the collect and convey requirements and
improvements have been met.
3. Water and Waste Disposal: The project site is within Contra Costa Water
District and Central Sanitation District service areas. The districts have
indicated that their capacity is adequate to support the development.
4. Fire Protection: Prior to the approval of a final map, the applicant is
required to demonstrate that all of the propose development is located
within one and one-half miles of a fire station, or that development within
the project that is more than one and one-half miles of a fire station, or that
development within the project that is more than one and one-half miles
from a fire station shall be required to provide automatic fire sprinkler
systems. The nearest station is Station 7 located at 1050 Walnut Avenue,
Walnut Creek.
5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element Standard is 155
square feet of Sheriff facility station per 1,000 population. The small
population increase associated with this project is not significant. Prior to
approval of the Final Map, the applicant is required to establish a police
service tax district to mitigate the impacts of the development on police
services.
6. Parks and Recreation: The proposed project will have a minor cumulative
effect on demand for park and recreation facilities, and is subject to
payment of park dedication fees in the amount of$2,000.00 per residential
parcel to mitigate impacts.
B. Findings for Consistency with the North Gate Specific Plan
1. Required Findings—No tentative map maybe approved, and no zoning
ordinance maybe amended within an area covered by a specific plan
unless it is consistent with the adopted specific plan. (Government Code
Section 65455)
Project Finding— The site lies within the planning area of the North Gate
Specific Plan. The Plan designates the flatter portion of the site Single
Family Residential— Very Low (0—D.1 units per net acre), and the
eastern hill portion of the site is designated Single Family Residential—
Hillside (0— 0.66 units per acre and Hillside Open Space (0—0.1
dwelling unit per net acre). The proposed 15-unit project is consistent
with those designations.
The project is also providing for other design mechanisms that are
consistent with the Plan policies including:
• Pedestrian and equestrian trail improvements along its frontage
with North Gate Road;
• Delineated structure setback from an active earthquake fault
trace (Concord Fault); and
• Architectural design restrictions
Based on these considerations, the project is consistent with the North
Gate Specific Plan.
C. Approval of a Rezoning
1. Required Finding: The change proposed would substantially comply with the
general plan.
Project Finding: The project site is currently zone General Agriculture (A-2),
and designated Single Family Residential Very-Low (SV) land use district in
the general plan. Though the zoning and land use designation are compatible
the basis for the P-1 rezone allows for an architecturally and aesthetically
pleasing product, while at the same time providing for the consistency with
the General Plan. It should be noted that other properties within the
immediate vicinity are approved to the Planned Unit District (P-1) with the
SV general plan designation. The proposed rezoning to P-1, Planned Unit
Development for the purpose of developing 15 single-family homes
substantially complies with the SV land use designation.
2. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are
compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts.
2
Project Fin The County Code specifically lists residential uses as being
appropriate for P-I districts and states that P-I districts are compatible with
the SV land use designation. The subject property lies in the vicinity of the
North Gate Road—unincorporated Walnut Creek area of the County.
The majority of the properties along this vicinity of North Gate Road are
semi-rural with both single-family residences and equestrian facilities.
3. Required Finding: Community need has been demonstrated for the use
proposed,but this does not require demonstration of future financial success.
,Prosect Fin The County demonstrates a need for housing opportunities
of all types. This rezoning of this property- to P-I will allow the higher
density consistent with the SV designation while providing a highly desirable
and aesthetically pleasing product.
D. Findings to Establish a Planned Unit (P-1)District
Adoption of P-1 Zoning and Approval of a Preliminary or Final Development
Plan.
1. Required Fin The applicant intends to start construction within two
and one-half years from the effective date of the zoning change and plan
approval.
Prosect Finding The applicant has expressed a desire to begin
construction after required permits and approvals have been obtained
2. Required Finding: The proposed planned unit development is consistent
with the County general plan.
Prosect Findin: The general plan designation for the project site is
Single Family Residential— Very Low. The Final Development Plan
describes a development of 15 single-family units that meets the general
plan density requirements.
I Required Findin 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.
7"i7r"'rh
Project P naing: i e North Gate Road area of the County is
characterized as semi-rural with single-family residences and equestrian
facilities. The proposed development will build homes of architectural
quality and will be in harmony with the design of surrounding
developments being built in the area.
3
The desirability of the project lies in its aesthetic quality and its lot
configuration. The project provides for a density level consistent with the
general plan that also produces single-family residences. The single-
family residences provide for adequate on site guest parking and private
yard areas. The addition of the landscaping plan will increase the visual
and aesthetic characteristic of the project. The use of underutilized
property helps fulfill the County Housing Element within the General
Plan.
E. Finding for Approval of a Tentative Map
1. Required Finding: The County Planning Agency 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.
Project Finding: The project is consistent with the various elements of the
General Plan. The land use designation is SFR-VL, which allows for
single-family very-low density development for 15 lots based on net area
minus roadway (0.9 units per net acre) on a 20-acre parcel, which
complies with the density requirement. The project is consistent with the
policies of the North Gate Specific Plan.
2. Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a
tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision fulfills
construction requirements.
Proiect Finding: Public Works requires the project to comply with collect
and convey regulations and design standards for construction of private
roads (heritage Lane). The County Geologist stated that the site is
suitable for construction from a geologic standpoint with the
implementation of the geologic mitigations. Buildings must comply with
the requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
E. Exceptions to Requirements of the North Gate Specific Plan
Required Finding: Due to the circumstances applicable to the subject property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application
of the regulations contained in the North Gate Specific Plan deprives the property
of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the
subject property is located. The City and County shall have the authority to
impose any other conditions which the jurisdiction deems appropriate to minimize
the impact of the development.
4
the North Gate Specific Plan (NGSP). In order to save eight existing mature
oak trees, the applicant is proposing an exception to the North Gate Specific
Plan requirements by proposing a 14 foot wide unimproved landscape-ditch
between the bike lane and pedestrian path while excluding the four foot wide
landscape adjacent to the horse trail. To compensate for this exception and
construct the proposed frontage improvements, the Public Works Department has
conditioned the applicant to dedicate 15 feet of right of way (S feet of right of way
required by the NGSP). The additional I Ofeet will create a 40 foot wide right of
way rather than the 30 foot half-width required by the NGSP. In accordance with
Public Works the applicant will be required to construct an asphalt concrete ditch
between the bike lane and landscape ditch along the frontage. The inclusion of
the landscape strip will cause the pedestrian path and horse trail to meander
along the frontage as transitions would be necessary to match present conditions
along North Gate Road.
In staffs opinion, the loss of the eight existing oak trees would be a detrimental
loss of Contra Costa County's natural resources particularly along North Gate
Road. The eight oak trees help maintain the rural feeling along North Gate Road.
Oak trees take many years to mature and cannot be replaced at the same
maturity.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
General
1. This approval is based upon the exhibits received by the Community
Development Department listed as follows:
Approved per plans as generally shown on the Vesting Tentative Map
and Final Development Plan:
A. Sheets Al Development Plan dated December 1, 2004 and
received January 26, 2005.
B. Preliminary Landscape Plan dated December 1, 2004.
C. SD048824 - Vesting Tentative Map dated December I & 3,
2004,
The approval is also based upon the following re-ports:
5
D. Archaeological Assessment prepared by WSA Consultants
dated November 24, 2003.
E. Phase I Environmental Assessment prepared by Terrasearch,
inc. dated November 28, 2003.
F. Geotechnical and Fault Investigation prepared by Terrasearch,
inc. dated December 9, 2003.
G. Tree Resources Evaluation prepared by Maureen Hamb —
WCISA Certified Arborist#2280 dated December 10, 2003.
H. Wetland Delineation &Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination prepared by Wood Biological Consulting dated
February 4, 2004.
I. Biological Impact Assessment prepared by Wood Biological
Consulting dated April 9, 2004.
J. Darwin Myers Associates—Geological Review Services dated
April 13, 2004.
K. Department of Fish & Game letter dated May 27, 2004 —
Biological Impact Assessment.
L. Botanical Survey prepared by Wood Biological Consulting
dated August 2, 2004.
2. Approval is Contingent on Consistent Approval of Related Rezoning
and Final Development Plan Applications--- This subdivision shall be
approved contingent upon approval of the rezoning request County
File#RZ043143 from General Agriculture, A-2 to Planned Unit
District, P-1 and Final Development Plan, County File:ftD-1-1120-:33101-51,
DO 50 :. If the site is not rezoned this approval shall be null and
void. Any inconsistencies between the Final Development Plan and
tentative map application will require modification of the tentative
map approval prior to any development being authorized.
Exception
3. An exception to the North Gate Specific Plan Road Improvements
requirements is granted by the separation of the pedestrian and horse
paths from the bike lane and road way in order to avoid the removal of
the eight existing oak trees.
6
Indemnification
4. 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 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 claim, action, or proceeding
and cooperate fully in the defense.
Compliance Report
5. At least 45 days prior to filing a final map or issuance of grading
permit,which ever occurs first, 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. The fee for this
application is a deposit of$1,000.00 that is subject to time and
materials costs. Should staff costs exceed the deposit, additional fees
will be required.
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 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 try to obtain a copy, contact the project
planner at 335-1216.)
Residential Design
6. Homes and accessory structures shall be consistent with the North
Gate Specific Plan design standards. At least 30 days prior to the
issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit building
elevations and floor plans with color and material samples for the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The materials
submitted shall provide sufficient variation to enhance the subdivision
design.
7
The guide for development shall be consistent with the Single Family
(R-40) District, subject to the Zoning Administrator's review and
approval at the time of issuance of building permits, except as follows:
A. Stories: Maximum of two stories
For Lots 1 & 15 —one story
B. Primary Structure: Maximum height limit of 25-feet
For Lots 1 & 15 -Maximum height limit 20-feet
C. Primary Structure Setbacks:
As generally Shown on Sheet A-1 of the Preliminary and Final
Development Plan
25' Minimum front yard setback
For Lots 1 & 15 —Minimum 40' front yard setback
20' Minimum side yard with and aggregate of 40'
15' Minimum rear yard
D. Lot 8 Structure Setback:
Lot 8 shall have a 50' structure setback from the existing North
Gate Mutual Improvement Reservoir.
E. Accessory Structure:
Size- 600-square feet
Height- Maximum 12-feet
Rear and Side
Yard Setback- Minimum of 3-feet
7. Applicant shall record a statement to run with the deeds to property
acknowledging Condition of Approval#-5#6 design guidelines for
development.
Conservation Easement
8. A recorded conservation easement shall be granted to the County for
the areas shown on the development plans on Lot 8 (titled No
Structures Allowed On Slopes Greater Than 26%) using the
conservation easement instrument approved by the Zoning
Administrator. The easement instrument shall provide for no grading,
other development activity, or removal of trees may occur in that area
without the prior written approval of the Zoning Administrator. The
erection of structures, including but not limited to buildings, obscure
8
fences, swimming pools, tennis courts, and sport courts, is prohibited
in the conservation easement. Structures auxiliary to agriculture uses
are allowed in the conservation easement.
Alternative Street Names
9. At least 30 days prior to filing a Final Map,three alternative street
names for the proposed private road shall be submitted for the review
and approval of the Community Development Department, Graphics
Section (335-1270). The Final Map cannot be certified by the
Community Development Department without the approved street
names.
Archaeology
10. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading,,
trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of
these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who
is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeology(SOPA) has
had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest
appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary.
11. 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.
12. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the
site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or
any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until
the coroner of Contra Costa County has been contacted,per Section
7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code.
Child Care Conditions
13. The developer shall pay a fee of$400.00 per lot/unit toward child care
facility needs in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors.
Biological Conditions
9
California Red-legged Frog(CRF)
14. A. Due to the presence of aquatic habitat, a 50' exclusionary(no-
build) setback shall be established adjacent to the reservoir. Prior
to recording the final map, the applicant shall record a statement
identifying the setback as a designated natural buffer to be
maintained (,{ S£ in perpetuity. The setback shall be planted
with suitable native shrubs and seeded with native species.
(Mitigation Measure #1.1 Biological Resources)
B. If ground disturbances are scheduled within 300' of reservoir
following the 2004-2005 rainy season, focused surveys for CRF
shall be repeated prior to the initiation of grading. If more than 30-
days pass between the date of the focused surveys and the
initiation of grading, a pre-construction survey for CRF would be
necessary. If another winter season passes between the date of the
focused surveys and the initiation of grading, the focused surveys
would have to be repeated. (Mitigation Measure#1.2 Biological
Resources)
C. If CRF are discovered during any pre-construction or focused
surveys, all work shall immediately cease and the appropriate
agency or agencies notified. Suitable mitigation measure to
prevent take of individuals and potentially mitigation for loss of
habitat may be required and shall be determined by the appropriate
agency or agencies. (Mitigation Measure#1.3 Biological
Resources)
Alameda Whipsnake (AWS)
D. Prior to site clearing debris piles and other potential refuges shall
be surveyed by a herpetologist. Hand removal of debris may be
warranted based on the conclusions of the herpetologist. If AWS
is discovered during the survey, all work shall immediately cease
and the appropriate agency or agencies shall be notified. Suitable
mitigation measures to prevent take of individuals and potentially
mitigation for loss of habitat may be required and shall be
determined by the appropriate agency or agencies. (Mitigation
Measure#2 Biological Resources)
Western Pond Turtle (WPT)
E. A preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist no more than 24 hours prior to site clearing within 50 feet
of the reservoir. Any individual turtles shall be returned to the
reservoir, out harm's way.
10
A 50' exclusionary(no--built) shall establish, measured from the
water's edge.
Drainage from cultivated lands shall be directed away from the
reservoir; surface runoff shall not be permitted to reach the
wetland. (Mitigation Measure#3 Biological Resources)
Burrowing Owl
F. If ground disturbance is scheduled to occur during the nesting
season(February I to August 31), a qualified biologist should
conduct a pre-construction nesting burrowing owl survey
following California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
protocols. Surveys protocols including crepuscular(early morning
or late evening) surveys. Any active nests must not be disturbed
until the young have fledged and compensation of habitat loss, at a
mitigation ratio of to be determined in consultation with CDFG,
would be required.
All burrows containing active nests should be identified by
flagging, and shall be protected by a no disturbance buffer zone of
75 meters (approximately 250 feet). Mitigation would be required
for unavoidable impacts to nesting pairs and habitat loss;
appropriate mitigation would be determined in consultation with
the CDFG.
Areas of bare ground or with grasses less than six inches in height
may attract burrowing owls during the winter season. If
construction resumes after a period of construction inactivity
following clearing, a habitat evaluation to determine burrowing
owl occupancy of the site should be conducted prior to ground
disturbance the following season. (Mitigation Measure #4
Biological Resources)
Migratory Birds
G. Tree removal,pruning, or grading adjacent to trees should be
conducted outside the nesting season, which occurs between
February I and August 15. If groundbreaking occurs during the
breeding season, a qualified biologist should conduct a pre-
construction nesting bird survey of the trees. If no nesting birds
are observed, tree removal may occur within one week of the
survey.
If nesting migratory birds are observed on or adjacent to the site, a
buffer zone shall be placed around the nesting tree. Buffer zones
vary depending on the species (passerines 75-100 feet and rators
200-500 feet). Buffer zones shall be delineated by orange
construction fencing in which no vehicles or workers shall intrude.
