Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 07252006 - D.6
D.6 07/25/06 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on July 25, 2006 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Uilkema, Piepho, DeSaulnier, Glover and Gioia NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONTINUED to September 12, 2006 at 1:15 p.m. the hearing on the County Planning Commission recommendation to approve a rezoning to establish a preliminary and final development plan for 89 single family residential units, superseding one that has expired, within an existing planned unit district (P-1); at 4755 and 4781 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez area.. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS O DATE SHOWN. ATTESTE i Cull,%w9lerk,ofthe Board of Supervisors d Couhty.Administrator By uty REZONING, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOVING & CAMPOS ARCHITECTS INC. (Applicant) FIELD BROTHERS & RANDAL BODHAINE (Owners) COUNTY FILES #RZ053158 & #DP053027 HEARING ON A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SUPERSEDING ONES THAT HAVE EXPIRED, FOR 89 HOMES WITHIN AN EXISTING PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (P-1), WITH A REZONING TO A REVISED PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (P-1) in the Martinez area Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County July 25, 2006 1 :00 PM TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP ti: 4"-'. Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR '• "� County `coSOIa�+ DATE: JULY 25, 2006 SUBJECT: HEARING ON A PROPOSED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 89 HOMES THAT WOULD SUPERSEDE EXPIRED DEVELOPMENT PLAN PERMITS, AND A REZONING TO A NEW PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (P-1). THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 4755 AND 4781 PACHECO BOULEVARD IN THE MARTINEZ AREA, (LOVING & CAMPOS ARCHITECTS INC. -APPLICANT) (FIELD BROTHERS & RANDAL BODHAINE - OWNERS) (COUNTY FILES#RZ053158 &#DP053027) (SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT II) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATIONS A. OPEN the public hearing and receive testimony on the rezoning and the preliminary/final development plan. B. ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared for this project finding that it is adequate for the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Acta y CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER q SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON_ APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER 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: Ryan Hernandez(925)335-1206 ATTESTED JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Orig:Community Development Department SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR cc: Loving &Campos Architects Inc. (Applicant) Field Brothers(Owner) Randal Bodhaine(Owner) BY ,DEPUTY Public Works Department GIS File July 25, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#RZ053158 & DP053027 Page 2 C. ADOPT the recommendation of the County Planning Commission, as contained in Resolution No. 21-2006, to: 1. Approve the new preliminary and final development plan allowing 89 single family homes, with the addition of a condition of approval that requires recourse in the event of two confirmed violations of permitted times for construction activity; and 2. Rezone from a Planned Unit District (P-1) to a new Planned Unit District. D. INTRODUCE Ordinance No. 2006-29 giving effect to aforesaid rezoning, waive reading, and adopt the ordinance. E. ADOPT the findings contained in the County Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-2006 as the basis for the Board's action. F. DIRECT the Community Development Department to post a (Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. II. FISCAL IMPACT None. The applicant is responsible for the cost of processing the rezoning request. • III. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The applicant is seeking to subdivide 9.3-acres into 89 lots. The residential project site consists of two parcels of 5.85 and 3.39 acres. The properties were previously approved in the early 1990's (Subdivisions 7324 [Field] & 7325 [Bodhaine]) for 27 and 16 single-family homes, respectively. The site slopes up approximately 10 percent from Pacheco Boulevard. There are two existing homes and 46 ornamental trees on the site. Access is provided from Pacheco Boulevard. An existing church- with parking lots and an occupied residence are located on the south central portion of the site and will remain. This area is surrounded by the project site and is not part of the project. An additional residence with associated sheds and farming equipment is located in the central northern portion of the project site, within the Bodhaine property. These structures would be removed as part of the project. The project consists of 89 single-family homes on individual lots. Gross residential density would be less than 10 units per acre. A Rezoning and a Development Plan are being requested by the applicant. The development would consist of thirteen courtyard clusters, three to eight residences clustered around a parking court. Ten.homes will be located directly off of the private street, not in clusters. Three different single-family, detached, housing types would be developed; each courtyard would contain a mix of the housing types. The houses would be 1,620 to 1,770 square feet on an average lot size of approximately 2,700 square feet. The houses would be two stories (maximum height of 35 feet), have three bedrooms, and a two-car garage. The proposed project would include the creation of a homeowners association. The courtyards are terraced eastward across the property. There are landscaped key-stone block terraces and slopes between courtyard clusters. These open space areas would be planted with trees and shrubs. Modular key-stone block walls would be constructed fronting Pacheco Boulevard, and planted with flowering shrubs, groundcover, and accent planting. Similar landscaping would be July 25, 2006 Board of Supervisors • File#RZ053158 & DPO53027 Page 3 planted at the entries to each residence, street trees would be planted along the private road, and other groundcovers, accent plants, shade trees, and screening trees would be planted on the site. All front yards and slope areas fronting Pacheco Boulevard would be landscaped with initial construction. "Good neighbor" fences (finished both sides) would be built along lot lines. Dry swales will be constructed and landscaped along the lower edges of the property to meet the County's C.3 Clean Water requirements. Retaining walls would be utilized, but would be generally hidden behind and between units. Where visible, retaining walls would be of decorative design. The homeowners association would maintain the private road and landscaped areas. Environmental Review Mitigations were proposed and agreed to by the applicant that would reduce all potential impacts to a less than significant level. In other respects, staff determined the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts and proposed adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. A mitigation-monitoring program has also been proposed and accepted by the applicant. County Planninq Commission Hearing After determining that the proposed applications successfully integrated individual residences with • the physical constraints of the site and provided for harmonious composition of mass, scale, color and textures of the houses, staff supported the granting of the applications, including conditional approval of the subdivision. Approval of the subdivision is contingent on the approval of the proposed rezoning by the Board of Supervisors. The County Planning Commission heard the applicant's rezoning, subdivision, and development plan request on June 13, 2006. A letter from an adjacent neighbor expressing concerns was received on the day of the hearing; staff distributed the letter to the Commission. After evaluating the proposal and the evidence submitted, the Commission unanimously voted to approve the subdivision and recommend approval of the proposed rezoning and final development plan to the Board of Supervisors. Following the Commission action, no appeals were timely filed. The only matter before the Board is action on the proposed rezoning and final development plan. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the proposed rezoning and final development plan. Adding a Condition of Approval that Requires Recourse in the Event of Two Confirmed Violations of Permitted Times for Construction Activity The Board has recently expressed concern about the potential for violation of restrictions on permitted times for construction activity and amended a permit in this area to specifically authorize the County to hire a project monitor for repeated violations of the time limits. This project was approved by the Commission prior to the Board expressing this concern. The applicant has agreed to adding this same requirement. The Condition of Approval below is requested to be incorporated into the Final Development plan approval. July 25, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#RZ053158 & DP053027 Page 4 Upon a finding by the Zoning Administrator that there are two confirmed violations of the conditions of approval relating to construction activity, the applicant is responsible for paying all County costs to retain a monitor to ensure that work hours and other restrictions are adhered to. This may involve the monitor being present during off-work hours, before and after permitted work hours, and on weekends. Violations would be subject to a Stop Work Order and notice of possible revocation of permit approval. Inclusion of Time Limits on Improvement/Construction Plan Notes—Prior to clearance of improvement plans (including subdivision, grading, building), the notes for the plans shall include the above time limits on construction activity. Consequence of Inaction or Denial of Proposed Rezoning by the Board The County Planning Commission approved the vesting tentative map for 89 lots contingent upon the Board's approval of the rezoning and final development plan approval. If the site is not rezoned, the applicant will not be able to exercise the tentative map approval and the subdivision will be null and void. • COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006-21 • RESOLUTION NO. 21-2006 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDATION INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN ZONING AND PRELIMINARY/FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN BY LOVING & CAMPOS ARCHITECTS INC. (APPLICANT) FIELD BROTHERS AND RANDAL BODHAINE (OWNERS), IN THE ORDINANCE CODE SECTION PERTAINING TO THE PRECISE ZONING, FOR THE MARTINEZ AREA OF SAID COUNTY. (COUNTY FILES #DP053027 & RZ053158) WHEREAS, a request by Loving & Campos Architects Inc. (Applicant) Field Brothers and Randal Bodhaine (Owners) to rezone 9.3 acres to establish a preliminary and final development plan for 89 homes, superseding the permits that have expired, within an existing Planned Unit District (P-1) for which an application was received by the Community Development Department on April 4, 2005, County Files RZ053158 and DP053027; and 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 March 14, 2006 and April 13, 2006; and • WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, June 13, 2006, where all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 the County Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the evidence submitted in this matter approved the project on consent; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission: 1. FINDS that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate for the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and adopts same; 2. FINDS that the proposed rezoning to Planned Unit District (P-1) is consistent with the General Plan including the Multiple Family Low Density Land Use Designation; 3. FINDS that the proposed preliminary and final development plans are consistent with the General Plan and constitutes a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community; 4. RECOMMENDS that the Board of Supervisors ADOPT the proposed rezoning and the proposed preliminary and final development plan for 89 homes, superseding ones • that have expired; Page 2 5. APPROVES the proposed tentative subdivision map for 89 residential lots subject to • conditions. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission FINDS as follows: A. Rezoning_Findings - Section 26-2.1806 requires that the following findings be made before a property is rezoned; 1. Required Finding: The change proposed substantially complies with the General Plan. Project Finding: The property is zoned Planned Unit District; P-1, and the rezoning is to establish a preliminary and final development plan superseding permits for each property that have expired. The proposed Planned Unit District complies with the density range outlined in the General Plan and is also consistent with the specific polices for the Pacheco area. Furthermore, the mitigation measures and conditions of approval incorporated into the projects approval will ensure compliance with the General Plan. 2. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts. Project Finding: Developing these properties into residential homes is . compatible with the existing land use districts in the area since many of the uses surrounding the project are residential. Though the project is adjacent to Interstate 680, conditions require the applicant to install a sound wall to mitigate this impact and the site plan and landscaping plans provide buffering. This proposal is consistent with the growth of residential development along this part of Pacheco Boulevard. 3. Required Finding: The community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed. Project Finding• Contra Costa County demonstrates a need for housing of all types. Infill housing developments are needed to lessen the pressure to expand housing development into previously undeveloped parts of the County. The rezoning of the property to establish a development plan superseding ones that have expired allows the County to fulfill this need. 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. Page 3 • Project Finding: The applicant has expressed a desire to begin construction ;immediately after required permits and approvals have been obtained. 2. Required Finding: The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the County general plan. ;Project Finding: The General Plan designation for the project site is Multiple- .Family Residential Low Density. The Final Development Plan describes a development of 89 single-family units that meets the General Plan density requirements. 3. Required Finding: In the case of residential development, it will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community. ,Project Finding.- This section of Pacheco Boulevard is characterized primarily by residential development and large areas of underutilized lands. The proposed development will be of a quality that matches the recently approved 128-unit development directly east (across Pacheco Boulevard) of the property. 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 guest parking and private yard areas. The addition of the landscaping plan will increase the visual and aesthetic characteristic of the project and with the addition of the tot lot, provides a community area for children to play. This use of an underutilized property helps fulfill the policies of County Housing Element within General Plan. C. Growth Management Element Performance Standards Findings 1. Traffic: The project will generate an estimated.89 additional AM and PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements. Though a "Measure C" traffic study was not required a traffic study by Abrams Associates was conducted in January 2006. Four mitigation measures were included with the project. 2. Drainage and Flood Control: The applicant is required to collect and convey all stormwaters entering or originating within the project to an adequate natural or manmade water course including improvements to Drainage Area 57. The Final Map may not be filed until the collect and convey requirements and improvements have been met. Page 4 Only the northwestern-most corner of the Field Parcel (proposed lot 2) is sited within the Flood Hazard Area, and no housing is proposed for this portion of the • project site. 3. Water and Waste Disposal: The project site is within the Contra Costa Water District and Mountain View Sanitation District service areas. The districts have indicated that capacity exists 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 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. The nearest station is Station 9. located at 209 Center Street,'Pacheco, CA. 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 considered significant. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant is required to establish a ;police services tax district to mitigate the impacts of the development on police services. 6. Parks & 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 per residential parcel to mitigate impacts. AYES: Snyder, Battaglia, Clark, Gaddis, Murray, Terrell and Wong NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Donald Snyder, Chair of the County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: S�DENNIS M. BARRY, Secretary County Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California Findings Map A-2 R-7 -7.Z ��ipper Gn SITE R-7 P-1 ,o R-7 a vc chi a -12 :0 N O 4 Rezone From P-1 To P-1. _ Martinez Area I, _ Don Snyder Chair of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission,State of California,do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of pnae 6-13 of the County's 2005 zoning map. indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission in the matter of (,-ovinq & Campos A rrh itects X53158 AT(E 73 - Sw-etwyof the Contra Costa County Planning Commission,StateofCalif. ORDINANCE NO. 2006-29 (Re-Zoning Land in the Martinez Area) • The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION I: Page G-13 of the County's 2005 Zoning Map (Ord. No. 2006-29) 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. RZO53158 .) FROM: Land Use District P-1 ( Planned Unit District ) TO: Land Use District P-1 ( Planned Unit District ) and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.002. A-2 1 R-7 : 1 -7 -2 c ip`per Ln -1 SITE R-7 P-1 A R-7 i a -1 : 1 G\ SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in the , a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on by the following vote: SUPERVISOR AYE NO ABSENT ABSTAIN 1. J. Gioia ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 2. G. B. Uilkema ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 3. M. N. Piepho ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 4. M. DeSaulnier ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 5. F. D. Glover ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ATTEST: John Cullen, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Chairman of the Board By , Dep. (SEAL) ORDINANCE NO. 2006-29 RZ053158 Lvina&Camoos Architects COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 13, 2006 • Agenda Item# Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2006—7:00 PM Pacheco Boulevard Courtyard Homes H I. INTRODUCTION Loving& Campos Architects Inc. (Applicant) Field Brothers &Randal Bodhaine (Owners) This project c;onsists of three applications: A. County File #RZ053158 — A request for approval to establish a preliminary development plan, superseding one that has expired, for 89-homes within an existing Planned Unit District(P-1). B. County,Dile #SD058967 — A request for a vesting tentative map approval to subdivide 9.3-acres into 89-lots. The average lot size is approximately 2700-square feet. C. County File #DP053027 — A request for approval of a final development plan to establish 89-single family residences (1620-1770 square feet in size) on 9.3-acres of property. Approval to remove all trees(46)on site is also requested. The subject site is located at 4755 and 4781 Pacheco Boulevard in the Martinez area. (Zoning: Planned.Unit District,P-1)(Assessor Parcel Numbers: 159-230-002 and 159-230-003). H. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to: 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 materials 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, Ryan Hernandez(925) 335-1206. . B. Find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate for the project and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program. C. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors: 1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for this project for the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Pacheco Boulevard Courtyard Homes 2. Adopt the findings and approve the proposed rezoning to the Planned Unit (P-1) • District. 3. Adopt the findings and approve the proposed Final Development Plan with conditions. D. Approve the tentative map including a condition that makes approval contingent on Board of Supervisors adoption of the proposed P-1 rezoning and Preliminary and Final development applications. III. GENERAL INFORMATION Surrounding Land Use and Settings. The proposed project is surrounded by suburban portions of the City of Martinez and unincorporated Contra Costa County, and includes the following: The parcels immediately to the north include three single-family homes and storage yards for construction companies. Further to the north. are offices and storage yards for a landscape maintenance company, vacant land and the BNSF railroad tracks. Interstate 680 is immediately to the east. Immediately to the south are properties within the City of Martinez which include several single-family homes; -some of which are being utilized for home occupations. Across Pacheco Blvd to the west are the approved Belmont Terrace (128 units) and Fassler project (20 units). In addition there are four existing single-family homes. . Drainage Area 57 (DA57) is a County formed drainage area that encompasses the east area of Martinez and extends east from the project site and east of I-680 in the vicinity of Pacheco Creek. Existing Site Description. The residential project site consists of two parcels of 5.85 and 3.39 • acres. The properties were previously approved in the early 1990's (Subdivisions 7324 (Field) & 7325 (Bodhaine)) for 27 and 16 single-family homes, respectively. The site slopes up approximately 10 percent from Pacheco Boulevard. There are two existing homes and 46 ornamental trees on the site. Access is provided from Pacheco Boulevard. An existing church with parking lots and an occupied residence is located on the south central portion of the site and will remain. This area is surrounded by the project site and is not part of the project. An additional residence with associated sheds and farming equipment is located in the central northern portion of the project site, within the Bodhaine property. These structures would be removed as part of the project. General Plan. Multiple-Family Residential Low-Density (ML). Allowed density is 7.3 to 11.9 dwelling units/net acre. Existing Zoning: Planned Unit District(P-1). Adjacent Residential Project. The adjacent property to the west (across Pacheco Boulevard) is approved for a residential project that consists of 128 single-family homes and associated landscaping, private roadway and parking areas. The average lot size is approximately 2700 square feet. Re ug latory Programs: 1. Flood Zone: According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (ESRI 2005), the project site is within a 100-Year Flood Hazard Area.' However, only the northwestern-most • ' ESRI and FEMA website: http://www.esri.com/hazards/makemap.html. October 11,2005. S-2 i Files#RZ053158,DP053027,SD058967 County Planning Commission Tuesday,June 13,2006 • corner of the Field Parcel (proposed lot 2) is sited within the Flood Hazard Area, and no housing is proposed for this portion of the project site. The lowest finished floor elevation within the proposed development would be 19.5 feet above mean sea-level. The proposed project would not result in the placement of housing in a flood hazard area. 2. 60 dba Noise Control: Due to the close proximity between the proposed project and the Interstate-680 corridor, a sound wall will be constructed along the eastern boundary of the development, measuring 850 linear feet.and with an average height of 8.2 feet. The sound wall will significantly reduce the audible noise, as a result of traffic flow, for future property owners within this residential development to an outside level of 60 dba consistent with the Noise Element in the Contra Costa County General Plan. Noise levels within the proposed homes will be 45dba as required by the California Building Code. (SUB COA#6 and Mitigation Measure Noise-1) IV. PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project is a residential development that consists of 89 homes and associated landscaping, roadways and parking areas. Improvements to DA57 are as also part of the proposed project. Residential Development. The project consists of 89 single-family homes on individual lots. Gross residential density would be less than 10 units per acre. A Rezoning, Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map are being requested by the Applicant. The development • would consist of thirteen courtyard clusters, three to eight residences clustered around a parking court. Ten homes will be located directly off of the private street, not in clusters. Three different single-family, detached, housing types would be developed; each courtyard would contain a mix of the housing types. The houses would be 1,620 to 1,770 square feet on an average lot size of approximately 2,700 square feet. The houses would be two stories (maximum height of 35 feet), have three bedrooms, and a two-car garage. The proposed project would include the creation of a homeowners association. Landscaping and Open Space. The courtyards are terraced east across the property. There are landscaped modular key-stone block terraces and slopes between courtyard clusters. These open space areas would be planted with trees and shrubs. Modular key-stone block walls would be constructed fronting Pacheco Boulevard, and planted with flowering shrubs, groundcover, and accent planting. Similar landscaping would be planted at the entries to each residence, street trees would be planted along the Private Road, and other groundcovers, accent plants, shade trees, and screening trees would be planted on the site. All front yards and slope areas fronting Pacheco Boulevard would be landscaped with initial construction. "Good neighbor" fences (finished both sides) would be built along lot lines. Dry swales will be constructed and landscaped along the lower edges of the property to meet the County's C.3 Clean Water requirements. Retaining walls would be utilized, but would be generally hidden behind and between units. Where visible, retaining walls would be of decorative design. The homeowners association would maintain the private road and landscaped areas. Transportation, Circulation and Parking. A private road off of Pacheco Boulevard would provide access to the site. The roadway would loop through the project and provide two means of • ingress, egress and fire department access. The project has been designed to accommodate the realignment of Pacheco Boulevard as planned by County Public Works. The private road would S-3 Pacheco Boulevard Courtyard Homes be up to.36 feet wide (curb to curb); this would allow parking on both sides of the road. A total of • 120 (60 on-street and 60 extra driveway)parking spaces would be provided. Drainage Area 57 Improvements (DA57). Drainage from the project site would be captured in DA57, and improvements to accommodate this flow would be made to DA57 as part of the proposed project. Improvements would be made to the existing stormwater conveyance system, within an existing County drainage RW to the north of the site,between the two commercial uses and then under the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF)Railroad line. The improvements to DA57 would include the construction of approximately 250 linear-feet of 72-inch concrete pipe, 3 headwalls, one junction box structure, and 170 linear-feet of channel grading. A portion of this work would take place within a wetland area. Wetland Areas. A small portion of the Field, Bodhaine, and DA57 properties contain jurisdictional wetlands. All wetland areas within the Field and DA57 sites have been delineated and verified by the USACE and mitigation plans for the impacts to wetlands within these properties have been prepared and certified by the USACE and the RWQCB. A wetland delineation and preliminary jurisdictional determination was completed for the Bodhaine Property in June 2005 and has been verified from USACE. Site Preparation. Site preparation would include the demolition of all existing structures,utilities and landscaping. The project has been designed to minimize grading qualities and depth by. terracing clusters of courtyard homes to accommodate the gentle slope of the property. The project grading includes import of 42,000 cubic yards of excess dirt available from the Belmont Terrace project, immediately across Pacheco Boulevard. This dirt would be moved to the project site in 2006 after issuance of project grading permit. Construction and Phasing. Details of the construction and phasing are not known at this time. For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that construction would take 15 to 18 months. V. AGENCY COMMENTS A. Airport Land Use Commission: The memorandum dated July 1, 2004,indicates that the project site is within the Buchanan Airfield Influence Area and the Airspace Protection Contours. The Airport Influence Area encompasses location commonly over flown by aircraft as they ,approach and depart the airport or fly within the traffic pattern. A deed restriction for the project is recommended that indicates to potential homebuyers these homes are located within the Airport Vicinity. This recommendation has been incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval. B. Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Protection District: In a memorandum dated August 24, 2005 the District.outlines their standards. The applicant is responsible for complying with all Fire Protection District requirements. C. Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council (MAC): The Pacheco MAC is concerned with the projects impact on existing roads, utilities and whether or not the existing infrastructure is able to handle the increased demand without providing improvements or upgrade. Staff Response: The applicant is providing frontage improvements, drainage improvements, and a fair share contribution for a traffic signal at the corner of Pacheco.& Arnold. Please refer to the Growth Management Performance Standards for additional details. • S-4 r Files#RZ053158,DP053027,SD058967 County Planning Commission Tuesday,June 13,2006 • D. Other Public Agencies: Comments were also received from the Historical Resources, Mt. View Sanitary, and the Martinez Unified School District. None of the above listed agencies indicate any problem in providing service to this project. No comments were received from Building Inspection Department, Environmental Health, Contra Costa Water District, or City of Martinez. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS &DISCUSSION A. Consistency with General Plan Policies • Land Use Element—General The General Plan density requirement for the parcel is 7.3 — 11.9 units/net acre, which equates to an allowed density of up to 110 units for this parcel. The 89-unit proposal is consistent with this range with the density calculated at 11.9-units/net acre. The proposal is consistent with the following general Land Use Element policies: Policy 3-8: Infilling of already developed areas shall be encouraged...In accommodating new development, preference shall generally be given to vacant or underused sites within urbanized areas, which have necessary utilities installed with available remaining capacity, before undeveloped suburban lands are utilized. • Policy 3-16: Community appearance shall be upgraded by encouraging redevelopment, where appropriate, to replace inappropriate uses. Policy 3-28: New residential development shall be accommodated only in areas where it will avoid creating severe unmitigated adverse impacts upon the environment and upon the existing community. • Land Use Element—Policies for the Vine Hill/Pacheco Area ?leis project does not conflict with any of the outlined policies in the specific Vine Hill/ Pacheco Area land use element of the General Plan. • Noise Element Policy 11-5 Pertains to development in residential areas that are subject to single events such as nearby Buchanan Field Airport. The project should be designed so that indoor noise levels due to these single events shall not exceed a maximum A-weighted noise level of 45 dB within the residence. The applicant shall show compliance by including needed noise insulation features included in the design. B. Proposed Zoning (P-1): The final development plan proposes a lot layout that incorporates a "cluster" design that allows for a high density while still providing for a single-family product type. This would not be feasible with the strict setback requirements of other zoning districts. The flexibility of the lot layout allows the applicant to produce a cohesive design that provides for guest parking, tree lined streets, useable yard area, and a tot lot. S-5 Pacheco Boulevard Courtyard Homes C. Trees: All trees on the property are proposed to be removed as part of the subdivision • improvements. A final landscape plan,required by Condition of Approval #18, will require the replanting of trees, shrubs, groundcovers that shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. (SUB COA#18) D. Child Care Needs Assessment: A childcare needs assessment was conducted by the Contra Costa Child Care Council on September 22, 2005. The needs assessment concluded there is an additional need for 22 children which require licensed childcare. The applicant shall be required to pay the in lieu fee of 400.00 dollars per unit. (SUB COA#43) E. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act CE A : An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for this project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Negative Declaration was posted March 14, 2006 with the comment period ending April 13, 2006. The Initial Study and the Mitigation Monitoring Program are attached for detailed review. Public Comments on the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Determination Staff received written comments (attached) from the following agencies: State of California Public Utilities Commission, Contra Costa County Public Works Department, and the State of California Department of Transportation. Comment 1 -Engineering Services Division,Contra Costa County Public Works Department The Public Works Department has identified mitigation measures that the applicant should be required to implement as part of the Subdivision Application; SD 05-8967. • 1)The Applicant should contribute.their fair share toward installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Pacheco Boulevard and Arnold Drive.2)The Applicant should include measures including restriping the widened roadway to include a minimum 3-lane roadway for Pacheco Boulevard and design and construct standard transitions to accommodate the wider roadway configuration(from a 2 lane road to a 3 lane road and back to a 2 lane road). Response to Comment 1 1) As the Public Works Department of Contra Costa County is one of the agencies involved in the implementation of the mitigation measures for this project, their recommendations were encouraged and welcomed. Mitigation Measure Trans-1, which was already contained within the circulated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration states that the Applicant intends to pay their share of this cost. The recommendations can now be found in the IS/MND document under the Transportation/Traffic heading as Mitigation Measure Trans-1 and Mitigation Measure Trans-3. 