All grading within the buffer zone shall be delayed until after the
young have fledged. (Mitigation Measure#5 Biological
Resources)
Geological Conditions
15. A. At least 30 days prior to recordation of the Vesting Tentative Map,
submit an updated geologic report that includes exploratory
trenches adjacent to the north and south property lines. These
trenches shall be 100 feet long+/- and centered on the inferred
location of the Concord fault. The purpose of these trenches is to
confirm/refine the location of the fault zone; set survey stakes; and
accurately map the boundary of the restricted building zone. The
geologist's report shall be subject to review and approval of the
County's peer review geologist. (Mitigation Measure#6 Geology
and Soils)
B. The project geologist for the project shall define the range of uses
allowed in the restricted building zone. (Mitigation Measure#7
Geology and Soils)
C. Record a statement to run with the deeds for the effected lots
acknowledging the approved geotechnical and geologic reports by
title; calling attention to the recommendations; a map showing the
restricted building zone; and an explanation of allowed uses and
required studies and risks. (Mitigation Measure#8 Geology and
Soils)
D. At least 30 days prior to recordation of the Final 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
geotechnical hazards on the site by recognized methods
appropriate to soil conditions discovered during subsurface
investigation. It shall also provide a discussion of the compliance
grading plan with the recommendations in the geotechnical report:
provide details of the Corrective Grading Plan: and outline the
geotechnical reviews and analysis required for a) issuance of
grading permit, and b) issuance of building permits, and c) provide
12
details on inspections required during grading. (Mitigation
Measure#9 Geology and Soils)
E. 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. (Mitigation Measure
#10 Geology and Soils)
F. Grading shall be kept to a practical minimum. Where needed,
retaining walls or reinforced earth can be utilized with proper
design. (Mitigation Measure #11 Geology and Soils)
G. All graded slopes shall be contour-rounded to mimic natural terrain
features. The general standard for graded slopes shall be 3:1.
(Mitigation Measure#12 Geology and Soils)
Erosion Control
16. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an erosion
control plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department. The erosion
control plan shall provide for the following measures:
For Envirorimentally Sensitive Areas:
A. All grading, excavation and filling shall be conducted during the
dry season (April 15 through October 15) only, and all areas of
exposed soils shall be replanted to minimize erosion and
subsequent sedimentation. After October 15, only erosion
control work shall be allowed by the grading permit. Any
modification to the above schedule shall be subject to review by
the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department and
the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
Grading
17. The grading plan shall provide for balanced cut and fill on-site (i.e.,
no import or export of fill material).
18. To reduce long-term erosion and sedimentation impacts on
downstream water quality, grading plans shall be designed such no
surface water shall be directed onto cut or fill slopes. All graded
slopes shall include either brow ditches or berms at the crest to
control surface run-off. These drainage structures shall underlain by
13
subdrains. Run-off from graded surfaces shall be intercepted by
closed conduits and conveyed to adequate storm drainage facilities.
19. Grading plans shall indicate how the project will comply with the
Recycle Water Ordinance(Ord. No.91-24).
20. Cut and graded slopes shall be periodically inspected during grading
of those slopes by an engineering geologist or soils engineer with
periodic progress reports and a completion report.
21. All cut and fill slopes,shall be revegetated as soon as possible after
grading when seasonal conditions are favorable to seed germination
and plant growth.
Trees and Tree Preservation
22. At least 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or filing of a
Final Map, a grading/tree preservation plan shall be submitted for the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall
identify all trees with a trunk circumference of 10 inches or more, 4
1/2 feet above the ground. The trunk size, species and approximate
drip line of each qualifying tree above the ground. The trunk size,
species and approximate drip line of each qualifying tree shall be
identified on the plan, and whether the tree is proposed to be
removed or preserved. The plan shall be accompanied by a report
from a qualified arborist on the proposed development
recommending measures to protect trees as appropriate during the
construction and post-construction stages. The recommended
measures from the arborist shall be integrated into or otherwise
attached to the proposed grading plan.
Prior to grading applicant shall provide fencing or other appropriate
barriers at least five (5) feet outside of the drip line of all trees to be
retained on the site in order to give grading contractors proper visual
notification to keep equipment out of the area surrounding these
trees. (During grading operations a qualified arborists shall be on
site to approve any needed exceptions to these requirements).
23. To assure protection and/or reasonable replacement of existing trees
to be preserved which are in proximity to project improvements, the
applicant shall post a bond (or cash deposit or other surety) for the
required work with the Community Development Department. The
term of the bond extend at least 24 months beyond the completion of
construction. Prior to posting the bond or deposit, a licensed arborist
shall assess the value of the trees and reasonable compensatory terms
in the event that a tree to be preserved is destroyed or otherwise
14
damaged by construction-related activity. The tree-bonding program
shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
24. Property lines shall be adjusted to avoid to the maximum extent
possible establishment of lot lines within the driplines of trees
proposed for preservation.
25. No trees shall be removed prior to approval of the grading/tree
preservation plan without the prior approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
26. The developer and applicant shall adhere to the following tree
preservation standards required by Section 816-6.1202 of the County
Code:
A. Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching,
grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation on
a site with trees to be preserved, the applicant shall install
fencing at the dripline or other area as determined by an
arborist report of all trees adjacent to or in the area to be
altered. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences
may be inspected and the location thereof approved by
appropriate County staff.
B. No grading, compaction, stockpiling,, trenching, paving or
change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the
dripline unless indicated on the grading plans approved by the
County and addressed in any required report prepared by an
arborist. If grading or construction is approved within the
dripline, an arborist may be required to be present during
grading operations. The arborist shall have the authority to
require protective measures to protect the roots. Upon
completion of grading and construction, an involved arborist
shall prepare a report outlining further methods requiring for
tree protection if any are required. All arborist expense shall
be borne by the developer and applicant.
C. No parking or storing vehicles, equipment, machinery or
construction materials, construction trailers and no dumping of
oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the dripline of any
tree to be saved.
27. If no trees are located within 40 feet of the proposed development,
the construction plans shall be noted.
15
Landscaping
28. A revised landscaping plan and irrigation plan for all areas shown on
the plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator at least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits.
A cost estimate shall be submitted with the landscaping program
plan. Landscaping shall conform to the County Water Conservation
Landscape Ordinance 82-26 and shall be installed prior to approval
of final building permit. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed
landscape architect and shall be certified to be in compliance with
County Water Conservation Ordinance.
29. California native drought tolerant plant or tree shall be used as much
as possible. All trees shall be minimum of 5gallon size trees shall be
planted throughout the project site.
30. Privately maintained open space areas shall be suitably landscaped
with scattered California native plant materials. A landscaping plan
for these areas shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator. Landscaping in this area shall be installed
prior to occupancy.
31. Prior to occupancy, an on-site inspection shall be made of privately
owned lands by a licensed landscape professional to determine
compliance with the approved landscape plan. A certification of
completion shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for
review and approval.
32. If occupancy is requested prior to the installation of the landscape
and irrigation improvements, then either: (1) cash deposit; (2) a
bond; or 3 a letter of credit, shall be delivered to the County for
125 percent of the estimated cost of the uncompleted portion of the
landscape and irrigation improvements. If compliance is not
achieved after six months of occupancy as determined by the County
Zoning Administrator,the County shall contract for the completion
of the landscaping and irrigation improvements to be paid for by the
held sum. The County shall return the unused portion within one
year of receipt or at the completion of all work.
Signs/Lighting
33. All signs shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator. No other outside displays are permitted.
16
34. The design, color and location of any project sign at the entrance to
the property shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning
Administrator.
35. At least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits, an exterior
lighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator. The plan shall include details of location and
design of outside lighting fixtures,proposed screening and hours of
operation of exterior lights.
36. Exterior lights shall be deflected so that lights shine onto applicant's
property and not toward adjacent properties.
Construction Conditions
37. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following
construction,noise, dust and litter control requirements.
A. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30
A.M. to 5:00 P.M.,Monday through Friday, and shall be
prohibited on state and federal holidays.
B. The project sponsor shall require their contractor 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 areas
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 identified 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
17
accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the property LL
owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed.
D. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Any violation
of the approved program or applicable ordinances shall require
an immediate work stoppage. Construction work shall not be
allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate construction
bond has been posted.
E. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference
with existing neighborhood traffic flows. Prior to issuance of
building permits, the proposed roads serving this development
shall be constructed to provide access to each lot. This shall
include provision for an on-site area in which to park earth
moving equipment.
F. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to
weekdays between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. and
prohibited on Federal and State holidays.
G. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the
cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be
removed from the site.
38. The project shall comply with the dust control requirements of the
Grading Ordinance including provisions pertaining to water
conservation.
39. Construction-related vehicle access to the site shall be limited to two.
40. Haul routes shall be generally limited to those areas of the site which
are proposed to be graded to avoid unnecessary scarring of the
hillside. Hauling of material through an approved scenic easement
shall be precluded.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Conditions
41. At least 60 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the
applicant shall provide evidence that all the debris and soil piles have
been removed from the property(including all petroleum.-stained soil
areas). The petroleum-soil stained areas should be excavated to at
least 2-feet below ground surface and confirmation soil samples
should be collected from non-stained areas using clean brass liners,
which should be capped, labeled and placed into a pre-chilled ice
18
IN
chest for temporary storage. The confirmation soils samples shall be
delivered under chain-of-custody documentation to a State-certified
hazardous waste testing laboratory and analyzed for TEPH, TOG
and VOCs using EPA methods 8015 (modified), 1664 with silica gel
clean-up and 8260. All debris and/or excavated soil must be placed
on plastic sheeting and/or into DOT approved roll-off bins for
temporary storage. If concentrations of TEPH and TOG are greater
than 100 mg/Kg, then additional over-excavation and re-sampling of
the affected areas must continue until TEPH and TOG
concentrations less than 100 ms/Kg are attained. All excavated soil
must be transported as either a Class II or Class III non-hazardous
waste landfill.
Water
42. At least 30 days prior to recording the final map, the applicant shall
provide proof that adequate water facilities can be provided.
43. The applicant shall comply with the Contra Costa County Ordinance
pertaining to water conservation. Compliance with the Water
Conservation Ordinance shall be designed to encourage low-flow
water devices and other interior and exterior water conservation
techniques.
44. All toilets shall be low-flow units in accordance with Section
17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code; sinks and showers shall be
water conserving units, in accordance with the California Energy
Commission Standards for new residential buildings.
Sanitary Sewer
45. At least 30 days prior to recording the final map, the applicant shall
provide proof that adequate sanitary sewer quantity and quality can
be provided.
Police Service District
46. Election for Establishment of a Police Service District to Augment
Police Services --- The owner of the property shall participate in the
provision of funding to maintain and augment police services by
voting to approve a special tax for the parcels created by this
subdivision approval. The tax shall be the per parcel annual amount
(with appropriate future CPI adjustment) then established at the time
of voting by the Board of Supervisors. The election to provide for
the tax shall be completed prior to filing the Final Map. The
property owner shall be responsible for paying the cost of holding
19
the election,payable at the time the election is requested by the
owner. Allow a minimum of three to four months for processing.
Fire Protection District
47. Prior to the approval of a final map, the applicant is required to
demonstrate that all of the proposed development is located within
one and one-half miles of a fire station, or that development within
the project that is more than one and one-half miles from a fire
station shall be required to provide automatic fire sprinkler systems.
IF the project requires fire sprinkler system than a deed disclosure
for each new residential lot shall be recorded with the Final Map.
This disclosure shall indicate that
"The proposed structure has been designed with automatic interior
fire-suppression sprinkler system that meets the design standards of
the Consolidated Fire Protection District. This provision is required
at least in part so as to allow a plan consistency determination
associated with the approval County File 4's: SD048824 and
DP043023.
Payment of Any Supplemental Application Fees that are Due
48. This application is subject to an initial application fee of
($17,710.00), which was paid with the application submittal, plus
time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed
100% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within
60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit
whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit
issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant
may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If
additional fees are owed, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly
after permit issuance.
PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
SUBDIVISION 8824-04
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 map dated
December 1, 2004.
COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO
RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP.
20
General Requirements:
49. 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. These plans
shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the
Transportation Engineering Division.
Road Dedications:
50. The applicant shall convey to the County,by Offer of Dedication, 15 feet of
right of way to provide for a 40-foot right of way half-width along the frontage of
North Gate Road.
Roadway Improvements (Frontage):
51. The applicant shall construct a 4-foot wide woodchip horse trail, 6-foot wide
asphalt concrete pedestrian path, 14-foot wide unimproved landscape area, 4-foot
wide bike lane, and pavement widening and transitions along the frontage of
North Gate Road. An asphalt concrete dike shall be constructed between the bike
lane and landscape area along the frontage of North Gate Road.
52. The applicant shall install safety related improvements on all streets (including
traffic signs and striping) as approved by Public Works.
53. Any entrance identification walls and signs or other entry features shall be located
according to the County Ordinance Code.
Roadway Improvements (Private Road):
54. Applicant shall construct an on-site roadway system that meets current County
private road standards. A minimum 20-foot wide road within a minimum 30-foot
wide road easement shall be constructed as shown on the tentative map.
55. Applicant shall lengthen and smooth out the transition between the circular entry
and main portion of the private road to provide safer movements for two-way
traffic, subject to the review of Public Works.
56. Applicant shall construct a paved turnaround in accordance with County private
road standards at the end of Meritage Lane.
57. The North Gate Specific Plan requires homes fronting North Gate Road to face
North Gate Road. Access to lots I and 15 shall be restricted to Men*tage Lane
only.
21
Access to Adjoining Property:
Proof of Access
58. Applicant shall furnish proof to Public Works of the acquisition of all necessary
rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of
off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road and drainage
improvements.
Encroachment Pen-nit
59. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit
Center for construction of improvements within the right of way of North Gate
Road.
Site Access
60. Applicant shall relinquish abutter's rights of access along the North Gate Road
frontage of this property, with the exception of the access points shown on the
tentative map.
Maintenance of Facilities:
61. Applicant shall record a Statement of Obligation in the form of a deed
notification, to inform all future property owners of their legal obligation and
specific responsibilities to maintain the private roadway, adjacent earthen
drainage swales, and entry features within the private road easement as well as the
earthen drainage swales within the private drainage easements along the north and
south edges of the property.
62. Applicant shall develop and enter into a maintenance plan of operation agreement
that will ensure that all common areas,private roads,public and private
landscaped areas, and the ditches alongside Meritage Lane and alonp,the North
Gate Road frontage of Lots 1 and 15 will be maintained, for the review and
approval of the Public Works and Community Development Departments. The
County will not accept these properties or facilities for maintenance.
63. Applicant shall provide proof of ownership and maintenance responsibility for the
reservoir. The applicant shall provide evidence that the North Gate Mutual
Improvement Club has the necessary rights to access and maintain the reservoir
and discharge reservoir overflows onto adjacent properties. If the North Gate
Mutual Improvement Club does not have a recorded agreement as to the
ownership and maintenance of the reservoir, the applicant shall develop and enter
into a maintenance plan of operation agreement that will ensure that the reservoir
22
will be maintained in perpetuity by the designated entity, and their successors or
assigns. The County will not accept the reservoir for maintenance.
64. Applicant shall record a disclosure statement to inform all future owners of Lot 8
regarding ownership, maintenance, and any easements for the open water
reservoir.
65. An easement to the North Gate Mutual Improvement Club or other appropriate
designated entity, and their successors or assigns, shall be recorded to provide
access to the reservoir from North Gate Road. The access shall be of adequate
width to allow for necessary equipment required to enter and maintain the
reservoir.
66. Applicant shall record a disclosure statement to inform all future owners of Lots
1-7 and Lots 9-15 about the existence of the reservoir and the ownership and
maintenance entity.
Sight Distance:
67. Provide sight distance at the intersection of North Gate Road and Meritage Lane
for a through traffic design speed of 40 miles per hour. Any entrance
identification walls shall be located in a way that ensures adequate sight distance.
Street Lights:
68. 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 the final 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.
Pedestrian Facilities:
Pedestrian Access
69. The applicant shall design all public and private pedestrian facilities in
accordance with Title 24 (Handicap Access) and the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Parking:
70. "No Parking" signs shall be installed along Meritage Lane subject to the review
and approval of Public Works.
23
Underground Utilities:
71. All new and existing utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground.
Drainage Improvements:
Collect and Convey
72. 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.
73. A storm drainpipe system shall be installed below the proposed swales along the
north and south edges of the property. Catch basins shall be installed at the
downstream end of the swale at each property comer to ensure proper conveyance
of storm water for each lot.
74. If the applicant no longer proposes to install a bio-swale along the project
frontage, the applicant shall design and construct an adequate storm drain facility
to properly convey storm water to an existing adequate discharge point, for the
review and approval of the Public Works Department.
Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements:
75. Any new drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
specifications outlined in Division 914 and in compliance with design standards
of the Public Works Department.
76. Applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk(s) and
driveway(s) in a concentrated manner.
77. To avoid drainage onto adjacent lots along the north-south property lines, the
applicant shall grade lots or construct earthen swales, concrete ditches, or piping
systems between the individual lots to collect and convey storm water run-off to
Meritage Lane and/or the earthen swales proposed along the north and south
edges of the property.
78. The applicant shall create private storm drain easements, with a minimum width
of 10 feet, over all drainage systems that convey storm water run-off from more
than one lot. Private storm drain easements shall be required over the drainage
24
swales along the north and south edges of the property, along the private road, and
if applicant so chooses, any swale along the project frontage of North Gate Road.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES):
79. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and
procedures of 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 or Central Valley Region).
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.
- Provide options for grass pavers or other semi-pervious paving systems for
walks, drives, and patios.
- Shallow roadside and on-site swales.
- Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area.
- Stencil advisory warnings on all catch basins.
- Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program to
buyers.
- Slope pavements to sheet flow onto planted surfaces.
- Other alternatives as approved by the Public Works Department.
ADVISORY NOTES
PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL. ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF
INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE
REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH
DEVELOPMENT
A. 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
25
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 Comi aunity Development Department within 90 days of the
approval date of this permit.
B. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations-and
procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems {NPDES) for
municipal construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California
State Water Resources Control Board of any of its Regional Water Quality
Control Boards (San Francisco Bay or Central Valley Region).
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.
:D
E. Comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements for the
Central County Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. These
fees must be paid prior to issuance of building permits.
F. Comply with the requirements of the Central Sanitary District.
G. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Water District.
H. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection
District.
I. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Permits
are required prior to grading and construction.
J. The project is subject to the development fees in effect under County Ordinance
as of January 26, 2005, the date the vesting tentative map was accepted as
complete by the Community Development Department. These fees are in
addition to any other development fees which may be specified in the condition of
approval.
26
The fees include but are not limited to the following:
Park Dedication $2000.00 per residence
Child Care $ 400.00 per residence
An estimate of fee charges for each approved lot may be obtained by contacting
the Building Inspection Department at 335-1216.
K. Police Service District Costs and Necessary Processing Time ---The applicant is
advised that the tax for the police service district is currently set by the Board of
Supervisors at$200.00 per parcel annually(with appropriate future Consumer
Price Index (CPI) adjustments). The annual fee is subject to modification by the
Board of Supervisors in the future. The current fee for holding the election is
$800.00 and is also subject to modification in the future. The applicable tax and
fee amounts will be those established by the Board at the time of voting. the
applicant is advised that the election process takes from 3 to 4 months and must
be completed prior to recording the Final Map.
RMP/d1s
RMP/mp
3/25/05
GACurrent Planningkurr-plan\Staff Reports\SD048824.COA's 6-8-05-cpc.doc
Rev.-rd
27
PERTINENT STAFF REPORTS
Agenda Item
Pr Community Development Contra Costa County
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
. TUESDAY., FEBRUARY 22, 2005
I. INTRODUCTION
NORM DYER., LOVING & CAMPOS ARCHITECTS, INC. (Applicant) — TW &
COURTNEY JOCHNER (Owners)
A) County File #RZ043143: The applicant requests approval to rezone 20
acres from General Agriculture— A-2 zoning district to Planned
Development—P-1 zoning district.
Z:�
B) County File#DP033051: The applicant requests aPreliminary/Final
Development Plan for 15 single-family residential lots on 20 acres.
Q County File#SD048824: The applicant requests approval to subdivide 20
acres into 15 single-family residential lots.
The applicant requests an exception to the North Gate Specific Plan Road
Improvement requirements by separating the pedestrian and horse paths from the
4t)
bike path and road in order to avoid removal of the existing oak trees.
The subject properties addresses are 850 & 900 North Gate Road in the Walnut
Creek area.
(A-2) (ZA: M-16) (CT: 3553.02) (Parcel #138-120-001,002 & 003)
TT T?P rnT\/TT\/f PVT)A TTMJ
AA.
Adopt a motion:
A. That on the basis of the whole record before it Including the Initial Study and the
comments received the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial
evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that
the mitigated negative declaration reflects the County's independent judgment and
analysis.
The documents or other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the Planning Commission's decision is based may be found at the
Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA under the
custodian of the project planner, Rose Marie Pietras (925) 335-1216.
S-1
B. Adopt the Mitigation Negative Declaration for the project for the purposes of
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and adopt the
Mitigation Monitoring Program.
C. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the rezoning from General
Agriculture District, A-2 to Planned Unit District, P-I.
D. Adopt'the findings and approve the proposed Preliminary and Final Development
Plan with conditions.
E. Adopt the findings and approve the Vesting Tentative Map with conditions.
III. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. General Plan Designation/North Gate Specific Plan (NGSP): Single Family
Residential High Very Low
B. Zoning District: A-2
C. CE A: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted at the County Clerks
office on December 16, 2004 and concurrently mailed to the owners of
adjoining properties. The public comment period extended to January 25,
2005. No comments were received from the surrounding neighbors.
D. Previous Applications:
1. TR7506—Withdrawn major subdivision application.
2. 2891-RZ—Withdrawn rezoning application from A-2 to R-40.
3. TP040012—Tree permit to remove 35 trees
E. Regulatory Programs:
I Q ctl V e Fa It Zone: The slihi ect site is in an active fault zone.
2) Fault Hazard Area: The subject property is in flood zone C - of minimal
flooding, Panel # 0315B
3) 60dBA Noise Control: The subject property is not within a 60dBA
noise control zone.
4) Redevelopment Area: The subject site is not in a redevelopment area.
IV. SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property totals 20 acres consisting three parcels located at 850 and 900
North Gate Road in the W alnut Creek area. At 850 North Gate Road, a paved
S-2
driveway enters the property to a landscaped home, garages, horse stalls and
corrals, and a large fiberglass barn. At 900 North Gate Road, a gravel driveway
leads onto the property, ending at an assortment of structures, including a single-
family home, various outbuildings, trailers, abandoned cars, and empty swimming
pool, a water tank. Large piles of debris litter the property around these structures.
The applicant removed an abandoned walnut orchard that occupied the westerly
one third of the property and replaced it with mature olive trees. At the time of
purchase the southeastern section of the property was scattered with abandoned
cars, debris piles, non-engineered fill and miscellaneous garbage piles including old
appliances and construction materials. All but the green barn have been removed
including all the debris. The remainder of the property consists of either a former
horse pasture or un-used land.
The North Gate Mutual Improvement Club (NGMIC) reservoir is partially located
at the southeastern comer of the property. Approximately 1/2 is on the neighboring
DiMaggio property, to the south. The reservoir is supplied with water from the
Contra Costa Water District via an underground and above ground pipelines from a
canal spur near Arbolado Dr. A freshwater marsh occurs on the north and west
side of the reservoir, within the project boundary.
V. SURROUNDING AREA DESCRIPTION
The neighborhood is composed of large lots and recent subdivisions with horse
paddocks and stables, and remnant orchards. The property to the north of the
subject property includes horse stables and pastures. Single-family residences are
adjacent to North Gate Road. To the east are private ranch lands, currently used for
cattle grazing. To the south are more horse stables,pastures and a single-family
residence. To the west is North Gate Road with single-family residences and
vacant lots on the opposite side.
V1. PROPOSED PROJECT
The subject site constitutes subdivision of 20 acres into 1-acre lots. The existing
20-acre rectangular shaped, property consists of three adjoining parcels: Parcel A
(APN 138-120-002) five acres located at 850 North Gate Road; Parcel B (APN
138-120-003) five acres located at 900 North Gate Road; and Parcel C (A-PN 138-
120-001) 10 acres also located at 900 North Gate Road.
The proposed project consists of 15 very low-density single-family lots. The
proposed lots are a minimum of 40,000 square feet net and have an average area of
52,500 square feet. Thirteen lots (1-7 & 10-15) are between 40,000 square feet and
461,800 square feet. Lot 9 (in the 15% slope area) is 65,700 square feet and Lot 8
(with the 26% slope area and reservoir) is 4.12 acres.
S-J0)
The applicant's aim is to maintain a rural atmosphere by designing the private road
emulating a"Country Lane"to access all fifteen lots. There will be no curbs or
gutters and bioswales are being proposed to direct runoff to the open drainage
along North Gate Road. Trees will line the private road with open rail fencing on
both sides to enhance the country theme of the project.
To satisfy the right of way requirements of the NESP, Forth Gate frontage will be
expanded to accommodate bike, pedestrian and horse pathways. To avoid removal
of the existing eight oak trees along North Gate Road, the applicant proposes to
dedicate an additional 10' of public right of way. The pedestrian and horse path
will be separated from the bike path and road.
The applicant proposes to preserve the NGMIC reservoir along with the freshwater
marsh along its edge. To accomplish this, an easement is proposed within the new
private road to relocate the existing above ground waterline that crosses the
property along the southern boundary. Lot 8 integrates the reservoir with a
conservation easement and a 50' structure setback.
VII. AGENCY COMMENTS
1. California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS): Memorandum
dated March 22, 2004. The proposed project area has the possibility of
containing unrecorded archaeological sites(s). A study is recommended prior to
commencement of project activities.
Review of possible historic structures was limited to the Northwest Information
Centers documents and should not be considered comprehensive. Since the
Office of Historic Preservation has determined that any building or structure 45
years or older maybe of historic value, if the project area contains such
properties it is recommended that they be evaluated by an architectural historian
prior to commencement of project activities.
The guidelines for the implementation of the California Register of Historical
(Cal Register) criteria for evaluation of historical properties have been
developed by the State Office of Historic Preservation. For purposes of CEQA,
all identified archaeological sites should be evaluated using the Cal Register
criteria.
CHRIS recommends that the local Native American tribe(s) regarding
traditional, cultural, and religious values.
2. Health Services Department-Environmental Health: Memorandum dated
March 23, 2004. Sanitary sewer proposed.
3. Contra Costa Fire Protection District: Memorandum dated April 8, 2004. See
attached.
S-4
4. Contra Costa Water District: Memorandum dated April 8, 2004. See attached.
5. Building Inspection Department: Memorandum dated April 19, 2004. No
grading shown at this time. How will lots be developed? Grading permit for
each lot and drainage plans required prior to building permits. Geotechnical
Soils Engineering would be required. Debris to be removed consists of cars,
trucks, buses, and large containers. Demo permits for all structures to be
removed.
6. Department of Conservation— State of California: Memorandum dated April
22, 2004. We are placing on open file the following report, reviewed and
approved by Contra Costa County in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Geotechnical and fault investigation,proposed
residential development, 850 and 900 Northgate Road: by Terrasearch, Inc.,
dated January 26, 2004.
7. City of Walnut Creek: Memorandum dated April 30, 2004. See attached.
8. California Department of Fish & Game: Mern o*randum. dated April 22, & May
27,2004. See attached.
9. Save Mt. Diablo: Memorandum dated May 14, 2004. See attached.
V111. GEOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS
A Geologic Peer Review was prepared by Darwin Myers Associates dated April
13) 2004 for this application. The scope of the review included the review of the
Alquist-Priolo (A-P) report submitted by the applicant prepared by Terrasearch,
Inc. and a site visit on March 31, 2004 with the project planner.
DMA Evaluation
1. Fault Hazards
"The nearest fault considered active by the California Geological Survey (formerly
California Division of Mines & Geology) is the Concord fault, which is mapped
through the site by Terrasearch Inc (2003). The investigation of Terrasearch Inc.
confirmed a shear zone interpreted as a trace of the Concord fault. The fault which
was confirmed in Trench T-2, is projected across the site based on the infer-red
general trend of the Concord fault. It should also be recognized that the precise
limits of faulting in Trench T-2 was not established by field survey. In summary,
there is evidence of an active fault on the site, and a restricted building zone has
been delineated, but the fault location was found at only one point and its precise
location is not established by field survey. Therefore, a 50-foot setback has been
recommended from an 18-foot wide fault zone, which translates to a 118-foot wide
S-5
2. Landslides, Undocumented Fill and Expansive Soil Impact
"There are a number of geotechnical hazards on the site, which include the
following:
• landslides (in northeast corner of site)
• undocumented fills (in the eastern portion of site)
• storm water detention facility(in southeast property corner)
• expansive soils/creeping soils (pervasive problem across the site)
The development of residences on the site has been deemed to be feasible by the
geotechnical engineer, but the geotechnical engineer's report recommends
additional study to evaluate the landslide and the embankment. Additionally, the
geotechnical engineer has not approved any specific approach to grading. General
criteria and standards are provided for site grading, drainage and foundation design.
The report provides recommendations for a pier and grade beam foundation
system, but acknowledges that there are other potential foundation systems. The
preliminary data provided needs to be confirmed by a final geotechnical report?
IX. WETLAND DELINEATION AND PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION
A formal wetland delineation and preliminary jurisdictional determination was
prepared by Wood Biological Consulting biologists Michael-Wood and Mike
Faden on January 28, 2004. Based on previous reconnaissance surveys, the only
potential habitat on site is associated with the NGMIC reservoir.
Results and Conclusions
"A single aquatic feature occurs within the study area. The reservoir is situated in
the southeast corner of the property. It covers approximately 0.9 acre,but only
r......r r.N r.•ten r%+r%I•r A 12 j< r% r% f-s l IV r mo i►^V V*-r, Virg♦1-►,�-. ♦I-s o Y��»y+A n rt o n �t+1-%o n+,,A-%,
n ro n
QlJpuAnnaLL Y V.-JV UL�lL+ aLAL.LCLIly VLLL.L13 VV1L11111 LllV VVL4-11UCL11%,O V1 LIlV OLU%A y GLILa.
The reservoir consists mostly of open water with a narrow, discontinuous band of
freshwater marsh vegetation growing along it shore. The banks are relatively steep
and the water depth exceeding 3 feet, limiting growth of wetland vegetation to the
immediate shoreline.
The reservoir was constructed sometime prior to 1953 and is constrained behind an
earthen berm approximately 15 high on its face. Although the it collects water from
a small watershed, the water level is maintained by pumping from the CCCWD
canal. Stored water is used for local irrigation in the neighborhood.
Based on review of historic and recent topographic maps, the resenroir site was
constructed in dry ground and was not part of a natural surface tributary. The
location was not mapped as a "blue-line" stream on the 1953 USGS topographic
S-6
map. Currently, there is no evidence of an incused channel leasing into or away
from the reservoir. The nearest sizable drainage is Arroyo del Cerro, which lies
about 0.5 mile to the south and flows west and north-west to join Pine Creek. The
nearest intermittent drainage is in Walker Canyon, which lies 0.2 mile to the south
and drains west.
Based on the isolated and artificial nature of the reservoir, the aquatic habitats
present do not to fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Array Corps of
Engineers (USAGE).
Because of the characteristics described above of the reservoir, the aquatic habitats
present are not expected to be regulated by the California Department of Fish &
Game (CDFG), pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish & Game
Code. However, any alteration of the habitats, the applicant should contact CDFG
to determine if a Streambed Alteration Agreement is needed.
Pursuant to the"beneficial uses" clause of the Porter-Cologne Act the aquatic
habitats associated with the reservoir may be regulated by the Regional Water
Control Board (RwQCB). Any alteration of these habitats, the RWQCB should be
contacted to determine if a Water Quality Certificate is needed.
X. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
The applicant submitted an Archaeological Assessment of the subject site prepared
by WSA-Consultants in Archaeology and Historic Preservation dated November
245 2003. According to the report the property did contain structures greater than 40
years old, however, none appeared to meet the eligibility criteria for inclusion in
the California Register for Historic Resources. The archaeologist prepared and
submitted a primary Record (DPR 523) to the State for all structures older than 40
years old. In addition, the assessment indicated no evidence of prehistoric cultural
resources was observed during the survey.