2) Pacheco Boulevard is currently a 2-lane road. The applicant will be required to restripe the widened roadway to include a minimum 3-lane (2 through lanes and a two-way left turn lane, or approved equivalent) facility for Pacheco Boulevard through the project limits. Any additional pavement widening, right of way acquisition., or permitting necessary to accommodate the transitions on Pacheco Boulevard shall be the applicant's responsibility. Any plans prepared to meet this condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the County's Public Works Department and the City of Martinez. Comment 2 - Public Utilities Commission, State of California. The IS/MND for the Field Bodhaine Courtyard Homes Project should be planned with the safety of the nearby rail S-6 Files#RZ053158,DP053027,SD058967 County Planning Commission Tuesday,June 13,2006 ® corridor in mind. Safety considerations to be included, but not limited to, are the planning for grade separations for major thoroughfares, improvements to existing at-grade highway-rail crossings due to increase in traffic volumes and 'appropriate fencing to limit the access of trespassers onto the railroad right-of-way. Response to Comment 2. The Traffic and Circulation Study performed for this Project by Abrams and Associates investigated the effect the Field Bodhaine Courtyard Homes Project would have on traffic and circulation patterns within the local study area. Included in this study area were areas where the BNSF railroad ran adjacent to or above the studied roadways. While there is a potential for increased use of the rail system upon completion of the project, the significance of the increase is likely to be minimal, given that traffic patterns within the area will see a small,but not significant increase. In addition,the Project Applicant does not propose any activities that would negatively effect grade separations for major thoroughfares. The proposed project site is not adjacent to the BNSF railroad right-of-way, therefore fencing of the right-of-way is not practicable. The Project Applicant is aware of the proposed changes to Pacheco Boulevard under "Measure C," and the development of this project is not expected to coincide with the construction phases of"Measure C" nor is it expected to adversely effect the improvements to be made as a result of"Measure C." Comment 3 - Department of Transportation, State of California. The Department of Transportation requested they be sent a copy of the Abrams and Associates Traffic Engineering traffic; impact assessment for the Field Bodhaine Courtyard Homes Project or any traffic study for this project. They further request that because the project encroaches on the State of California Right of Way, an encroachment permit from the Department of Transportation be • sought. Response to Comment 3. A copy of the Abrams Associates Traffic Study will be sent to the Department of Transportation as part of the encroachment permit application. Detailed plans, including identification of the encroachment, the IS/MND and all supporting environmental studies will be submitted with the encroachment permit application. VII. SUBDIVISION, ROAD AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS Traffic and Circulation. The County established a"Precise Alignment" for Pacheco Boulevard in 1968 (drawing PA 3951-68 on file with the Public Works Department), establishing plans for a 64- foot road within an ultimate 84-foot right of way. The County has since revised the planned alignment of Pacheco Boulevard.The applicant shall construct roadway and frontage improvements based on the most recent Pacheco Boulevard Realignment Project, as required in these Conditions of Approval. Applicant shall construct concrete curb,six-foot wide concrete sidewalk,necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and necessary pavement widening and transitions along the project frontage of Pacheco Boulevard, including the Batchelor property frontage (APN# 159-230-006). The applicant shall construct said improvements per the current Pacheco Boulevard Realignment Project, as shown on the revised vesting tentative map. The applicant shall construct face of curb 10 feet from the ultimate right of way line,per the current Pacheco Boulevard Realignment Project. Any right of way acquisition or permitting necessary to accommodate the pavement transitions on Pacheco Boulevard shall be the applicant's responsibility. Any plans prepared to meet this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the County's Public Works Department and the City of Martinez. S-7 Pacheco Boulevard Courtyard Homes The applicant shall install safety related improvements on all streets, including traffic signs and • striping and pedestrian ramps at all curb returns, as approved by Public Works. The applicant shall install striping.along the widened roadway to include a minimum 3-lane (2 through lanes and a two- way left-turn lane, or approved equivalent) facility for Pacheco Boulevard through the project limits. Signing and striping on Pacheco Boulevard shall also be placed to ensure safe transitions between the widened portions and the existing two-lane unimproved sections. The applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication,the right of way necessary for the planned Pacheco Boulevard Realignment Project along the frontage of Pacheco Boulevard, as shown on the revised vesting tentative map. Right of way dedication and improvements shall conform to the current Pacheco Boulevard Realignment Project (on file with the Public Works Department), subject to the review and approval of Public Works. The applicant shall contribute a fair share amount toward the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Pacheco Boulevard and Arnold Drive. The applicant's fair share shall be based on the ratio of trips added to this intersection by the project-compared to the cumulative total of new trips forecasted to use this intersection, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall construct an on-site roadway system (including all private streets and private courts) that meets current County private road standards, subject to the review of the Fire District. The on-site roadway system shall be constructed based on the typical sections shown on the revised vesting tentative map. All private streets shall have no less than a 22-foot traveled way width within a minimum 25-foot access easement, with a minimum 3.5-foot public utilities easement on each side of the street, as shown on the revised vesting tentative map. The applicant shall construct curb, • minimum 4.5-foot sidewalk, necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and street lighting along the on-site roadway system. All areas designated as private courts shall be constructed to have a minimum 20-foot traveled way width within a minimum 20••foot access and utility easement. The applicant shall construct proposed Private Street B to intersect Pacheco Boulevard at a standard 90-degree angle. The applicant shall construct proposed Private Street A to align with proposed Private Street C of SD 8984 across the street on Pacheco Boulevard. These measures shall be required to optimize safety with regard to turning movements and adequate circulation for vehicles entering and exiting the proposed project. Drainage. Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code requires all storm water entering and/or originating on this property to be collected and conveyed without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse having a definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse. The property is located within Drainage Area 57, which is known to have inadequate drainage facilities,particularly those downstream of the proposed subdivision. The applicant must verify the adequacy of the downstream storm drain system(s), and, if necessary, construct any improvements to make this system(s) adequate. All off-site storm drain improvements shall be constructed in conformance with the adopted Drainage Area 57 plan. The applicant shall obtain permanent drainage easements and temporary construction permits for the construction of all Drainage Area 57 (Line B) facilities. Access roads for maintenance purposes shall be constructed, as necessary, within appropriate easements for new storm drain improvements. S-8 Files#RZ053158,DP053027,SD058967 County Planning Commission Tuesday,June 13,2006 • Stormwater Management. This project is required to be in full compliance with the County's Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, the Stormwater "C.3" Guidebook (available at www.cecleanwater.org) and the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A Stormwater Control Plan received on February 9, 2006 by the Public Works Department was reviewed and determined to be preliminarily complete. Although the Stormwater Control Plan has been determined to be preliminarily complete, it remains subject to revision based on changes made during the preparation of improvement plans, as necessary, to better address compliance with C.3 stormwater requirements. VIII. CONCLUSION With the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, the whole of the project does not adversely affect the environment. Though the density is maximized it is done in a fashion that promotes single-family detached residences through the "clustering" of homes that provides for a sense of area, community and sustainability. These houses share a common driveway and smaller front yard setback but also provide individual private rear yard areas. Overall the project is in compliance with the goals and policies of the General Plan. The rezoning to the Planned Unit District is justified.for the purpose of implementing the General Plans Housing Element for underutilized properties and allowing increased design flexibility to enliven the appearance of the area. • S-9 • FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VESTING TENTATIVE MAP COUNTY FILE #SD05896 7, FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN COUNTY FILE #DP053027 and REZONE TO PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT COUNTY FILE#RZ053158: A. Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Traffic: The project will generate an estimated 89 additional AM and PM peak hour trips. Therefore,the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements. Though a "Measure C" traffic study was not required a traffic study by Abrams Associates was conducted in January 2006. Four mitigations measures were included with the project. 2. Drainage and Flood Control: The applicant is required to collect and convey all stormwaters entering or originating within the project to an adequate natural or manmade water course including improvements to Drainage Area 57. The Final Map may not be filed until the collect and convey requirements and improvements have been met. Only the northwestern-most corner of the Field Parcel (proposed lot 2) is sited within the Flood Hazard Area, and no housing is proposed for this portion of the project site. 3. Water and Waste Disposal: The project site is within the Contra Costa Water District and Mountain View Sanitation District service areas. The Districts' have indicated that capacity exists 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 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. The nearest station is Station 9 located at 209 Center Street,Pacheco, CA. 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 considered significant. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant is required to establish a police services tax district to mitigate the impacts of the development on police services. 6. Parks & 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 per residential parcel to mitigate impacts. B. Findings for Approval of a Rezoning 1. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the general plan. Project Finding. The property is zoned Planned Unit District, P-1, and the rezoning is to establish a preliminary development plan superseding one that has expired. The proposed Planned Unit District complies with the density range outlined in the General Plan and is also consistent with the specific polices for the Pacheco area. Furthermore, the mitigation measures and conditions of approval incorporated into the projects approval will ensure compliance with the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed rezoning is in compliance with the General Plan. 2 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. Proiect Finding, Developing these properties into residential homes is compatible with the existing land use districts in the area since many of the uses surrounding the project are residential. Though the project is adjacent to Interstate 680, conditions require the applicant to install a sound wall mitigates this impact. This proposal is consistent with the growth of residential development along this part of Pacheco Boulevard. 3. Required Finding: Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. Project Finding: Contra Costa County demonstrates a need for housing of all types. Infill housing developments are needed to lessen the pressure to expand housing development into previously undeveloped parts of the County. The rezoning of the property to establish a preliminary development plan superseding one that has expired allows the County to fulfill this need. C. 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. Project Finding- The applicant has expressed a desire to begin construction immediately after required permits and approvals have been obtained. 2. Required Findine: The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the County general plan. Project Finding• The general plan designation for the project site is Multiple-Family Residential Low Density. The Final Development Plan describes a development of 89 single- family units that meets the general plan density requirements. 3. Required Finding: In the case of residential development, it will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community. Project Finding: This section of Pacheco Boulevard is characterized primarily by residential development and large areas of underutilized lands. The proposed development will be of a quality that shall match the recently approved 128-unit development directly east (across Pacheco Boulevard) of the property. 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 guest parking and private yard areas. The addition of the landscaping plan will increase the visual and • aesthetic characteristic of the project and with the addition of the tot lot provides an area for 3 • children to play. This use of an underutilized property helps fulfill the policies of County Housing Element within General Plan, D. Approval of Tentative Man • 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 by law. Prosect Finding: The project is consistent with all the Elements of the General Plan. The land use designation is ML, which allows for single-family high-density development. The tentative map provides for 89 residential lots on a 9.3-acre parcel, which complies with the density requirement. The project is consistent with the policies for the Pacheco area. • Required Findins: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision fulfills construction requirements. Project Finding: Public Works requires that the project comply with collect and convey regulations and design standards for construction of private roads. Improvements include the private road(s) and improvements to Drainage Area 57. Buildings must comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, which includes provisions for special interior noise? reduction, which is made necessary by proximity to Interstate 680 and Pacheco Boulevard. • 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 Tentative Map and Development Plans: A. Sheets 1 through 9 dated April 11,2006 and received on April 14, 2006 by the Community Development Department. Included in these sheets are the following plans: Sheet Number Description 1 Vesting Tentative Map Site Development Plan 2 Layout Plan 3 Grading Plan 4 Utility Plan 5 Grading Cross Sections 6 Typical Courtyard Details 7 Existing Conditions 8 County Storm Drainage Improvement • B. Sheets A-1 through A-7 received by the Community Development Department on October 12, 2005. 4 Sheet Number Description A-1 Cover Sheet A-2 Typical Courtyard Plans A-3 Typical Courtyard Elevations A-4 Unit Type lA& 1B A-5 Unit Type 2A&2B A-6 Unit Type 3A&3B A-7 Unit Type 3C C. Sound Wall Exhibit received by the Community Development Department dated December 19,2005. The approval is also based upon the following reports: D. Archaeological Assessment of a 3.39 acre Parcel (APN 159-230-003),Located at 4781 Pacheco Blvd., Martinez, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared by William Self and Associates.April 20,2005. E. Archaeological Assessment of a 6.16 acre Parcel(APN 159-230-002),Located at 4755 Pacheco Blvd., Martinez,,Contra Costa County, California. Prepared by William Self and Associates.December 10,2004. F. Biological Assessment for the Field Property, 4755 Pacheco Boulevard, • Contra Costa County California. Prepared by Wood Biological. November 22, 2004. G. Biological Assessment for the Bodhaine Property, 4781 Pacheco Boulevard, Contra Costa County California. Prepared 'by Wood Biological. April 20, 2005. H. Biological Assessment for the Proposed Drainage Area 57, Improvements. Contra Costa County California. Prepared by Wood Biological. August 3, .2004. I. Botanical Survey, Bodhaine Property, 4781 Pacheco Blvd., Contra Costa County.Prepared by Wood Biological.May 23,2005. J. Botanical Survey, Field Property, Contra Costa County. Prepared by Wood Biological. August 9, 2005. K. Botanical Survey, Drainage Area 57, Contra Costa County.Prepared by Wood Biological.April 15, 2005. L. CDFG Letter regarding Streambed Alteration Agreement Notification Review to Norm Dyer. February 4,2005. M. Environmental Noise Assessment for Pacheco Boulevard Field Courtyard • Homes, City of Martinez, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared by Shen, Milsom&Wilke.July 22,2005. 5 • N. Environmental Noise Assessment — Sound Wall Letter for the Pacheco Boulevard Field Courtyard Homes, City of Martinez, Contra Costa County, California.Prepared by Shen,Milsom&Wilke. September 6,2005. O. Geotechnical Investigation on Proposed Pacheco Courtyard Homes East, 4755 & 4781 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez, California. Terraseach, Inc. May 27, 2005. P. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Residential Development 4781 Pacheco Boulevard,Martinez, California. Prepared by Terrasearch. April 9, 2005. Q. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Residential Development 4755 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez, California. Prepared by Terrasearch. November 22, 2004. R. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Residential Development 4781 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez, California. Prepared by Terrasearch.May 2,2005. S. Surficial Soil Phase II Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Residential Development Field Property 4755 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez, California.Prepared by Terrasearch.December 2004. • T. Tree Inventory/Assessment for 4755 Pacheco Blvd. Prepared by Maureen Hamb-WCISA Certified Arborist #2280 Professional Consulting Services. December 2004. U. Tree Inventory/Assessment for 4781 Pacheco Blvd. Prepared by Maureen Hamb-WCISA Certified Arborist #2280 Professional Consulting Services. April 22,2005. V. USACE letter regarding Verification for the Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the DA57 Drainage Site, Contra Costa County,California.November 16,2004. W. USACE letter regarding Wetland Delineation, Field Property, 4755 Pacheco Boulevard. December 15, 2004.Verified by USACE February 9, 2005. X. Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the DA57 Drainage Site, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared by Wood Biological Consulting.July 16, 2004.Verified November 16,2004. Y. Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the Bodhaine Property, 4781 Pacheco Boulevard, Contra Costa County, California.Prepared by Wood Biological Consulting.June 7,2005. 6 Z. Wetland Delineation, Field Property, 4755 Pacheco Boulevard. Prepared by • Wood Biological Consulting. December 15, 2004. Verified by USACE February 9,2005. 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 File # RZ053158 to establish a preliminary development plan, superseding one that has expired, for 89-homes within an existing Planned Unit District (P-1). Any inconsistencies between the Final Development Plan and the tentative map application will require modification of the tentative map approval prior to any development being authorized. 3. Applicant Indemnification of County — Pursuant: to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Costa County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Agency(the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside,void,or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. 4. Compliance Report — At least 45 days prior to filing a 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 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 335-1206.) B. Unless otherwise indicated, the applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the condition of this report prior to filing the final map. Residential Design 5a. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall provide, for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, a colors and materials sample of the houses proposed. The materials submitted shall. provide sufficient variation to enhance the subdivision design. The guide for development shall be the Single-Family (R-6) District, subject to the Zoning Administrator's review and approval at the time of issuance of building • permits, except as follows: 7 • A. Stories Maximum of two stories B. Primary Structure Height Maximum of 30-feet C. Primary Structure Setbacks As generally Shown on Sheet 2& 7 of the Final Development Plan D. Accessory Structure: Size 300-square feet(maximum) Height Maximum 12-feet Rear and Side Yard Setback Minimum of 3-feet 5b. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit, for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, enhanced architectural features (e.g. Cornices, shutters,balconies, dormers, trellises) that provides scale and variety and that avoids long or tall unbroken wall planes for the elevations that front along Pacheco Boulevard and Interstate 680. Enhanced architectural features are required for all lots listed: Pacheco Boulevard Lots: 1,2, 59, 62-65, 67, 69,74-77,and 87-89; Interstate 680 Lots: 15-19, 31-36,39,40, and 4-49. 5c. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit a streetscape plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, the streetscape elevation shall include the elevations of the houses and all proposed landscaping and fencing/walls that front along Pacheco Boulevard and Interstate 680. • Sound Wall(s)and Retaining Wall(s) 6a. Prior to approval of the Final Map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a sound wall(s)plan for review of the Public Works Department and review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that includes all the following: A. The sound wall(s) shown on the submitted plan dated December 19, 2005 shall be placed entirely outside of the pubic right of way and maintenance of the sound wall(s) shall be the sole responsibility of the created home owners association. The applicant shall provide a maintenance plan for the sound wall(s)in perpetuity within the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. B. The sound wall(s) shall be bonded through the Public Works Department as a subdivision improvement prior to approval of the Final Map evidence of this shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. C. The applicant shall obtain building permits for the sound wall(s). D. Prior to issuance of building permits for the sound wall, the applicant shall submit a materials sample and colors for the sound wall(s) for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. • E. The. sound wall(s) shall be built according to the Environmental Noise Assessment by Shen, Milsom & Wilke dated July 22, 2005 and the two 8 subsequent letters dated September 6, 2005 and January 4, 2006. These letters detail the minimum heights allowed for the sound wall(s). F. Prior to occupancy of the first residence, evidence shall be presented be for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, that the sound wall(s) have been built and finaled by the Building Inspection Department. (Mitigation Measure—Noise 1) 6b. Prior to approval of the Final Map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a retaining wall(s) plan.for review of the Public .Works Department and review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that includes all the following: G. The retaining wall(s) plan shall be reviewed and incorporate all comments deemed necessary by the County Geologist. H. The applicant shall obtain building permits for the retaining wall(s). I. Prior to issuance of building permits for the retaining wall(s), the applicant shall submit a materials sample and colors for the wall(s) for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Tot Lot Design • 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit a design for the tot lot, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator,which shall incorporate play equipment. The tot lot shall be constructed prior to the occupancy of the 30''residence. Creation of Homeowners Association and CC&R's 8. Creation of a Home Owners Association and CC&R's-Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to filing the Final Map. This document shall provide for the creation of a homeowners association that is responsible for maintenance of the private streets, sidewalks, drainage, and common areas. Common areas include the community driveways, Private Roads, Sidewalks, Sound Wall(s), common retaining wall(s), Tot Lot, Common Landscaped Areas, and Pacheco Boulevard Frontage. Alternative Street Names 9. Submittal of Alternative Street Names—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. S 9 • Sight Obstruction at Intersections 10. Prior to the filing of the final map the applicant shall provide evidence for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that project is in compliance with Chapter 82-18. Transportation Demand Ordinance 11. Prior to filing the final map, the applicant shall contact the local transit provider, Contra Costa County Connection to determine services presently provided or planned in the future. The applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator that the Transportation Demand Ordinance has been fulfilled. Notice of Airport in the Vicinity 12. Prior to filing the final map a deed restriction is required to be recorded and submitted to the Community Development Department with the following language: "Notice of Airport in the Vicinity" The property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to .airport • operations and state highways (for example: noise, vibration, and odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and. determine whether they are acceptable to you. " High Voltage Wires 13. Disclosure of High Voltage Facilities — Where a lot is located within 300-feet of high voltage electric transmission line, the applicant shall record the following as a deed notification: "The subject property is located near a high voltage electric transmission line. Purchasers should be aware that there is ongoing research on possible potential adverse health effects cause by the exposure to magnetic field generated by high voltage lines. Although much more research is needed before the question of whether magnetic fields actually cause adverse health effects can be resolved, the basis for such a hypothesis is established. At his time no risk assessment has bee made." When a Final Subdivision Map Report issued by the California Department of Real Estate is required,the applicant shall also request that the Department of Real Estate insert the above note in the report. 10 Payment of Any Supplemental Application Fees that are Due • 14. This application is subject to an initial application fee of_($20,204.00), 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. Police Service District 15. Election for Establishment of a Police Services 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 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 16. 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 then 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 of the Pacheco Boulevard Courtyard Homes subdivision." Restrictions on Development of Sales Model Units 17. Prior to the issuance of building permits for construction of sale model units, the applicant shall provide documentation evidencing compliance with the requirements with the Water Conservation in New Developments Ordinance (Chapter 82-26) and Residential Sprinkler System Option Ordinance (718-6). However, all sales model units shall be required to comply with the improvement standards and reporting requirements of the Water Conservation in New Developments Ordinance. 11 • Lot Layout with Setback Dimension 18. Prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall submit a master fit plan that identifies and labels dimensions for all setbacks (front, sides,rear) for proposed lots 1 through 89 for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Final Landscape Plan 19. Prior to the filing the final map or issuance of grading permits, whichever occurs first,a Final Landscape Plan that has been prepared by a licensed landscape architect shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and shall be incompliance with the County Water Conservation Landscape Ordinance 82-26 and shall be installed prior to approval of the first residential final for building permit. The plan shall include landscape/irrigation plans that are fullsized and in color that will include plant colors, locations of signs, and retaining walls. Included with the final landscape plan shall be colors and elevations of any and all signage associated with the project. Debris Recovery 20. Prior to the issuance of building permits,the developer shall submit a"Debris Recovery Plan" demonstrating how they intend to recycle,reuse, or salvage building materials and other debris generated from the demolition of existing buildings and/or the construction of new buildings. Contact Lorna Brown, • Resource Recovery Specialist 925-335-1231 or go to http://www.co.contra- costa.ca.us/depart/cd/recycle/c-n-d/packet pdf for further information. 21. Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit,the developer shall submit a completed"Debris Recovery Project"documenting actual debris recovery efforts (including quantities of recovered and land filled materials)that occurred throughout the project's duration. Air Quality 22. Prior to the issuance of grading permits or building permits and ongoing throughout the project the applicant shall provide that the "Basic Measures" and "Enhanced Measures" listed below be incorporated into the construction plans and implemented for the proposed project. The "Optional Measures" listed (also listed below) shall be incorporated if further emission reductions are deemed necessary by the County. To ensure compliance with this mitigation measure, the Applicant shall submit the construction plans for the review and approval of the zoning administrator prior to issuance of grading or building permits: Basic Measures: • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all • unpaved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. 12 • Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking • areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets:. Enhanced Measures: • Hydroseed or apply(non-toxic)soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas. • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles(dirt, sand, etc.). • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Optional Measures: • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site. • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 25 mph. • Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at any one time. (Mitigation Measure—Air Quality 1) Biology 23. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit or any site disturbance the applicant shall • submit a nesting bird survey by a qualified biologist, unless otherwise stated in this condition of approval, surveys are to be conducted within 14 days prior to the removal or disturbance of a potential nesting structure, trees, emergent aquatic vegetation, or shrubs, or the initiation of other construction activities during the early part of the breeding season (late December through April) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May through August). The removal of any buildings, trees, emergent aquatic vegetation, or shrubs shall occur from September 1 through December 15, outside of the avian nesting season, if feasible. If removal of buildings, trees, emergent aquatic vegetation, or shrubs occurs, or construction occurs between February 1 and August 31 (nesting season for passerine or. non-passerine land birds) or December 15 and. August 31 (nesting season for raptors), a nesting bird survey shall be performed by a qualified ornithologist within 14 days prior to the removal or disturbance of a potential nesting structure, trees, emergent aquatic vegetation, or shrubs, or the initiation of other construction activities during the early part of the breeding season (late December through April) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May through August). During this survey, a qualified biologist shall inspect all potential nesting habitat • (trees, shrubs, structures, grasslands, pastures, emergent aquatic vegetation, etc.) in 13 • and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests. All vegetation and structures with active nests shall be flagged and an appropriate non-disturbance buffer zone shall be established around the nest site. The size of the buffer zone shall be determined by the project biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and will depend on the species involved, site conditions, and type of work to be conducted in the area. A qualified biologist shall monitor active nests to determine when the young have fledged and are feeding on their own. The project biologist and CDFG shall be consulted for clearance before construction activities resume in the vicinity. (Mitigation Measure Bio-1.1: Avoid removal of nesting structures.) 24. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit or any site disturbance the applicant shall submit a roosting bats survey by a qualified biologist, unless otherwise stated in this condition of approval. The qualified biologist shall perform a pre-construction survey for roosting bats within 30 days prior to any removal of trees or structure in areas of construction activities. If no active roosts were present, then no further action would be warranted. If either a maternity roost or hibernacula (structures used by bats for hibernation) is present, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: • If active maternity roost or hibernacula are found in trees or structures which would be removed as part of project construction,the project shall be redesigned • to avoid the loss of the tree or structure occupied by the roost to the extent feasible as determined by the County. If an active maternity roost is located and the project cannot be redesigned to avoid removal of the occupied tree or structure,demolition can commence before maternity colonies form(i.e., prior to March 1) or after young are volant (flying) (i.e., after July 31). Disturbance-free buffer zones as determined by a qualified biologist in coordination with CDFG shall be observed during the maternity roost season(March 1—July 31). • If a non-breeding bat hibernacula is found in a tree or structure scheduled for removal, the individuals shall be safely evicted, under the direction of a qualified biologist (as determined by a Memorandum of Understanding with CDFG), by opening the roosting area to allow airflow through the cavity. Demolition can then follow at least one night after initial disturbance for airflow. This action should allow bats to leave during darkness, thus increasing their chance of finding new roosts with a minimum of potential predation during daylight. Trees or structures with roosts that need to be removed shall first be disturbed at dusk, just prior to removal that same evening,to allow bats to escape during the darker hours. (Mitigation Measure Bio-1.2: Conduct pre-construction surveys for roosting bats. If the project would require removal of buildings, mature trees, or snags, conduct surveys for roosting bats.) 25. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, pre-construction surveys of all potential • burrowing owl habitat shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within the project area and within 250 feet of the proposed area of disturbance, to the extent feasible based on access. Pre-construction surveys must be completed no more than 30 days 14 before construction activities. Presence or sign of burrowing owl and all potentially • occupied burrows shall be recorded and monitored according to CDFG and California Burrowing Owl Consortium guidelines (CBOC, 1993, 1994). A monitoring report shall be submitted to CDFG no later tan two weeks before initiation of grading. Construction activities shall proceed only as follows: A pre-construction survey within 30 days prior to any removal of trees or structures on the site. Disturbance-free buffer zones as determined by a qualified biologist in coordination with CDFG shall be observed during the maternity roost season (March 1 —July 31). • If burrowing owls are not detected, by either sign or direct observation, construction may proceed. Pre-construction surveys must be reinitiated if more than 30 days lapse between surveys dates and construction activities. • If potentially nesting burrowing owl are present: during pre-construction surveys conducted between February 1 and August 31, grading shall not be allowed within 250 feet of any nest burrow during the nesting season (February-August), unless approved by the CDFG or consistent with an approved Habitat Conservation.Plan(HCP). • If burrowing owl are detected during pre-construction surveys outside the nesting`season (September 1—January 31), passive relocation and monitoring may be undertaken by a qualified biologist following CDFG and California Burrowing Owl Consortium guidelines, which involve the placement of one- • way exclusion doors on occupied and potentially occupied burrowing owl burrows. Owls shall be excluded from all suitable burrows within the project area and within a 160-foot buffer zone of the impact area. A minimum of one(1) week shall be allowed to accomplish this task and allow for owls to acclimate to alternate burrows. These mitigation actions shall be carried out prior to the burrowing owl breeding season(February 1—August 31) and a qualified biologist shall monitor the site weekly until construction begins to ensure that burrowing owls do not re-inhabit the site. (Mitigation Measure Bio-1.4a: Conduct pre-construction surveys for western burrowing owl.) 26. Prior to any construction activities the applicant shall provide evidence that all construction personnel shall receive training. The training shall include photos of burrowing owls for identification purposes, habitat description, limits of construction activities in the project area, and guidance regarding general measures being implemented to conserve burrowing owl as they relate to the project. (Mitigation Measure Bio-1.4b:. Train Construction personnel on burrowing owl avoidance.) 27. Prior to the issuance of grading permits or any site disturbance the applicant shall • provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator that a monitoring report of all activities associated with pre-construction surveys, avoidance measures, and 15 passive relocation of burrowing owls shall be submitted to California Department of Fish and Game, CDFG no later than two weeks before initiation of construction. (Mitigation Measure Bio-1.4c:File pre-construction report with CDFG.) 28.— Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall provide a tree survey, prepared by a qualified biologist/licensed arborist, that identifies willow and cottonwood trees and that determines whether the pruning of branches to accommodate construction equipment instead of tree removal is appropriate. Any removal of trees shall be offset by planting of trees of the same species at an appropriate ratio,determined in consultation with the regulating agencies. (Mitigation Measure Bio-2a: Removal of willow and cottonwood trees on the DA57 site shall be avoided to the maximum extent feasible.) 29. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a site plan prepared by a certified biologist, that is to accompany all grading plans, that identifies. creeping rye grass areas. To facilitate equipment access over the grassland, trench plates shall be installed on the ground to avoid turning over the soil and destroying 'plant rhizomes. For unavoidable temporary impacts, rhizome cuttings shall be collected from undisturbed areas and re-planted in the disturbance area. For unavoidable permanent impacts,rhizome cuttings shall be collected from the site and planted in cleared prepared ground in a suitable on-site location. On-site grassland habitat shall be created at a 2:1 replacement ratio (square feet created: square feet destroyed). (Mitigation Measure Bio-2b: Grading within the creeping ryegrass grassland on the DA57 site shall be avoided to the maximum extent feasible.) 30.— Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall submit a site plan prepared by a qualified biologist, that is to accompany all grading plans, that identifies all jurisdictional wetland areas and the areas located outside, . of-the immediate grading footprint shall be avoided during construction and no fill is allowed within these areas. Exclusion fencing shall be erected at the boundary of the wetlands and the active project area to limit access of heavy equipment and expansion of the construction area. (Mitigation Measure Bio-3a: Impacts to wetlands shall be minimized to the greatest extent feasible.) 31.— To compensate for the unavoidable,permanent loss of jurisdictional wetlands on the DA57 and Field Properties, a new wetland shall be created within the DA57 area, at a 2:1 replacement ratio,as approved by USACE and RWQCB. (Mitigation Measure Bio-3b: Wetlands will be replaced.) 32.— To compensate for the unavoidable,permanent loss of jurisdictional wetlands on the Bodhaine property, the County approved stream restoration project shall be completed,pending approval by USACE and the RWQCB. 16. (Mitigation Measure Bio-3c: Stream restoration project shall be completed.) • Cultural 33. Ongoing throughout construction activities, in the event that previously unknown archeological resources are discovered during any land alterations,the construction crew shall cease work immediately in the discovery area (i.e., within 100 feet). If prehistoric Native American remains are discovered, the State Native American Heritage Commission and affected Native American groups shall be notified according to state regulations. (Mitigation Measure Cul-1: If cultural resources are found, construction will cease, and archeological evaluations will be made.) Geology 34. Prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall submit an updated Geotechnical Investigation for review and approval of the County Geologist that address the specific of the final grading and final drainage plans. The updated report shall include an original geologic map of the site presenting the consultants interpretation of the site conditions,and that map shall show the location of all subsurface data that was considered in the evaluations including bore holes and test pits �of previous consultants. (Mitigation Measure Geo-1) • Hazards and Hazardous Materials 35. Prior to demolition of a building, known or suspected of construction prior to 1980, the project developer shall have a lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials survey conducted by a certified professional that shall be submitted for the review and approval by the Building Inspection Department; a copy of the approval shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. Identified loose and peeling lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials should be abated in accordance with applicable regulations. Federal and state construction worker safety regulations should be followed during demolition activities Where lead and/or asbestos are known or suspected to be present. (Mitigation Measure Haz-1) Hydrology and Water Quality 36. Prior to filing the Final Map, for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and the Public Works Department, the applicant shall provide evidence that the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan contains appropriate Best Management Practices to reduce erosion and water quality impacts. Erosion control measures shall also be reflected in the grading plans and construction documents for the project. The Best Management Practices should include,but not be limited to the following measures: 17 • • Protect stormwater inlets by using a double row of straw bales to absorb sediment and pollutants. Protect the stromwater inlets from vehicular damage; • Install sediment traps in catch basins and drain inlets, or create an overflow drain by raising the inlet so hat sediments will settle before reaching the drain; • Prevent spills and leaks from construction vehicles and equipment; • Clean up spills immediately when they happen, using dry cleanup methods whenever possible, and if water must be used, use just enough to keep the dust down; • Store materials under cover; • Cover and maintain dumpsters; - • Clean up paints and solvents, adhesives, and cleaning solutions properly; • Keep fresh concrete and cement mortars out of gutters, storm drains, and streams; • Service and maintain portable toilets; • Dispose of cleared vegetation properly; • Make sure all demolition waste is properly disposed of; • Plan pavement construction to avoid stormwater pollution including: Apply asphalt and seal coat during dry weather; cover catch basins and.manholes when applying seal coat; and always park pavers over drip pans or absorbent material. (Mitigation Measure Hydro-1: A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the General Permit for • Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity.) 37. Prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall submit the Stormwater Controal Plan for the review and approval of the Public Works Department and Zoning Administrator. The Applicant shall comply with the County's C.3 Clean Water Program. (Mitigation Measure Hydro-2: A Stormwater Control Plan shall be prepared prior to approval of the tentative map.) 38. Prior to filing of the Final Map or installation of impervious surface, the applicant -,shall construct Line B improvements for Drainage Area 57. Costs associated with these improvements shall be eligible for Drainage Area Fee credits and reimbursement per Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (CCCF&WCD) policy, if fee credits do not cover the total cost. The CCCF&WCD shall acquire right-of-way, if necessary, at the Applicant's request. If procurement of right-of-way or construction timing delays these improvements, the CCCF&WCD shall work with the Applicant to develop interim solutions. (Mitigation Measure Hydro-3: The Applicant shall construct Line B improvements for Drainage Area 57 as required to handle additional project runoff in accordance with CCCF&WCD requirements.) Noise 39. Prior to issuance of a building permits, the Environmental Noise Study by Shen, Milsom and Wilke dated July 22, 2005 and plans for the project must be submitted 18 to the County's Building Inspection Department and the Zoning Administrator for • review and confirmation that the proposed development fully complies with the CBC, HUD and Contra Costa County Noise Standards, including the construction of the Sound Wall(s) referred to in Condition of Approval No. 6a, and/or Regulations. All recommendations set forth in the Environmental Noise Studies and or the County shall be followed. (Mitigation Measure Noise-1) 40. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall ensure that operations under the permit that are within five hundred feet (152.4 meters) of residential or commercial occupancies, except as otherwise provided by conditions of approval for the project, shall be limited to weekdays and to the hours,between seven-thirty a.m. and five-thirty p.m., except that maintenance and service work on equipment may be performed at any time. (Ords. 99-46 § 15: 69-59 § 1; 1969). (Mitigation Measure Noise-2) Recreation 41. An assessment district for the maintenance of new public park facilities in the project area shall be created if required by the Public Works Department. (Mitigation Measure Rec-1) Child Care • 42. Prior to issuance.of building permits, the developer shall pay a fee of$400.00 per lot/unit toward childcare facility needs in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors. Park Dedication 43. Prior to issuance of building permits,the developer shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of$2,000 per residential unit. Construction '44. Construction Period Development Activity Restrictions—Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction noise, dust, litter, and traffic 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 on the calendar dates that these holidays are observed by the state or federal government as listed below: New Year's Day(State and Federal) Birthday of Martin Luther King,Jr. (State and Federal) Washington's Birthday/Presidents' Day(State and Federal) Lincoln's Birthday(State) 19 • Cesar Chavez Day(State) Memorial Day(State and Federal) Independence Day(State and Federal) Labor Day(State and Federal) Columbus Day(State and Federal) Veterans Day(State and Federal) Thanksgiving Day(State and Federal) Day after Thanksgiving(State) Christmas Day(State and Federal) For specific details on the actual day the state and federal holidays occur,please visit the following websites: Federal Holidays http://www.onm.gov/fedhol/2006.asp California Holidays http://www.edd.ca.gov/eddsthol.htm B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers that are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generation equipment such as air compressors and concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible. C. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. D. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and is prohibited on state and federal holidays. E. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity,all construction debris shall be removed from the site. F. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post at the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site,notice that construction work will commence.The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall also 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 and the 24-hour emergency number shall be expressly identified on the notice. A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed. • G. Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide a letter to the Community Development Department 20 indicating that he/she has fully disclosed these requirements to all contractors • and subcontractors within this project. • 21 PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 05-8967 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 Vesting Tentative Map received by the Community Development Department on April 14,2006. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP. General Requirements: 45. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions there from must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the Public Works Department and are based on the Revised Vesting Tentative Map received by the Community Development Department on April 14, 2006. 46. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department,Engineering Services Division, along with review and inspection fees,and security for all improvements required by the County 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. Frontage Improvements(Pacheco Boulevard): 47. Applicant shall construct concrete curb, six-foot wide concrete sidewalk, necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and necessary pavement widening and transitions along the project frontage of Pacheco Boulevard, including the Batchelor property frontage (APN # 159-230-006). The applicant shall construct said improvements per the current Pacheco Boulevard Realignment Project, as shown on the revised vesting tentative map. The applicant shall construct face of curb 10 feet from the ultimate right of way line,per the current Pacheco Boulevard Realignment Project. Any right of way acquisition or permitting necessary to accommodate the pavement transitions on Pacheco Boulevard shall be the applicant's responsibility. Any plans prepared to meet this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the County's Public Works Department and the City of Martinez. 48. If the conditions of approval for SD 8984 requiring pavement widening on the southwesterly side of Pacheco Boulevard are not satisfied, the applicant shall construct pavement widening and transitions on Pacheco Boulevard to provide a minimum two-lane facility with adequate shoulders consistent with the existing road section for Pacheco Boulevard, subject to the review of the Public Works Department. 49. Applicant shall install safety related improvements on all streets, including traffic signs and striping and pedestrian ramps at all curb returns, as approved by Public Works. The applicant shall install striping along the widened roadway to include a minimum 3-lane (2 through lanes and a two-way left-turn lane, or approved equivalent) facility for Pacheco Boulevard through the project limits. Signing and striping on Pacheco Boulevard shall also be placed to ensure safe transitions 1 22 between the widened portions and the existing two-lane unimproved sections. (Mitigation • Measure Trans-4) 50. Applicant shall construct a street-type connection with minimum 20-foot radii curb returns in lieu of a standard driveway depression at the proposed intersection of Private Street A and Pacheco Boulevard and the proposed intersection of Private Street B and Pacheco Boulevard. 51. Applicant shall contact Central Contra Costa Transit Authority to determine if a bus turnout is required along the project frontage of Pacheco Boulevard. If required, the applicant shall submit a preliminary sketch plan showing any additional right of way dedication and pavement widening required to provide an adequately sized bus turnout. The preliminary sketch plan shall be to scale, show horizontal alignments, transitions, lane striping, any proposed retaining walls, and cross- sections and shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and Public Works Department. Once the sketch plan has been deemed adequate, the applicant shall construct the bus turnout along the frontage of Pacheco Boulevard. (Mitigation Measure Trans-3) 52. Applicant shall install street lights on Pacheco Boulevard. The final number and location of the lights will be determined by Public Works. 53. Due to the construction impacts caused by the installation of utilities, storm drains, frontage improvements, and other facilities related to the proposed project, the applicant shall provide appropriate surface treatment(s) on Pacheco Boulevard to restore the pavement, within project limits,to pre-project conditions. Private Roads(On-Site): • 54. Applicant shall construct an on-site roadway system (including all private streets and private courts) that meets current County private road standards, subject to the review of the Fire District. The on-site roadway system shall be constructed based on the typical sections shown on the revised vesting tentative map. The applicant shall construct all private streets with a minimum 22-foot traveled way width within a minimum 25-foot access easement, and an additional minimum 3.5- foot public utilities easement on each side of the street, as shown on the revised vesting tentative map. The applicant shall construct curb, minimum 4.5-foot sidewalk, necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and street lighting along the on-site roadway system, as shown on the revised vesting tentative map. All roads designated as private courts shall be constructed with minimum 20-foot traveled way widths within minimum 20-foot access and utility easements, as shown on the revised vesting tentative map. 55. Applicant shall construct an adequate turnaround at the terminus of proposed Court P that will accommodate passenger vehicles and delivery trucks, subject to the review and approval of Public Works. 56. Applicant shall construct proposed Private Street B to intersect Pacheco Boulevard at a standard 90-degree angle to optimize safety with regard to turning movements and adequate circulation for vehicles entering and exiting the proposed project. 57. . Applicant shall construct proposed Private Street A to align with proposed Private Street C of SD 8984 across the street on Pacheco Boulevard to optimize safety with regard to turning movements and adequate circulation for vehicles entering and exiting the proposed project. • 58. All on-site sidewalks shall be constructed to meet minimum County standards. 23 Roadway Improvements(Off-Site): 59. Applicant shall contribute a fair share amount toward the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Pacheco Boulevard and Arnold Drive. The applicant's fair share shall bebased on the ratio of trips added to this intersection by the project compared to the cumulative total of new trips forecasted to use this intersection, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department.(Mitigation Measure Trans-1) 60. Prior to filing of the Final Map, the applicant shall pay a fair-share contribution to a road Improvement Fee Trust (Fund No. 0682-9752) designated specifically for pedestrian facilities along Pacheco Boulevard, from the project site north to the Arthur Road intersection. (Mitigation Measure Trans-2) Access to Adjoining Property: Proof of Access 61. 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 Permit 62. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the County's Application and Permit Center for construction of driveways or other improvements within the right of way of Pacheco Boulevard. Site Access 63. Applicant shall relinquish abutter's rights of access along the project frontage of Pacheco Boulevard, with the exception of the private road intersections shown on the revised vesting tentative map. Road Dedications: 64. Applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the right of way necessary for the planned Pacheco Boulevard Realignment Project along the frontage of Pacheco Boulevard, as shown on the revised vesting tentative map. Right of way dedication and improvements shall conform to the current Pacheco Boulevard Realignment Project (on file with the Public Works Department), subject to the review and approval of Public Works. 65. Any right of way acquisitions or permitting necessary to accommodate pavement transitions on Pacheco Boulevard shall be secured by the applicant. Any plans prepared to meet this condition shall be subject to the review of the County's Public Works Department and the City of Martinez. Sight Distance: 66. Applicant shall provide adequate sight distance at the private road intersections with Pacheco Boulevard for a through traffic design speed of 45 miles per hour. Landscaping, walls, fences, 24 signs, or any other obstructions must be placed to maintain adequate sight distance at these • intersections. 67. Applicant shall provide adequate sight distance at all on-site roadway intersections for a through traffic design speed of 15 miles per hour. Landscaping, walls, fences, signs, or other obstructions must be placed to maintain adequate sight distance. Parking: 68. Parking shall be prohibited on one side of any on-site private street where the curb-to-curb width is less than 36 feet and both sides of any on-site private street where the curb-to-curb width is less than 28 feet. Parking shall also be prohibited along horizontal curves. "No Parking" signs and pavement markings shall be installed along these portions of the: on-site roadway system, subject to the review and approval of Public Works. Maintenance of Facilities: 69. A Homeowner's Association (HOA) or other acceptable entity other than the County shall be formed to insure maintenance of all common areas and open space, the on-site private roadway system, .private street lights, the tot lot, public and private landscaped areas, private drainage facilities,retaining walls, fences,etc.The County will not accept these facilities for maintenance. 70. Applicant shall develop and enter into a maintenance and plan of operation agreement that will insure that all common areas and open space, the on-site private roadway system, private street lights,'the tot lot, public and private landscaped areas, private drainage facilities, retaining walls, • and fences throughout the site will be maintained, for the review and approval of the Public Works and Community Development Departments. 71. 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 all common areas and open space,the on-site private roadway system, private street lights, the tot lot, public and private landscaped areas, private drainage facilities, retaining walls, and fences throughout the site. 72. Applicant shall apply to Public Works for annexation to the County Landscaping District AD 1979-3 (LL-2) for the future maintenance of public landscaping and automatic irrigation facilities prior to filing of the Final Map. Pedestrian Facilities: 73. Curb ramps shall be designed and constructed in accordance with current County standards. A detectable warning surface (e.g. truncated domes) shall be installed on all curb ramps. Adequate right of way shall be dedicated at the curb returns to accommodate the returns and curb ramps. 74. The applicant shall design all public and private pedestrian facilities in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap Access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This shall include all sidewalks,paths, driveway depressions, and curb ramps. Underground Utilities: , 75. All new and existing utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground. • 25 • Drainage Improvements: Collect and Convey 76. Applicant shall collect and convey all storm water entering and/or originating on this property without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to an adequate natural watercourse having a definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. 77. Applicant shall construct all off-site storm drain improvements required by the adopted Drainage Area 57 plan (Line B) to the satisfaction of the Flood Control District. All off-site storm drain improvements shall be constructed in conformance with the adopted Drainage Area 57 plan. This includes,but is not limited to, storm drains,right of way, and access. 78. Applicant shall obtain permanent drainage easements and temporary construction easements for the construction of off-site storm drain improvements requited by the adopted Drainage Area 57 plan (Line B). 79. Applicant shall obtain access easements from Pacheco Boulevard to the upstream end of the railroad culvert. The drainage easements for Line B may also serve as access easements provided that the width of the drainage easements is at least 16 feet (for areas where there is underground pipe). • Provision "C.3"of the NPDES Permit: 80. This project shall fully comply with the County's Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook, and the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. As part of these requirements, the applicant shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the maximum extent practicable into the design of this project, implement them and provide for perpetual operation and maintenance for all treatment BMPs. 81. A Stormwater Control Plan received on February 9, 2006 by the Public Works Department was reviewed and determined to be preliminarily complete. Although the Stormwater Control Plan has been determined to be preliminarily complete, it is subject to revision during the preparation of improvement plans, as necessary to bring it into full compliance with C.3 stormwater requirements. The applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department a final approved Stormwater Control Plan that has been certified and stamped by a licensed, professional Civil Engineer, Architect, or Landscape Architect. 82. All construction plans (including but not limited to: site, improvement, structural, mechanical, architectural, building, grading and landscaping plans) shall comply with the preliminarily approved Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) or any subsequently revised SWCP, the County's Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, the "C.3 Guidebook" and the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. All construction plans shall include details and specifications necessary to implement all measures of the SWCP, subject to the review and approval of the County. To insure conformance with the SWCP, the applicant shall submit a • completed "Construction Plan C.3 Checklist" indicating the location on the construction plans of all elements of the SWCP as described in the"C.3 Guidebook". 26 83. All non-self-retaining pervious/landscaped areas within the project shall be factored into Table 2 of • the Treatment BMP Sizing Worksheet, based on the appropriate runoff factor, to determine the required size of each treatment BMP/IMP. 84. All water quality features shall be located within public road rights of way or public utility easements to allow County access for any future inspection and/or maintenance purposes. 85. Any water quality features that are designed to retain water for longer then 72 hours shall be subject to the review of the Contra Costa Mosquito&Vector Control District. 86. Prior to building permit final and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall provide an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) plan and execute any agreements identified in the SWCP, which pertain to the transfer of ownership and/or long-term maintenance of storm water treatment or hydrograph modification BMPs. 87. Applicant shall provide cost estimates for the complete financing and perpetual maintenance of the water quality features proposed with this application for the review and approval of the Public Works Department. This estimate shall include all long term costs associated with these water quality features including, but not limited to, Operation and Maintenance, financing, inflation indexing, and replacement costs. 88. Applicant shall cooperate fully in the formation_of financing mechanisms (e.g. Benefit Assessment District) to insure that all costs associated with the perpetual Operation & Maintenance, administration and reporting of these water quality features (including costs associated with all required County administration and reporting) are paid for by the property owners that are or will • be benefiting from this development. 89. All treatment BMPs/U\4PS constructed within each Phase of the proposed subdivision shall be sized per C.3 requirements to treat, at a minimum, all storm water runoff generated by each Phase. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan: 90. Prior to ground disturbance, the applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to mitigate construction related impacts and submit it to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SWPPP shall be kept on-site at all times and shall be amended whenever there is a change in construction or operations which may affect the discharge of significant quantities of pollutants to surface waters,ground waters,or a municipal separate storm sewer system. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements: 91. Applicant shall design and construct all storm drainage facilities in compliance with the Ordinance Code and Public Works Design Standards. 92. Applicant shall prevent stone drainage from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s) in a concentrated manner. 93. Applicant shall dedicate a public drainage easement over the drainage system that conveys storm water run-off from public streets. The applicant shall obtain off-site offers of dedication to the County for any conduits, outfall structures and appurtenant access to said facilities that convey public road drainage beyond the subdivision boundary. 27 • 94. Any surface or subsurface storm drain facility proposed within the subdivision conveying runoff from private streets or more than one parcel shall be installed within a minimum 10-foot wide private storm drain easement. Any proposed width reduction below this minimum width requirement for storm drain easements shall only be permitted if the Public Works Department has reviewed and approved such a proposal. Drainage Area Reimbursements: 95. Certain improvements required by the Conditions of Approval for this development or the County Subdivision Ordinance Code may be eligible for credit or reimbursement against the drainage area fee. The developer should contact the Flood Control District to personally determine the extent of any credit or reimbursement for which he might be eligible. Any credit or reimbursements shall be determined prior to filing the final map, as approved by the Flood Control District. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES): 96. 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 Region or Central Valley Region). Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMP's) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate, wherever • feasible,the following long-term BMP's in accordance with the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program for the site's storm water drainage: - Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. - Stencil advisory warnings on all catch basins and storm drains. - Construct concrete driveway weakened plane joints at angles to assist in directing runoff to landscaped/pervious areas prior to entering the street curb and gutter. - Shared trash bins shall be sealed to prevent leakage, OR, shall be located within a covered enclosure. - Prohibit or discourage direct connection of roof and area drains to.storm drain systems or through-curb drains. - Shallow roadside and on-site grassy swales. - Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program to buyers. - Other alternatives, equivalent to the above, as approved by the Public Works Department. • 28 ADVISORY NOTES • THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT. A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to.advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000,et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90-day period after the project is approved. The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount: of any fee or the imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. B. Although the Stormwater Control Plan has been determined to be preliminarily complete, it remains subject to future revision, as necessary, during preparation of improvement plans in order to bring it.into full compliance with C.3 stormwater requirements. Failure=to update the SWCP to match any revisions made in the improvement plans may result in ;a substantial change to the County approval, and the project may be subject to additional public hearings. Revisions to • California Environmental Quality Act .(CEQA) documents may also be required. This may significantly increase the time and applicant's costs associated with approval of the application. C. 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—Region II). D. 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. E. 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. F. Comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements for the Martinez Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. This fee must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. G. Applicant shall comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage Area 57 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.These fees must be paid prior to filing a Final Map. 29 • H. Portions of this project are located in a Special Flood Hazard Area as designated on the Federal Emergency Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The applicant should be aware of the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Floodplain Management Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2000-33)as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property. I. Comply with the requirements of the Mt.View Sanitary District. J. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Water District. K. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection District. L. Comply with the requirements of the County Office of the Sheriff. M. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Permits are required prior to grading and construction. The fees include but are not limited to the following: Park Dedication $2,000 per residence. Child Care $400 per residence. An estimate of the fee charges for each approved lot may be obtained by contacting the Building • Inspection Department. N. Police Service District Costs and Necessary Processing Time—The applicant is advised that the tax for the police services district is currently set by the Board of Supervisors at $200 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 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. O. Vesting Tentative Map Rights—The approval of this vesting tentative map confers a vested right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with ordinances, policies, and standards in effect as of April 14, 2006,the date the vesting tentative map application was accepted as complete by the Community Development Department. The vested rights also apply to development fees, which the County has adopted by ordinance. These fees are in addition to any other development fees,which may be specified in the conditions of approval. rah 5/11/06 G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\SD058967_COA.doc F J0. rel IYl I F a' *71r I La IL,I a J 1, OltISI I) u� ■������ - { � ,eft:;, �ti �{ rq r 1!u'qrjjj1M rfd — .IWN fwa MA �'.�.` �sir 4��, � ��� II 'I ��iRi�l�■/�`� s s:' r r F Prl%� iu �' hJ ga t � �Q fMMM, te5 s� r e Ifs j. °,.{, .*-.,'� 4 jY"� ' 'tf"S'' (3� r��L�`'i� • �% 4 ..c '� f .% Y �}�����i- � ��,al ij k i 1��'3�`r{f��,r,u�,`�'y' • 6S"r'w-I'll vqgl, m4 W!,f0l '' �t ��^�Li J.(�"� • t�v j r pik Y�.9'rp'�� ',��' klIF IS �'� 'y ` t�i, �I 'T'•:' 'M �s L�riTl +F� S� 7/� - �'�^' N Y n£ f /♦''.�1'VJY� � Y!i SOV �� is e i -I t r-r L} M1 y rl S � ���.r-t.vxr—"�'7a"'�'t $i _. t✓ 7 fE �i��F I�.'.� r � n ��c� '� rr 4 r. # .: #r ti CCC��� • o k r .......... 14 6 yiry r 1. • iL (�_ lax y � � 44 - 1 •i`'i w _ _ "�✓ rte'' x > J+ w � - 7 t 4 2r N-'' r 74 `ft�� i fin• F 4+ ,y� . MR4gVy".7 l 'A K ' „���'� `��� tty� {�ia'�fi 4 4` }Is` z s4 �t. 7 � � !� yr��, _h ♦� 01, Al f*C � { x t f•. 1 d +C y :F J 4,k , s � s'i ,'�ay3: ��'i',.'� � +.�� x t. 4� P tr+u 7, t�yf,•, ..aq ;�5:µmi,. . 7- .N" STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS.TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,Govemor OF TRANSPORTATION 4VEPARTMENT 1 GRAND AVENUE ' P. 0. BOX 23660t, OAKLAND,CA 94623-0660 l 14 Flex your power! PHONE(510)286-5505 Be energy efficient! FAX(510)286-5559 TTY(800)735-2929 April 13, 2006 CC680533 CC-680-22.43 SCH2O06032074 Mr. Ryan Hernandez Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 2nd Floor Martinez, CA 94553 • Dear Mr. Hernandez: Field Bodhaine Courtyard Homes — Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the early stages of the environmental review process for the Field Bodhaine Courtyard Homes Project. We have reviewed the Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and have the following comments to offer: We would like to request the Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering traffic impact assessment for the Field Bodhaine Courtyard Homes Project or any traffic study for this project. Encroachment Permit Work that encroaches onto the State Right of Way requires an encroachment permit that is issued by the Department. Traffic-related mitigation measures will be incorporated into the construction plans during the encroachment permit process. See the following website link for more • information: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developsery/permits/ "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Mr.Ryan Hernandez April 13,2006 Page 2 To apply for an encroachment permit, submit a completed encroachment permit application, • environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans (in metric units) which clearly indicate State Right of Way to: Department of Transportation Office of Permits Attn: Sean Nozzari 111 Grand Avenue, 6th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Christian Bushong of my staff at (510) 286-5606. Sincerely, c tOTHY SABLE District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c: State Clearinghouse • "Caltrans improves mobility across California" STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Govemor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE ` AN FRANCISCO,CA 94102-3298 AFRr 4 April 3, 2006 Ryan Hernandez Contra Costa County 651 Pine St., 2nd Floor-North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Dear MY. Hernandez: Re: SCH 2006032074; Field Bodhaine Courtyard Homes As the state agency responsible for rail safety within California,we recommend that any development projects planned adjacent to or near the rail corridor in the County be planned with the safety of the rail corridor in mind. New developments may increase traffic volumes not only on streets and at intersections,but also at at-grade highway-rail crossings. This includes considering pedestrian circulation patterns/destinations with respect to railroad right-of-way. Safety factors to consider include,but are not limited to, the planning for grade separations for major thoroughfares, improvements to existing at-grade highway-rail crossings due to increase in traffic volumes and appropriate fencing to limit the access of trespassers onto the railroad right-of- way. The above-mentioned safety improvements should be considered when approval is sought for the new development. Working with Commission staff early in the conceptual design phase will help improve the safety to motorists and pedestrians in the County. If you have any questions in this matter,please call me at(415) 703-2795. Very truly yours, Devin Boles Utilities Engineer Rail Crossings Engineering Section Consumer Protection and Safety Division cc: Stacy Crakes,BNSF r Contra Dennis M. Barry, AICP t Community Development Director and Use Costa 0Commission County .Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing ''� ` Martinez,California 94553••0095 Phone: (925) 335-1229 July 1, 2004 Ryan Hernandez, Project Planner Contra Costa County Community Development 2"d Flr,NW, Martinez, Ca. 94533 RE: County File#SD048818/RZ043140/DPO43004 for Pacheco Boulevard Courtyard Homes in the unincorporated Pacheco area Dear Mr. Hernandez: . • This site is within the Buchanan Airfield Airport Influence Area and the Airspace Protection Contours. The Airport Influence Area encompasses locations commonly over flown by aircraft as they approach and depart the airport or fly within the traffic pattern. As a result of this location the ALUC staff recommends incorporating a condition of approval requiring a deed restriction for each prospective homebuyer. 1) Prior to the recordation of the parcel map a deed restriction is required to be recorded and submitted to the Community Development Department with the following language: "Notice of Airport in the Vicinity" This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area.For that reason,the propertymaybe subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations and state highways (for example: noise, vibration, and odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. " The Airspace Protection Surfaces, limits height of objects in the vicinity of Buchanan Airfield. The project is compatible wiih this criterion with the height maximum of 35-feet. Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Office. is closed the 1st, 3rd E, 5th Fridays of each month However, future proposals to include accessory objects such;as radio antennas and equipment within the subdivision may require a review by the Airport Land Use Commission for compatibility with the ALUCP. A disclosure is recommended to include these limits and possible process. If you have any questions regarding this matter you may contact the ALUC staff at 925-335-1229 Sincerely, G Lashun C. Cross ALUC Planner cc: ALUC File SD048818,DP043004/RZ043140 • Paul Dellarosa 6310 Edna Road San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Loving and Campos Architects,Inc 245 Ygnacio Valley Road Walnut Creek, Ca. 94596 f.. Contra Costa Count ' ° * 9, Fire Protection District Et� 8 ,, 6 -. a + 1;, �•..; 'J tr `v TY Fire Chief KEITH RICHTER August 24, 2005 Mr. Ryan Hernandez Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Subject. SD 05-8967, RZ 05-3158, and DP 05-3027 4755 Pacheco Boulevard; Martinez CCCFPD Project No. 104367 Revision Dear Mr. Hernandez: We have reviewed the development plan, rezone and tentative map application to establish an • 88 lot residential subdivision at the subject location. This project is regulated by codes, regulations, and ordinances administered by this Fire District. If approved by your office, the following shall be included as conditions of approval: 1. Approved access roads and hydrants shall be installed, in service, and inspected by the Fire District prior to construction or combustible storage on site. Call (925) 941-3323 to schedule an inspection, minimum two working days advanced notice is required. (8704.1) CFC 2. Provide access roadways with all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20 feet unobstructed width, and not less than I3 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance, to within 150 feet of travel distance to all portions of the exterior walls of every building. Access roads shall not exceed 16% grade, shall have a minimum outside turning radius of 45 feet, and must be capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus, i.e., 37 tons. (902.:'.) CFC, ?2500.1 CUC Notes: Access roads of less than 28 feet unobstructed width shall have "NO PARKING — FIRE LANE" signs posted and curbs painted red with.the words "NO PARKING— FIRE LANE"clearly marked. Access roads of 28 feet or greater but less than 36 feet unobstructed width shall have "NO PARKING — FIRE LANE" signs posted, allowing for parking on one side only, and curbs,painted red with the words "NO PARKING— FIRE LANE"clearly marked. • Access roads 36 feet or greater of unobstructed width allow for parking on both sides. 2010 Geary Road-Pleasant Hill,California 94523-4694-Telephone(925)941-3300•Fax(925)941-3309 East County -Telephone(925)757-1303 - Fax(925)941-3329 West County -Telephone(510)374-7070 www.cccfpd.org CCCFPD Project No: 104367 -2- August 24, 2005 • 3. The project as proposed shall require the installation of an approved Fire District turnaround. Dead-end Fire District access roads in excess of 150 feet long shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of Fire District apparatus. (902.2.2.4) CFC 4. Access gates for Fire District apparatus shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Electrically operated gates shall be equipped with a Knox Company key-operated switch. Manually operated gates shall be equipped with a non-casehardened lock or approved Fire District lock. Contact the Fire District for information on ordering the key-operated switch. (902.2.4) CFC. 5. Approved premise identification shall be provided. Such numbers shall contrast with their background and large enough to be readily visible from the street. (901.4.4) CFC 6. The developer shall provide fire hydrants of the East Bay type. Hydrant locations will be determined by this office upon submittal of three (3) copies of complete utility plans. (903.4.2) CFC Note: Hydrants shall be spaced a maximum of 500 feet on center such that every property frontage is within 250 feet from a hydrant:. Hydrants located within the bulb of a cul-de-sac shall be determined inaccessible. 7. The developer shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a minimum fire flow of 2000 GPM. Required flow shall be delivered from not more than two (2) hydrants flowing simultaneously for the duration of 120 minutes while maintaining 20 pounds residual pressure in the main. (903.3) CFC 8. The developer shall submit three (3) copies of site improvement plans indicating fire apparatus access and turnaround area for review and approval prior to construction. (902.2.2.1) CFC Note: This submittal shall be used to locate the above required hydrants. 9. The developer shall submit a 300' scale map indicating all parcels and if previously assigned the corresponding addresses for each parcel. 10. The developer shall submit a computer-aided design (CAD) digital file copy of the subject project to the Fire District upon final approval of the site improvement plans or subdivision map. CAD file shall be saved in an AutoCADO 2002 file format or DXF file format. Contact this office for current acceptable AutoCADO version. (105.3) CFC 11. The homes as proposed shall be protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system complying with NFPA 13 D. Submit two (2) sets of plans to this office for review and approval priorto installation. (1003.1) CFC 12. The developer shall submit two (2) complete sets of plans and specifications of the subject project, including any required built-in fire protection systems, for review and approval prior to construction to insure compliance with minimum requirements related to fire and life safety. Plan review fees will be assessed at that time. (103.3.2.4) CFC • CCCFPD Project No. 104367 -3- August 24, 2005 14. Submit plans to: Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 2010 Geary Road Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 To schedule field inspections and tests, call 925-941-3323. It is required that a copy of the conditions of approval for the subject project be forwarded to this office when compiled by your office. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office. SizHardage . an Fire Prevention Technician IH/nlr c: Luk and Associates 738 Alfred Noel Drive • Hercules, CA 94547 Loving and Campos 245 Ygnacio Valley Road Walnut Creek, CA 94596 File: 104367.Itr I • Dennis M. Barry,AICD Community Contr a Community Development Director Development Costa Department County -'County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 (925)335-1210 Date: Phone: ou .AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST We request your comments regarding the attached appfication currently under review. DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows: Building Inspection K HSD, Environmental Health, Concord Project Planner 4 2 - HSD,Hazardous Materials 2 LO :3 P/W -Flood Control(Full Size) County File � X" P/W-Engineering Svcs (FulaSize) Number:4 Date Forwarded P/W Traffic(Reduced) Prior To:-pn —P/W Special Districts (Reduced) —Comprehensive Planning We have found the fol[lowitug special programs Redevelopment Agency apply to this application: -KHistorical Resources Information System CA Native Amer. Her.Comm. Redevelopment Area CA Fish & Game,Region US Fish & Wildlife Service Active Fault Zone )< Fire District %xO1'1Sob t I.cod C Sk' X Sanitary District M-` 't eu-:, k ' Fllood Hazard Area,Panel Water District 60rrtK'_ Cb_T'+r1 City M cv-�,n-6-2- 60 dBA Noise Control School District M ask i vet-, X Sheriff Office -Admin. & Comm. Svcs. CA EPA Hazardous Waste Site Alamo Improvement Association El Sobra4tc P1 & Zoning Committee Traffic Zone MAC 1)(d y J. Zr DOIT -Dep. Director,Communications CEQA Exempt C ' C R-7A_ A-i-n— A tegor ca" E xemption "ec4ion. Ca i-. Ex Corn untay Organizations Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance. Please send copies of your response to the Applicant& Owner. —No comments on this application- JC Our Comments are attached Comments: (O&KgpJ -7fMr iF:-X%!51-7,4J4 Rgfflt_ OTIU71CS,4! tM-.. A&E AaLF_ Sianature Iw-w'"J" ]tlwero Int prc- A-enQ, I"P rao V r-&Qof-ri- ep� S:current planningliernpiniCS/fOTrris)a-,(!n.cy comment request Date Office Hours Monday - Friday:8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p-rr.. Office is closed the Ist. 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month CommunityContra Dennis M. Barry,AICP Community Development Director Development - Costa Department County • County Administration Building �.sE::L_ 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing , - APR 12 PM 2: 20 Martinez,California 94553-0095 (925)335-1210 �` bate: Phone: rr E6iiN AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST We request your comments regarding the attached application currently under review. DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows: X Building Inspection HSD,Environmental Health, Concord Project Planner _HSD,Hazardous MaterialsZ 0 3 5 g k P/W-Flood Control(Full Size) County File a�8� �� X P/W-Engineering Svcs (Full Size) Number: Date Forwarded D?C51 P/W Traffic(Reduced) Prior To: _P/W Special Districts (Reduced). _,, Comprehensive Planning We have-found the following special programs _Redevelopment Agency apply to this application: -XHistorical.Resources Information System if CA Native Amer. Her. Comm. Redevelopment Area CA Fish & Game,Region US Fish & Wildlife Service J1 Active Fault Zone iX Fire District COn s b( +Aad c_eJ C -C Sanitary District_ ►e;,v �� Flood Hazard Area,Panel# Water District r�t Y�✓cam (r,S'f cs X City veZ 60 dBA Noise Control )� 'School'DistrictMo,vk'iv"-?- l w. '� g _2< Sheriff Office-Admin. & Comm. Svcs. I"J CA EPA Hazardous Waste Site Alamo Improvement Association E1 SCbraute Mg. Committee Traffic Zone MAC JJ 1 DOIT-]Den. Director, Communications CEQA Exempt CA(-:: R-'%A A immn I by u lr iivia v���ivu i Com uwty Organizations CC, I rc nS Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance. Please send copies of your response to the Applicant& Owner. No comments on this application. _ Our Comments are attached Comments: ' � ignature t-ALS /✓Y� Agency S:current planning/templat estforrwJagenc_r-comment request Date Office Hours Monday - Friday:8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month CALIFORNIA '+`:.< .`., ALAMEDA MARIN SAN MATEO Northwest Information Center COLUSA MENDOCINO _SANTA,CLARA HISTORICAL :';� Sonoma State University CONTRA COSTA MONTEREY :SANTO CRUZ_ 1303 Maurice Avenue • RESOURCES =?:;, LAKE NAPA SOLANO :i;,:,;;;;,:;;, Rohnert Park, California 94928-3609 i� SAN BENITO SONOMA INFORMATION SAN FRANCISCO YOLO Tel:707.664.0880 Fax:707.664.0890 ^' °' l 4 � J , C_ li �; Email:nwic�sonoma.edu SYSTEM ;;_...��.- k r,=;::. August 23,2005 `^ File No.:05-CC-8 Revised Ryan Hernandez,Project Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. 4`s Floor,North Wing 651 Pine Street Martinez,CA 94553-0095 Y6: SDOS 8967,4755 Pacheco Blvd.,Loving&Compos Architects,Inc. Dear Records at this office were reviewed to determine if this project could adversely affect historical resources. The review for possible historic structures,however,was limited to references currently in our office. Please note that use of the term historical resources includes both archaeological sites and historic structures. The proposed project area contains or is adjacent to the archaeological site(s) ( ). A study is recommended prior to commencement of project activities. The proposed project area contains a listed historic stricture ( ). See recommendations in the comments • section below, f XX Study#29585(Self,2004)identified one or more historical resources. Their report on page 5,states that"The existing structures&features ..... do not appear to meet eligibility for inclusion in the Cal Register of Historic Resources. They are not associated with persons or events important in history, .....and they will not yield information of importance to local history."Further study for historical resources is not recommended. Study# identified no historical resources. Further study for historical resources is not recommended. Review for 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,therefore if the project area contains such properties it is recommended that they be evaluated by an architectural historian prior to commencement of project activities. We recommend you contact the local Native American tribe(s)regarding traditional,cultural,and religious values. For a complete listing of tribes in the vicinity of the project,please contact the Native American Heritage Commission at 916/653-4082. Comments: If archaeological resources are encountered during the project,work in the immediate vicinity of the finds should be halted until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the situation. If you have any questions please give us a call(707)664-0880. Sincerely, Leigh Jordan � Loving & Campos, Architects, Inc. Coordinator :-x 1 , ' 1 ' h11,�f IEW August 4,2005 SRHIiRR4 =-i a� �:L� -n PH �: 2� Mr.Ryan Hernandez MINIProject Planner x � Contra Costa County Mm&ez,Cahmiahunded19D Community Development Dept. r 651 Pine Street,4`s Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553-0095 OfINU 0�.'OIHEGTU'�5 f E ; Re: RZ053158/SD058967/DP053027 au�8 P Subdivision 8967 Field Courtyard Homes Dear Mr. Hernandez, �Da�adContreras _ We have reviewed the Final Development Plan for Subdivision 8967,Field Courtyard Homes. N, is The District has no objections to this new development subject to the Engineer's conditions cr A nGBx •:g � �Iak ?I set forth in our letter dated 5/3/05 for the Vesting Tentative Map application on this site. �� ShenI�Mdd�e� �,�a : o �8 = ��`y. 'y"��,BOARD*S$GRFrTARY #�u Please note the following additional comment: 1. The Developer shall obtain an abandonment permit from the District prior to demolition " riJDamel Adams y x of the existing building to be removed and the existing lateral abandoned at the sewer � LBGA7��'OUN9EL' �� main. A credit for each abandoned dwelling unit will be applied against the connection fees for the development. I,s r , �+ 2s� r , z��M + 4 s�` Please feel free to contact the undersigned at 925 228 4218 voice 925 228 4638 fax or ' L t randy.lentien@lcc-inc.com email should there be any questions. A Very truly yours, LCC, Inc Offk� p LeRandol h W. tien • p District Engineer Encl. Agency Comment Request Form Engineer's Conditions (2) Via facsimile no. 925 335 1222 Original will follow by mail MT.VIEW SANITARY DISTRICT Copy w encl: D. Contreras(D.Riddle) 8 o o A R T N.U R ROAD N. Dyer,Loving,&Campos Architects P . 0 . B o x .2 7 5 7 \\Clerical-1\clerical-1\Clerical AWSMLETTERS\1911_624 Hernandez Field Homes Engineers Conditions MARTINEZ, CA 94553 (2).doc 925 - 228 - 5635 FAX: 925.228-7585 mel � 4 F.VU SflNIiRR� May 3, 2005 Y MINI Mr. Ryan Hernandez MmeZ,Uhmia Fwnded1923 Project Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. 24651 Pine Street, 4`h Floor,North Wing s 80RHp'OF01RECJr,ORS �,V Martinez CA 94553-0095 tame-N-0�dwell ME QN rAhy Castro S } Re: DP053027/RZO53158/SDO58967 � �� Davaad P Magga , Subdivision 8967 t� Gregory T1 1 yke ;,f ; Field Courtyard Homes 4Dorofhy�M SKIM alG f " Dear Mr.Hernandez, tta 'UR"C" 9a J DIS7AICf MANAGER , ;1. yup' We have reviewed the Vesting Tentative Map for the referenced subdivision. The District has {tx, 4 � n4M; ny no objection to the development as proposed subject to the following: to�`�F�� BOARD SECREPARY Fast,�, , fi kv, 1. A standard sanitary sewer manhole shall be installed at the terminus of each Courtyard. a Maunce�E xuguet Jr�Y The Courtyard sewers maybe six inches in diameter. 2. The easement sewer between Lots 37 and 38/39 should be installed in a steel casing. 3. Existingengineering charges for the nor application on this site will be added to the plan Randolph W Le filen g g g p pp P review fees for this project. z ENGINEER 4. The property owner shall dedicate sanitary sewer easements for all new sewer mains per District requirements. 5. Each building shall be served with a separate side-sewer connected to the new main. All side-sewers shall be fitted with standard backwater prevention devices. 6. The Developer shall submit plans prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer for review by the District Engineer for the new sanitary sewer mainline extensions and laterals. Plans shall conform to the District's Standard Specifications and Ordinances. 7. The Developer shall enter into a sewer improvement agreement with the District, and post security for sanitary sewer improvements,prior to recording the Final Map. 8. The Developer shall pay plan review, mapping and inspection fees, obtain a sewer construction permit,provide a cash Contractor's deposit and construct all improvements necessary for the development of the project at no cost to the District. 9. The Developer shall obtain a sewer connection permit and pay permit fees for trunk sewer,plant capacity and connection prior to connecting each dwelling unit to the District's system. The District will not issue individual connection permits until after the Sanitary Board has accepted mainline improvements for maintenance and building MT.VIEW SANITARY DISTRICT foundations have been constructed. 0800 ARTHUR ROAD 10. Fees shall be charged pursuant to the Ordinance in effect at the time that the permit is P . 0 . Box 2 7 5 7 issued. Fees are subject to revision by the District Board without notice. MARTINEZ, CA 94553 9 2 5 - 2 2 8 . 5 6 3 5 \\Clerical-1\clerical-1\Clerical l\WSDEETTERS\11624 Field Courtyard Homes Conditions.doc FAX: 925-228.7585 hli.�f IEW MIMI D I S i fl I C 1 Please feel free to contact the undersigned at 925 228 4218 voice, 925 228 4638 fax, or randy.leptien@,lcc-inc.com email, should there be any questions. Mmtuue California Founded 1923 Very truly yours, LCC,Inc Randolph W. Leptien District:Engineer c4 r ;d Encl. Agency Comment Request Form Via facsimile no. 925 335 1222 Original will follow by mail .o Copy w/encl: D. Contreras (D.Riddle) r Luk&Assoc. • 738 Alfred Nobel Drive Hercules CA 94547 u +b �i -t of PfF MVM' x �ti x a+ h 9 t+s u e \\Clerical-1\clerical-1\Clerical 1\1v1VSD\LETTERS\11624 Field Courtyard Homes Conditions.doc r ml LOM �CAMPOS Architecture Planning•,Interiors LJ A R C H I T E C T S INC . Construction Management March 14,2006 Ryan Hernandez, Senior Phumer Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,2nd Floor-North Wing Martinez,CA 94553-1295 Re: Field-Bodhaine Courtyard Homes Contra Costa County,CA APN 159-234-002&-003 SDO5-8967&DPO5-3027 Dear Ryan: Per your request we have reviewed and herby agree to the mitigations.proposed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, prepared by Sycamore Associates and dated March 2006,for the above referenced project. Best regards, Norm Dyer,Project Manager Loving&Campos Architects Inc. Z/wk1praj1narm9W59/COn4tr 245 Ygnacio Valley Road Walnut Creek,CA 94596-7029 925.944.1626 FAX 925.944.1666 ii Community Contra IDenriis M.Bary,i41CP ICoinr_TiTty De4e ePmen Director; Development Costa J Department County Nil A 1 4 2006 County Administration Building 651 Pine Street aE:"E L of112,1- 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 ni_� ,� `_ _ -rU ' Phone: °sr (925) 335-1210 q °° DATE: March 14, 2006 NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION County File #RZ053158 County File # SD058967 County File # DP053027 Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the "Guidelines for Implementation 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: • Loving & Campos Architects Inc. (Applicant) Field Brothers & Randal Bodhaine (Owners), This project consists of three applications: A. County File #RZ053158 — A request for.approval to establish a preliminary development plan, superseding one that has expired, for 89-homes within an existing Planned Unit District (P-1). B. County File #SD058967 — A request for a vesting tentative map approval to subdivide 9.3- acres into 89-lots. The average lot size is approximately 3500-square feet. C. County File#DP053027—A request for approval of a final development plan to establish 89- single family residences (1620-1770 square feet in size) on 9.3-acres of property. Approval to remove all trees (46) on site is also requested. The subject site is located at 4755 and 4781 Pacheco Boulevard in the Martinez area. (Zoning: Planned Unit District,P-1) (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 159-230-002 and 159-230-003). The initial study for the proposed development identified potentially significant impacts in the following environmental areas: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use Planning, Noise, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, Utilities/Service Systems, and Mandatory Findings of Significance. Environmental analysis determined that measures are available to mitigate potential adverse impacts to insignificant levels. As a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(c)(2), 21064.5 and Article 6 of the California Environmental • Quality Act(CEQA)Guidelines. Office Hours Monday- Friday: 8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15071), the MND d6scribes`the proposed project; identifies, analyzes and evaluates the potential significant environmental impacts that may result from the proposed project; and identifies measures to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts. With the inclusion of the mitigation measures the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.The applicant has agreed to all of the required mitigation measures. A copy of the negative declaration and all documents referenced in the negative declaration may be reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department and Application and Permit Center at the McBrien Administration Building, North Wing, Second Floor, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, during normal business hours. Public Comment Period - The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents extends to 5:00 P.M., Thursday, April 13, 2006. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address: Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street,North Wing,2nd Floor Martinez, CA 94553, Attn:Ryan Hernandez It is anticipated that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be.considered for adoption at a meeting of the County Planning Commission on April 25, 2006. It is anticipated that the hearing will be held at the McBrien Administration Building,Room 107,Pine and Escobar Streets,Martinez. Sincerely, Ryan Hernandez Senior Planner • 2 • INITIAL STUDY FOR THE BODHAINE—FIELD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 (925) 335-1210 Prepared by: Sycamore Associates LLC • 2099 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 204 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 279-0580 March 2006 • The information provided in this document is intended solely for the use and benefit of Contra Costa County. No other person or entity shall be entitled to rely on the services, opinions, recommendations,plans or specifications provided herein, without the express written consent of Sycamore Associates LLC, 2099 Mt Diablo Blvd,Suite 204, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 I TABLE OF CONTENTS INMODUCTION ..............1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY .......................................................................... I DECISION TO PREPARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVEDECLARATION........ ...............................................................2 PROJECTOVERVIEW.................................................................................................2 AGENCY OVERSIGHT AND PERMITS......................................;..............................2 ftomcrDESCRIPTION.........................................................................................3 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................3 SITELOCATION AND ACCESS........................................................................ ........3 PROJECTFEATURES..................................................................................................6 RESPONSES TO INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST................I......... .....................23 I. AESTHETICS...........................................................................................................23 11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES...........................................................................24 III. AIR QUALITY...............................................................I.......................................25 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.................................................................................31 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES....................................................................................39 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.......................................................................................40 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS..................................................43 VIII.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY..........................................................46 IXLAND USE AND PLANNING........................................... ..................................52 X. MINERAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................54 )G. NOISE...................................................................................................................54 )M. POPULATION AND HOUSING .........................................................................57 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES...........................................................................................57 XIV. RECREATION...................................................................................................58 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC..........................................................................58 XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.............................................................61 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.............................................62 REFERENCES,PERSONS CONTACTED AND REPORT PREPARERS....................65 Sycamore Associates LLC—Bodhaine-Field Residential Development Proiect Draft initial Study FIGURES • EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS..................................................................................................3 FIGURE 1.PROJECT VICINTTY................................................................................................4 FIGURE 2.AERIAL OF PROJECT SITE.............................................................................••.......5 FIGURE 3.DEVELOPMENT PLAN.......................................................................................::...S FIGURE4.DA57 PLAN..........................................................................................................9 TABLES TABLE 1. STATE AND FEDERAL AMm1ENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS...................................26 TABLE 2.FEASIBLE CONTROL MEASURES FOR CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS OF PM10.............29 TABLE 3.EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONE DATA.........................................................................41 APPENDICES Pacheco Boulevard Residential Projects Traffic Impact Study. Prepared by Abrams Associates. August 2005. Revised January 2006. • Svcamore Associates LLC—Bodhaine-Field Residential Development Proiect Draft Initial Studv ii INTRODUCTION This section describes the.purpose of an Initial Study(IS),the decision process to prepare a Negative Declaration(ND)or a Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND), a brief description and objectives of the Bodhaine-Field Residential Development Project in Contra Costa County, California, and a short discussion about other public agencies whose approval is required through the permitting process or which have an interest in the project. PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study has been prepared by Contra Costa County, which is also the Lead Agency under CEQA fbr the project. The IS has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)for the Residential Development Project. CEQA lists seven purposes of an IS [CEQA Guidelines 15463(c)]: L Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report(EIR)or a Negative Declaration(ND). 2. Enable a Lead Agency to modify a project; mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a ND. 3. Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required. 4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project. 5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a ND that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs. 7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. CVr.'imilTP- AccnrmtPc T r—Rnribnine.