Recomme,ii-dations
The results of the record search and visual inspection of the project location
indicate that the likelihood of encountering cultural resources within the project
area is extremely low. However, the archeologist has recommended that the
following be included as a condition of approval:
Should any previously undiscovered historic or prehistoric resources be found
during construction, work should stop, in accordance with CEQA regulations, until
such time that the resource can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and
appropriate mitigative action taken as determined necessary by the Countv.
S-7
XI. ARBORIST REPORT & TREE REMOVAL
The applicant submitted a Tree Resource Evaluation prepared by Maureen Hamb—
WCISA Certified Arborist #2280 dated December 10,2003. To prepare an
adequate evaluation the arborist covered the following areas:
■ Locate and number trees growing within the property boundaries of 850 &
900 North Gate Road.
■ Identify tree species and measure trunk diameter at 4.5 feet above natural
grade to determine protected status.
■ Visually inspect each tree to evaluate health status, structural integrity and
suitability for incorporation into a development project.
A total of 195 trees were evaluated at the subject sites. Walnut orchards
predominated the tree population on both sites, along with landscape trees and
native oaks. Since the report was prepared the applicant applied for and received a
Tree Permit, County File#TP040012. With the approval of the tree permit, the
applicant removed 20 protected trees and 15 unprotected trees. The subdivision
application includes a request to remove 90 additional protected trees making it a
total of 113 trees. The applicant has replaced the first round of removed trees with
140 olive trees.
Adjacent to the existing residences on both sites are landscape species that include
California pepper, elm and several palm trees.
Dispersed throughout both properties are 20 native oaks in fair to good condition.
A number of them are growing along North Gate frontage. These trees could be
retained during development if provided an exclusive zone recommended by the
arborist.
The applicant shall be subject to all the recommendations outlined in this report for
those trees to be saved and incorporated with development.
XII. BIOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND BOTANICAL SURVEYS
The applicant submitted a Biological Impact Assessment dated April 9, 2004 and
Botanical Survey dated August 2, 2004. Both studies were prepared by Wood
Biological Consultants.
Based on reviews of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CN-DDB 2003)
and reconnaissance-level and focused surveys, a total of 17 special-status animal
species were evaluated for their potential for occurrence. Out-of-season focused
surveys for California red-legged frog (CRF) and western pond turtle (WPT) were
conducted in 2003 by Wildlife Research Associates (Wood Biological Consulting
and Wildlife Research Associates, 2003). 'A formal site assessment for Alameda
S-8
Whipsnake and California Tiger Salamander has also been completed (Wood
Biological Consulting and Wildlife Research Associates, 2003).
Although several migratory birds were detected, these species are neither restricted
to nor dependent on existing habitats on site. With incorporation of the mitigation
.
measures outlined in the above report and the mitigated negative declaration,
project development is not expected to result in significant adverse effects to
species-status wildlife species.
Based on focused botanical surveys conforming to state and federal survey
guidelines (California Department of Fish& Game (CDFG) 2000, United States
4:)
Fish &Wildlife Service(USFWS) 2000), the consultants concluded that no
special-status plant species are present and none are expected. Development of the
site would not result in significant adverse effects on special-status plant species.
The CDFG correspondence dated May 7, 2003 has deten-nined that the biological
assessment adequately characterizes the biological resources of the site and
identifies appropriate actions to address potential impacts. CDFG requests the
opportunity to review the plant survey and follow-up results of California red-
legged frog, whipsnake and burrowing owl surveys.
XM. PHASE I AND H ENVIORNMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The applicant submitted with the application package a Phase I and E
Environmental Site Assessment dated November 28 and December 9, 2003
prepared TERRASEARCH, Inc.
A. Phase I
In summary the Phase I report prepared by Terrasearch presented the
following data:
0 Eight stnintures existed on the site szome of which have.been demnolished
after the submittal of the Phase I report. Trailers, mobile homes,
swimming pool, concrete slabs, a reservoir, two water wells, paved
parking area, a trash pile, debris piles, abandoned vehicles, windmill
water pumping system, etc. also exist on the site.
Debris piles consisting of soil, concrete and AJC debris, metal pipes etc. is
situated on the west and north sides of property;
No visual evidence of an under ground storage tanks (UST) were
observed on the site*,
Based on the Environmental Data Resources, Inc. Report, dated
November 31, 2001 no off-site secondary contamination source was
reported within (0 to 0.13-mile)-mile radius of the subject site. No
graoundwater contamination was reported in the secondary contamination
off-site source.
S-9
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (dated-November 28, 2003)
indicated two areas of environmental concern: 1) metal and organochlorich
pesticide residues within'the surficial soil and 2)potential hazardous
substances/material associated with the debris and dirt piles located on the
eastern portion of 900 North Gate Road. Terrasearch concluded that based
those findings that further environmental assessment of the sub j ect site is
warranted and should include recommendations found in the Phase I Report.
B. Phase II
This report summarizes the field and laboratory methods and results of the
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. No significant adverse
environmental conditions were identified on the site; except elevated
concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons within the debris piles situated on
the eastern portion of the site.
XIV. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONSIDERATION
Background Information
The proposed project is a 15-lot subdivision at 850 and 900 North Gate Road in the
Walnut Creek area. All existing structures will be removed. There-is a fault
setback and open water reservoir within the subject property that will require
development restrictions. This project lies within the North Gate Specific Plan area
(NGSP).
Traffic and Circulation
The North Gate Specific Plan proposes a 50-foot ultimate right of way for North
Gate Road. Frontage improvements within this right of way include a 12-foot
travel lane, a 4-foot bicycle lane, a 6-foot pedestrian path, a 4-foot equestrian trail
mariP of woods yips, and a 4-foot landscaping strip. The pedestrian path shall be
constructed with the same materials as the travel and bike lanes.
The applicant intends to deviate somewhat from the NGSP proposing a 14-foot
wide unimproved landscape ditch between the bike lane and pedestrian path while
excluding the four foot wide land strip adjacent to the horse trail. To construct the
proposed frontage improvements and accommodated the 14-foot wide landscape
ditch, the applicant shall dedicate 15 feet of right of wav as opposed to 5 feet of
right of way required by the NGSP. This will create a 40-foot right of way half
width rather than the standard 30 —foot half-width required by the NGSP. The
applicant shall construct an asphalt concrete dike between the bike lane and
landscape ditch along the project frontage. Inclusion of the landscape strip will
reduce the size of the fronting lots. It also means the pedestrian path and horse trail
S]0
will meander along the frontage as transitions would be necessary to match existing
conditions on North Gate Road.
Meritage Lane, a 20-foot wide private road within a 30-foot wide easement, will
'de is
provi internal access to the site. The applicant is required to ensure there '
adequate sight distance at the main travel way of Meritage Lane is too abrupt and
may be difficult for larger vehicles to negotiate. A more gradual transition should
be provided.
Drainage
4t)
The site generally slopes to the west. The applicant proposes to convey drainage to
storm drain pipes via roadside ditches within 10-foot wide private storm drain
easements on both sides of Meritage Lane as well as grassy swales along the north
and south edges of the property. The storm water will piped to the 14-foot wide
landscape ditch along the frontage of North Gate Road and conveyed to a culvert
crossing North Gate Road no more than 200 feet north of the project entrance. No
drainage facilities are proposed to prevent storm water from sheet flowing across
the lots. The.applicant will be required to construct earthen swales,,concrete
ditches orpiping systems between the individual lots to convey storm water run-off
to Meritage Lane and/or the swales proposed along the north and south edges of the
property. The applicant must ensure that the roadside ditch and existing
downstream drainage systems are adequate to handle the additional runoff from the
Site.
The applicant has stated that a concrete overflow pipe is currently in place at the
southwest comer of the open water reservoir located at the rear of the property and
was installed as a measure to handle emergency overflow from the reservoir. The
applicant shall provide proof that thee reservoir overflow has been sized for the
design —storm event. The applicant shall also provide of ownership and
maintenance responsibility for the reservoir in perpetuity.
XV2 STAFF AN ALYSTS/DISCUS SION
Appropriateness of Use: The proposed subdivision is in a transitional area that has
slowly developed through the years into a semi-rural single-family residential
"D
neighborhood alone;with equestrian uses in the North Gate Specific Plan area. The
proposed project complies with goals and policies of the NGSP in terms of land
use, conservation, community design, scenic views and public services. See pages
5, 6, 7 and 8 of the NGSP for policies
Site Plan Analysis: The applicant is proposing to subdivide 20 acres into 15 sincri e-
fami1v residential lots. The subdivision's layout is good community design with all
lots accessed by a private country road,1, 'Ventagetne Lane with no curbs or gutters.
S-11
General Plan and Zoning Compliance: The proposed subdivision is consistent with
the goals and policies of the General Plan.
XVI. CONCLUSION
With the implementation of the Mitigation. Monitoring Program, the whole of the
project does not adversely affect the environment. The fifteen-lot subdivision
promotes single-family detached residences that provides for good architectural
design and creates a sense community. The houses share a private road designed to
emulate a "Country Lane". The private road is designed without curbs and gutters,
lined with trees and a rail fence on both sides to enhance a country feeling for the
project. In staff's opinion, the proposed subdivision will be a great improvement to
the property and is compatible with the surrounding single-family residential
properties.
GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\sd048824.doc
RMP/dls
S-12
PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE
State of California—T' rources Agency D SCHWARZENEGGER,Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HSH AND GAME
http://www.dfa.ca.ci v
POST OFFICE BOX 47
YOUNTVILLEt,CALIFORNIA 94599
(707)944-5500 2B •
May 27, 2004
Ms . Rosemarie Pietras
Contra Costa County Community
Development Department
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, 4t-h 71 oor, North WJ..nrT
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Dear Ms . Pietras :
Meritage Lane Subdivision
Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County
SD 8824, RZ 043143, DP 043023
The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has reviewed the
Biological Impact Assessment . for the subject project dated
April 9, 2004, and we have the following comments .
The assessment adequately characterizes the biological
resources of the site and ident-ifles appropriate actions to
address potential impacts. DFG would appreciate the opportunity
to review the plant survey and follow-up results of red-legged
frog, whipsnake and burrowing owl surveys . If the Alameda
whipsnake is found to be present on the site, DFG must be
consulted and appropriate authorization obtained under the
California Endangered Species Act .
Please 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) l.
Therefore, if you are preparing an Environmental Impact Report
or an Initial Study and Negative Declaration for this project, aa
de- minimis determination is not appropriate, and an
environmental filing fee as recru]-red under Fish and Game Code
httD-./'t/`cr.,.r.oal.ca.a.oN,,'- Find.California Code.of RegauIafions.Title, 14 Natural Resources.Di-vision 1, Section 753
ConscrVi Calfi{ornia'.� 14A[d ifc Sincc 1870
Letter to Rosemarie Pierros
April 30, 2004 Page 2
sizes of 2.5 acres for produce stands in the R-20 district, and 5 acres for a winery with a land use
permit in the A-2 General Agricultural District. Locating these uses on larger lots would allow
for screening and buffering;that could reduce the potential impacts on residential uses.
In addition, the City of Walnut Creek Engineering and Traffic Engineering Divisions have the
following comments-
13 The lot line between lots 8 and 9 should be relocated so that the landslide area is
contained within lot 9 (otherwise lot 8 will be responsible for a landslide on lot
9). Who is responsible for operation and maintenance of the North Gate Mutual
Improvement Club Reservoir? If the reservoir were to flood other lots in this
subdivision, who would be responsible? Is the reservoir deep enough to be
regulated by the Department of Safety of Dams?
0 The proposal shows a 44' private street with earth ditches behind the sidewalk on
both sides of the street. How do pedestrians and driveways cross these?
0 The street has a 20' wide paved area and extends for 11,300 feet; turnaround areas
need to be provided every 150' feet along the street. The street will require a red
curb and no parking signs.
o The plan should show how the North Gate Road improvements integrate with
improvements to the north and south.
0 The proposed corrugated metal pipe located along the drainage swale on North
Gate Road should be changed to reinforced concrete pipe.
C) The proposed median at the project entrance should be narrowed; the wide
median may cause confusion for motorists accessing the project from North Gate
Road.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. If you have any-questions or comments,
please contact me at(925) 943-5899 x. 213, or stern Oi�wai 11 Ut-CI-Ce
Cordially
a ice Stem, AICP
e ior
nior Planner
c. Tim & Courtney Jochner
Norm Dyer
, T oving & ( ampos
.r - � .��j .. ....� .•.n.w•.n...w r r v wr .v v r..v Y f f V'v v v ! s i
. r
n
: y
f '
it.4• ��:r -�lt. ,}:•t`Y:.:'• � + �...r.•It ti,•~ eHt * - _
••I.ipf.if S• _ •i.
•T
.Y•
,1•
•:r
S L' M f U N T i I A «. L 0
Board of Directors:
Malcolm Sproul lose Marie Pietras, Senior Planner
President 1-4
ommunity Development Department
Arthur Bonwell (OL111ty Administration Building
Aran Prager 351 fine Street, North Wing
Hce Presidents artinez, CA 94553
Douglas Y-iiauer
Secretanz
Frank Varenchik 3y Facsimile: 925 335-12? )
Treasurer
Burt Bassler r e: Preliminary/Final Development Plan
Mary L. Bowerman,Ph.D. Jochner-(Norm Dyer, Loving& Campos) owner (applicant)
Dona)d de Fremery County File: SD8824
Scull Hcin, Ph.D.
Steven Mehiman,J.D. R.Z043 143
Jahn Mercurio DP 043023
David Ogden
David Sargent
David TI•ot[el• May 14, 2004
Sharon Walters
Direc=tors )ear Miss Pietras,
.Staff
Ronald Brown �avc Mount Diablo appreciates the opportunity to make comments on the proposed
E eciirive,,Dire;tar reliminary/Fina.l Development Plan and Rezoning of the Jochner deJvcmeet on
lo
5ctli Adams P p
Director of Land Northuate Road_
Programs
Suzanne Bitz
Office Manager 'I he proposed development is adjacent to both the county's Urban Limit Line and one of
Tal la fimith tI e lar est cattl" ranches `n ha rIount�i th&CrIni"'irkin P- T•f-6 T# rtt,ar* ne�trl r+-.♦a n�t..../..•y- r.
�, +..i�.a�v v a.4J V .L�ILU.t l V l l. AL
i♦J..r 47 U 1�j.�,..1 L l�ti✓ ��4,,r,!�r..J �1
Development Assoc.
I- Holunicer Coordinator Lime Ridge. While significant residential development has taken place within the
orthgate Specific Plan area, this property's development should buffer rather than impact
SAID,�AIIIIJ�,-�d�res : the ULL and the Ginochio Ranch, as called for in the County General Plan_ The GInochi()
H 96 Boulevard Vijay#10 property i5 confirmed habitat for the state and federally listed California reel-le oed frog
Walnut Creep, CA 94595 �a
N hich disperses through associated grasslands.
Telephone:
(92?-5.)947-:535
S4ve Mount Diablo Is not opposed to development of this site, if a number of mitigations
Far: 11
(925)94;-3603 are included as conditions of approval of the rezoning:
l tebsite: �
J
www.savzmountdiablo_org I: The property rises from approximately 260' elevation to 43 5', w]th slopes pf?6% or
greater beginning at 340xk7e would prefer that theP
se steeper sloaes (above 25°col and
aveas above 3 50' lots 8 9-be encumbered with z deed restricted scenic easement in
NNihich no g-rading. structures of any kind. or future subdivision would be allotved
d creasing visual impacts and preserving slopes which are more likely•,.o bl laridsl idc
PI one. while simultaneously buffering the ULL ane Ginoch.io Ranch.
t
U-T a Fj zi-4e v e ri u u r i ij L ci u L u %J.4-%J
Tie plan we have seen fails to show building pads they should be placed priOT to
approval. The simplest way to accomplish this first goal would be to encumber all of Lots
8 9 with the proposed deed restricted scenic easement exce t for each lot's building ad
d envelope.