-viplri RQcitlPntini T)P-vPinnmP-nt Prnient T)rnft Initial Ctiviv i DECISION TO PREPARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a public agency shall prepare a proposed ND or a Mitigated ND when: 1. The IS shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or 2. The IS identifies potentially significant effects, but: Revisions in the project plans made before a proposed Mitigated ND and IS are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as described may have a significant effect on the environment. PROJECT OVERVIEW Loving and Campos Architects (Applicant) are proposing to construct a single-family residential development on approximately 9.3 acres in an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County, California(Assessor Parcel Numbers 159-230-002, and 159-230-003). The project comprises the construction of 89 single-family units, associated courtyards, a tot lot, an extensive bio swale system, and associated roadways and infrastructure. AGENCY OVERSIGHT AND PERMITS Contra Costa County is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15050, 1505 1)the Lead Agency is the public agency with the primary responsibility for carrying out or approving the project and is responsible.for the preparation of the appropriate environmental review documents. County approvals necessary for the proposed project include: Rezoning from P-1 to P-1, Final Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Map. A Regional Water Quality Certification (RWQCB) application for Section 401 Certification for Waste Discharge requirements was submitted to the RWQCB for the Bodhaine Property and is pending. The following permits are required and applications are being submitted to USACE for Nationwide Permit No. 7(Outfall structures and Maintenance) and Nationwide Permit No. 39 (Residential, Commercial and Institutional Developments). At this time, no other responsible agency, or agency with permitting;or regulatory authority over the project has been identified. gvramnn- Accnrintin T.T.r—RnrlhainP._FiP.1d Rp.6dential T)PvPlnnmP.nt PrniPrt T-)rnft Initial gtwiv 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION INTRODUCTION The Applicant proposes to construct 89 single-family residences and associated roadways and infrastructure on approximately 9.3 acres in an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County, California. The project site is composed of two properties, the Bodhaine Property and the Field Property(approximately 3.4 and 5.9 acres respectively). These two properties would be divided into 89 lots and 22 parcels that are discontinuous or serve different purposes such as the tot lot, courtyards, various internal roadways, bioswales, easements, and right of ways. Additionally, improvements would be made off-site to Drainage Area 57 (DA57) storm drain facilities. SITE LOCATION AND ACCESS The project site is located within the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County, north of the City of Martinez. The street addresses are 4755 and 4781 Pacheco Boulevard and the site is located 1,000 feet south of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe(BNSF)Railroad and 2,000 feet north of Arnold Drive, immediately west of Interstate 680(I-680) and one mile north of State Highway 4 (Hwy 4). Access to the project site would be from Pacheco Boulevard and proposed ingress/egress' "A" Street and `B" Street. SITE AND VICINITY LAND USES • Existing Site Conditions The residential project site consists of two parcels of 5.85 and 3.39 acres. The properties were previously approved in the early 1990's (Subdivisions 7324(Field)& 7325 (Bodhaine)) for 27 and 16 single-family homes, respectively. The site slopes up approximately 10 percent from Pacheco Boulevard. There are two existing homes and 46 ornamental trees on the site.Access is provided from Pacheco Boulevard. An existing church with parking lots and an occupied residence is located on the south central portion of the site and will remain. This area is surrounded by the project site and is not part of the project. An additional residence with associated sheds and farming equipment is located in the central northern portion of the project site, within the Bodhaine property. These structures would be removed as part of the project. Vicinity Land Uses The proposed project is surrounded by suburban portions of the City of Martinez and unincorporated Contra Costa County, and includes the following: The parcels immediately to the north include three single-family homes and storage yards for construction companies. Further to the north are offices and storage yards for a landscape maintenance firm, vacant land and the BNSF railroad tracks. Interstate 680 is immediately to the east. Immediately to the south are properties within the City of Martinez which includes several single-family homes, some being utilized for home occupations. Across Pacheco Blvd to the west are the approved Essex Courtyard Homes(85 units), Della Rosa Courtyard Homes(41 Units) and Fassler project (20 units). In addition there are four existing single-family homes. CVr`.mmnrP. AccnnintPc T.T.f.—Rndhnine..Field T)mft initial Cfivlv/MNT7 3 • Figure 1. Project Vicinity • Nn! - •moi• ♦t�r..,m,• tip`. 1'j'a t `�`� ` �''7c 1 l r .. - �•:.� }�`.L.1 air,� 1' r}r 7'- : el-.- `lWcnrz- � :R`f P[IT Mu '4Y5�\1��fYk F U AIY ~ F"a� i *e 'lt♦ IIyLy-v " - , s-1 - •f• - 'k.0 - F 1 ��,..ec:.� .��1 �Omen B-.assn a O•ta.. I '♦� q s , I j�,,,:. o �n .tenl . r i:'.r'•' . w-ra� `ori __ '. r ♦ 7' S .Y : �..�:y. ,vim .. �.'y1 i ,•r V47- 1,1 a iii ♦ ; tJ """v. \_ 7 ♦ —'-3',� .:��( fl L•8C: i rl y��,. � _ YI J+�".. � �_..� �'��'7{i �.:YhreSr {, .y,� � 1 '�s,. ♦1 •t,i1��$.� T f�Z�l�t% •�f•. r, rr7 1 bi_ y �� .8hf`ai'�li. �. .N r..•�` Y AM- 97 r. r "� t I -.•♦i�r �'i M ti i 21 Y 111, 9 f..1 )i t♦t. t� IP Sy 0j - q ji 1'F,5 1 - 1111h/a0. \` I ~ ,✓ ?�C°.,s. yy �lrD • ;�'��\i:a�,e• • >tnx$Ia- 'A" ry� w�'i it 1l�' / f• • qs�. •�i • : n: t:q'(°5` � v R Vis•+ 1� Y•y � f � `- � ♦• MA � Canal 1 fi 15 �-g k '� a I 11r 4 ,-�yf 6EtCN�4MAN 3 Legend Figure 1 N Project Vicinity Project Site Contra Costa County Initial Study Bodhaine-Field Property Comm Costa County, California 1:2=,000 1011!0---, SvmmureAssnciates CI.0 1 inch equals 2.000 feet +f 21NYMLr,-,,;k,Blvd._S,iwW-t irs oc:ume.^pr7rae:Icr ate zve ux or tNairlaiCniek CAe45ub. CorFr.a G� a Gx:.�:; �!�s voeursa�:no:in:eno=v C. 10002,-:03 3.00.'; 4.000 3 kr de:ai,'ad oear?n utitx. _G:,avaorary-oe frim =Pr Sar Say Pre--Realc.•a!Carme5s t %wwSvdI.kx,el �roens'.Cor..ra Ccs:;Counc':Ima!.•t_.Y 3rhaine-Field Proce.'•Cra nis"'ii!_•:Pr.�--:''i zinc 1C11C`_•.n•r.^ F- • Cvr•.amnre A ccnnintPc T.T.('—711nrlhainP FiAd T)rafl initial CtiAvfA/Ti D 4 t��{5 xF�f,�'�k r y�rjd �� � S,.Y`+• a��- 3 Win. �� � � ' + a�`+��t��y � _ � �a" 2iRLIM,t4 €.-6rMP� a 1� S s Fx r },y.'�.�•� } � it �, fi •^a+ t t -a� }>f r. � I�F ate i n rkr. rs'a✓�S f' "�,� r rt e S 1 p P i .tFfi n 4t. ` Z.rx at'•.: 5, '� a C n5+ t `x v r <'�' sR 5 H F ��� .i>f S r r • w)�t 4 1 f a S r� - L T 4�.jw�Y'A t .. C y>�i FF ��. �p k � w'' I�f�' .a� •r" u �,.� � r .. yr���r � k f�.•. � y � '�` � � �x�F t': ,�/4J n.r'..c. a �dP IN us, x `;• rr"+='-' .r } a'.,- r'' r5•"'','.,f"H' ,! z 4 ar ! ,' 1,�'b'.°*ti f5 y . RON rt AT ��pt'"� {.1."� ��,� : 7' 1`��`s'�r, wt'N�� ',,a+� r,? t-� .,.to 3T�p•4 y �'�w 4�t'fr,r ME SR PT 'y: E >eMAT 4 �lSEnlr�J tT✓A� '� . ��, +.` "k 4a 1•+' "'}+�, px%&�`� �i�l}� 4,�, �>jI M �✓ : X sf I l ITi n •y�.+,. tia+t�t7 ra,y r. ' Ott r r Z .to ,s kl� "k• tool to fr r�F .+,rG aat<. �' -11 r 1`r' .r• F 4 atnr 11 E xG�+ ! �� r°P ''� e�SY r ` �L t '�-� i>_ 4 4j 'ti �•r a r' t�'--''S'\�t "L`�kti .�i I 'F ,yo '� �Js�. � r� ! r¢.� r�hTr t vy� Lr!� � � u•tis X r F - .i. +fes w.y� ,jR���'� ytotemsr :d IAN Nit * ��'� s �a ,,l s f •{f S '' ,to-r J ?f> �'+ra C r :.-1 `.t r � F .�iirti _as:e .Jn:sw-. Y"'1:.Y,d -� .u!.r��s �_�•: ' t,r�+^ �° • Drainage Area 57 (DA57) is a County formed drainage area that encompasses the east area of Martinez and extends east from the project site and east of I-680 in the vicinity of Pacheco Creek. DA57 facilities consist of an artificially created stormwater conveyance system between Pacheco Boulevard and an outfall on the north side of the railroad right-of-way. The DA57 site has been heavily modified by grading and filling activities, although wetland vegetation has become established where surface flows back up behind the railroad embankment. PROJECT FEATURES Residential Development. The project consists of 89 single-family homes on individual lots. Gross residential density would be less than 10 units per acre. A Rezoning, Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map are being requested by the Applicant. The development would consist of thirteen courtyard clusters, three to eight residences clustered around a parking court. Ten homes will be located directly off of the private street, not in clusters. Three different single-family, detached, housing types would be developed; each courtyard would contain a mix of the housing types. The houses would be 1,620 to 1,770 square feet on an average lot size of approximately 3,500 square feet. The houses would be two stories (maximum height of 35 feet), have.three bedrooms, and a two-car garage. The proposed project would include the creation of a homeowners association. Refer to Figure 3,Development Plan. Landscaping and Open Space. The courtyards are terraced east across the property. There are landscaped modular key-stone block terraces and slopes between courtyard clusters. These open space areas would be planted with trees and shrubs. Modular key-stone block walls would be • constructed fronting Pacheco Boulevard, and planted with flowering shrubs, groundcover, and accent planting. Similar landscaping would be planted at the entries to each residence, street trees would be planted along the Private Road, and other groundcovers, accent plants, shade trees, and screening trees would be planted on the site. All front yards and slope areas fronting Pacheco Boulevard would be landscaped with initial construction. "Good neighbor" fences (finished both sides)would be built along lot lines. Dry swales will be constructed and landscaped along the lower edges of the property to meet the County's C.3 Clean Water requirements. Retaining walls would be utilized, but would be generally hidden behind and between units. Where visible, retaining walls would be of decorative design. The homeowners association would maintain the private road and landscaped areas. Transportation, Circulation and Parking. A private road off of Pacheco Boulevard would provide access to the site. The roadway would loop through the project and provide two means of ingress, egress and fire department access. The project has been designed to accommodate the realignment of Pacheco Boulevard as planned by County Public Works. The private road would be up to 36 feet wide (curb to curb);this would allow parking on both sides of the road. A total of 120 (60 on-street and 60 extra driveway) parking spaces would be provided. Sound Wall. Due to the close proximity between the proposed project and the Interstate-680 corridor, a sound wall will be constructed along the eastern boundary of the development, measuring 850 linear feet and with an average height of 8.2 feet. Refer to Figure 3,Development Plan. The sound wall will significantly reduce the audible noise, as a result of traffic flow, for future property owners within this residential development. gvramnrP AccnrintPc T J.C.—Rnrihnine.FiAri T)raft Initial gtudv/MNT) 6 General Plan. The General Plan designation for the project site is Multi-Family Low Density, • which allows between 7.3 and 11.9 net multi-family units per acre. The proposed residential use and density (less than 10 units per gross acre)is consistent with the existing General Plan and Zoning limitations for the property. Drainage Area 57 Improvements (DA57).Drainage from the project site would be captured in DA57, and improvements to accommodate this flow would be made to DA57 as part of the proposed project. Improvements would be made to the existing stormwater conveyance system, within an existing County drainage RW to the north of the site, between the two comrnercial uses and then under the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF)Railroad line. The improvements to DA57 would include the construction of approximately 250 linear-feet of 72-inch concrete pipe, 3 headwalls, one junction box structure, and 170 linear-feet of channel grading. A portion of this.work would take place within a wetland area. Refer to Figure 4, DA57 PIan. Wetland Areas. A small portion of the Field, Bodhaine, and DA57 properties contain jurisdictional wetlands. All wetland areas within the Field and DA57 sites have been delineated and verified by the USACE and mitigation plans for the impacts to wetlands within these properties have been prepared and certified by the USACE and the RWQCB. A wetland delineation and preliminary jurisdictional determination was completed for the Bodhaine Property in June 2005; however, verification from USACE and the mitigation plan are pending. Site Preparation. Site preparation would include the demolition of all existing structures, utilities and landscaping. The project has been designed to minimize grading qualities and depth by terracing clusters of courtyard homes to accommodate the gentle slope of the property. The project grading includes import of 42,000 cubic yards of excess dirt available from the Essex and Della Rosa projects, immediately across Pacheco Boulevard. This dirt would be moved to the project site in 2006 after issuance of project grading permit. Construction and Phasing. Details of the construction and phasing are not known at this time. For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that construction would take 15 to 18 months. Approvals. County approvals necessary for the proposed project include: Rezoning from P-1 to P-1, Final Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Map. CvramnrP Accnrintec T J.('—RnrihninP Field T)raR Initial Cfivlv/k4N11 7 Figure 3. Development Plan SSS y r / a • Cvramnre Accnrintec T J.0—Rntihnina FiAd T?raft initial CtiAvf NTD $ Figure 4.DA57 Plan 4 I 1 I � � I } Tj Ip 04 c ti r� Cv�amnre. nraft initial AccnriatPc T T.C"—RMhainp Fietti Ctnr�vlMNf? ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project title: Field-Bodhaine Courtyard Homes 2. Lead agency name and address: Contra.Costa.County Community Development Department Administrative Building 651 Pine Street 2nd Floor—North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-1295 3. Contact:person and phone number: Ryan Hernandez, Senior Planner Community Development Department Administrative Building 651 Pine Street 2nd Floor—North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-1295 4. Project location: The project site is located within the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County,north of the City of Martinez.The street address is 4755 and 4781 Pacheco Boulevard and the site is located 1,000 feet south of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe(BNSF)Railroad, 2,000 feet north of Arnold Dr.,immediately west of Interstate 680(1-680)and one mile north of State Highway 4 (Hwy 4). APN: 159-230-002 &-003. ® 5. Project.sponsor's name and address: Loving and Campos 245 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 200 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-4025 6. General Plan designation: The project site has a General Plan designation of Multiple-Family Residential-Low Density(ML). 7. Zoning: Planned Unit(P-1). 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved,including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary,support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The Applicant proposes to construct 89 single-family residences and associated roadways and infrastructure on approximately 9.3 acres in an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County, California. The project site is composed of two properties,the Bodhaine Property and the Field Property(approximately 3.4 and 5.9 acres respectively).These two properties would be divided into 89 Rots and 22 parcels that are discontinuous or serve different purposes such as a tot lot, courtyards, various internal roadways,bioswales, easements, and right of ways.Additionally, improvements would be made off-site to Drainage Area 57(DA 57)storm drain facilities. Refer to the previous Project Components section for additional details. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: The proposed project is surrounded by suburban portions of the City of Martinez and unincorporated Contra Costa County, and includes the following: The parcels immediately to the north include three single-family homes and storage yards for construction companies. Further to the north are CvramnrP Accnri.°atPc T.T.C.—Rniihnine Field T)mft Tnitinl Rt1Av/M7%l) 10 offices and storage yards for a landscape maintenance company,vacant land and the BNSF • railroad tracks. Interstate 680 is immediately to the'east. Immediately to the south are properties within the City of Martinez which include several single-family homes; some of which are being utilized for home occupations. Across Pacheco Blvd to the west are the approved Essex Courtyard Homes(85 units),Della Rosa Courtyard Homes (41 Units)and Fassler project(20. units).In addition there are four existing single-family homes. Drainage Area 57 (DA57)is a County formed drainage area that encompasses the east area of Martinez and extends east from-the project site and east of 1-680;in the vicinity of Pacheco Creek. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required(e.g.,permits,financing approval, or participation agreement.) Other agencies whose approval may be necessary for the proposed project include: • Caltrans • Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD) • U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(USACE) • , Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB) Contra.Costa County Public Works , At this time,no other.responsible agency,or agency with permitting or regulatory authority over the project has been identified. CvcamnrP. A RomrintPs T.T.r—Rrvlhnine Field T)rafl Tnitinl Ctndv/Nffl TM 1 l ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: • The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that:is a Potentially Significant Impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Q Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Q Air Quality Resources Q Biological Resources Q Cultural Resources Q Geology/Soils (� Hazards&Hazardous Hydrology/Water •7 Land Use/Planning Materials Quality ❑ Mineral Resources Q Noise ❑ Population/Housing Q Public Services Q Recreation Q Transportation/Traffic [� Utilities/Service Q Mandatory Findings of Significance Systems C........,..�o A..�....:,.se..T T r 1:)—Ah.;—.'C;-]A Tl«.fl 1„;s;..1 Q4—A—fKXXTr1 1� 1� DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 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. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, Q there will not be a significant effect in this:case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated impact on the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been.addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.An ENVIRONMENTAL HAPACT 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, because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR F1 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Signature Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except`No Impact"answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact"answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g.,the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.,the project will not expose sensitive. receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. c..,..,...,...o nT T r Tx,..aT..;,.o T7;-IA TU_41#T_;s;..l e4..A.,1KXXTr% 1 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant • with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact" to a"Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, Earlier Analyses,may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation ,Measures Incorporated,"describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they • address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts(e.g.,general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats;however,lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any,to reduce the impact to less than significance. e..,..,,..,..-e n..,. ;,.o r r P 1:1^A. ;--T7;o1 A T'%-4 r,.;44..1 e..,a..nhm m 14 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant with No Significant ` tirSignificant Impact Impact Incorporation Impact i L AESTHETICS-'Would the"project a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑' ❑ ❑ Q b)Substantially damage scenic resources,including, but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and ❑ ❑ ❑ Q historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character El ❑ Q El quality of the site and its surroundings? d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare Q El would adversely affect day or nighttime views ❑. El in the area? II AGRICUI:TURE II;ESOIIRCES ,In determimng whether impactsto agnc ultural Its are-4 envirolimental effects,lead'ageniaes may refer to the California Agricultural Laid Evaluation"and Site Assessment ; Model."(199'n prepared:by the Cehfornia''Dept of Conservation as an pptional model to use in assessing vnpacts on ' i. ; agriculture and farmland Would theproject" a)Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or El El a Williamson Act contract? c)Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in ❑ ❑ ❑ [� conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? IIL AIR QUALITY Where available,the'signiticance criteria established by the-applicable air quality management or ait:pollnon control district ntiay be"relied.upon to;make the following determinations World the project: a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the El Q ❑ applicable air quality plan? b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality ❑ Q ❑ ❑ violation? C)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ Q ❑ concentrations? e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ Q ❑ number of people? c.,,...,..,..o n.. . ;,*o. r T P ir,.ar,.,;, 1;era r%-..a T,.;+;..r c!+_.i:,/Hm.Tn 15 • Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation IV;BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES=Woid the pioJect a)Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status ❑ ❑ ❑ species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any 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? c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to,marsh, ❑ ❑ vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direst removal, filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or • with established native resident or migratory wildlife ❑ ❑ corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a tree ❑ ❑ © ❑ preservation policy or ordinance? f)Conflict with the:provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation El E] ElPlan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? V"CULTURAL IdESOURCES`' Would the project. . a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ❑ [� ❑ ❑ '15064.5? b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ❑ Q ❑ ❑ '15064.5? c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic ❑ feature? d)Disturb any human remains,including those interred ❑ ❑ ❑ outside of formal cemeteries? • C---- A.....: *o. T T f' D-41,..;—L';-IA Tl.-4'+T-,*;.,1 Ci..A-1WAxTn 1(i Potentially Less Than Less Than No • Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation VZ'GEOIAGY•ANDSOUS, Wouldthe,prolect a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects;including the risk of loss,injury,or ❑ ❑• Q ❑ death involving: i)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 ❑ ❑ Q ❑ or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ `Q ❑ iii)Seismic-related ground failure,including ❑ ❑ Q ❑ liquefaction? iv)Landslides? ❑ ❑ `Q ❑ b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ Q ❑ ❑ topsoil? c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the ❑ © ❑ ❑ project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? d)Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table ❑ ❑ El of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal ❑ ❑ ❑ systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? NIL,,HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS—R!ould the project: a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the F-1 ❑ E]environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and Q ❑ ❑ accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Q..,..,..-- A..,. ;,+o. T T r TZ...i1,,:..e V;01.1 T..:+;..1 C+..A—fKANM 17 • Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation kn"S'AND T�AZARDOIIS MATBRiAi S (Continued)-Wouldthe,project: d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as aresult, ❑ ❑ ❑ `Q would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would ❑ ❑ `Q ❑ the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, El ❑ would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere ❑ ❑ El an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires,including ❑' ❑ ❑ Q where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? M HYDROLOGY AND WATER.QUA M Woukd�.the oproleet:"- a)Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ Q ❑ ❑ discharge requirements? b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be:a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the El Q 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)? c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the ❑ ❑ ❑ course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater ❑ Q ❑ ❑ drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runof? e..,..,—. %— A....,,,.;,,.e..r r r n,,.tt,,;..e>r:et.t T'%-4 T-;+;.a e.,.a,.rnm m 1 R Less Than • potentiallyLess Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact p Incorporation p HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (Continued) "Would the pro,ect: f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or ❑ �( ❑ ❑ Flood hisurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures ❑ Q ❑ which would impede or redirect flood flows? i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving flooding,including ❑ ❑ ❑ Q flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j)Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑77 7777 Q IX.=LAND`IJSE AND`PLANrTING=Would-:the project. Y a)Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ Q b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan, ❑ ❑ Q ❑ specific plan,local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ Q plan or natural community conservation plan? �L1VIIIVERALRESOURCES Wouldtlie.project: a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral El ❑ El resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on ❑ ❑ ❑ Q a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? XL? =NOISE' WouPld the ro'ect result in: .j a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general ❑ �( ❑ ❑ plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ �( groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise El 11 ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the proj ect? Q--- A or....:..+o..T T r n-Al...;..a F;-1.4"--r+T..;+;..1 Q+..A../A XXTrI 9. • Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact p Incorporation p .NOISE(Continued) `Would-the;project result m d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in El ❑ ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would ❑ Q ❑ ❑ the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ El Q would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIL'.POPULATION AND HOUSING-'Would the.,; project a)Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(for example,by proposing new homes ❑ ❑ Q ❑ and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,• ❑ ❑ Q Elnecessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c)Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ Q ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIIL 1PUBLIC SERVICES„- (a).Would the protect result�n substantial adverse physical impacts-issociated,with I e provision of new or;physically altered governmental}facilities,need for.liew orphysically altered'governmental facilites,the construction of which could cause s�giuficant envimvmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable aer► ce ratios,re9ponsetTiries or other performance;objectives for any of.tbe public services. i)Fire protection? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ii)Police protection? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ iii)Schools? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ iv)Parks? ❑ ❑ 'Q ❑ v)Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ r Q--- Ate......;,,♦oma T T r 1—AU.,;„e T7;-IA T1-4 T-;s;.,l C4,..7-AXXTn 7n Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation XIV RECREATION a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational Q El EJ facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion'of recreational Q facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XW TRAN5PORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the 'p�rject a)Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the Q street system(ie.,result in a substantial increase in El either the numberof vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? b)Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the county Q congestion management agency for designated roads • or highways? c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including Q either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design Q ❑ feature(e.g:,sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? e)Result in inadequate emergency access? Q f)Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ Q g)Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs Q El alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? XVI UTHZIHSAMD=S ERVICE'iSYSTEMS ' Would.the project: a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Q applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing Q facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c.,..........n n +o. r r rr T7;-IA TN—f+r,.;+:.,l c+„a..f%X%Tn 1 • PotentiallyLess Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation DT-HX, ES AND.SERVICE,SYSTEMS (Continued) Woulii the-, r sect c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ` d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the El El EJ from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the El EJ project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project=s projected demand in addition to the provider--s existing commitments? f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted El El capacity to accommodate the project=s solid waste disposal needs? g)Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ �( • regulations related to solid waste? XV1L MANDATORY FINDINGS OT SIGNIFICANCE a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining El El E]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 individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when ❑ Q ❑ ❑ viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects)? c)Does the project:have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, El Q ❑ either directly or indirectly? C.........— A........:..♦o..T 7 0 r)—A1+ ;__T7;-1A Tl.—A T—;+;.,l Qs...—/KATTF1 ?? RESPONSES TO INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST • L AESTHETICS The topography of the project site is gradually sloping to the west and south with an elevation of approximately 60-feet above mean sea level (msl) on-the eastern side and approximately 10 feet above msl on the western side adjacent to Pacheco Boulevard.The northern half of the project site consists of two hill slopes separated by a small swale. A flat area was graded on the Bodhaine property, (southern portion of the project site)to accommodate an existing residence, shed, rubble piles,.and two large gravel parking areas. The site is surrounded by developed or disturbed land on all sides. The on-site vegetation is highly disturbed and supports primarily non- native grassland and ruderal species. Scattered native and non-native trees and shrubs are also present. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. According to Figure 9-1 of the Contra Costa County General Plan, which identifies scenic resources in the County, including major ridges and waterways, the project site is not in an area identified for scenic resources. The project site is not part of a.scenic vista, nor would it block views of a scenic vista from existing development. b. Substantially damage scenic resources,including, but not limited to,trees, rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The project site does not contain scenic resources such as rock outcroppings, trees, historic buildings, nor is it within a state scenic highway. There are 46 ornamental trees located on-site; however,they do not represent a scenic resource. .Removal of all :trees is proposed as part of the Final Development Plan application. c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or surrounding areas. The proposed project would be consistent with surrounding land uses. There are no visually unique or distinctive .features of the project site that would be affected by the project. Refer to response(b) above. d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which.would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urban environment where exterior lighting associated with residential and public uses-is common. Adjacent roadways also provide street lighting. New exterior lighting would contribute incrementally to light and glare in this existing urban setting. Lighting would not be in excess of that commonly found in urban areas, and new lighting would utilize fixtures designed to minimize light spillage..Given that the project site is surrounded by areas Cvramnrn AvznriatPc T i.0—Rnrlhnine Field T)mft Tnitinl CtnAv/1V1Nn 23 • already developed and has on-site light sources, the proposed project would not be considered a new source of substantial light or glare. Further,the project would be required to conform with Section 76-2.1014,Public Nuisance Lighting, of the County Code, which states, "Lighting fixtures shall be so installed, controlled or directed that the light will not glare or be blinding to pedestrians or vehicular traffic or on adjoining property. With compliance of the aforementioned county code,the project would not result in significant new light or glare impacts. H.AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland,Unique 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? No Impact. According to figure 8-2, Important Agricultural Lands, of the County's General Plan, the project site is not located within an area of agricultural importance. b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. Refer to the previous response. c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? No impact. Refer to the previous response. Further,the project site is not within current agricultural use. • Cvralnnrr A ccnrintrc T.T.r—RndhninP Field T)mft Tnitial Ctwlvfk4h ) 24 M.AIR QUALITY • The project site is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin(BAAB), which comprises the nine-county Bay Area. Air quality in the BAAB is regulated primarily by the Bay Area Air Quality.Management District(BAAQMD). The BAAQMD monitors and enforces District, State of California and Federal air quality standards.. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin does not meet the State ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and inhalable particulate matter(PMIo). In 2002, 16 exceedances (state standards)for ozone occurred, 19 occurred in 2003, and 7 exceedances occurred in 2004. In 2002, 4 exceedances(state standards) for PMIo occurred, 3 occurred in 2003 and 1 exceedance occurred in 2004. The state standards for these pollutants are more stringent than the national standards. The Basin does not meet the National ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and is unclassified for PMIo. All other pollutants are designated as "attainment" or"unclassified" for federal standards and as an"attainment" area for the state standard.' State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards are shown in Table 1, State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards. 1 California Air Resources Board Website.http://www.arb.ca.gov. 03/18/05. Cvramnrn A ccnriatPc T.T.f'.—RndhainP Field T)mft Initial Rhvlv/MNTM 25 Table 1. State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS' Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards° National Standards° PPM µg/m3 Primary° . Secondary° ppm 3 pm dO Ozone 1 hour 0.09 180 8 hour 0.08 0.08 Carbon Monoxide 8 hours 9.0 10,000 9.0 10,000 9.0 1 hour 20.0 23.000 35.0 40.000 35.0 Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.053 100 0.053 1 hour 0.25 470 Sulfur Dioxide' Annual 0.03 80 24 hours 0.04 105 0.14 365 3 hours 0.5 1,300 1 hour 0.25 655 PM,aa Animal 30 50 50 24 hours 50 150 150 PMssa Annual 15 15 • 24 hours 65 65 Lead& Calendar quarter 1.5 1.5 30-day avg 1.5 Sulfate$ 24 hours 25 Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 42 Vinyl Chloride 24 hours 0.010 26 Visibility 8 hors(10 am.- In sufficient amounts Reducing Particles 6 p.m.) to reduce prevailing visibility to<10 miles when relative humidity is<70% w/equivalent instnim6nt method ' Standards fust promulgated in ppm concentrations except where noted. Equivalent Wrr?concentrations based on reference mrripemiure of 25°C and reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury. ' California standards for ozone,carbon monoxide(except Lake Tahoe),sulfur dioxide,nitrogen dioxide,PMro,and visibility reducing particles are values not to be exceeded. ° National standards,other than ozone and those based on annual averages,are not to be exceeded more than once a year. Designed to protect human health with an adequate margin of safety. ' Designed to protect public welfare(i.e.,prevent damage to vegetation,property,visibility) 'Federal standards first promulgated inµ$/rt?. d Standards promulgated inµglen only. CvramnrP A canriatP.c T.I.f —RnrihainP FiAd Theft Initial 1.qfivlv/k4T%M 26 Would the project. a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan(Plan)prepared by BAAQMD. The main objective of the 2001 Plan is to attain the state air quality standard for ozone. The 2001 Plan includes current air quality data, updated emission inventory and emission factors, a description of the District's photochemical modeling results, updated analysis of emission reductions needed to meet and maintain the state ozone standard, discussion of potential air quality impacts to the energy crisis, and recommended adoption of three specific control measures. The air quality plans use the assumptions and projections of local planning agencies to determine control strategies for regional compliance status. Since the plans are based on local General Plans, projects that are deemed consistent with the applicable General Plan are usually found to,be consistent with the air quality plans. Development of the proposed project would not significantly change the.overall buildout scenario for Contra Costa County envisioned in the County's General Plan. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook The California Air Resources Board's (CARB)primary goal in developing the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook is to provide information that will help keep California's children and other vulnerable populations out of harm's way with respect to nearby sources of air pollution.Recent air pollution studies have shown an association between respiratory and other non-cancer health effects and proximity to high traffic roadways. Other studies have shown that diesel exhaust and other cancer-causing chemicals emitted from cars and trucks are responsible for much of the overall cancer risk from airborne toxics in California.' The intended purpose of the Handbook is to highlight the potential health impacts associated with proximity to air pollution sources so planners explicitly consider this issue in planning processes. CARB believes that with careful evaluation, infill development, mixed use, higher density, transit-oriented development, and other concepts that benefit regional air quality can be compatible with protecting the health of individuals at the neighborhood level. The Handbook recommends the following, "Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day." The project site is immediately adjacent to the right-of-way(ROW) of I- 680 and within 300 feet of the traffic lanes and is a residential development which is considered a sensitive receptor;therefore,the project would not be consistent with the . handbooks recommendation. However, as stated in the handbook, "Land Use decisions are a local government responsibility. The Air Resources Board's role is advisory and 2 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, California Air Resources Board.April 2005. Cvramnrn A cammntPc T.T.0—RndhninP Field nrnff TnitiA RtnAv/K4NM 27 these recommendations do not establish regulatory standards of any kind....Land use agencies have to balance other considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues." b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ezisting or projected air quality violation? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation. The proposed project would generate short-term construction emissions and long-term vehicle emissions associated with the increased vehicle trips to the site. Short-Term Construction Emissions Ozone Emissions During Construction: According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, construction projects using typical construction equipment such as dump trucks, scrappers, bulldozers, backhoes which temporarily emit precursors of ozone(i.e.,volatile organic compounds or oxides of nitrogen), are accommodated in the emission inventories of state and federally required air plans and would not have a significant impact on the attainment and maintenance of ozone ambient air quality standards(page 13 of the Guidelines). Thus, the project would not individually, or cumulatively contribute to the non-attainment of ozone standards. • Particulate Matter Emissions During Construction: The project construction phase would generate PMIo emissions in the form of fugitive dust and vehicle exhaust from construction equipment. Construction activities for the proposed project would consist of excavating the project site and other construction related activities. Emissions from construction equipment engines also can contribute to high, localized concentrations of PMIo, as well as increased emissions of ozone precursors and carbon monoxide. The BAAQMD has prepared a document, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Revised 1999 that provides guidelines for assessing construction related air emissions. According to Section 2.3, of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines the BAAQMD's approach to CEQA analyses of construction impacts is to emphasize implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions. The BAAQMD has identified a set of feasible PMIo control measures for construction activities. These control measures are listed in Table 2 of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and in Table 2,Feasible Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PMIo, below. As noted in Table 2 below, some measures ("Basic Measures") should be implemented at all construction sites, regardless of size. Additional measures ("Enhanced Measures") should be implemented at larger construction sites (greater than 4 acres) where PMIo emissions generally would be higher and other PMIo controls("Optional Measures") may be implemented if further emission reductions are deemed necessary by the Lead Agency. Cvramnre Accnnintec T.I.C.—RnAhnine.FiP1A nraft Initial Cfiviv/kAm 28 Table 2. Feasible Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PMlo Basic Control Measures The following controls shoWd=be implemented at all construction sites • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand,and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply(non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily(with water sweepers)all paved access roads; parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily(with water sweepers)if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Enhanced Control Measures—The following measures should be implemented at construction sites greater than four acres in area. • All `Basic"control measures listed above. • Hydroseed or apply(non-toxic)soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas. • Enclose, cover,water twice daily or apply(non-toxic)soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt,sand, etc.). • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Optional Control Measures—The following control measures are strongly encouraged at construction sites that are large in area, located near sensitive receptors or which for any other reason may warrant additional emissions reductions. • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site. • Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas. • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 25 mph. • Limit the area subject to excavation,grading and other construction activity at any one time. Source:BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines,Table 2. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce fugitive dust-related air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure Air-1: The"Basic Measures" and the"Enhanced Measures" listed in Table'2 shall be incorporated into the construction plans for the proposed project. The "Optional Measures" listed in Table 2 shall be incorporated if further emission reductions are deemed necessary by the County. The County shall review these construction plans to ensure these measures have been incorporated. Cvrmmnre. A ccnriatPc T.T.C'.—Rndhnine.Field r)mft Initial Ctnrlv/MMn 29 • Long-Term Vehicle Emissions. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide thresholds of significance for operational impacts by pollutant. An exceedance of any threshold would represent a significant impact on local or regional air quality. The 89 single-family homes would add approximately 842 daily trips and 89 peak hour trips to the local roadways. The net increase in long-term vehicular emissions generated by the proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the BAAQMD's operation thresholds and would have a less-than- significant impact on local or regional air quality. c. Result in a cumulatively considerable 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)? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation. As previously indicated,the BAAQIVM is in non-attainment status for Ozone and PMIo. Based on the guidelines provided by the County and information provided in the BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines document,the project would not generate significant PMIo emissions during construction, , nor would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any air pollutants. The project construction would not contribute substantially to cumulative • Ozone or PMIo emissions. However, because the project is located in an air basin that is in non-attainment for particulate matter,Mitigation Measure Air-1, incorporating Feasible Control Measures above for controlling dust emissions during construction is recommended. d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors around the project site include all existing residential areas. The project's primary pollutant emissions would be dust during construction. The residences would not be significantly affected by dust during construction, as mitigation measure Air-1 would reduce construction dust emissions during the length of construction. e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. Some objectionable odors may be generated from the operation of diesel-powered construction equipment and/or asphalt paving during the project construction period. However,these odors would be short term in nature and would not result in permanent impacts to surrounding land uses, including sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to objectionable odors would result from the proposed project. i Cvrmmnre Accnri;atnc T IF.—RnAhnine Fif-ld Dmf4 Tnitinl Cfivlv/MNi) 30 • IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Biological Assessments were completed for the Bodhaine Property„ Field Property, and the Drainage Area 57 (DA57) Improvements site by Wood Biological Consulting and Wildlife Research Associates in April 2005,November 2004, and August 2004 respectively. Per the recommendations of these Biological Assessments, focused botanical surveys were conducted in May and August of 2005 for the Bodhaine and Field properties and in August of 2004 and April 2005 for the DA57 site. The discussion regarding the three properties is largely derived from these aforementioned assessments. All of these biological reports are fully referenced in the last section,References, Persons Contacted and Report Preparers, of this document and are available for public review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. Bodhaine Property The Property's vegetated habitats are highly disturbed and supportprimarily mon-native grassland and ruderal plant species. Scattered native and non-native;trees and shrubs are also present. A surface drainpipe is located off-site on the slope below Highway 680;the pipe ,discharges run-off midway down the hill that then.flows onto the site. At the time of the survey the soil surface was saturated from downslope of the pipe outfall southwest to an area of freshwater marsh habitat adjacent to the southern property boundary. A drainage ditch from the lower end of the freshwater marsh diverts water from this feature west alongside the property boundary. The ditch is partially vegetated with ruderal, non-native species. This ditch ties into a roadside,swale that carries flows northwest along Pacheco Boulevard, ultimately draining to Pacheco Creek via a series of culverts. A wetland delineation and preliminary jurisdictional determination was completed for the Bodhaine Property in June 2005; however, verification from United States Army Corps of Engineers(USACE) is pending.'According to the.biological assessment for the Bodhaine property, these habitats are presumed not to fall under jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG), as they are not associated with a natural stream course.' Field Property Most of the property consists of non-native grassland that has historically been heavily grazed and is partly divided by fence lines. Adjacent to Pacheco Boulevard, is a narrow seasonally inundated drainage supporting ruderal, seasonal wetland habitat. The wetland is fed by roadside runoff and sheet flow from the slope above, and when inundated, drains northwest into further wetlands and ultimately into Pacheco Creek via a series.of culverts and a canal. The upper part of this property near Interstate Highway 680 is heavily disturbed ruderal habitat and includes a single-family residence, other smaller structures, abandoned vehicles, timber and debris. The USACE verified the wetland delineation and jurisdictional determination completed by Wood 3 Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the Bodhame Property,4781 Pacheco Boulevard,Contra Costa County, California.Prepared by Wood Biological Consulting.June 7,2005. 4 Biological Assessment for the Bodhaine Property,4781 Pacheco Boulevard,Contra Costa County California- Prepared aliforniaPrepared by Wood Biological. April 2005. Cvramnre Avmr.iAteC T 7.r—Rndhnine Field Draft Initial Sifiidv/MND 31 Biological Consulting for the Field Property February 2005.5 According to a letter from CDFG, this property is outside the jurisdiction of the CDFG under Section 1600 et. seq. of the Fish and Game Code.6 DA57 The DA57 drainage improvement area, which is off-site, consists of approximately 1.5 acres of historically disturbed and altered land on the north side of Pacheco Boulevard near 4677 Pacheco Boulevard, as well as a small area north of the BNSF railroad embankment. The site consists of an artificially created stormwater conveyance system between Pacheco Boulevard and an outfall on the north side of the railroad right-of-way. The site has been heavily modified by both historical and recent.grading and filling. Wetland vegetation has become established where surface flows back up behind the railroad embankment. Several habitat types are present, including: non-native grassland/ruderal, seasonal wetland, ruderal seasonal wetland, creeping wildrye grassland, coastal/valley freshwater marsh, willow riparian scrub, and a planted grove of cottonwood trees(Populus fremontii). This wetland delineation was verified by the USACE in January 2005.' According to a letter from CDFG,this property is outside the jurisdiction of the CDFG under Section 1600 et. seq. of the Fish and Game Code.' Would the project.- a. roject.a. Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation. Impacts to Special-status Plants. According to the aforementioned BAs for the project, a total of 30 special-status plant species have been recorded from the project region and none have a moderate or high potential for occurrence on the property. A total of 11 species are considered to have a low potential to occur within the study site based on the presence of marginally suitable habitat. These species are: slender-leaved pondweed (Stuckenia filiformis), Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens), and Suisun marsh aster(Suisun Marsh aster),big tarplant(Blepharizonia plumose), Congdon's tarplant(Centromadia parryi ssp. Congdonii), Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia), rayless ragwort(Senecio aphanactis), bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris), round- Wetland Delineation,Field Property,4755 Pacheco Boulevard.Prepared by Wood Biological Consulting. December 15,2004.Verified by USACE February 9,2005. 6 Letter from CDFG regarding Streambed Alteration Agreement Notification Review to Norm Dyer.February 17, 2005. ' Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for Drainage Area 57 for the Essex and Field Subdivision,Contra Costa County, California.Prepared by Wood Biological Consulting. July 16,2004 'ibid. CDFG letter. CvramnrP A c.cnriatPc T.T.r—RndhainP Finid T)mft Initial 4;1hAv/MNT) 32 leaved filaree (Erodium macrophyllum), Mt. Diablo fairy-lantern(C alochortus pulchellus); and • fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea). The remaining 19 species are considered to have no potential for occurrence, either due to a lack of suitable habitat on-site or because they would have been detected during the present survey.910 11 As previously indicated, focused surveys for the aforementioned special status species were conducted in 2005. The corresponding botanical survey reports for the three properties concluded that no special status plant species were detected on-site, none are considered to have any potential to occur and no further surveys or mitigation measures are warranted. Impacts to Special-status Wildlife. There are six special-status wildlife species that are considered to have potential for occurrence within the study area. Cooper's hawk(Accipter cooperii), Nuttall's woodpecker(Picoides nuttalhi), and oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus) are considered to have moderate potential for occurrence on-site as either foraging or nesting species. Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)is considered to have a low potential to forage or nest on-site. Bridge's Coast Range shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta nickliniana bridgesi)is also considered to have a low potential for occurrence on-site. Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)was detected during the Field Property survey, but this species is a winter visitor only and no suitable nesting habitat is present on that property; however, the Bodhaine Property has potentially suitable nesting habitat within the on-site wetlands. Further, there is potential for other special-stales raptors and passerine birds to have some potential of occurrence on-site or to nest in the trees on-site.12 13 Impact Bio 1.1: Special Status Bird Species Several special-status and common bird species have the potential to nest in existing vegetation, including trees, shrubs, ruderal habitats, emergent aquatic vegetation, or grassland within the boundary of the project. Any removal of buildings,trees or shrubs, grading, or construction . activities-in the vicinity of active passerine or non-passerine land bird nests, or active raptor nests, could result in nest abandonment, nest failure, or premature fledging. Destruction or disturbance of active nests would be in violation of the Migratory Baird Treaty.Act(MBTA) and California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG) Code. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure Bio-1.1a: The removal of any buildings, trees, emergent aquatic vegetation, or shrubs shall occur from September 1 through December 15, outside of the avian nesting season. If removal of buildings, trees, emergent aquatic vegetation, or 9 Botanical Survey,Bodhaine Property,4781 Pacheco Blvd.,Contra Costa County.Prepared by Wood Biological. May 2005. 10.Botanical Survey,Field Property,Contra Costa County.Prepared by Wood Biological.August 2005. 11 Botanical Survey,Drainage Area 57,Contra Costa County.Prepared by Wood Biological. April 2005. 12 Biological Assessment for the Field Property,4755 Pacheco Boulevard, Contra Costa County California.Prepared by Wood Biological.November 22,2004. 13 Biological Assessment for the Bodhaine Property,4781 Pacheco Boulevard,Contra Costa County California- Prepared aliforniaPrepared by Wood Biological. April 2005. Cvcamnre. Asanr"inti,T.T.r—RnAhainP Field T)ratl initial C1hidvWWn 33 • shrubs occurs, or construction begins between February 1 and August 31 (nesting season for passerine or non-passerine land birds) or December 15 and August 31 (nesting season for raptors), a nesting bird survey,shall be performed by a qualified biologist within 14 days prior to the removal or disturbance of a potential nesting structure,trees, emergent aquatic vegetation, or shrubs, or the initiation of other construction activities during the early part of the breeding season(late December through April) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May through August). During this survey, a qualified biologist shall inspect all potential nesting habitat (trees, shrubs, structures, grasslands, pastures, emergent aquatic vegetation, etc.)in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests. Mitigation Measure Bio-1.lb: All trees with active nests should be flagged and a non- disturbance buffer zone should be established around the nesting tree in coordination with California Department of Fish and Game. Buffer zones typically range between 50 feet to 90 feet for passerines and nonpasserine land birds, and between 200 feet to 500feet, where feasible, for raptors, as determined by California Department of Fish and Game. depending on the species involved, site conditions, and type of work proposed., Mitigation Measure Bio-1.1c: Active nests should be monitored by a qualified biologist to determine when the young have fledged.and are feeding on their own. California Department of Fish and Game should be consulted for clearance before construction activities resume. Impact Bio-1.2: Special-status Bat Species Special-status bat species have the potential to nest or roost on-site due to the presence of large trees or on-site structures. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure Bio-1.2: Pre-construction surveys for roosting bats should be conducted prior to removal of trees and buildings. If found, California Department of Fish and Game should be consulted for guidance on establishing a disturbance-free buffer zone during the maternity roost season(March 1 -July 31) or for approval to safely evict bats, if deemed appropriate. Impact Bio-1.3: Bridge's Coast Range Shoulderband Snail Little is known about this subspecies of terrestrial snail, which lacks legal protection under state and federal law. However, it is considered rare under the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB)ranking scheme and impacts to it could potentially be considered significant pursuant to CEQA guidelines. While suitable habitat(Le., leaf litter, downed branches and logs, accessible ground burrows, duff, rocks, vegetation thatch, and debris) is present at the site,the potential for this species to occur on-site is low, and as such, no further analysis or mitigation is required. wrmmnre. Accnnintrc T JP—Rnrihninr Field Tuft Tnitinl CtnAv/MTM 34 Impact Bio-1.4: Burrowing Owl. • The Field property is within range of burrowing owl and supports potentially suitable habitat for the species. While no ground squired burrows were observed on-site during the aforementioned surveys,the project site is within the range of Burrowing Owl (BUOW) and the basic habitat conditions are present. As ground squirrels could move onto the site and create suitable habitat for BUOW in the future,the potential for occurrence does exist. While burrowing owl was not detected during the biological survey,the species could move onto the site prior to the initiation of grading. Disturbance during the wintering or nesting seasons could result in the take of adult burrowing owls, nest abandonment, and mortality of young. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure Bio-1.4a: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, pre-construction surveys of all potential burrowing owl habitat shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within the project area and within 250 feet, where feasible, of the project boundary. Presence or sign of burrowing owl and all potentially occupied burrows shall be recorded and monitored according to CDFG and California Burrowing Owl Consortium guidelines. If burrowing owls are not detected,by either sign or direct observation, construction may proceed. Pre-construction surveys must be;reinitiated if more than 30 days lapse between surveys dates and construction activities,. Mitigation Measure Bio-1.4b: If potentially nesting burrowing owl is present during pre- construction surveys conducted between February 1 and August 31 grading shall not be allowed within 250 feet, where feasible, of any nest burrow during the nesting season (February-August), unless approved by the CDFG. All burrows containing active nests should be identified by flagging. Such nests must not be disturbed until the young have fledged and compensation of habitat loss, at a mitigation ration to be determined in consultation with the CDFG would be required. Mitigation Measure Bio-1.4c:.Ifburrowing owl are detected.during pre-construction surveys outside the nesting season (September 1 -January 31), passive relocation and monitoring may be undertaken by a qualified biologist following CDFG and California Burrowing Owl Consortium guidelines, which involve the placement of one-way exclusion doors on occupied and potentially occupied burrowing owl burrows. Owls shall be excluded from all suitable burrows within the project area and within a 160-foot buffer zone, where feasible, of the impact area. A minimum of one(1)week shall be allowed to accomplish this task and allow for owls to acclimate to alternate burrows. These mitigation actions,shall be carried out prior to the burrowing; owl breeding season (February 1-August 31) and a qualified biologist shall monitor the site weekly until construction begins to ensure that burrowing owls do not re-inhabit the site. b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any 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? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation. Sensitive natural communities are those that are considered rare in the region, support special-status plant oi•wildlife species, or receive Cvrmmore. Accnriate.c T.T.r—Rnrihaine.FiAd T)rift TnitiA Rtndv/NiND 35 . regulatory protection(i.e., §404 of the Clean Water Act and/or §1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code [CDFG]). In addition, the CNDDB has designated a number of communities as rare; these communities are given the highest inventory priority(Holland 1986, CDFG 2003). The on-site special-status natural communities include creeping ryegrass grassland,willow riparian scrub, and the cottonwood grove on the DA57 site. A formal wetland delineation and preliminary jurisdictional determination was conducted for the three properties in accordance with the procedures outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)Wetlands Delineation Manual(Environmental Laboratory 1987).14 Verification requests were submitted to the USACE in 2004 and 2005 for these properties. Final'USACE verification was obtained in February 2005 and January 2005 for the Field and DA57 properties, respectively. Final verification of the jurisdictional determinations by the USACE for the Bodhaine property is pending. According to the Bodhaine Property wetland delineation, the property supports a total of 3,744 sq. ft. of waters of the U.S., which is composed of 3,034 sq. ft of ruderal seasonal wetland, and 710 sq. ft. of ruderal freshwater marsh."Based on the Field Property wetland delineation,the property supports a total of 1,246 sq. ft. of waters of the U.S., composed of ruderal seasonal wetland habitat. Habitats for the three properties are presumed not to fall under CDFG's jurisdiction, as they are not associated with a natural stream course, Impact Bio-2: Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community Implementation of the proposed project could result in impacts to creeping ryegrass grassland, willow riparian scrub, and the cottonwood grove on the DA57 site. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure Bio-2a: Removal of willow and cottonwood trees on the DA57 site shall be avoided to the maximum extent feasible. The pruning of branches to accommodate constriction equipment shall occur instead of tree removal to the maximum extent feasible. Any removal of trees shall be offset by planting of trees of the same species at an appropriate ratio, determined in consultation with the regulating agencies. Mitigation Measure Bio-2b: Grading within the creeping ryegrass grassland on the DA57 site shall be avoided to the maximum extent feasible. To facilitate equipment access over the grassland, trench plates shall be installed on the ground to avoid turning over the soil and destroying plant rhizomes. For unavoidable temporary impacts, rhizome cuttings shall be; collected from undisturbed areas and re-planted in the disturbance area. For unavoidable permanent impacts, rhizome cuttings shall be collected from the site and planted in cleared, prepared ground in a suitable on-site location. On-site grassland habitat shall be created at a 2:1 replacement ratio (square feet created: square feet destroyed). la Ibid. is Ibid. Rvi-amore. AccnniitPc T.T.r—Rndhnine Field T)rafl Initial Ctndv/VNM 36 c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federallyprotected wetlands as defined b • P y 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? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation. Implementation of the proposed project could result in impacts to seasonal and ruderal seasonal wetland, and ruderal freshwater marsh wetlands. A total of 5,701 sq. ft. (0.13 acre) of potentially jurisdictional wetland may be permanently affected by the project. A wetland mitigation and monitoring plan was developed detailing the mitigation design, wetland planting design, maintenance and monitoring requirements, reporting requirements, and success criteria for the created wetland and was approved by USACE and RWQCB. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Impact Bio-3; Wetlands Implementation of the proposed project could result in impacts to wetlands. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level Mitigation Measure Bio-3a: Impacts to wetlands shall be minimized to the greatest extent feasible. All jurisdictional wetland areas located outside of the immediate grading footprint shall be avoided during construction and no fill would be allowed within these areas. Exclusion fencing shall be erected at the boundary of the wetlands and the active project area to limit access of heavy equipment and expansion of the construction area. A biological monitor will oversee the installation of the exclusion fence and would monitor the construction site on a weekly basis to document avoidance of wetland areas. Mitigation Measure Bio-3b: To compensate for the unavoidable, permanent loss of jurisdictional wetlands on the DA57 and Field properties, a newwetland shall be created within the DA57 area, at a 2:1 replacement ratio, as approved by the USACE and RWQCB. Mitigation Measure Bio-3c: To compensate for the unavoidable, permanent loss of jurisdictional wetlands on the Bodhaine property, the County approved stream restoration project shall be completed, pending approval by the USACE,and RWQCB. A restoration plan shall be developed detailing the restoration, planting design, five-year maintenance and monitoring requirements, reporting requirements, and success criteria for the created wetland. USACE and RWQCB would need to approve this;plan prior to implementation. d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less than Significant Impact. According to the aforementioned Biological Assessments, based on the existing level of development and human activity around the project site, wildlife movement across the site is likely to be highly localized. No contiguous wildlife movement corridor nor large nearby open space/parkland areas of high integrity, nor native habitat exist as CV(am(1rP. AscnttiatPc T.T.('—RnrlhainP FiP1A Draft Tntfial Cfivlv/MNT� 37 r • sources for potential special status species to enter the project site. The project site is not considered to be part of an important wildlife movement corridor because of a lack of connectivity between the project site and any substantial undeveloped lands. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less than Significant Impact. The project proposes the removal of all 46 trees located on-site.16 " Chapter 816-6, Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, of Contra Costa.County Code provides protection for trees greater than 20,inches in circumference(approximately 6.5 inches in diameter). This ordinance states that arborist or forester reports and tree removal permits are required for the;removal of any such protected trees. In accordance with the County Code,tree assessments were prepared for the proposed project. The Applicant is required to replace these trees via conditions of approval associated with the Final Development Plan. E Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No impact. The project would have no impact on an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. • 16 Tree Inventory/Assessment for 4755 Pacheco Blvd.Prepared by Maureen Hamb-WCISA Certified Arborist #2280 Professional Consulting Services.December 2004. "Tree Inventory/Assessment for 4781 Pacheco Blvd.Prepared by Maureen Hamb-WCISA Certified Arborist #2280 Professional Consulting Services.April 2005. Cvrmmnre. Accnnintnc T.T.r—Rcuihnine.Field Thnft Tnitinl CfiidWMNTM 38 • V. CULTURAL RESOURCES . Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation. Responses a through d. Two assessments were prepared by William Self Associates for the proposed project: Archaeological Assessment of a 3.39 acre Parcel (APN 159-230-003), Located at 4781 Pacheco Blvd., Martinez, Contra Costa County, California(April 2005); and Archaeological .Assessment of a 6.16 acre Parcel(APN 159-230-002), Located at 4755 Pacheco Blvd., Martinez, Contra Costa County, California(December 2004). These assessments are fully referenced in the last sections, • References, Persons Contacted and Report Preparers, of this document and are available for public review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. According to the aforementioned Archaeological Assessments,the project is not anticipated to exppse cultural or paleontological resources as the area is largely disturbed and partially developed. The record search and the visual inspection of the project site indicate that the likelihood of encountering cultural resources with the project area is extremely low. However, while no prehistoric cultural resources were observed during the survey of the properties, there is a possibility that cultural resources may become visible once vegetation is removed or during construction excavation. As such, the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact to historic and/or archaeological resources. Should any previously undiscovered cultural remains, historic artifacts, or paleontological resources be discovered, the implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure Cul-1: In the event that previously unknown archaeological resources are discovered during any land alterations,the construction crew shall crease work immediately in the discovery area (i.e., within 100 feet). A qualified archaeologist approved by Contra Costa County shall be consulted to evaluate the resource in accordance with state and Federal guidelines. If prehistoric Native American remains are discovered,the State Native American Heritage Commission and affected Native American groups shall be notified according to state regulations. All archaeological activities shall be conducted in accordance with prevailing professional standards, as outlined in CEQA, and shall be implemented before recommencement • of work within the area of the resource discovery. Cvrmmnre A scnrinter T.I.C.