We believe this condition would still allow the development of all the proposed lots,- an
a]ternative would be to eliminate Lots 8 & 9.
21 Solid fences on slopes can be very visible we would prefer a condition requiring open
wire fences on lots 8 & 9, especially along the north and east boundaries of the two lots.
31 The proposed plan evidently intends to preserve the properties' native oaks we would
pi,efer a condition requiring this preservation. The property also includes a number of
large palm trees. Although Save Mount Diablo does not typically conamcnt about non-
n I;Ltive trees, we would prefer that these palm trees he conditioned for preservation as Weil
because they frequently serve as nesting habitat for owl and other native species.
4'
we're pleased that the Development Plan shows a pedestrian path and associated horse
qtr ail—a condition should be included requiring these public amenities; they're important
Iiii-Fks in the trail system developing along Northgate Road.
Thank you for your consideration of these requests. we'd appreciate receiving hearing
L
1,17-Lices, and stari reports. i can be raacheU' at L-ht number sII0-V-V—LI 11 YVLL
Sncerely,
Seth Adams
Di rector of Land Programs
eq Supervisor Millie Greenberg
DEP /4RTMENT OF CONSERVATION
S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A
CALIFORNIA
GEOLOGICAL April 22, 2004
SURVEY
a a ■
8 0 1 K S T R E ET Ms. Rose Marie Pietras, Senior Planner
M S 1 2-3 2 Contra Costa County Community Development Department
SACRAMENTO
CALIFORNIA 651 Pine Street, 2"d Floor, North Wing
9 5 8 14 Martine-,, CA 94553
PHONE
916/324-7324 Dear Ms. Pietras;
FAX
9 16/3 2 2-4 76 5 We are placing on open file the following report, reviewed and approved
by Contra Costa County in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
911 6324_2555
TEarthquake Fault Zoning Act:
/
INTERNET
consrv.ca.gov Geotechnical and fault investigation, proposed residential
development, 850-and 900 Northgate Road; by Terrasearch, inc.;
ARNOLD dated January 26, 2004.
S C H W A R Z E N EGGER
G O V E R N O R
Sincerely,
William A. Bryant, CEG 1554
Program Manager
cc: A-P file
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,Governor
DEPARTMENT of FISH AND GAME
POST OFFICE BOX 47 so
YOUNTVILLE,CALIFORNIA 94599 ,
(707)944-5500
1
April 22, 2004
a r•
1. 1
Ms . Rosemarie Pietras
Contra Costa County Community
Development Department
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Dear Ms. Pietras :
Meritage Lane Subdivision
Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County
SD 8824, RZ 043143, DP 043023
The Department of Fish and Game 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 (CEQA) 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. go vT/whdab/pdfs/guideplt.pdf.
If you have any questions, please contact Carl Wilcox, Habitat
Conservation Manager, at (707) 944-5525 .
Sincerely,
Robert W. F1oerke
Regional Manager
Central Coast Region
i
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT, U.S.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
333 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94105-2197
Regulatory Branch AP R 6 2004
Subject: File Number 285975
Mr.Michael Wood
Wood Biological Consulting
9
65 Alta Hill Way
Walnut Creek, California 94595
Dear Mr. Wood:
Thank you for your submittal on behalf of Loving & Campos, Architects, Inc., requesting
confirmation of the extent of Corps of Engineers jurisdiction on the property located at 850 and 900
Northgate Road,Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County,California.
Enclosed is a map showing the extent and location of Corps of Engineers jurisdiction on March
185 2004. The reservoir located on the above property is hot a water of the Unit-ed States, including
adjacent wetlands,, as defined,in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(33 U.S.C. Section 1344). We have
based this jurisdictional determination on the current conditions of the site. A chancre in those conditions
may also chancre the extent of our jurisdiction. This jurisdictional delineation will expire in five years
I f %W
from the date of this letter. However, if there has been a change *n circumstances that affects the extent
of Corps Jurisdiction, a revision may be done before that date.
You are advised that the Corps has established an Administrative Appeal Process, as described in
33 C.F.R. Part 331 (65 Fed. Reg. 16,486; Mar. 28, 2000), and outlined in the enclosed flowchart and
"Notification of Administrative Appeal Options,Process, and Request for Appeal" form (NAO-RFA). If
you do not intend to accept the approved jurisdictional determination, you may elect to provide new
information to the District Engineer for reconsideration or submit a completed NAO-RFA form to the
Division Engineer to initiate the appeal process. You will relinquish all rights to appeal, unless the Corps
receives new information or a completed NAO-RFA form within sixty(60)days of the date of the NAO-
RFA.
If you have any questions, please call Bob Smith of our Regulatory Branch at telephone 415-977-
8450. All correspondence should reference the file number at the head of this letter.
Sincerely,
Calvin C. Fong
Chle.f. Rea-ulatory Brancli
Enclosure
16502 Federal Register/Vu.L.. 65, No. 60/Tuesday, March 28, 2000/nines and Regulations
Appendix C to Part 331—Administrative Appeal Process for Approved jurisdictional Determinations
Administrative Appeal Process for
Approved Jurisdictional Determinations
District issues approved
10, Jurisdictional Determination(JD)
to applicanthandowner with NAP.
Approved JD valid 4 Does applicant/land owner
for 5 years. Yes accept approved JD?
No Max.60
days
District makes new Applicant/landowner
approved JD. Yes provides new information?
No
Applicant decides to appeal approved JD.
Applicant submits RFA to division engineer
within 60 days of date of NAP.
Corps reviews RFA and notifies Max.30
days
To continue with appeal appellant within 30 days of receipt.
process,appellant must
revise RFA. Is RFA acceptable?
NO
See Appendix D. Yes
Optional JD Appeals Meeting and/or
P- site investigation.
RO reviews record and the division engineer Max.90
(or designee)renders a decision on the merits days
of the appeal within 90 days of receipt of an
acceptable RFA.
Division engineer or designee
remands decision to district,
with specific instructions,for 4 Does the appeal have merit?
reconsideration;appeal Yes
process completed. J t No t7
District's decision is upheld;
appeal process completed.
Appendix C
y Ap
phcant: Loving & Campos File Number: 285975 Date: Aril, 2004
A Attached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERNUT (Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission) A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
X APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PR.ELBENAR.Y JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
4
No
:1h:. :{.. .:4#.A:.1+' A'$+'Ji:;MM'ti'wiYn4Wi+anr 'fl: .w fr`1 i'^fiff:Sx•;i,nw4:. :S+w4:, •i:i'IY.Y..rw.. .+r ?
A.: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit,you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission(LOP),you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights
to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions,and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
0 OBJECT: If you object to the permit(Standard or LOP)because of certain terms and conditions therein,you may request that
the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. The
district engineer must receive your objections within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the
permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter,the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a)modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b)modify the permit to address some of your objections,or(c)not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections:, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for.your reconsideration,as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit,you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission(LOP),you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
sibnature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights
to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
* APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit(Standard or LOP)because of certain terms and conditions therein,you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this
form and sending the form to the division engineer. The division engineer must receive this form within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process
by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. The division engineer must receive this form
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
APPEAL: If you disagree with the, approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. The division engineer must
receive this form within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary-, JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish. vou mar request an
approved JD (which ma�j be appealed), b�� contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may
PP _
provide new inforrnation for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD-
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to aninitial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form,to clarify where your reasons
or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record,the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting,and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However,
You may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
•+Y,.A�:• w,«'. },Lw :WS N.:M.Y.. L.?Y A:"`'.+;}:v.k.:Ly+„• '}4r.• :.i..•. :.;}..�' n.}w.e.w.I•.iMri.s'
irr r :! .fir +W ?j,;;v wa•o '�rvr• 'S• Y i. :•sw'..
•:,Y yy ,i, f} y{� u.�r�YS••I yy1• = 3M = � �{v t.r .,•�`. .Y.ru k :�IT,•
:.. .... :; .w..•.. ...:.. ..':ix".,v.»..{•n.4i:.. r.:......L.Liw... ..,.,..•: r.•• AS
If you have questions retarding this decision and/or the appeal If you only have questions retarding the appeal process you may
process you may contact: also contact:
Edward A. Wylie, South Section,Regulatory Branch Douglas R. Pomeroy,Appeal Review Officer
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District I.I.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Pacific Division
333 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-2197 3.3.3 Market Street, San Francisco,CA. 94105-2195
Tel. : (4 15) 977-8464 Fah: (415)977-834' Tel.: (415) 977-80-35 Fax: (415)9'.7
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel,and any government
consultants,to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of an,\, site investigation,and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date: Telephone number:
S i¢nature of appellant or went. ,
CEQA DOCUMENTS
nis MA,, AICP
.,.,.-n n u n ity Contra lill y Die e opment Director
.jevelopment Costa
Department
L i
County '_' H r 1 6 2004
County Administration Building
COUNTYCLERK
651 Pine Street
COUNTY
Vo 0
4th Floor,North Wing
Martinez,California 94553-0095
1_11 f ., Y EPUirY
Phone: (925) 335-1210GsJ= DATE: December 16, 2004
NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
County Files #SD048824, #R.Z043143, #DP033051
Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the"Guidelines for h-riplei-nentation of
the California Environmental 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 project:
Z)
NORM DYER - LOVING &CAMPOS ARCHITECTS., INC. (Applicant.)—TIM & COURTNEY
JOCHNER (Owner). This project consists of the following related applications:
4:)
A. County File #R-2043143: The applicant requests approval to rezone 20 acres from
General Agriculture—A-2 zoning district to Planned Unit Development—P-1 zoning
district.
B. County File #DP033051: The applicant requests aPreliminary/Final Development Plan
for 15 single-family residential lots on 20 acres.
C. Countv File #SD048824: The applicant requests approval to subdivide 20 acres into 15
single-family residential lots.
The subject properties addresses are 850 & 900 North Gate Road in the Walnut Creek area. (A-
) (ZA: M-16) (CT: 3553.02) (Parcel #138-120-001,002 & 003)
The proposed development will not result in any sigifi cant impacts.
A copy of the mitigated negative declaration and all documents referenced in the mitigated negative
C� t__ #6_ Z:�
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., Januari, 17, 200-5. Any comments should be in writing and
In
submitted to the following address:
4_1
Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Office, is closed the I st. 3rd & 'nth
Name: Rose Marie Pietras
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, North Wing, 2nd Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
It is anticipated that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at
a meeting of the County Planning Commission on January 25,2005. The hearing is anticipated to be
held at the McBrien Administration Building, Room 107, Pine and Escobar Streets, Martinez.
/6-4te
Rose Marie Pietras
Senior Planner
cc: County Clerk's Office(2 copies)
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: RZ0431,43,DP043023 &SD048824
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: Rose Marie Pletras, Senior Planner, (925) 335-1216
4. Project Location: North Gate Road—Walnut Creek
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address Norm Dyer—Loving&Campos
245 Ygnacio Valley Road
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
6. General Plan Designation: Single Family Residential—Very Low
7. Zoning: A-2—General Agriculture
8. Description of Project: The applicant requests approval to subdivide a 20.0-acre
site into 15 single-family residential lots.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The subject site comprises three parcels totally 20 acres
located at 850 and 900 North Gate Road. The boundaries
of the subject site consist of equestrian facilities and older
ranch style homes with large spacious Properties. The area
is in transition with very upscale housing being developed.
10. Other public agencies whose approval California Department of Fish and Game if protected species
required (e.g.,pen-nits, financing are found.
approval, or participation agreement):
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this prej ect,involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning i Transportation' Public Services
Population &Housing Circulation
Utilities : Service
.x Geological Problems x Biological Resources Systems
Water Energy! & Mineral Aesthetics
Air Quality Resources Cultural Resources
Mandatory Findings of Hazards
Recreation
Significance Noise No Significant
Impacts Identified
2
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 proj ect.
CC��z.c.c ,'C 62v✓I � I ADL
Signature Date
CCC Community Development Department
Printed Name For
SOURCES
T... �1-. -Pv�ro+-�nr�r�f�o on�r11[�4 �]r!a nr%"A'I1/-+1"rr+'hc. =-%r,3111] n-n f'l^1P Tll11/1tI71nrr 1'PTPYP-nr PC nrp
.U1 L111, P1 VI.A,.JJ V1 pi k.,IJL11111rD Lill/ V V 641LA"L1V11, 411%- 1V/1V VT 111E 1 ••111 vaJ�A v
available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street 5th
Floor-North Wing, Martinez) were consulted:
1. Contra Costa Resource Mapping System—Clayton Quad Sheet Panels.
2. (Reconsolidated) County General Plan (July 1996) and EIR on the General Plan(January 1991).
3. General Plan and Zoning Maps.
4. Contra Costa County Code,including zoning and subdivision ordinances and the State Planning and
Zoning Lave, Subdivision Map Act and California Environmental Quality Act.
5. Agency Comments
6. Field Review in April 23, 2004 by Community Development staff and applicant.
Damin Myers Associates—Geologic Review Services dated April I' 2004.
8. wetland Delineation & Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination prepared by wood Biological
Consulting dated February 4, 2004.
9. Archaeological Assessment prepared by WSA Consultants dated NoN,-ember 24, 200-').
10. Phase I Environmental Assessment prepared by Terrasearch, inc. dated Novernber 2S, 2003.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
pact Incmoration Impact Impact
11. Phase Il Environmental Assessment Site Assessment preapared by Terrasearch,inc.dated December
9, 2003.
12. Tree Resource Evaluation prepared by Maureen Hamb WCISA Certified Arborist #2280 dated
December 10,2003.
13. Geotechnical and Fault Investigation prepared by Terrasearch 3 inc. dated December 12,2003.
14. Biological Impact Assessment prepared by Wood Biological Consulting dated April 9,2004.
15. Department of Fish and Game letter dated on May 27, 2004-Biological Impact Assessment.
16. Botanical Survey prepared by Wood Biological Consulting dated August 2,2004.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RvTACTS:
I. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a x
scenic Vista? Sources 1, 23 3 &6
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, x
including,but not limited to,trees,rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway? Sources 1, 2, 3 &6
C. Substantially-degrade the existing x
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? Sources 11,2, 3 &6
d. Create a new source of substantial light x
or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
Source 1, 2, 3 &6
SUMMARY: No impact.
a) The site is in the North Gate Specific Plan area,an area of scenic vistas. The present state of the
I
site has deteriorated caused by years of neglect. Staff has made several field visits. There are
piles of garbage and abandoned cars,trucks,trailers and farm equipment that litter portions of the
site. The homes and other buildings were in a deteriorated state. The applicant has replaced the
dead walnut orchard with mature olive trees. A vineyard is also planned in the near future to be
planted.
b) The site is not located near a scenic highway. However,it is close to the entrance of Mt.Diablo
State Park.
C) The visual character of the site would change if the eventual construction of the proposed homes
took place. The proposed 15-lot subdivision is in a semi r-ural Family-
area designated Single
Very Low in the County General Plan. The appearance would improve the property.,. The
proposed project Id be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
oJect wou %_ -
4 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation ImQact Impact
d) No glare would be introduced in the area. New sources of light would illuminate from the
proposed home shall be screened from the proposed landscaping and tree planting.
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 X
Farmland, 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? Sources 1, 23 3 & 6
b. Conflict with existing zoning for X
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? Sources 1, 23 3 &6
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?
Sources 1, 25 3 &6
SUMMARY: No impact
a, b&c) The site contained an abandoned walnut orchard that since has been replanted with mature olive
trees . The property is not in a Williamson Act Contract with the County. The site is located in an area
designated grazing land on the Contra Costa County Important Farmland 2000 Map. The property is
designated Single Family Residential—Very Low. In addition to replacing the dead walnut orchard with olive
trees, the applicant is proposing vineyards within the Fault Setback Zone. This proposal will provide for a
semi-rural environment fulfilling the goals and policies of the North Gate Specific Plan.
E. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the
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:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
impact Incorporation Imrpact Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation X
of the applicable air quality plan?