—Rndhnine Field T?raft Tnitinl gihuiv/W1 m 39 • VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Environmental Setting Terrasearch, Inca prepared a Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed project in May 2005.18 The following discussion is largely based on the findings and background information provided in the report. This geotechnical investigation is fully referenced in the last section,References, Persons Contacted and Report Preparers, of this document and is available for public review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. The region is located in California's geologically active Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province. The province is characterized by a series of northwest trending mountain ranges, valleys, and faults. The dominant geologic processes that have shaped the San Francisco Bay region are active faulting -along the San Andreas, Hayward, and other faults; uplift and erosion of the east bay and peninsular hills; and subsidence of the San Francisco Bay basin. The primary geological units that underlie a large part of the San Francisco Bay region are the Alameda Formation, Old Bay Mud, San Antonio Formation, Young Bay Mud, and the Temescal Formation. On-the eastern portion of the San Francisco Bay, bedrock geology consists of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks ranging from Cretaceous through Quaternary periods (up to 144 million years to present). The project site is underlain by the Upper Member of the Meganos Formation(Lower Eocene), a marine sandstone, which strikes toward the northwest and dips toward the southwest at 75 degrees from horizontal. Quaternary alluvium underlies the flatter portion of the property and consists of alternating layers of clay, silt, sand and gravel. No known landslides were mapped on-site. The closest active fault to the project site is the concord-Green Valley Fault, situated approximately 2.2 kilometers east of the project site. The Concord-Green Valley Fault is mapped as strike slip fault with right lateral movement and is considered active by the Alquist Priolo (AP)Earthquake Fault Zones Act. The project site is not located within an AP zone but is within a Seismic hazard Zones. Other faults located win a 100 kin radius of the site are shown on Table 3,Earthquake Fault Zone Data. 's Geotechnical Investigation on Proposed Pacheco Courtyard Homes Est,4755&4781 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez,California.Terrasearch,Inc.May 2005. Cvramnrn Accnrinte.c T.T.0—RnAhaine.Field Dmfs Tnitial C171Av/MNII 40 C •Table 3. Earthquake Fault Zone Data. Fault Name Fault Type .Distance Fault Magnitude (km) (Mw) Concord-Green Valley Blind Thrust 2.2 6.9 Greenville Strike-Slip 12.2 6.9 Calaveras(north) Strike-Slip 16.2 6.8 Hayward Strike-Slip 20.3 7.1 West Napa Strike-Slip 22.9 6.5 Rodgers Creek Strike-Slip 24.5 7.0 Great Valley 6 Strike-Slip 25.5 6.7 Great Valley 5 Strike-Slip 29.7 6.5 Great Valley 4 Strike-Slip 36.4 6.6 San Andreas(1906) Strike-Slip 49.4 7.9 San Andreas(North Coast) Strike-Slip 49.4 7.6 San Andreas(Peninsula) Strike-Slip 49.6 7.1 Hunting Creek-Berryessa Thrust 50.9 6.9 San Gregorio Strike-Slip 52.8 7.3 Great Valley 7 Blind Thrust 57 6.7 Monte Vista-Shannon Thrust 64 6.8 Pointe Reyes Strike-Slip 66.1 6.8 Calaveras(South) Strike-Slip 67.5 6.2 Great Valley 3 Blind Thrust 74.4 6.8 Maacama Strike-Slip 82.8 6.9 San Andreas(Santa Cruz) Strike-Slip 91.3 7.0 Sergeant Thrust 96.1 6.8 Source:Geotechnical Investigation,Prepared by Terrasearch,May 2005 Would the project: a.Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) 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? RvrAmnre. AcanrintPc T.T.r-Rndhnine Finid T)raft Tnitial 9hidvfk4NT) 41. • Less than Significant Impact. As previously indicated,the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. Further, according to the County's General Plan, Figure 104,Estimated Seismic Ground Response,the project site is located in an area with the lowest damage susceptibility. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact. Because the project site is located in a seismically active region, it would be subject to potentially severe ground shaking during a major earthquake on an active fault in the region. A significant seismic event could potentially damage the proposed project; however, due to the nature of the project and the distance from the nearest active fault, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Further, 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). Compliance with building and grading regulations would further.reduce impacts to a less than significant level. iii) Seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. Seismically induced liquefaction is a potential problem where saturated, loose sands are present within approximately 50 feet of the ground r surface. According to the County's General Plan Figure 10-5,Estimated Liquefaction Potential Map,the project site is in an area with"Generally Low" liquefaction potential. Compliance with building and grading regulations would further reduce impacts to a less than significant level. iv) Landslides? Less than Significant Impact. Since the project site contains a hillslope on the eastern half of the site,the eastern portion of the property may be susceptible to landsliding and/or ground lurching during a strong earthquake event on the Concord-Green Valley Fault. However, due to the shallow depth to bedrock and the gently sloping inclination of the terrain, the potential of landsliding or ground lurching is low. Due to the nature of these subsurface materials, the site is not susceptible to liquefaction but is susceptible to differential compaction along the western portion of the site. Since the subject site is not located near an ocean or lakefront,the secondary hazards of tsunamis or seiches are not probable. b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. The project site's soils are variable in composition, and soil properties cannot be determined without site- specific investigation. Soil exposed by grading activities could be subject to erosion if • exposed to heavy winds or rain. Compliance with Mitigation Measure Hydro-1 (See the Cvrmmnre Accnrintec T,T.0—Rnrlhaine Field T)raf4 Initial CtwlV/MAM 42 n • Hydrology and Water Quality Section) lessen the potential for substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil during grading activities to a less than significant impact. c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. The geotechnical investigation prepared by Terrasearch has concluded that the proposed residential development is feasible for construction on the project site provided the recommendations presented in the report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The major geotechnical concerns for the development of the site are the presence of non-engineered fill, highly expansive soils, and colluvium soil deposits. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Geo-1 would lessen the potential for°impacts in this regard to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure Geo-1: Prior to recordation of the Final Map the Applicant shall submit an updated Geotechnical Investigation for review and approval of the County Geologist that addresses the specifics of the final grading and final drainage plans. The updated report shall include an original geologic map.of the site presenting the consultants interpretation'of the site conditions and that map shall show the location of all subsurface data that was-considered in the evaluations including bore holds and test pits of previous consultants. d. Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. Refer to the previous response. e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The proposed project does not involve the use of septic tanks. VII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? CvrmmnrP AccnrintPc T.T.r—Rndhnina Fit-1A T)mft Tnitinl 91hAv/MT*M 43 • No Impact. The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The project would not require the use of such materials. b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. Environmental site assessments and subsurface investigations were conducted for the proposed project in 2004 and 2005 by Terrasearch, Inc. These assessments are fully referenced in the last section,References, Persons Contacted and Report Preparers, of this document and are available for public review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. These studies indicated that scattered debris such as wood,tires, metal, trash, batteries, above-ground diesel storage tanks, and 5 to 50-gallon containers exist on the project site. Additionally, a petroleum pipeline easement (with associated warning signs) is located along the northern and western boundary of the Field parcel. A septic tank and an associated leach field are located approximately 25 feet directly east of an existing residence on the Field parcel as well. Based on historical aerial photos and topographic maps,the structures existed on the site prior to 1978;therefore, asbestos containing materials(ACM) and lead based paint(LBP) may have been applied to the construction of those structures. Otherwise, based on their visual observations, City and • County documents and interviews, no evidence of existing underground storage tanks (USTs);, stressed vegetation, pits, ponds, or noxious odors were noted at the project site. Further„ no previous groundwater contamination beneath the project site was reported.19 20 The subsurface investigations concluded that no organochloride pesticides or elevated levels of metals arsenic, lead, or mercury were detected." 22 As the abovementioned debris and structures exist on-site, numerous recommendations such as the removal of the debris and retaining the services of a state-certified LBP and ACM contained material professional prior to demolition of the on-site structures were made. Compliance with Mitigation Measure Haz-1 below would lessen the potential for hazardous releases during grading or demolition activities to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure Haz-1: Prior to demolition of buildings known or suspected of construction prior to 1980,the project developer shall have a lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials survey conducted by a certified professional that shall be submitted for the review and approval by the Building Inspection Department. 19 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Residential Development 4781 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez,California.Prepared by Terrasearch. April 2005. 20 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Residential Development 4755 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez,California.Prepared by Terrasearch.November 2004. 21 Surficial Soil Phase II Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Residential Development Field Property 4755 Pacheco Boulevard,Martinez, California.Prepared by Terrasearch.December 2004. 22 Phase lI Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Residential Development 4781 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez,California.Prepared by Terrasearch.May 2005. CvramnrP Accnrintec I I.C..—Rnrihninn Field T)raft Initial CfiviV/lV( M 44 Identified loose and peeling lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials • should be abated in accordance with applicable regulations. Federal and state construction worker safety regulations should be followed during demolition activities where lead and/or asbestos are known or suspected to be present. c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous.materials, substances,or hazardous waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The proposed project is not within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Refer to the previous response(a). d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The site is not on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. However, it should be:noted, according to the previously mentioned Phase I site assessments for the Field and Bodhaine properties, five relatively cross-gradient secondary contamination sources consisted of RCRA-SQG, FINDS, HAZNET, and ENMISSIONS were reported within a 0.25-mile radius of the properties. However, no contamination and/or unauthorized discharge were reported from these sources. In addition, no USGS water well was reported within a 0.25-mile of the project site. No groundwater contamination was reported and the possibility of the groundwater contamination beneath the project site is highly remote. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the Buchanan Field Airport Influence Area. This airport is located approximately one mile southeast of the project site. The Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan outlines land use policies relative to all property with an established distance of the Buchanan Airport, generally 14,000 feet from the end of the runways. The airport plan is fully referenced in the last section,References, Persons Contacted and Report Preparers, of this document and is available for public review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. The project site is within the Airport Influence area, approximately 5,280 feet northwest of the north end of runway 14. The Plan has three areas of evaluation: Noise Compatibility, Safety Compatibility.and Airspace protection. Noise Compatibility. The Plan states that acceptable noise levels for single-family residential uses is up to 55 dB CNEL. According to Figure 3B of the Airport Plan, &vramnrP. A ccnrintnc T.T.r—Rndhnine FitAd T)raiT Tnitinl Rtndv/K4NM 45 • Composite Noise Contours Buchanan Field Airport, The 55-60dB CNEL contour in the project vicinity is east of I-680, approximately 3,000 feet from the project site. Safety Compatibility. Airport safety zones are given the designations of 1 through 4,with 4 being the least restrictive with regard to allowable land use. According to Figure 3C of the Airport Plan, Safety Zones Buchanan Field Airport,the project site is not located within a Safety Compatibility Zone, and is approximately 2,000 feet west of the closest zone, Zone 4. Airspace Protection. Airspace protection zones are delineated in the Airport Land Use Plan. The project site is in an area where no structure is allowed above 173 feet mean sea level (rrisl). The proposed buildings would have a maximum height of 35 feet and with the maximum pad elevation for the project site at 60 feet;the highest proposed building height would be 95 feet, which would be below the 173 feet msl limit. E For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less than Significant Impact. Refer to the previous response (e). g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The project will not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site is located within an area surrounded by development. According to the County's General Plan, Figure 10-10,Fire Hazard Areas, the project is not located within or adjacent to a fire hazard zone, or wildland area. VIII.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Environmental Setting The Field property contains a roadside swale upslope from a storm drain outlet.No natural surface tributaries or blue line streams occur on either property. The storm drain conveys surface flows resulting from sheet runoff from paved and unpaved surfaces over a 100-acre watershed. Outflows are directed via buried corrugated steel pipe into a flood control basin managed by the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. From there, collected • storm run off is directed via concrete culverts to a flood control channel north of the railroad CvrAmnrP.. AscnriatPc T.T.r—RndhninP Field T)mf?Tnitinl 91hnAV/k4NM 46 embankment, leading to Pacheco creek and ultimately to Suisun Bay. No natural surface • tributaries or blue line streams occur on this property.23 Surface water is present on the Bodhaine property, which comes from an unidentified below- ground source. A storm drain culvert from the highway empties at the property's northeastern edge. It is believed that a buried water pipeline running along the base of the highway fill slope might be leaking. Another possible source of groundwater could be-the.Contra Costa Canal, which passes near the easternmost comer of the property. Another possible source would be a natural spring, which is known to.occur on both sides of the highway. No natural surface tributaries or blue line streams lead to or are in any way associated'11vith this property, and none are believed to have ever been present.".. Line B of Contra Costa County Flood Control& Water Conservation District's (CCCF&WCD) Drainage Area 57, which directs the project area runoff, is located to the northwest of the site on the east side of Pacheco Boulevard. a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation: A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan would be prepared for the construction of the project consistent with Section 401 Water Quality Standards to prevent water quality impacts from construction activities. Additionally, dry swales will be constructed'and landscaped along the lower edges of the property to meet the County's C.3 Clean Water requirements. Surface water runoff from the project during construction could impact water quality off- site if not properly controlled. Surface runoff could contain sediment as a result of erosion if proper construction techniques are not implemented. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) administers the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)Permit Application regulations for Storm Water Discharges under the Clean Water Act(CWA). The CWA uses the NPDES permitting program to monitor and control,pollutants in industrial process wastewater, municipal sewage, and industrial stormwater runoff and runoff from construction-sites 1- acre or larger, and as such, the project is required to obtain coverage under the General Permit (Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ)for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity through the State Water Quality Control Board (SWRCB). NPDES permits are issued by the SWRCB. To meet Storm`Water Pollution Prevention requirements,the SWRCB issued a statewide-NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. Dischargers who wish to be covered by the General Permits are required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI)to the SWRCB. 23 Ibid.Wetland Delineation for the Field Property. 2'Ibid.Wetland Delineation for the Bodhaine Property. .VramnrP AccnrinteciIF.—RnAhnine T7ielA T)mft,,Tnitinl .CtnAWK41I M 47 • Submittal of the NOI signifies that the discharger intends to comply with the conditions of the General Permits. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP). The SWPPP should contain a site map(s), which shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP must list Best.Management Practices(BMPs)the discharger will use to protect stormwater runoff and the placement of those BMPs during construction. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for "non- visible" pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d)list for sediment. Further,to ensure that the mitigation measures would be designed and function effectively over time, a Stormwater Control Plan would be required. The SWPPP would address construction-stage impacts and mitigation measures, while the Stormwater Control Plan would focus on post-construction/permanent impacts and mitigation measures. Additional information regarding preparation of a Stormwater Control Plan is available in the Stormwater C.3 Compliance Guidebook.25 • The Improvements in the CCCF&WCD Drainage Area Plan were designed to accommodate the land uses in the General Plan, including development of the project site. The adopted drainage area plan calls for replacing the existing 36-inch pipes with 72-inch pipes under the BNSF railroad track embankment and under the private driveway serving the properties across Pacheco Boulevard. As a condition of approval,the County requires the Applicant to complete the aforementioned improvements to DA57. Without these improvements, flooding could occur on lower elevation properties along Pacheco Boulevard. Additionally, dry swal.es will be constructed and landscaped along the lower edges of the property to meet the County's Stormwater Control Plan and C.3 Clean Water requirements. The implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts in regard to hydrology and water quality to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure Hydro-1: A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. The SWPPP shall contain appropriate Best Management Practices to reduce erosion and water quality impacts. Erosion control measures shall also be reflected in the grading plans and construction documents for the project. The Best Management Practices should include, but not be limited to the following measures: 25Stormwater C.3 Compliance Guidebook,Contra Costa Clean Water Program, Stormwater Quality Requirements for Development Applications.2"d Edition.March 2005. RVramnrr Accnriatac T.T.('—Rndhaine F1P1A T)rafl Tnitiinl CtiAv/k4N17 48 • Protect stormwater inlets by usinga double row of straw bales to absorb • sediment and pollutants. Protect the stormwater inlets from vehicular damage; • Install sediment traps in catch basins and drain inlets, or create an overflow drain by raising the inlet so that sediments will settle before reaching the drain; • Pr'event spills and leaks from construction vehicles and equipment; • Clean up spills immediately when they happen, using dry cleanup methods whenever possible, and if water must be used, use just enough to keep the dust down; • Store materials under cover; • Cover and maintain dumpsters; • Clean up paints and solvents, adhesives, and cleaning solutions properly; • Keep fresh concrete and cement mortars out of gutters, storm drains and streams; • Service and maintain portable toilets; •. Dispose of cleared vegetation properly; • Make sure all demolition waste is properly disposed; • Plan pavement construction to avoid stormwater pollution including: Apply asphalt and seal coat during dry weather; cover catch basins and manholes when applying seal coat; and always park pavers over drip pans or absorbent material. Mitigation Measure Hydro-2: A final Stormwater Control Plan shall be submitted to Public Works for review and approval prior to the filing of the first Final Map. The Applicant shall comply with the County's C.3 Clean Water Program. Mitigation Measure Hydro-3: The Applicant shall construct Line B improvements for Drainage Area 57 as required to handle additional project runoff in accordance with CCCF&WCD requirements. Costs associated with these;improvements shall be eligible for Drainage Area Fee credits and reimbursement per CCCF&WCD policy, if fee credits do not cover the total cost. The CCCF&WCI) shall acquire right-of-way; if necessary, at the Applicant's request. If procurement of right-of-way or construction timing delays these improvements,the CCCF&WCD shall work with the Applicant to develop interim solutions. b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (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)? No Impact. The project would not use groundwater suppliers or interfere with groundwater recharge. Rvramnre A ccncintec T JP—Rndhaine Field T)rnft initial Rtnilv/MNM 49 • c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation: The proposed project would change the drainage pattern on-site and would increase impermeable surfaces; however the construction standards and permit requirements described above in VIII. (a) would mitigate potential impacts related to erosion or siltation to a less than significant level. d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation: Refer to responses VIII(a and c) above, e e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation: Refer to response VIII(a) above. As previously indicated, the Applicant is required to complete the improvements in the CCCF&WCD Drainage Area Plan as designed to accommodate the land uses in the General Plan, including development of the project site. The adopted drainage area plan calls for replacing the existing 36-inch pipes with 72-inch pipes under the BNSF railroad track embankment and under the private driveway serving the properties across Pacheco Boulevard. As a condition of approval,the County requires the Applicant to complete the aforementioned improvements to DA57. E Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation: Refer to response VIII (a) above. Surface water runoff from the project during construction could impact water quality off-site if not properly controlled. Surface runoff could contain sediment as a result of erosion if proper construction techniques are not implemented. As such,the Applicant is required to comply with the County's C.3 Clean Water, Stormwater Control Plan, and SWPPP requirements. g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation: According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (SSRI 2005),the project site is within a 100-Year Flood Hazard CvrmmnrP AcrnriatPc 111'—%dihainr FiAd nraft TnitiA S1hIAV/M1'4M 50 'Area.26 However, only the northwestern-most corner of the Field Parcel(proposed lot 2) • is.sited within the Flood Hazard Area, and no housing is proposed for this portion of the project site(refer to Figure 3,Development Plan, and Figure;4,DA57 Plan). The lowest finished floor elevation within the proposed development would be 19.5 feet above mean sea-level. The proposed project would not result in the placement of housing in a flood hazard area. Further,it should be noted that as a condition of approval, the County requires the Applicant to complete the previous mentioned improvements to DA57 (Mitigation Measure Hydro-3), which would handle the additional project runoff and further reduce impacts. Further,the Applicant is required to comply with Chapter 82-28.1006, Standards for subdivisions of Contra Costa County Code, which states: (1) All applications for tentative map approval are incomplete unless the tentative maps identify the flood hazard area and the elevation of the base flood. (See Section 82-28.806(2)) y (2)All final subdivision improvement plans shall provide the elevation of proposed structure(s),pads and streets. If the site is filled above the base flood, the final pad elevations shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or surveyor and provided to the floodplain administrator. (3) All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage. (4) All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as road, sewer, gas, electrical and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage. (5) All subdivisions shall provide adequate drainage to reduce exposure to flood hazards. (Ords. 2000-33, 99-35, 96-11, 90-118, 88-50, 87-45). With implementation of Mitigation Measure Hydro-3 (improvements for Drainage Area 57) and compliance with Chapter 82-28.1006, Standards for subdivisions of Contra Costa County Code, impacts in regard to flooding would be reduced to a less than significant level. h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. Refer to response VIII g above. Mitigation Measure Hydro-2 above would reduce:impacts to a less than significant level. r 26 ESRI and FEMA website:bttp://www.esri-com/hazards/makemap.html. October 11,2005. Cvrmmnre Accnriatac T.T.r—RnAhainr Fi-1d rlmft Initial Rt-vAv/MNT) 51 i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. According to ABAG's Dam Failure Inundation Areas map,the project site is not located within a.area designated as such.27 The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as.a result of the failure of a levee or dam. j. Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. Since the subject site is not located near an ocean or lakefront, the secondary hazards of tsunamis or seiches are not probable. IX.LAND USE AND PLANNING a. Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The project would not divide or disrupt an established community, as it is an infill residential project surrounded by residential/suburban uses. b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The project is subject to various plans and policies at the county, regional and state level. Conformance with each is discussed below. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005—2020 The County's General Plan was certified in January 2005.28 The General Plan is used by the County and the Planning Commission in considering land use and planning-related decisions. The County's staff uses the General Plan on a daily basis administering and regulating land use and development activity. The purpose of the Contra Costa County General Plan is to express the broad goals and policies, and specific implementation measures, which will guide decisions on future growth, development, and the conservation of resources through the year 2020. The goals, policies and implementation programs contained in the General Plan represent the hopes and concerns of the residents of the County in terms of defining and preserving a "quality of life.""The General Plan 27 ABAG website:Dam Failure Inundation Areas:http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pickdamx.pl.October 11,2005. 2'Contra Costa County 2005—2020 General Plan Certified January 18,2005.Prepared by CCC Community • Development Department. 29Ibid.Page 1-1. Cvrmmnre A ccncistnc T.T.f.—RnAhnine.Field T)raft TnitiM Rtiviv/MND 52 policies identified below are most relevant to the proposed project. The project's conformance with these policies is also discussed. General Plan Designation The project site has a General Plan designation of Multiple-Family Residential -Low Density(NIL). This designation allows between 7.3 and 11.9 multiplefamily units per net acre. Sites can range up to 5,999 square feet. With an average of 2.5 persons per unit, population densities would normally range between about 18.5 to about 30 persons per acre. Primary land uses shall include attached single-family:residences (such as duplexes or duets), multiple family residences such as condominiums;, town houses, apartments, mobile home parks, and accessory structures normally auxiliary to the primary uses. Secondary land uses which do not conflict with primary uses may be allowed, including churches, second dwelling units, home occupations, and group care and/or childcare facilities. The project consists of 89 single-family homes on individual lots. Gross residential density would be less than 10 units per acre. The houses would be 1,620 to 1,770 square feet on an average lot size of approximately 3,500 square feet. The project is consistent with the County's land use designation. Applicable General Plan Policies: The project site is located within the Vine Hill/Pacheco Boulevard Planning Area. The project is consistent with these planning area land use . .policies for the following reasons: Policy 3-101. The scenic assets and unstable slopes of the Vine Hill Ridge are to • be protected for open space/agricultural use. The project site is not located within the scenic assets and/or unstable slopes area of the Vine Hill Ridge. Policy 3-102. The residential neighborhood east of I-680 shall be buffered from the industrial/landfill-related uses. The project site is west of I-680. Policy 3-103. Approximately 40 acres of land south of the ATSF tracks, between Morello and Pacheco, is designated "Agricultural Lands," to encourage the continued operation of the Viano family vineyards and winery. The project site is not located within this area as Morello Avenue is west of Pacheco and the project site is east of Pacheco. Contra,-Costa County Zoning Ordinance The project site is zoned P-1,Planned Unit District. Contra Costa County's Zoning Ordinance states that the P-1 district classification is intended to allow diversification in the relationship of various uses, buildings, structures, lot sizes and open spaces while insuring substantial compliance with the general plan and the intent of the county code in requiring adequate standards necessary to satisfy the requirements of the public health, safety and general welfare. The following uses are allowed in the P-1 planned unit district. CvramnrP, A ccnriatPc T.T.f.—RnAhaine FiPIA T)raft Tnitial RimrivMM M 53 • (1)Any land uses permitted by an approved final development plan which are in harmony with each other, serve to fulfill the function of the planned unit development, and are consistent with the general plan. (2)A detached single-family dwelling on each legally established lot and the accessory structures and uses normally auxiliary to it.. (3)In a P-1 district for which residential uses are approved, residential second units complying with the provisions of Chapter 82-24. (Ords. 87-67 § 6, 79-74: § 84-66.006: prior code § 81666): Ord. 1743). The project complies with all of the zoning code standards and Ordinances that apply to the Project. c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? a No Impact. According to Figure 8-1, Significant Ecological Areas and Selected Locations of Protected Wildlife and Plant Species Areas, map of the County's General Plan, the project site is not located within such an area. The project site is located in an area designated as Multiple-Family Residential-Low Density. X.MINERAL RESOURCES a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Items a-b. Construction of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources of regional or local importance. According to the General Plan, Figure 8-4,Mineral Resource Areas, the project site is not located in an area known for such mineral resources;therefore, no impact would occur in this regard. XI.NOISE Would the project: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. According to the project's Environmental Noise Studies,the noise environment in the project vicinity is iinfluenced by the Burlington Northern& Santa Fe Railway tracks to the northwest and 54 Cvramnrr A ccnrintpc T.T.C..—RnAhainP Fii-ld T)raft Tnitinl.91hAvAAM from vehicle noise on local streets such as Pacheco Boulevard and I-680.30 Th • ese studies are fully referenced in the last section, References, Persons Contacted and Report Preparers, of this document and are available for public review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. The most significant noise source is from I-680.Noise from Pacheco Boulevard is also significant. The noise from the railway tracks, which will be audible(typically 78 dBA), does not occur frequently enough to affect the total equivalent continuous noise level requirement. Measured noise levels indicate that residences in the zone nearest 1-680 are exposed to high noise levels due to vehicular traffic according to the standards established in California Building Code (CBC), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Contra Costa County Regulations. The noise study further concluded that traffic increases from the project would add 2 dB to the current noise level. The proposed residential building;(acades facing Pacheco Boulevard and Highway 680 would be impacted with noise levels of up to 72 dBA Ldn (future) and would be in the HUD and in the County of Contra Costa Normally m Unacceptable category. Exterior walls for the proposed residential units will not require special consideration to limit environmental noise inside the residential units for meeting the applicable code requirements. However, a sound wall with a minimum top elevation of 52.8 to 64.5 feet would be required as described in the supporting letter for the project's Noise Assessment.31 This sound wall height would range due to varying ground elevations adjacent to homes, distance of the house to the property line,the distance of the barrier wall to the freeway, and the elevation or the road. Additionally, sound-rated windows and door assemblies will be required on most elevations as described within the Environmental Noise Studies. Further, the proposed residential project would create a short-term, construction related incremental increase in noise than what is generated at the site currently. However,the Applicant is required to comply with county Noise Ordinance, Chapter 716-8.1004, which limits construction hours. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Noise-I and Mitigation Measure Noise-2 below would reduce impacts in regard to long and short- term noise to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure Noise-1: Prior to issuance of the Building Permit,the .aforementioned Environmental Noise Study and plans for the project must be submitted to the County's Building Inspection Department for review and confirmation that the proposed development fully complies with the CBC, HUD and Contra Costa County Noise Standards and/or Regulations. All recommendations set forth in the Environmental Noise Studies and or the County shall be followed. M Environmental Noise Assessment for Pacheco Boulevard Field Courtyard Homes, City of Martinez, Contra Costa County,California.Prepared by Shen,Milsom&Wilke'. July 22,2005. 3' Environmental Noise Assessment Sound Wall Letter for Pacheco Boulevard Field Courtyard Homes, City of Martinez,Contra Costa County, California'Prepared by Shen,Milsom&Wilke. September 6,2005. gvr`amnTA A ssnnintPs T.T.r.—RndhninP Field T)mft Tnitial Ctnrlv/MNn 55 Mitigation Measure Noise-2: The Applicant shall comply with County Code Chapter 716-8.1004, Work Hours, which states: If operations under the permit are within five hundred feet(152.4 meters) of residential or commercial occupancies, except as otherwise provided by conditions of approval for'the project, grading operations shall be limited to weekdays and to the hours,between seven-thirty a.m. and five-thirty p.m., except that maintenance and service work on equipment may be performed at any time. (Ords. 99-46 § 15: 69-59 § 1, 1969). b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation.Refer to response XI a above. c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant Impact.As indicated in Response M a above, the project is residential in nature and a nominal increase in noise associated with project related traffic would occur and is anticipated to be 2 dB above the current noise level. • d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation.Refer to response M a above. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The County's Airport Plan states that acceptable noise levels for single- family residential uses is up to 55 dB CNEL. According to Figure 3B of the Airport Plan, Composite Noise Contours Buchanan Field Airport, The 55-600 CNEL contour in the project vicinity is east of 1-680, approximately 3,000 feet from the project site. E For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. CvramnrP Ascnrintrc T I.C.—RnAbninP Fielri T)rafT Tnitial Ctnrlv/MND 56 XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING • a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less than Significant Impact. Responses a to c. The proposed project would develop the site with 89 residential units. Contra Costa County has an average household population of 2.72. The proposed project would increase the net population of the site by approximately 242 persons.32 The additional 242 residents represent less than one tenth of one percent of Contra Costa County's existing population, which was 948,816 in 2000 according to the-US Census. The project would not displace substantial numbers of people or housing. 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: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Less than Significant Impact. Responses i to v. The proposed project would construct 89 residential units in an areas surrounded by development and is infill in nature. This would create an incremental increase in the level of public services required for the site than the level currently demanded. As part of the building permit review process,.all 32 89 units x 2.72 persons=242 total persons. . CvramnrP Accnm.9tec T.T.r—RnAhnine Field Drnft Tnitinl qtwlv1M7-M 57 • departments and agencies responsible for providing services are consulted to determine their ability to provide services to proposed development projects. Such services within the project area may include,but are not limited to fire and police protection, schools, maintenance of public facilities including roads, and other governmental services as anticipated by the County's General Plan. Where required, the payment of in-lieu fees would further reduce potential impacts related to the provision of public services. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision, need, or construction of government facilities. XIV.RECREATION a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. Responses a and b. The project would cause an incremental increase in population and the use of surrounding recreational facilities. The project is proposing the construction of a tot lot on Parcel U, adjacent to the existing church. The payment of in-lieu fees, as assessed by the by the County, would be required as part of the project Further, as required by County Code, Park Dedication Ordinance (78-5), and as a Condition of Approval for the project,the following Mitigation Measure would further reduce impacts to recreational facilities. Mitigation Measure Rec-1: The Applicant shall pay in-lieu fees as required by the County and in accordance with Park Dedication Ordinance (78-5). An assessment district for the maintenance of new park facilities in the project area shall be created. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard' established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? gvtmmnrP A ccncintm T 7.r.—TtnAhainP Field Drnft Tnitinl gtndv/MND 58 Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. Responses a and b. • Project traffic impacts have been assessed by Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering33, The project proposes the construction of 89 residential units and this would incrementally increase the existing traffic volume within the project area. The County Transportation Division, has reviewed the Abrams,report and concurs with its findings with respect to traffic impacts."" The project is anticipated to create 842 daily trips, of which 66 trips would be during the AM peak hour and 89 would be during the PM peak hour. The increase of these individually and when added to a background growth rate of 5 percent would not cause a deterioration of this Level of Service (LOS). The project would create a short-term, construction related incremental increase in traffic; however, as with project build-out,the project individually and�cumulatively would not have a significant impact on LOS standards for study intersections. The implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure Trans-1: The Applicant shall pay traffic itipact fees as required by the County and in accordance with the County's Traffic Fee Schedule. In,addition to associated impact fees,the applicant shall contribute a fair share amount towards the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Pacheco Boulevard and Arnold Drive. The amount to be contributed shall be based upon the ratio of trips added to this:intersection by the project compared to the cumulative total of new trips forecasted to use this"intersection, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The project would not affect air traffic pattern,,,,. d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., sharp curves,or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. A private road off of Pacheco Boulevard would provide access to the site.The roadway would loop through the project and provide two means of ingress, egress and fire department access. The project has been designed to accommodate the realignment of Pacheco Boulevard as planned by County 33 Abrams Associates,-Pacheco Boulevard residential Projects,.Traffic and Circulation Study,Contra Costa County. January 2006.This document and is available for public review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. 34 Letter from Hillary Heard,CCC Transportation Planning,to Ryan Hernandez,regarding project trip generation. August 23,2005.This document and is available for public review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. 3s Letter from Hillary Heard,CCC Transportation Planning,to Ryan Hernandez,regarding project trip generation. January 30,2006.This document and is available for public review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. Zvramnre. Accnciatac T.T.r—RnAhnine FiPIA Drnft Tnitinl q Av/MTTT) 59 • Public Works. The private Road would be 22 to 36 feet wide(curb to curb). The 36-feet- wide roadway segments would allow for parking on both sides of the road. The County Transportation Planning Division has expressed concern that the project could adversely affect the safety of school children traveling from the project site to schools located north of the project area.36 The following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level: Mitigation Measure Trans-2: The Applicant shall pay a fair-share contribution to a road Improvement Fee Trust(Fund No. 0682-9752)designated specifically for pedestrian facilities along Pacheco Boulevard, from the project site north to the Arthur Road intersection. These fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. e. Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The project has been designed to accommodate the realignment of Pacheco Boulevard as planned by County Public Works. Emergency access would be via the two proposed ingress/egress' off of Pacheco Boulevard. The project would not cause any changes in roadways that would result in inadequate emergency access. E Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The private Road would be up to 36 feet wide(curb to curb);this would allow parking on both sides of the road. A total of 120 guest parking spaces would be provided in addition to the code requirement of 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit(178 spaces, included as two-car garages). On street parking would provide 60 parking space and driveway areas would provide 60 parking spaces. g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. The project would not conflict with adopted alternative transportation plans. However, to assure that the project complies with the County's Transportation Demand Ordinance, the following mitigation is proposed: Mitigation Measure Trans-3: Prior to filing the final map, the Applicant shall contact the local transit provider, Contra Costa County Connection, to determine services presently provided or planned for the project area. The Applicant shall provide 36 Letter from Hillary Heard,CCC Transportation Planning,to Ryan Hernandez,regarding project trip generation. January 30,2006.This document and is available for public review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. CvcamnrP A vznniatPc T IF.—RnAhninP Field T)mfF Tnitini CtnA M-M 60 evidence to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator that the Transportation demand • Ordinance has been fulfilled. XVI.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. Responses a and b. The project site is served by Mountain View Sanitary District (MVSD). The project proposes the development of 89 single-family residences and is surrounded by similar uses and is'infill in nature. The project site is currently served by utilities and public service systems. According to the MVSD, in 1990 a sewer line, which has sufficient capacity to serve the project and surrounding area, was installed in proximity to the project site. The project would not exceed,wastewater treatment requirements or result in the need for new facilities.37 According to a letter provided by the District,the District approves of the development providing the project complies with the Districts fees and other requirements outlined in the letter.38 This letter is fully referenced in the last section,References, Persons Contacted and Report Preparers, of this document and is available for public review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. Further, the Applicant will pay to the District all in-lieu fees, and other applicable fees prior to obtaining a sewer construction permit and the Applicant will comply with all conditions set forth in the District Approval Letter. c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. Drainage from the project site would be captured in DA57, and improvements to accommodate this flow would be made to DA57 as part of the proposed project. Improvements would be made to the existing stormwater conveyance system, within an existing County drainage RW to- the othe north of the site, between the two commercial uses and then under the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF)Railroad line. The improvements to DA57 would include the construction of approximately 250 linear-feet of 72-in6h concrete pipe, 3 headwalls, one junction box structure and 170 linear-feet of channel grading. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Hydro-2,which states that the Applicant shall construct Line B 3'Telecom with Mountain View Sanitary District,Randy Leptien. October 17,2005. 38 Letter from Mt,View Sanitary District,Randolph w.Leptien,District Engineer,to Ryan Hernandez, CCC Project Planner.May 3,2005. Cvmmnre A canrinte.c T J.r—RndhninP Field TNatT Initial Cfi�Av/MNI� 61 improvements for Drainage Area 57 as required to handle additional project runoff in accordance with CCCF&WCD requirements, would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Refer to the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this document for additional information regarding stormwater. d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is served by Contra Costa Water District. The project proposes the development of 89 single-family residences and is surrounded by similar uses and is ill in nature. The project site is currently served by utilities and public service systems. According to Contra Costa Water District, sufficient water supplies are available to serve the proposed project_"The Applicant will pay to the Water District all in-lieu fees and comply with all district requirements. e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact.Refer to response XVI (a)above. E Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less than Significant Impact. It is anticipated that the proposed project would minimally increase solid waste over the existing levels. At present,the Keller Canyon Landfill has adequate capacity to serve the project site and cumulative development," The project would have a less than significant impact on landfill capacity. g. Comply with federal,state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact.: The project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste,per the Contra Costa County standards. XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or 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? 99 Telecom with Contra Costa Water District,Peter Dunn,Engineering Services Coordinator. October 17,2005. 4o Telecom with Contra Costa County Lorna Thomson.October 17,2005. Cvramnre AccnciatPc I.I.r—P-Mhaine Field T)mfl initial Cfivdv UWD. 62 • Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation.Based on the above analysis, the project could impact several special-status wildlife species, such as Cooper's hawk,Nuttall's woodpecker, oak titmouse,burrowing owl, Bridge's Coast Range shoulderband snail, tricolored blackbird, and several special-status bird and bat species, as the surrounding region provides potentially suitable habitat. Mitigation Measures, Bio- 1.1 (a to c), Bio-1.2, Bio-1.4(a to c) and Bio-2 (a and b), and.Bio-3 (a to c)included in this document would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Further, in the event that previously unknown archaeological resources are discovered during any land alterations, Mitigation Measure, Cul-1, would require the construction crew to cease work immediately in the discovery area. A qualified archaeologist approved by the Contra Costa County would be consulted to evaluate the resource in accordance with state and federal guidelines. If prehistoric Native American remains are discovered,the State Native American Heritage Commission and affected Native American groups would be notified according to State regulations. All archaeological activities would be conducted in accordance with prevailing professional standards, as outlined in CEQA, and would be implemented before recommencement of wort:within the area of the resource discovery. b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, and the:effects of probable future projects)? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. The project would generate dust emissions during construction that would contribute to the non-attainment status of the air basin for PMIo and ozone. Mitigation Measure, Air-1, has been incorporated into the project to further reduce dust emissions. The measures contained in Air-1 are Best Management Practices recommended by the 13AAQMD for reducing construction dust impacts. During construction, the project could contribute to region-wide, cumulatively significant watershed impacts from siltation and erosion. Mitigation Measure, Hydro-1, has been incorporated into the project and would require the preparation of a site-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. Further, the project would seek a Section 401 Water Quality Certification prior to construction in order to meet water quality standards. Mitigation Measure Hydro-2 would requv-e the compliance with the County's C.3 Clean Water Program and the development of'a Stormwater Control Plan. Mitigation.Measure Hydro-3 would require the Line B improvements for Drainage Area 57 as required to handle additional project runoff in accordance with CCCF&WCD requirements. See the discussion under Section VIII,Hydrology and Water Quality, for a description of the construction BMPs, and DA57 improvements. Impacts to air and water Rvramnre. AccncintPc T.T.r—Rnd haina Fif-id T)mft Tnitinl CtnllV[MTA ) 63 • quality would be short-term, construction related, and would not create an incremental cumulative, or otherwise, long-term effect. c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project could have significant impacts on air, noise, seismic safety, and hydrology and water quality. Additionally, the development of the project could create adverse impacts associated with the release of hazardous materials. Mitigation included in this document would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure, Air-1, recommends Best Management Practices for dust control during construction. Mitigation Measure Noise-1 and 2 would require the construction of a sound wall and compliance with the County's noise standards and ordinances. Mitigation Measure Geo-1 ensures that the project will incorporate the latest requirements for seismic safety contained in the Uniform.Building Code. Mitigation Measure Hydro-1 requires the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to eliminate and reduce contamination of stormwater runoff during construction and Mitigation Measure Hydro-2 requires the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Control Plan. Mitigation Measure Hydro-3 would require the improvements to the DA57, which reduce the flood related hazards. Mitigation Measure Haz-1 would require the compliance with the recommendations set forth in the project's Phase i and Phase II Environmental Assessments would reduce the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials such as lead or asbestos. - • CVramnrP. Amnnintin T I.0 C.—RniihninP.Hell T?rnft Tnitial 1R1hv1V/k4T-J) 64 • REFERENCES,PERSONS CONTACTED AND REPORT PREPARERS References: Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, A Community Health Perspective. California Air Resources Board. April 2005. Archaeological Assessment of a 3.39 acre Parcel (APN 159-230-003), Located at 4781 Pacheco Blvd., Martinez, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared by William Self and Associates. April 2005. Archaeological Assessment of a 36.16 acre Parcel (APN 159-230-002), Located at 4755 Pacheco Blvd., Martinez;Contra Costa County, California. Prepared by William Self and Associates. November 2004. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1999. Biological Assessment for the Field Property, 4755.Pacheco Boulevard, Contra Costa County California. Prepared by Wood Biological. November 22, 2004. Biological Assessment for the Bodhaine Property, 4781 Pacheco Boulevard, Contra Costa County California. Prepared by Wood Biological. April 2005. Biological Assessment for the Proposed Drainage Improvement Area 57, Contra Costa County California. Prepared by Wood Biological. April 2004. Botanical Survey, Bodhaine Property, 4781 Pacheco Blvd., Contra Costa County. Prepared by Wood Biological. May 2005. Botanical Survey, Field Property, Contra Costa County. Prepared by Wood Biological. August 2005. Botanical Survey, Drainage Area 57, Contra Costa County. Prepared by Wood Biological. April 2005. California Air Resources Board Website. http://www.arb.ca.gov. 03/18/05. California Geological Survey Website: http://www.con'srv.ca.gov/C.GS/rghm/ap/Map index/county.htm CDFG Letter regarding Streambed Alteration Agreement Notification Review to Norm Dyer. February 17, 2005. Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility.Plan. Shutt Moen Associates. Adopted by CCC Airport Land Use Commission December 13, 2000. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005 —2020. Certified January 18, 2005. Prepared by CCC Community Development Department. Contra Costa County Municipal Code. Current through Ordinance 2005-08 and the April, 2005 code update. LexisNexis Municipal Codes. October 2005. Contra Costa County Transportation Planning Letter from Hillary Heard to Ryan Hernandez, regarding project trip generation. August 23, 2005. Cvramnrr AccnrintPc T.T.r—RnAhaine Fif4d r)mft TnitiA Ctwiv/M D 65 • Contra Costa County Transportation Planning Letter from Hillary Heard to Ryan Hernandez, regarding project trip generation. January 30, 2006. EnvironmelTtal:[Noise Assessment for Pacheco Boulevard Field Courtyard Homes, City of Martinez, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared by Shen, Milsom& Wilke. July 22, 2005. Environmental Noise Assessment— Sound Wall Letter for the Pacheco Boulevard Field Courtyard Homes, City of Martinez, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared by Shen, Milsom& Wilke. September 6, 2005. ESRI and FEMA website: http://www.esri.com/hazards/makemap.html. October 13,2005. Geotechnical Investigation on Proposed Pacheco Courtyard Homes Est, 4755 & 4781 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez, California. Terraseach, Inc. May 2005. Mt. View Sanitary District, Letter from Randolph Leptien, District Engineer, to Ryan Hernandez, CCC Project Planner. May 3, 2005. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Residential Development 4781 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez, California. Prepared by Terrasearch. April 2005. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Residential Development 4755 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez, California. Prepared by Terrasearch. November 2004. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Residential Development 4781 Pacheco • Boulevard, Martinez, California. Prepared by Terrasearch. May 2005. Surficial Soil Phase H Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Residential Development Field Property 4755 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez, California. Prepared by Terrasearch. December 2004. Stormwater C.3 Compliance Guidebook, Contra Costa Clean Water Program, Stormwater Quality Requirements for Development Applications. 2nd Edition. March 2005. Tree Inventory/.Assessment for 4755 Pacheco Blvd. Prepared by Maureen Hamb-WCISA Certified Arborist#2280 Professional Consulting Services.December 2004. Tree Inventory/Assessment for 4781 Pacheco Blvd. Prepared by Maureen Hamb-WCISA Certified Arborist#2280 Professional Consulting Services. April 2005. USACE letter regarding Verification for the Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the DA57 Drainage Site, Contra Costa County, California. November 16, 2004. USACE letter regarding Wetland Delineation, Field Property, 4755 Pacheco Boulevard. December 15, 2004. Verified by USACE February 9, 2005. USDI Bureau ofLand Management and USDA, Forest Service(USDI). 2003. Survey Protocol For Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusk Species From The Northwest Forest Plan. Draft Version 3.0. Region 5/6,OR/WA/CA. Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the DA57 Drainage Site, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared by Wood Biological Consulting. July 16, 2004. Rvrmmnre A canciatPc T T.r.—Rndhnine Fir-..Id T)Mfl Tnifial Rtnrlv/MND 66 Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the Bodhaine Property, • 4781 Pacheco Boulevard, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared by Wood Biological Consulting. June 7, 2005. Wetland Delineation, Field Property, 4755 Pacheco Boulevard. Prepared by Wood Biological Consulting. December 15, 2004. Verified by USACE February 9, 2005. Persons Contacted: Dunn, Peter. Contra Costa Water District, personal communications with Kelene Strain, Sycamore Associates, October 17, 2005. Leptien, Randy. Mountain View Sanitary District, personal communications with Kelene Strain, Sycamore Associates, October,17, 2005. Thomson, Lorna: Contra Costa County, Planner with the County,.personal communications with Kelene Strain. October 17, 2005. Report Preparers: Sycamore Associates,Biological Consultants Kelene Strain, Permitting Associate Richard Grassetti, CEQA Specialist Whitney Fiore, Permitting Unit Manager Marylee Guinon, Principal CVramnrP. Accnriatec T.i.r.—Rndhiine Field T)Mft TnitiA qh, v MNi) 67 o O a. 'H �g A asre 40, too fa 00 — cr RRE 13 1 a: OR o0-E-B 't *5 0 0 11 tj t!)o cc 'o 15 0 -0 4 ig 5 lo. og 03 4) 0 0 t t.0 CN «7 W to M. J., Ut Jg CA -0 t = o' -55 > -. , .c,'daE C� t> % -0 "3: EM &05 0— W O ojWCi uo U U U 0 %.0. OR N d ca � o d � A � A w ono O D U N N �'w' � C d�+�❑'r � H K3 O O ai r� W Q J N NT:d N G06° O O Oy @VOA wy ° '..'3 N N O N ai OOG E O U 00 0 V U OD OD N bo— o �"' 'p Ao O A C•G. U �^°_, ° 00 o U N °� 1010 U O OA v, Q A GU•'f. p•q•'• .� > O U es.q xa' 3 m O O 00 u T„F� � '� qy O'�"-'�+ q SN3 7•C^' � N� a�.i N N.� U �O N ' °3. 4 N '•�' 0 Ginn.� N p .O N' U 1 c0.+ �p y, > Ci . Sn �6l,� N N� pN+N � O� � V • y..Y TOG � N.S� Uro pp N,F T w,fj PC q �^ y "(3' N•O U .n YOdDco O qpWOOc^y w�h,r •NOs115'. pa'�3""8Op❑❑�N°"N'dr3G�ayp° a 'n Oo poEW o� .CR v 00 oap•oU.ppo U pa" N2ca o - r o ": °� � �.� N F N"ac � a) .x-, T O � w G ,I'1, •.q �G � .. '� 01. m a c •� .ya,y �.n•o � � oo� � ay � ay �o ° o °�� ,� N� axw� oo �+ � � past dU O `U° o w ,„ " o �° o. �G'ti � ca f. L7 d O Ca 84, id 15 S 0, 0 U t1 v ze O O on QD .r 45, .a 0 iS o o J3 ,-o 15 e 12 15 0 0 o i5 A Z.41 o o I - la t" .�- 9 § t E 'o v > �; M . 1 .1 1 J. oo-,, ga o o Z Uzi 0 41 00, 8 St. "I t. cd E S6 -50 0 0 0 A C4 C.'o al tW act„ z 0 eT O mc z o = -a 'o bp rc 17' 4c" 0 o 0 lz to > ca.LT. onto) 0 Z aC3 40) pt, %= 0 4) o u 0) tot to P- E N N Ei o w w 0 0 0 0 0 > = > > 15 0 00 0 t 0 0o 4. ST o 0 -0 bD • 1 1 L5 4r-) 0 u a F .0 v 10 .0 t E T Q) .- s v g 9 t cl Q-b. — G - -0:g 001� —*.a!a .2 6 cd N^ °3 11-11 � G., g*5 3w,0. M � 0 u u o O-o 11 rD >, '0*� wo0 LF 0 0 45 u �g i .Z, Tj 0.0 E� Z EL EL,.2 bD Q lom.c, o-c a 4) 4) 1 . o vi 0 p E*g " m o. 0, 50,5 Jo 0 0 -,g ir, to 'o�, , -.5 2 -. --E " . " 15 . . g -j, a - v 1 11 v ;� 5 m '.-;5 '. Z I -.--. E.— 2 0. lz c "16 4, 0 53, .2 !a E-�-. 1 010 BE 4 c 8 -,� �% I oD cl 7 T A 0.- El :,D:E 0 c C).5 7 op 0 op qp— gg 10, -o 0 0 ar - =:R 4) ca, as Im .Z ou > U 0 > o 0 w Q ",�o • co O o"L 'o— w :3 u t)B < U 0 ami 9:6 18 arm U 43 b U lzo' . b .2 4) M 15 w Wu cm IS 0 ;o v rcd" < u AU U tw bo an .5 00 loi .1 C3 o. 00 ° aononu ° o a may C4 CS. r 0 0 Z3 co C4 ch '58 "Cl 1 2. tD go 'o Co.= Q co o 'o .-1 E Z.O 5 03 V5 0 22 V -0 is E M to 0 9 I'm t 15 o6'Q pis va Q 4) >—E, -t= -'0 1, WM ory 44.4 as 03 10cog C64 0 9 O , .� MoD M.�� o m.µ�• J .G °cN�d taU JJU N^ fN� Dfl 9 N v 'Q .p � Q onv �y 3Rp TJ � � ✓ �d N .�V N� O ffi � � A d� � J N� •O •� � N N . 0 cn o qq o y'7 DG Q ✓ J p Jy N d AO.a i+ U 7 � cd -p b p oi.✓�'v� r N w � d � M. o "o ° � F+ L• ca , uo -'�*, ash •�. y . N �m �Cce{,G ice+ °� � � •� - •�" U V o Qi i C4 L+ t/� d V ��,,, Y N•d p d� V« . o W W..yc a o 'tg 00 cn rn co ca ca A o on SA.—0 0 .r 4. 0 40� ap .01 o".5 O-0 En -oz X a 0 Aa CD S-0 0 CoOW i I > =°-0L`. w-0.0, 0;a C9 ci. -0. Z, 0. bD 0 0. mv 41 O ❑ a on 0 do 0 -49O CA 10 , F M. I = ;� > .1. "G 4) to '00 (5 P�gg t . •- d � o A P � •3 o mss'^ Oil 7 � � 4. mq {S � G1 O DJ p �F OA c3 O m y r� F i'tG Q• - N ���Ca Gvp9 � m p•O +� '.��Cy O N � � a�w �'✓o ."ns oma �3 �(y L i b a� � �'G a) A• O .y V d d W w C, ✓ 'As tu O 7 d Ed 0. 0 4 vt v,-) �GG aq 0 w % - , s ot —,4 s b s , 0 p 15D on 0 So s ooo�it 3 S,-o Cl -I;; o70.0 S, % s o I 0 A- :,;, vd ot o Gid 1� 0, -4 a y c > a°iw apiw NT �w �;� �o vi,4 a p N•= 101 > C ° C RAI-,o N a.S o `o' m om $ ohm w �b 3a39a. z3a V] V1 CL w - F.•1 I'm a.� p�> op affi o v o o ° °moo ti W � o� h� � a$i � N � Baa 0 Or Re DO W 0 0 4. 0 p O c7 [O - O '> > > > > ° $ CL 0 UwQ Ua. Q Ua.Q Uad Ja,¢ 4 co 0 � •so c �x.� y •� d W b•9 v t. � O .yam�•+••• 'fJ' '��— U r cv�F, a U pp U '>C.) 4) to. W � y �Cc,� 6" � � aQ ° oo � .$.�ayy� cu o Q min o is a ` m U m aU4 y'pW oU r a aLi W oao 3� o° 0 e a W v nJon,75 > v y.0 fl o o rn _4u M d U U °: U ffi ffi °' a o 'C w Sb o `py' w Q yo w a ed a m ray. a xo� ro > ` 3UU �y °' 000 idG t7L 0 40. $ O O Ju a U U > 3 arm? i s pQs isQ ffi c bca ° 4 y : O O. y C-$ p 4 41.1 •a N N N p a ' a3`oU i^z I •p � r y G L L C C O M� C .yp G ° as 101-- � a� ° wWe O'b d � � a� L O in .y..�W p ,�W„ w w .W+ .,. y R w yr W °• y v c it, e a ee'y •N y p °y[ �U �y..O.N wy pm.,ppLWGOaG d aO mDWD ra mu cc oft C IIO� 3VG O W..'oflp►' 1. taCx !. p g so C O W ° api a41 aLi w 4 L W °' p•p.. y p T'jd.p .W� tw Wr, >b y ,�: w > ar ° e•p,6i L.%a L. 0 awCo � � ° aataoCo m w oo 'C�. L °••W. +. y p L O c JZ �, w 0.1 U � r.•'_' O d1 .W+ W W $i" +W. L w W' W $ W v.0 L L 'y � V 'S7 •p R! y W Q.O � C. O' L� W L W g O q � L W L w .4. ° Y .y. W e'? L � C C7 OU N bD H z E 0 b b N W y d N W y'dy N{ey•y FWNI U N y..� N(a,i � ° Or ° ° C °•atr °•Sys' N > ~ ~ N ltl L d y ld y l0 fd ti °m h °^°4°' y °_040 m a o 00 m o �ayt� '9 �ah oma° h ° a >3� a >30 $ U r 11o oc U U U a 0 NN'O N m 4 ctl 400 00 o 0 o O 0 0.W o O 4.� ° ..A ° ..� bo 7 .y.. .N.. a a'G >'o.d a d'C >•o.� a a'C > '°ti � ° ° 4 `� v o .� a b N d b dC .0 G'D N q F rJ' o4D boo }Fns W g > E 0 g > 2 0 > f 3 g 811 g vi O?? y vi O y �,• vi O amu„ .p y•d U,, o 0 0 � a 4 0 0 0 a 4 •°-' •°... U�aE �.o U m aE m.o Ulm aE 0.0 0....0 no n to 0 0 0 E o 0 e a cc�l U b aui •O uUi 'G N = Q 'O v 'D N 0 o 0. o.p a UO. Q UwQ Ua`.Q UO, Q Ua. Q E UnO=o �'a o O 4 m a o 0 ��alvUJ p $ �a 4 V i7 U C•�Z.O jy.E O'U ° 0 > Q' cry U �• y o o p 4 HU o dw oo d _ y •o3 a 0ga4i °�' a d o fl �`� o cu, yv° >'B O oa 3rn a E� d a H H• > w0 y mp n4 ter°0 c V o o w L 5 U E5 > N w 41 r H aNa-�, � Z o- o Mod 4 =w a❑� � _ d a� °'o N 0^ c .fl L O L b L L L v vi i"' d g w a'Q•�b V1 5 i o o p E o o E 0 0 � rn L irJ' �.. y� i .w p ctl a U 7 t•�'�" N•O O-;S QJ a _ L •O ya.b. f�urr �a0.7i30 u '00 0= a o3o ..:° a� d0 a p Vl x.I y. 21 K y C 0 m „o 0, p p � a•no u p > L L.N O 0= a1 O p p E a z % y r[�y.-0 .m •O0 2:a 0'C 1.00� N'� C4 0 0 .0~ @ iG� p W N W•O i3 0q p r N O y'.Ca. .d O •° ° co°N' H ° e°o H � �cn2 � wmo � ya: �:9 d vii •p G'o c", 0 W d 'O- w v o 0 �r 0 o s _ x ° ami Rte' 0.' W m q 0.' G A W U 4 z Wa U 3 d 0a 0 4 3 d L p 'O a7 > u ° ,dp N > C5, =9 _4� N~ u 0 •�•IC �' W L L L d N •O W o o = w L U u G d yL � m L w :° ci u o y mom - a.p � � a m •p W o a p .fl y � o ,�, p,a O cl 0 a.fl $ oLH � °ed Ng �W `oo co Vl L N.12 W C pp o`u 7 El93 p C d O O d y O O O O W K O eA a Cl C O o 0, c R. o m a rnn bC 13 � c p y C y '� 00 •^jl w sem. y a: a: o �i A v y¢ A W U o ♦� o'^ w o a° a y C d ri q 4= Vj p y aCi H m w b O t m ~ d d w a pC ❑ to o chi u .° o•o a o o n, � U a¢ A •v 4 � �� 4 n as °i _ •¢b •� o c O A •� n w •o � a'Cn'fl � v°D, a a o cc `o � a as d� O NOD .- O m £a 93Owl o 2.0 ta n O �•� rUr!! O➢ u � a a , n � aa� a000 is 'C = p'y W U m C .�. p V N '0 Q p G pip m O F' •� d C w C '•�'+ « d L k `. "O= •� v q CC V U � p C � v > ,ave W � C r Cr�'y ," C L ,n d C t� D � ° C b❑ w^� a� U d d G G u y m G G d m L d w=oo ami w t�il as G 3 "•'- � d a d o k k •� G Uj 6 n Y G• W d a n .c'W7� � N N M 0 o a yy U d" N d p �p o •gyp;7 D C 1 � o A v, lot a .g a g ✓o rl Q _N fi+ o rJ' q ty, C,'" � y � d? d N•o y �, ,f, i a�r-w O fl v d a, �"d✓ (� d mN o °30 k °'. °+ N O t? o v � Y > ani > m as 3 w A Q t'a V ao .�.o❑ w� a a O O- > EL U a Uw¢ O pp N p •off � •d �d� d ❑ � y Q ai � O N 110 per..O O 0 U. O.d pt in in� L R'.� N'd •O c •5� W do� 20 1 P. o ! 3 �'g p.� - d eon '"' mQ %qap aEa o'c �w c3 G w •G CS 4t y �j p p C U N p dd U Rcc J G p p rn v o aoo Nri, o a o .o c A a, UmaE � on C aQ U a a d �v o. �n o m a y w rn � dog O � x O SSS777 a N H �o 0 U •� U �a w o qui.�C � C W W d O dD «+ u E P+-.O C aUi�a7 O 0 v 7 cC Hw a co Q 3 o aa. H rn �,; 159220003 159220006 159220008 MYERS KAVEN G & CAROLYNE L WATSON TODD & KARENC TRE GRIMES MARJORIE ANNTRE 8282 KOBERT RD 114 BATES CT 4795 PACHECO BLVD �TERS CA95694 ORINDA CA94563 MARTINEZ CA94553 159220011 159220012 159220015 BARTLETT RICHARD J GRIMES MARJORIE ANNTRE GRIMES MARJORIE ANNTRE 4791 PACHECO BLVD 4795 PACHECO BLVD 4795 PACHECO BLVD MARTINEZ CA94553 MARTINEZ CA94553 MARTINEZ CA94553 159230002 159230003 159230004 FIELD BROTHERS BODHAINE RANDALL C &C I TRE JANIN ASSOCIATES INC 1187 CAMINO VALLECITO PO BOX 23366 957 STOW LN LAFAYETTE CA94549 PLEASANT HILL CA94523 LAFAYETTE CA94549 159230005 159230006 159240006 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CHURCH OF GOD AT MARTINEZ JANIN ASSOCIATES LLC PO BOX 722 4769 PACHECO BLVD 957 STOW LN SAN BRUNO CA94066 MARTINEZ CA94553 LAFAYETTE CA94549 159240007 159240008 159240009 GAFFNEY GLADE & JOAN TRE COLA SALVATORE &ALLENE COLA ANTHONY&ALICE TRE 1049 PEBBLE BEACH DR 4683 PACHECO BLVD 4685 PACHECO BLVD CLAYTON CA94517 MARTINEZ CA94553 MARTINEZ CA94553 0240010 ANSELMO MICHAEL JR & 161021009 161022001 ANNE BRADDOCK & LOGAN ASSOCIATES NAREZ RICHARD S ROSE 4687 ANN ECO BLVD PO BOX 5300 2504 ROLLING HILLS CT MARTINEZ CA94553 DANVILLE CA94526 ALAMO CA94507 161261004 161262009 161262014 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ERDEI VICTOR N KOCH EUGUENE R& DARLENE G 1220 MORELLO AVE#100 4736 PACHECO BLVD 4754 PACHECO BLVD MARTINEZ CA94553 MARTINEZ CA94553 MARTINEZ CA94553 161262015 161262021 161262022 GUNSUL THOMAS KNOBLOCH ROBERT&CHRISTINE OBRIEN AT PACHECO LLC 4754 PACHECO BLVD 4734 PACHECO BLVD 2001 WINWARD WAY#200 MARTINEZ CA94553 MARTINEZ CA94553 SAN MATEO CA94404 161262023 161270011 161570001 OBRIEN AT PACHECO LLC KELLEHER WILLIAM J H & B PROPERTY SOLUTIONS LLC 2001 WINWARD WAY#200 906 HARBOR VIEW DR 1306 MASTERSON LN SAN MATEO CA94404 MARTINEZ CA94553 LAFAYETTE CA94549 70002 161570003 161570004 B PROPEERTY SOLUTIONS LLC H & B PROPERTY SOLUTIONS LLC H & B PROPERTY SOLUTIONS LLC 1306 MASTERSON LN 1306 MASTERSON LN 1306 MASTERSON LN LAFAYETTE CA94549 LAFAYETTE CA94549 LAFAYETTE CA94549 Building Inspection Environmental Health P/W Engineering Services *** Interoffice*** *** Interoffice*** *** Interoffice*** Darwin Myers P/W Flood Control CC Fire District Community Development *** Interoffice*** *** Interoffice*** 651 Pine St., 2nd FI. NW *** Interoffice*** Historical Resources Information Sheriff's Office System Mt. View Sanitary District Admin. & Community Services Northwest Information Center P.O. Box 2757 *** Interoffice*** 1303 Maurice Avenue Martinez, CA 94553 Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Contra Costa Water District Martinez Unified School District City of Martinez P.O. Box H2O 921 Susana Street 525 Henrietta Street Concord, CA 94524 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Pacheco MAC Department of Transportation Loving & Campos 5800 Pacheco Blvd. CALTRANS 245 Ygnacio Valley Rd. Pacheco, CA 94553 P.O. Box 23660 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Field Brothers Randal Bodhaine 11 Embarcadero West#125 P.O. Box 23366 Oakland, CA 94607 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 • MAPS N � - � rL 'I SLUM wola co C#1 too! •