Sources 1,2, 35 &6
b. Violate any air quality standard or _X
contribute to an existing or projected
air quality violation? Sources 1, 2, 3 &6
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 1, 2) 3 &6
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial _X
pollutant concentrations? Source 1, 2, 3 &6
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a X
substantial number of people?
Source 1, 2,3 &6
SUNMARY: Less than significant impact.
a) The proposal does not conflict with implementation of an applicable air quality plan.
b) The proposal would not violate air quality standards or contribute to existing air quality violations.
C) The region is currently in non-attainment for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM 10).
Implementation of the pro'Ject would lead to a slight increase in ozone and ozone precursors, as
they are primarily the result of the automobile emissions and development of the additional
residences would lead to increased automobile use.
The residential use is not an inherent producer of PM 10 pollution. Construction activities could
cause a temporary increase in ambient levels of PM 10. There could be an impact from dust and
fine particulates commonly associated with earth movement and construction. The project will be
conditioned to require that measures be taken to reduce PM 10 emissions during earth movement
and construction. These conditions will include, but may not be limited to, watering the site
multiple times daily, sweeping and collecting loose particles on-site and requiring that dump
trucks be covered when hauling loose materials.
The Building Inspection Department, Grading Division, will also enforce measures to reduce
particulate pollution.
d) No sensitive receptors are located near the site
6 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
e) Subdividing the site and construction of new residences would produce no objectionable odors.
N. 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?
Sources 1, 25 35 53 65 14, 15 & 16
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? Sources 1, 2, 3 55 65 141 15 & 16
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? Sources 1, 2135 5561 145 15 & 16
d. Interfere substantially with the movement X
of any native resident or migratory fish or
xx�ilrllifi- cnPrriPc nr with Pctahliched native
....,....__ .._ ---- ---------------- ------ -
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Sources 1, 2, 3, 5, 65 14, 15 & 16
e. Conflict with any local policies or X
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Sources 1, 2, 35 5, 65 14, 15 & 16
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?
Sources 1, 2. 3. 5. 6. 14. 15 & 16
SUMMARY: Potentially significant unless mitigated.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
a) Consultants for the applicant have prepared and submitted a Biologist Impact Assessment dated April
9) 2004; and a Botanical Surveys dated August 2,2004,both studies prepared by Wood Biological
Consulting. Staffhas listed below all impacts and Mitigation measures associated with the Biologist
Impact Assessment.
Based on focused botanical surveys conforming to state and federal survey guidelines(CDFG 2000,
USFWS 2000),the consultants concluded that no special-status plant species are present and none are
expected. Development of the site would not result in significant adverse effects on special-status
plant species.
b) The California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) correspondence dated May 7, 2003 has
deter-mined that the biological assessment adequately characterizes the biological resources of the site
and identifies appropriate actions to address potential impacts. CDFG requests the opportunity to
review the plant survey and follow-up results of California red-legged frog,whipsnake and burrowing
owl surveys.
c) Wetlands associated with the artificial reservoir were determined no to fall under the jurisdiction of the
U.S.Army Corp of Engineers(USACE)or the CDFG;wetland do fall under the authority of the San
Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB). No impacts to wetlands would occur as
a result of project implementation; no notification to the RWQCB is warranted regarding wetlands
impacts.
d) The proposed project would not interfere with the migration of native fish or wildlife. The project site
is comparatively small and is surrounded by semi-rural development. The property does not represent
a significant wildlife corridor. The proposed development would not significantly impact wildlife
movement in the region.
e) The proposal does not conflict with policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and
protected trees. The applicant submitted on March 16,2004 a Tree Resource Evaluation prepared by
Maureen Hamb-WCISA Certified Arborist#2280. The Tree Evaluation assessed 850 and 900 North
Gate Road. At 850 North Gate Road, the landscape consists of larger elm trees, palms, oak and
several smaller landscape type trees. The orchard consists mainly of production walnut and almond
trees. The elm trees are weakly structured and not suitable for incorporation into a new development.
At 900 North Gate Road, one hundred and six trees were inventoried. The large front section of the
site is the ren-mant of an old walnut orchard and not suitable for incorporation into a development
project. California pepper is the dominant tree in the landscape near the residence. The applicant has
informed staff that the pepper trees, which are suitable, will be incorporated into the development.
There are 20 oak trees in good to fair condition. These trees will be incorporated into the
development.
f) The County does not have an approved Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Conservation Plan.
$ Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
Impact
#1: California Red-legged Frog (CRF)
Although the perennial reservoir/stock pond provides suitable structure and hydrology for CRF,it is not
considered to provide suitable breeding habitat for the subspecies due to the presence of aquatic predators
such as largemouth bass and bullfrog,as terrestrial predators such as great blue heron and raccoons. Based
on focused surveys for CRF,the species is not currently present on site. No modifications to the reservoir
are currently proposed.
The applicant is proposing to plant the hillside in the eastern portion of the project site during 2004. Based
on the negative findings of the focused CRF surveys conducted during the summer of 2004,no further
surveys are warranted if surface plowing is completed prior to the onset of rains in the 2004-2005 rainy
season.
CRF could move onto the property during the winter season of 2004-2005. Therefore, future ground
disturbances (e.g. plowing or grading for home pads,roads, driveways and utilities)within 300' of the
reservoir could result in accidental take of CRF. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure#1.1
Due to the presence of aquatic habitat, a 50'exclusionary(no-built)setback shall be established adjacent
to the reservor7-. The applicant shall record a statement identifying the setback as a designated natural
buffer to be maintained in perpetuity. The setback shall be planted with suitable native sh��hs and seeded
with native species.
Mitigation #1.2
Tfcrrn�i���ict�irhnr��or nrP cnhPd7j1Pd within inn'nfthP r'OsPrvnii-fnllnwina the 2004-200-5 ra »v_en_on
focused surveys for CRF shall be repeated prior to the initiation. of grading. If more than 30-dys pass
between the date of the,focused surveys and the initiation of grading, n_pre-construction survey for CRF
would be necessary. If another winter season passes between the date of the focused surveys and the
initiation of grading, the focused surveys would have to be repeated.
Mitigation ##1.3
If CRF are discovered during any pre-construction or focused surveys, all work shall UnlTzediately cease
and the appropriate agent)- or agencies notified. Suitable »litigation measures to prevent take of
individuals and potentially-mitigate for loss of habitat ina1%be required aizd shall be dete7-7771ned by the
appropriate agenc1-or age7tcies.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
t=act Incorporation l_mpact Impact
Impact
#2: Alameda Whipsnake(AWS)
A formal Site Assessment for AWS was conducted to determine the likelihood that the species occurs
within the study area. The potential for occurrence of AWS is considered to be low.
Although the preferred habitat for Alameda whipsnake consist of chaparral and scrub on rocky, south-
facing slopes, it has been recorded within non-native grassland and orchards adjacent to suitable scrub
habitat. Because there is no habitat providing the constituent elements for this species nearby,the likely of
the subspecies would breed on the site is low. However,dispersing individuals could use debris piles on
site for cover. During site clearing, AWS could be accidentally taken. This is potentially significant
impact.
Mitigation Measure#2.1
Prior to site clearing, debris piles and other potential refuges shall be surveyed by a qualified
herpetologist. Hand removal of debris may be warranted based on the conclusions of the herpetologist.
If WS is discovered during the survey, all work shall immediately cease and the appropriate agency or
agencies shall be notified. Suitable mitigation measures to prevent take of individuals and potentially
mitigate for loss of habitat may be required and shall be determined by the appropriate agency or
agencies.
Impact
#3 Western Pond Turtle(WPT)
The reservoir provides suitable breeding habitat for WPT and its potential for occurrence on site is
considered to be high. The project would not result in any impacts to the reservoir.
The proposed project includes minor agricultural uses on the slopes in the eastern part of the study area,
north of the reservoir. There is a potential that runoff from cultivated lands would drain into the reservoir,
carrying sediment, pesticides and fertilizer, which would adversely affect WPT, if present. This is a
potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
A preconstruction sur-vey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no More than 24 hours prior to site
clearing within 50_feet o the reservoir. Any individual turtles shall be returned to the reservoh-, 011f Of
C) -f -
harm's wcm.
A 50,exclusionary(ho-build)setback shall establish, -edfi-0777 the Water edge.
I 172easw
10 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
Drainage from cultivated lands shall be directed away from the reservoir; surface runoff shall not be
permitted to reach the wetland.
Impact
#4 Burrowing Owl
The project site is within the range of western burrowing owl and supports suitable habitat for the species.
Although not detected during the present surveys, the species could move onto the site prior to the
initiation of grading. Were that to occur,disturbance during either the wintering or nesting seasons may
result in the take of adult burring owls,nest abandonment, and mortality of young. This is a potentially
significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
If ground disturbance is scheduled to occur during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), a
qualified biologist should conduct a pre-construction nesting burrowing owl survey following CDFG
protocols. Survey protocols include conducting crepuscular(early morning or late evening)surveys. Any
active nests must not be disturbed until the young have fledged and compensation of habitat loss, at a
mitigation ratio of to be determined in consultation with the CDFG, would be required.
All burrows containing active nests should be identified by flagging, and shall be protected by a no-
disturbance buffer zone of 75 meters (approximately 250 feet). Mitigation would be required for
unavoidable impacts to nesting pairs and habitat loss; appropriate mitigation would be determined in
consultation with the CDFG.
Areas of bare ground or with grasses less than six inches in height may attract burrowing owls during the
winter season. If construction resumes after a period of construction inactivity following clearing, a
LI ,itirt/xii/vAintinH in dotorHlivro Al rrn-WillQ MAd nrr7inn71rV nfthP citP.chnuld he rnndurted pr_l.nl'to Prm tnd
/L.t.V1.4LA./.V YA.iV6V1.LOV/./.V wvr�.//I&&# v v✓r/r v r.✓.vO v. r vv r f J
disturbance the following season.
Impact
#5 Migratory Birds
The project site supports suitable nesting habitat for raptors and migratory passerines (perching birds).
Site clearing activities could result in a take of protected migratory birds. Disturbance during the nesting
season may result in the potential nest abandonment and mortality of young. This is a potentiall-NT
significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Tree removal, p7-unillg, or g1"adlllg adjacent. ro Frees should be conducted outside the nesting season,
which occztrs between February I and August 15. I{groundbreakMcr occltl s dw-1110'the breedingseason,
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact IncgMoration Impact Impact
a qualified biologist should conduct apre-construction nesting.'bird survey of the trees. If no nesting birds
are observed, tree removal may occur within one week of the survey.
If nesting migratory birds are observed on or adjacent to the site, a buffer zone shall beplaced around the
nesting tree. Buffer zones vary depending on the species (passerines 75--100 feet and raptors 200-500
feet). Buffer zones shall be delineated by orange construction fencing in which no vehicles or workers
shall intrude. All grading within the buffer zone shall be delayed until after the young have fledged.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the X
if
signi icance of a historical resource as
defined in 315064.5? Source 1,25 35 5 &9
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the X
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to 315064.5? Source 1, 25 3, 5 & 9
C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? Source 1, 25 3, 5 &9
d. Disturb any human remains, including X
those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Source 1, 2535 5 &9
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 possibility of containing historic resources
and did recommend further study. In response the applicant submitted an Archaeological Assessment
Drenared by WSA Consultants in Archaeoloav and Historic Preservation dated November 24,2003.
.L A .1 v r
Results of Field Survey
"WSA Senior Archaeologist Ms. Leigh Martin conducted a pedestrian survey of Parcels B and C on
November 6,2003,Parcel A surveyed on November 19,2003. Ms.Martin evaluated the area for the
presence of historic or prehistoric site indicators. The archaeological survey was conducted using
transect intervals of 15 meters or less within the project corridor. Ground visibility vaned from fair to
poor, depending on the vegetation coverage. Overall, the ground visibility was poor due to a thick
cover of dry,matted grass and weeds(primarily star and artichoke thistle)covering the hillsides and
valley floors of Parcel B and C. The eastern half of Parcel A contains individual,fenced horse pasture
covered in duff and horse manure. At the request of the previous resident, Mrs. Larrip, the 2-acre
section with the six horses was visually inspected from the fence line as not to disturb the horses. In
other areas grass was scraped aNvav in several areas to improve ground visibility."'
7 C_ 'P -1
12 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
impact Incorporation Impact Impact
"The existing structures located at 850/900 North Gate Road do not appear to meet eligibility criteria
for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources. They are not associated with persons or
events important in history, the structures are not the work of a master architect,nor do they exhibit
important or unique characteristics,and they will not yield information of importance to local history.
They are therefore not considered "an historic resource" under CEQA. No evidence of prehistoric
cultural resources was observed during the WSA survey."
Recommendations
"Results of the record search and the visual inspection of the project location indicate that the
likelihood of encountering cultural resources within the project area is extremely low. Although no
prehistoric cultural resources were observed during the survey of the parcel, there is always a
possibility that cultural resources may become visible once vegetation is removed or during
construction excavation. Indicators of prehistoric site activity include charcoal, obsidian or chert
flakes, grinding bowls, shell fragments, bone, and pockets of dark, finable soils. Historic resources
include glass, metal, ceramics, wood and similar debris."
Should any previously undiscovered historic or prehistoric resources be found during construction,
work should stop, in accordance with CEQA regulations, until such time that the resource can be
evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and appropriate mitigative action taken as determined by the
Contra Costa County.
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
Sourcel, 25 3 & 7
2. Strong seismic ground shaking? X
3. Seismic-related ground failure, including X
liquefaction? Source 1, 2, 3 & 7
4.Landslides? Source 1, 2, 3) & 7 X
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss X
of topsoil? Source 1. 2, 3 & 7
C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is X
13 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
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?
Source 1, 2) 3 &7
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in X
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? Source 1, 2, 3 &7
e. Have soils incapable of adequately X
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
waste disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?
Source 1, 2) 3 &7
SUMMARY: Potentially significant unless mitigated.
Discussion
a.I The nearest fault considered active by the California.Geological Survey(formerly California Division
of Mines & Geology) is the Concord fault, which is mapped through the site by Terrasearch Inc.
(2003). A 50-foot setback has been recommended from an 18-foot wide fault zone,which translates to
a 118-foot wide building-free corridor. By placing the fault in a restricted building zone,risk of fault
rupture is nil.
a.2 According to the Safety Element (p.10-23) the site is in an area rated "moderate" 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). The Terrasearch report provides UBC seismic parameters on page 10. Quality
construction, conservation design and compliance with building and grading regulations can be
expected to keep risks within generally accepted limits.
a.3 According to the Safety Element (p.10-27), the site is in an area that 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 I acre out
of every 1,000 acres has the unique set of conditions needed for liquefaction to be a hazard. The
trench exposure and borings clayey on the site indicate the alluvium is too and too stiff to liquefy.4:) -
a.4 A. With regard to landslides, the site has been mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey(NTilsen. 1975).
This published mapping along the Terrasearch, Inc. report, indicates a landslide in the northeast
property comer.
B. An Erosion Control Plan is routinely required for at-risk prof ects in hillside areas that disturb one acre
14 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
or more. According to the Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, the risk of erosion is high.
C. Our review of the existing geologic data indicates that the project is feasible. However, the slopes
exceed 26 percent in the northeast portion of the site. 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 provided in the Terrasearch report.
D. According to the Soil Survey of Contra Costa County(page 90,Table 6),the site soils can be expected
to exhibit a high expansion potential. Expansion soils shrink and 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
provided by the report issued by Terrasearch Inc. It should be recognized that expansive soils are an
engineering issue, and not a land use or feasibility issue.
Environmental Analysis
Impact
1. Fault Hazards
The investigation of Terrasearch Inc. confirmed a shear zone interpreted as a trace of the Concord fault. The
fault,which was confirmed in Trench T-2,is projected across the site based on the inferred general trend of the
Concord fault. It should be recognized that the precise limits of faulting in Trench T-2 was not established by
field survey. In summary, there is evidence of an active fault on the site, and a restricted building zone has
been delineated,but the fault location was found at only one point and its precise location is not established by
field survey.
Mitigation Measures
A. At least 30 days prior to recoj-dation of the Vesting Tentative Map, submit an updated geologic
report that includes exploratory trenches adjacent to the north and south propertJ)lines. These
trenches shall be 100 feet ling+/-and centered on the inferred location7 of the Concord fault. The
purpose of these trenches is to confirm/refine the location of the fault zone;set Sw-vev stakes,.and
accurately) nzap the boundarj) of the restricted buildi77g7one. The geologist's report shall be
subject to review a77d approval of the County's peer reviem+,geologist.
B. The geologic cojiszdtant_for the project shall define the range of zcses allowed i71 the restricted
building�ofr.e.
C. Record a statement to run ivith the deeds-for-the effected lots ac�-nolvledging the approved 7-eport
by title: calling attention to the recor7z17Tendations,- a 172ap shoiving the restricted building lone:
and an explmiati071 of allo-wed uses and required studies acid risks.
15 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
3. Landslides,Undocumented Fill and Expansive Soils Impact
Impact
There are a number of geotechnical hazards on the site,which include the following:
0 Landslide('in northeast comer of site)
0 Undocumented fills ('in the eastern portion of site)
0 Storm water detention facility(*in southeast property comer)
Expansive soils/creeping soils (pervasive problem across the site)
The development of residences on the site has been deemed to be feasible by the geotechnical engineer,but the
geotechnical engineer's report recommends additional study to evaluate the landslide and the embankment.
Additionally,the geotechnical engineer has not approved any specific approach to grading. General criteria
and standards are provided for site grading, drainage and foundation design. The report provides
recommendations for a pier and grade beam foundation system but acknowledges that there are other potential
foundation systems. The preliminary data provided needs to be confirmed by a final geotechnical report.
Mitigation Measures
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 94-4.420for
review and approval of the Planning Geologist. Improve-ment, grading and building plans
shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report. This report shall include
evaluation of geotechnical hazards on the site by recognized methods appropriate to soil
conditions discovered during subsurface investigation. It shall also provide a discussion of
the compliance ofgrading plan with the recommendations in the geotechnical report.-provide
dpfev;7c, r%fflno Cv,-Y,4ivYrr 071Y," nv,14 rvyf7ino fbo IT1114/Y"/-jj-jjC1jC1
V_&L,&LA6&&,0 L/j I I S-t- %-It/I I IV L, N-1 I LA.L411-1&6 A &LI&I& L1*I&W. k.P&4.&a,a.#&%_ &*6.%_ .614.*a, I%_r a. r LAI J&". %•*0 61 A.&.Y&_*I'tj
required for a) issuance of grading permit, and b) issuance of building permits, and c)
provide details on inspections required during grading.
B. 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.
0
C. Grading shall be kept to a practical minimum. P7iere needed, retaining walls or reinforced
Z)
earth can be utilized with proper design.
D. All graded slopes shall be contour-rounded to mimic natural terrain.features. The general
standard.for graded slopes shall be 3.-1.
1.6 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL:
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? Sources 1, 2, 33 55 10 & 11
b. Create a significant hazard to the public X
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment? Source 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 & 1 I
C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle X
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
Source 1, 2, 3555 10 & 11
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 1, 2, 35 51) 10 & 11
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
tliP Ylrni o-r-t nYP'a O r%i lrol- 1 / ' , 10 N 1 1
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 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 & 11
g. Impair implementation of or physically X
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Source 1, 25 3 & 5
h. Expose people or structures to a significant X
risk of loss. injure or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? Source 1. 2. 3 & 5
SUMMARY: No Impact
17 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation hpact Impact
a, b &c) The applicant submitted with the application package a Phase I and H Environmental Site
Assessment dated November 28 and December 9, 2003 prepared by TERRASEARCH,Inc.
Phase I Environmental Assessment Findings
The Phase I Environmental Assessment determined no
"Based on visual observation and the findings in this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, there is no
visual evidence for the existence o USTs at the site. No stressed vegetation noxious odors was observed
)f 7-
andlor noted on the site. However, based on the CCCBD records, historical aerial photos and topographic
maps, structures existed on the site prior to 1978, therefore, ACM and LBP may have been applied to the
construction of those structures. In addition, a portion ofa reservoir is located on the southeastern corner of
the subject site. The subject property was accessible through a gravel driveway connected to Morthgate Road.
Based on site observations, it appears that water is supplied through on-site water wells.
Based on EDR information dated November 3, 2003 no off-site secondary contamination source was reported
within (0 to 0.13,}-mile radius of the subject property. No USGS water-well was identified within (0 to 0.13
mile)radius of the subject site.No groundwater contamination was reported in the secondary contamination
off-site source. Therefore, the possibility of the groundwater contamination beneath the subject site is highly
remote".
The applicant had TERRASEARCH, inc. prepare a Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment to fulfill the
recommendations of the Phase I Report. The Phase E[Report recommends the following condition of approval.
"Remove all debris and soil pile areas from the property(including all petroleum-stained soil areas).
The petroleum-soil stained areas should be excavated to at least 2-feet bgs and confirmation soil
samples should be collected_from non-stained areas using clean brass liners, which should be capped,
labeled and nlaced into aivpre-chilled ice chest for temporary The confirmation soil samples
J .1 -1 A
should be delivered under chain-of-custody documentation to a State-certified hazardous waste
I I I ied),
testing laboratory and analyzed for TEPH. TOG and VOCs using EPA methods 80 5 (nodif
1664 with silica gel clean-up and 8260. All debris andlor excavated soil must be placed on plastic
A
sheeting andlor into DOT approved roll-off bins for temporary storage. If concentrations of TEPH
and TOG are greater than 100 mg/Kg, then additional over-excavation and re-sampling of the
affected areas must continue until TEPH and TOG concentrations less than 100 mg1Kg are attained.
All excavated soil must be transported as either a Class 11 or Class III non-hazardous waste landfill."
d) In compliance with Government Code Section 65962.5 the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control issued a list ol'hazardous waste and substances sites (Cortese List). The 2002
edition of the Cortese List no hazardous sites within the propem,or in close proximmi.
e-f) The project site is not within the vicinity of a public use airport or private airstrip.
or Implementation of the project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency.-evacuation plan.
C-
18 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
h) The site is located in an semi-rural area with the following uses in the surrounding area:
• horse stables and pastures to the north;
• single family residences and vacant lots to the west;
• private ranch and grazing lands to the east; and
• more horse stables and single family houses to the south.
The property is not intermixed with wildlands.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or X
waste discharge requirements?
Source 1, 23 3 &5
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)?
Sourcel, 2, 3 & 5
C. Substantially alter the existing drainage X
paiteim of tele Site or area, Incl ud ing thr l ugh
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 1, 23 3 &5
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage X
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 1. 2. 3 5
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
7- 19 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
IMpact Incorporation Impact Impact
polluted runoff? Sources 1, 23 3 &5
f Otherwise substantially degrade water X
quality? Sources 1, 2, 3 &5
9- Place housing within a I00-year flood X
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
Sources 1,2) 3 &5
h. Place within a I00-year flood hazard area X
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows? Sources 1, 2) 3 &5
I. Expose people or structures to a significant X
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam? Sources 1, 2) 3 &5
j. Inundation by selche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
Sources 1, 21) 3 & 5
SUMMARY: No Impact
a) The new residences would produce a minimal amount of polluted runoff due to leaks of automobiles,
use of backyards pesticides, etc. This pollution would be negligible.
b) No water will be extracted from an underground aquifer.
C) The site generally slopes west. The applicant proposes to convey drainage to storm drain pipes via
roadside ditches within 10-foot wide private storm drain easements on both sides of Meritage Lane as
well as grassy swales along the north and south edges of the property. The storm water will be piped
to the 14-foot wide landscape
ditch alone the frontage of North Gate Road and conveyed to a culvert
crossing North Gate Road no more than 200 feet north of the project entrance. No drainage facilities
are proposed to prevent storm water from sheet flowing across the lots. The applicant will be required
to construct earthen swales, concrete ditches or piping systems between the individual lots to convey
storm water run-off to Menitage Lane and/or the swales proposed the north and south edges of the
property. The applicant shall ensure the roadside ditch and existing downstream drainage systems are
adequate to handle the additional runoff from this site.
The applicant has stated that a concrete overflow pipe is currently in place at the southwest comer of
the open water reservoir located at the rear of the property and was installed as a measure to handle
emergency overflow from the reservoir. The applicant shall provide proof that the reservoir overflow
has been sized for the design'storm eve-nt. The applicant shall also provide proof of ovrnership and
maintenance responsibility for the reservoir in perpetuity.
Staff received a phone call from Mr.&Mrs. Davidson,adjacent neighbors north of the property.
Z7
Davidson expressed extreme concern regarding the present drainage problems. He informed-s'taff of
20 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
yearly flooding caused by the present situation. They are in favor of the drainage improvements being
proposed by the new development.
d) The rate and amount of runoff from the site will be improved with the new drainage plan that the
applicant is proposing and been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department.
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. As stated above
the applicant is proposing that all storm water runoff be piped to North Gate Road and conveyed to a
culvert crossing North Gate Road no more than 200 feet north of the project entrance.
The applicant is subject to all the rules,regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit 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—Regional III).
g-h) No portion of the site lies within a FEMA designated Flood Zone. The site is within Flood Zone C—
of minimal flooding, Panel#0315B.
i) No levees or dams protect the site.
j) Seiche and tsunami do not occur in this area.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would
the project:
a Phvcirnlly rlivirlP nn PctniriliclhPri rmmnii rnit-0 X
4.• J.11J✓a VKLA/ V1•A� HA VLJ 6KV a&VAAAA 1
Sources 1, 21 3 &4
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?
Sources 1, 21) 3 &4
C. Conflict with any applicable habitat X
conservation plan or natural communit\
conservation plan? Sources 1, 2, 3 & 4
SUMMARY: No Impact
21 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
a) The proposed project would not physically divide an established community.
b) The property is designated Single Family—Very Low in the General Plan and North Gate Specific
plan zoned General Agriculture A-2 Zoning District.The applicant is requesting a rezoning,from
the A-2 Zoning District to P-I Zoning District.Staff concludes that the proposal does not conflict
4-1
with General Plan or North Gate Specific Plan policies. However,an exception is being requested
to the to the North Gate Specific Plan frontage improvement standards by proposing a 14-foot blo-
swale between the bike lane and pedestrian path to avoid the removal of six mature oak trees.
C) There is no habitat conservation plan or natural community plan in this area of Contra Costa
County.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the 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 l, 2 &3
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, 2 &3
SUMMARY':UMMARY: No Impact
a-b) No mineral resources were identified at the site.
X1. 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?
Sources 1, 2 & 8
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of -X
excessive ground borne vibration or ground
borne noise levels? Source 1, 2 & 8
C. A substantial permanent increase in X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
%"- oJ
Source 1, 2 & 8
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase X
in ambient noise levels in the project Nlicinity,
above levels existing without the project?
C� Q)
22 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
Source 1, 2&8
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 l, 2&8
f For a project within the vicinity of a private X
airstrip,would the project expose people
residing" project area to
esi ing or working in the
excessive noise levels? Source 1, 2 & 8
SUMMARY: No Impact
a-c) The site is outside a 60dBA noise contour and the neighborhood is quiet with the exception of some
farm equipment.
`The project site is in Contra Costa County and subject to the guidelines contained in the Noise
Element of the County General Plan. The General Plan guidelines are that outdoor noise,levels in new
residential development should not exceed a DNL of 60dB and an indoor noise level should not
exceed a DNL of 45 db.
d) There would be a temporary increase in noise levels i f the applicant decides to demolish or remodel
the existing residences. These impacts are considered less than significant due to their short duration.
The project would be conditioned to require that steps be taken to reduce construction noise such as
fitting engines with mufflers, limiting the hours of construction and transport of materials and
machinery and locating noise producing equipment as far from residences as possible.
e-f) The site is not in the vicinity of a public use airport or private airstrip and is not contained in an airport
land use plan.
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, 2 & 3
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing X
housing, necessitating the construction of
t-n 1 4-
replacement housing elsewhere?
Source 1.. 2 &
23 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation IMpac Impact
C. Displace substantial numbers of people X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? Source 1, 2 &3
SUMMARY: No impact.
a-c) On average, 2.5 people reside in one residence. The proposal is for 15 single-family units totaling
37.5 persons. The County General Plan has designated this area as Single Family — Very Low
Density. The property is located in a semi-rural area of the County.
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 5:
1. Fire Protection? X
2. Police Protection? X
3. Schools? X
4. Parks? X
5. Other Public facilities? X
S"LTMMAR- Y: No impact
a) 1. The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District currently serves the site. The increase in
demand for fire protection services would be mitigated by the increased tax assessment of the
property. New facilities would be constructed according to community need.
2. The site is currently served by the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department. The applicant shall
participate in an election process. The increase in demand for police services would be mitigated
by an increase annual tax assessment per parcel of the property. New facilities would be
constructed according to community need.
I The site is served by the Mt. Diablo unified School District. The District had no comments on
the proposal. The increase in demand for school services would be mitigated by the collection of
school district fees at the time building permits were issued for the new residences and by the
increased tax assessment of the property. No facilities would be constructed according to
community need.
24 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
4. No new facilities would be required as a direct result of this subdivision. New facilities would be
constructed according to community need (see"Recreation"below).
5. No other facilities would be affected by the proposal.
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 1, 2& 3
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, 2 &3
SUMMARY: No Impact
a) The proposal would not result in an increase in demand for parks and recreational facilities.
b) There is no proposal to expand existing facilities.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would
the proj ect:
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 1, 2, 3 &
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, X
a level of service standard established by
the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways'
Source 1, 2. 3 & S
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
25 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
impact Incorporation I'mpact IMRac
safety risks? Source 1,2,3 &5
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g., farm
equipment)? Source 1, 2, 3 &5
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Source 15 25 3 &5
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X
Source 1, 25 3 &5
9. Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or X
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
Source 1, 25 3 &5
SUMMARY: No Impact
a-b) The Public Works Department reviewed the application and revised map received on December 1,
2004 and the response letter dated May 13, 2004. The following comments were received on
December 9, 2004.
"The North Gate Specific Plan(NGSP)proposes a 50-foot ultimate right of way for forth Gate Road.
Frontage improvements within this right of way include a 12-foot travel lane,a 4-foot bicycle land,a
6-foot pedestrian path, a 4-foot equestrian trail made of woodchips, and a 4-foot landscaping strip.
The pedestrian path shall be constructed with the same materials as the travel and bike lanes.
North Gate Road has a current right of way width of 50 feet. The NGSP proposes a 60-foot ultimate
right of way of North Gate Road. Frontage improvements within this right of way include a 12-foot
wide travel lane, a 4-foot wide bicycle lane, a 6-foot wide pedestrian path, a 4-foot wide equestrian
trail made of woodch-ins.and a 4-foot wide landscaping strip. The pedestrian path shall be constructed
'I & A .1 A
with the same materials as the travel way and bike lanes.
The applicant is requesting an exception from the NGSP by proposing a 14-foot wide unimproved
landscape ditch between the bike lane and pedestrian path while excluding the four-foot wide
landscape strip adjacent to the horse trail. To construct the proposed frontage improvements and
accommodate the 14-foot wide landscape ditch,the applicant shall dedicate 15 feet of right of way as
opposed to 5 feet of right of way required by the North Gate Specific Plan. This will create a 40-foot
right of way half-wide rather than the standard 30-foot half-width required by the NGSP. The
applicant shall construct an asphalt concrete dike between the bike lane and landscape ditch along the
project frontage.Inclusion of the landscape strip will reduce the size of the fronting lots. It also means
the pedestrian path and horse trail will meander along the frontage as transitions would be necessary to
match existing conditions on North Gate Road.
0
Mertiage Lane, a 2046ot ,%vide private road within a 30-foot wide easement, will provide internal
access to the site. The applicant is required to ensure there is adequate sight distance at the private
26 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
road intersection with North Gate Road. The transition between the circular entrance and main travel
way of Meritage Lane is too abrupt and may be difficult for larger vehicles to negotiate. A more
gradual transition should be provided.
C) Air traffic patterns would not be affected.
d) No hazardous design features or incompatible uses are proposed
e) The Fire District raised no concerns regarding emergency access.
f) The site plan shows the internal road. In addition each home shall have an attached three-car garage.
Guest parking shall be accommodated on each lot.
g) The proposal does not conflict with adopted policies or programs supporting alternative transportation.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements X
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board? Source 11, 21 3 &5
b. Require or result in the construction of new X
water or wastewater treatment facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction or which could cause significant
environmental effects? Source 1, 27 3 &5
C. Require or result in the construction of new X
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of evicting farilitles the r-rin stn fiction of w*h 1 ch
could cause significant environmental effects?
Source 1, ?, 3 & 5
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to _X
serve the project from existing entitlement
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlement needed? Source 1, 2)1 3 & 5
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater X
treatment provider which serves OTmay serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's provi existing cornrnitments9 Source 1. 2. 3 &
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient X
permitted capacity,-,to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
Source 1. 2. 3 & 5
27 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
9. Comply with federal, state and local statutes X
and regulations related to solid waste?
Source 1, 25 3 &5
SLTNEVLA-RY: No Impact.
a) The applicant must comply with the County's Storm Water Management and Discharge Control
Ordinance and all rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System.
b) The Contra Costa Water District would provide water service. Adequate supplies exist to serve
the project without requiring the expansion of new facilities.
C) See Section VIII(c)for response.
d) The Contra Costa Water District will provide water service. Adequate supplies exist to serve the
project without requiring construction of new facilities.
e) The Central Sanitation District will provide sanitary service. Sufficient wastewater capacity exists
without requiring construction of new facilities.
f) The project would be served by a landfill facility within Contra Costa County. County landfills
have capacity to serve a project of this size.
g) Refuse collection from the new residences would be deposited in a landfill that must comply with
state and local regulations for disposal of solid waste.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a. Does the project have the potential to X
degrade 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 proiect are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of
28 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact IMpac
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?
SLTNB4ARY: No Impact
a-c) The proposed subdivision with the mitigation measures described above will not have a significant
impact on the environment, nor will the project have significant cumulative impact on the
environment. This is an infill project in a semi-rural area of the southeast county. The County
General Plan and North Gate Specific Plan has designated this property as Single Family--Very Low.
The proposed 15 single-family lots are consistent with the designated use.
4
O
o
pe
t;r.)
tn
IS
�, o a
Cd
cd
OD
OD
)9D
ta
0
tn 46
N L4.A
IrZ
U.A
O..A
OQ PA
15
L)
IDD
t�A 0 tn
0 -tam _6 d.'
-t5
vt 0 �-d
-* 6.>.. ..
co
CO-10
00
tt V
cd Cd
tin
Cd
ca C-1 .0 Q
;OA cd NC,
t�N ✓ L'.4
Cd i'. , on
0 6'9C4 bD 6) 0)
OD
I.." I.Cll
od
ca
--Cd.
C) oil cd
mow,7
tn
td
---
>D
tn
V.A
tA S-A 7
bl) 04 C-A �od
Tv
t�A A
OA
tip., tn tl) 'n cin
tn >
C-4 *o- 45
-;V�, ?-�
cd C) OD
�A tD o
?A L)
✓ v"` Ny j�Q catsf)
fA
tn,
PA
on cd foA
0 r. (L) rl
C* : w -5 U, t$')
%.- :�p 4) O , C*
U.A to OA e L)
cd rA 0 W %P.
tn
ci DD
cd
rd.
os
At
c
0 CU.
A
PO'
folr cp
r,tCrA
io cu vo
rco .!:-5 cv, cu
.44 cv, 1k c ;.A*
tp C)
00 0 o cr tp
0 0 1- CD to
? 0 n %'60 W-1
Q co) 40 to. 1�
C. 0 0 '.4 1�
C')
CO to -d.
co 0
CO. v' 0 co
co
CO. Co. vA CP 0 0 t:�
i 5a S 0 0 P.% P'. (P
cu cv 0 &P CD t:r $0 C-) 0
V co VP
0 C) n to Cu C11-1
co CIO
0 0
0
co LA, W� -A,
tp 0 po C.)
'r ", 0
Cu I,-
0 i.* 0 4 t:�
co (V 0 0 P;. co
!A I Cu
,f.
- cr co co C.
c CIO 0 0 0 1,
a
cl v
to'C' so
C 0
CV' CID Cot CU 10-0 -0, SP i-,�
., v Co iA v vo.
co C) W o Vol cv. 0
Vol.
Cu
Do
co 0
V) vA
9p NCD L.P., - so
s 0 ;s- vr ,,.I-
��o
0 co
SP
0 pl.
0 C:r
4 CO so P, n
cu 0
'A A
•
O
01.
co co
51—
cu cp
tp C'D co C) co
co CO IPD
C0 0
CIO.- OCY) tD
0 * Q
CD V, UP Cu CID UQ
tv CO VA P.
co CO jo- CD
0 0
CID
1,4-1 c coV)
co co CID Co
e `y ✓
V, CID LCP)
C) 0
V
0 Cl)
t4 a
UQ C') CD LP Cu
Cu CVI
CO 0 Q C�-
✓ Dd 6,-r et
P 0 tp 0 0
84 t co
t:s�
A, cr r
1* cu
cor- C
CD 10cv ✓ vA ,P- LA 14 go 0
a(v co
tp
CD
00 cv,
00 91 t:
w to,
!a. C-) cu - v S 0 ,
CP �� !:� cu .A
CA.-5 0 Uo
t:r cv
% 5 P- I OP CO
co t�, 0
Gy 0 4 as
co 1�r so 0
co CCD *CA' cp civ
o
0 o
cu
C-)
o
cv OQ 0
rA 00
co
C,
lot
CD (v
o
VAr)
co
tcl)
ro
VA
cu. CD
0
le*
CO o.
cu co
PC)
Cort O
0 C*)
co CO
tp
S.
CID
yrs
CID,
C")
UP
0
Q.
CID 0
CID
co
co
0
O
0 0
•co
Cd 0 0 cri
co
OL) 4.) >
V a 04 w
Cd
0
la.
0) cu cri
EO
0
En
a� Qw Qw p
4.)
u u L) U
0
co Cd co
6"
Cis 4.4
C") C)
0 0
cu CL) (U
> L)
Cf$ Cd Cd
O Z z
M
0 2
0
64
0 .0
0
o
Q) 0 Co Cd cd
> > >
0 0 0
0 0
U ca U co U cd
Z o0
>
t Cd V0 0
0 = cz
0
C13
V cu
U)
o 0
o o
4) 0 .0
ca 0.4
0 cu
cd bo Cd
0 (U
4) V
4-� C's 4) CL)
cdEn
cn rn
0 4-0 to 0
L) CO CL) 1-4 cn %..,
0 >
0 C) C: 0
to cr 0 -cl (L) o IL)
0 t bo
03 Pw 4-6
c9d C) C;3 .0
con
bo
V CZ
in. >
M Co 0
.—
r
co Cd cu
to Cd 0
0 cu 0 00
co 2 0
0 cn
....4 _0 '(� ....d
>< m W) nz Ca as r.
0 -t� =
+� = 0
cn
cd M
to
> :5
u = 0 E
cd Cd 0 Cd to 1.20 ca
co 6.4 Cd
C) 9 d cu :15 bo
w 4)
cc
0
0 co
0 cd 0 CZ v 00
0 C
cts En 0
tw bo -1. 0
>-% tw
to Cd = "C v 0 (U cr
0 (.0. < C)cd t,,w
= . 2 '5 < —U0 o
.
En0 v 0 0 V 4,�
0 t = &.i &- = M Cd
0 .61 � bo
v Cl..Ow0 co 0
r4I.-W cn >,
>N cu V Cd
ct v
0 >
co E.
0
CL
cw
cz 00 -- w C4
—cz u
>
0 t
WJ
(U *Z =
U 0 v
u v 6- r Cd 0
0 -1= W
cz
An 1-4
>
0 0
4.4 Cdcm CJ cQi
ce -z 0 (U
v CZ 1= Z:
to cs "o
-cl :z -�d 2 cz
E (u 0 tn
QJ I- -C) .—
LL
di
0co -"A = w
pO w 0 U cz
0 v
o
f% �cd O N 0 p •�" ° t1�w
6)
-.O:t�
cd
.;oA.
CIS
OD
� � � Ga A Q�
0
On
W
cd
ap
tn
tn 4)
IL)
op
.3�
lZ
44 'a)
0
-SAU.A
V-A
tD 4;5
0 '
,VIA
v fir,
by
.6.0 4;6
0
7
0 0 0
0 tG
4.0 0
ioA
0 il-A
tA-A
0
tn
0 0 0 6) 0
.� 0 06)
't� 0T ca0
cd 0 -�- 0
t
c:s
cd
0
o o o rA
-0 0
o t)o 0 0
0
VA cd to qA P� cd "o
0 0
a, DD i� cd 00
A
ir. Cd es O
HC) .;oA. -b 4�
t'd
�'A 0
tn o cd
tn 0
tn 400 to
1,.A 0
t';IA It! t4'.4 v.A 00
4-.A. j!j
cs SOS
w P- to tn o
0 01)U-A
0 0 tz tl -.A.
cd o
od t� �-d 7 4;� 0 C64
0 0 ;"A �q 0 t:r tn
�r,-s 0 D bD
IPA -.Z. s
01)
L4-4 0 'td
cd
tA
0 4 %oA
Cd 0
td C:S "W r tO
t
V
L>
0
0 0
ed IV )5
9D
•'
j�A
C�d
t) r� j;.A
t'd cd cd
D 0
tA' C)
)�D
OB 0 cd
.d �
lot W
IL)
06) 0)
bb SOD Z) 4�IA... N !y Cd
U.A
%OA
0 bD
ap W. Cd
Q' 0
vs ..............
.. 03
1'
0 -1-
...................
C>
A-0 P.
0
�
4--' A
4) 0
Ca
..A 0
tn
0 o
tn to VA
0 0
4) -6
r-A 0 W,
�r� w5 c`nd 10 4) W Zo I OA
,A ..' 7.-.'S 4� 'A
C>
cd
4)
jp.A
5 7- '* �y� o
O
0of
'o .5
o' 0
Zoi 0 W
tn 0 cd ti Cd
-t� U.A 0 0 �la Z./ -.2, 4) !::� P,
IV) �;-t� ?,A ;��
ti 0 tl� cn
0 �l P.
*9 G-1d) P. 7 cd
cd
'8
rl LOVNG&GWOS Architecture
Planning a Interiors
ARCHITECTS INC . Construcfion Management
December 15, 2004
Ms.Rose Marie Pietras, Senior Planner.
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, land Floor-North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-1295
Re: Meritage Lane
Contra Costa County, CA
SD 04-8824t RZ04-3143,DP04-3023
LCA P roj ect 003055
Dear Rose Marie.-
Per your* request we have reviewed and herby agree to the Mfigation Monitoring Plan e-
Mailed to me on December 15, 2004 from your office.
Best regards,
Norm Dyer, roject Manager
Loving& Campos Architects Inc.
M P._;ZCW
'WACr 4.0%0-A UZ=4"0$AID A G�A I I A I
E
A-9&*.' AWIC
245 Ygrado Valley Road,Suivw'-_200 W
P ulnut Cxe rA 94-) 6-402.5 i 90205, 9414. 1626 FAx 925- 944t. 1666
SOdWUD IS 5W!A0-1 WcOt7:S0 VOt ST D3C
NOTIFICATION LIST
Northwest Information Center CA Fish& Game,Region III US Fish &Wildlife Service
Foundation Center, Building 300 P.O. Box 47 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2606
1303 Maurice Avenue Yountville, CA 94599 Sacramento, CA 95825
Rohnert Park, CA 94928-3608
Central Sanitation Contra Costa Water City of Walnut Creek
5019 Imhoff Place P.O. Box H2O P.O. Box 8039
Martinez, CA 94553 Concord, CA 94524 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Mt. Diablo Unified School District Mosquito Abatement District US Army Corp of Engineers
1936 Carlotta Drive 155 Mason Circle San Francisco District
Concord, CA 94519 Concord, CA 94520 333 Market Street 8th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2197
Save Mt. Diablo
1196 Boulevard Way, Suite 10
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
BUILDING INSPECTION ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PUBLIC WORKS
Interoffice Interoffice ENGINEERING SERVICES
Interoffice
PUBLIC WORKS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TRAFFIC ADVANCED PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
Interoffice Interoffice Interoffice
CC FIRE DISTRICT LAFCO
Interoffice Interoffice
r
(7j
-APN':1`38-�10-00�-� A ..N��38-110-�►04-7 AP-N 1-38_410=00-4
C.L A�D:E`:E.AND:MARY DAVIDSC�N JONATHAN S',N�G.LEE JONATHAN`SING:LEE
0'YN :GATE ARD 830`�N;GATE:RD 830-,NGATE RD
IWALNUT.CREEK CA.:94598-4625 WALNUT"CREEK CA 94598-4625 WALNUT�.CREEK.CA 94598-4825
WIS1 1:38- 20-401-1 AP-N 138420=*029 AP-N-". 38 120403=7-
TI.MOTHYAND�_:COURTNEY TIMOTHY AND COURTNEY TIMOTHY.AND COURTNEY
JOGHNER JOGHNER JOCHNER
3740SHADOWBROOK=CT 3740.S'HADOWBROOK CT 3740 SHADOW:BRC OK GT
WALNUT CREEK:CA-94598-4685 WALNUT.CREEK CA 94598-4885 WALNUT:GREEK:CA 94'598-4885
AP.N1381304001-9 APN 138=180=o07-5 APN 1384, 90-004
DAN-IEL!K:}A'ND AP DE•NENBERG ARMAND"BUT TIICCI GAIL A' NDIS
801'`NGATE'RD 999`N GATE=RD 851 `N GATE:RD
WALNUT CREEK CA 94598-4624 WALNUT.CREEK CA 94598-5101 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598-4624
APN'138-190-005-7 APN-138=190-006-5 APN 1384913-007-3
MICHAEL G AND VICTORIA E
RAYMOND_D BOYER FARRELL RITA DHILLON
1325'-LA CRESCEI�JTlA DR 909N GATE RD 925N GATERD
CHULA VISTA GA.:91910-7941 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598-510'1 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598-5101
138='!90-01'1-5 APN 138=19.0-018
�AP'N. 38-190-01'0-7 APN
RICHARD AND:BETTY
RICHARD AND'.ETTY FAIRCLOUGH FAIRCLOUGH D ANDERS;HULTIN
957 N GATE ARD 957°N GATE RD !846 GAIL CT
WALNUT.CREEK CA.94598-5101 WALNUTGREEK CA 94598-5101 WALNUT CREEK:CA 94598-5143
APN 138-190-0117=2 APN 138-190-018 APN 138-200-002-2
ROBERT W AND ANGELICA DAVIES TERRY A AND LAURA S FAST 'DENNIS D AND LINDA E ASHLOCK
842 GAIL CT 838 GAi L CT .1050 N GATERD
WALNUT CREEK CA 94598-5143 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598-5143 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598-5104
APN 138-200-003 APN 138-200-006-3 APN 138-200-0017-1
FRANK S AND MARGARET B
VINCENT P AND CAROL DIMAGGIO DIETRICH KRONICK FAMILY PARTNERSHIP
51 BONITA CT PO BOX 30423 266 LA CASA VIA
WALNUT CREEK CA 94595-1403 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598-9423 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598-4833
APN 138-21.13-01.1-1 APN 138-330-002-5
CALVIN 0 AND GLORIA M SCILACCI PETER EUGENE GINOCHIO
1200 N GATE RD 3401 WALNUT AVE
WALNUT CREEK CA 94598-5108 CONCORD CA 94519-2435
REDUCED SCALE MAPS