Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08012006 - D.2 D.2 08/01/06 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on August 1,2006 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Uilkem Piepho, DeSaulnier, Glover and Gioia NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONTINUED to September 19, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. the hearing on the County Planning Commission recommendation for a General Plan Amendment, a Rezoning from Single Family Residential (R-6 and R- 10)to Planned Unit District (P-1) and a Preliminary and Final Development Plan for 22 single-family residential units on 4.6 acres located at#121 through#161 Paulson Lane in the Walnut Creek 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 ON ATE SHOWN. ATTESTED ll John Cullen, k of the Board of Supervisors and County inistrator By eputy 13 • BNB VENTURES, LLC (Applicant) BNB VENTURES, LLC & J.VUICH (Owners) COUNTY FILE # GP04-0009 RZ04-3153 DP04-3119 Hearing on a General Amendment to change the General Plan land use designation from Single Family Residential Medium Density (SM) to Single Family Residential High Density (SH), a Rezoning from R-6, Single Family Residential and R-10, Single Family Residential to Planned Unit Development (P-1), and a Final Development Plan to construct 22 single family residential units. In the Walnut Creek area. Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County , i August 1, 2006 1:00 P.M. - TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ` .hContra ° FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County ' 'ta-i'uuK DATE: AUGUST 1, 2006 SUBJECT: HEARING ON A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM DENSITY TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - HIGH DENSITY, A REZONING FROM R-6, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND R-10, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO P-1, PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT AND APPROVAL OF A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE 4.6 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH OF OLYMPIC BOULEVARD AND EAST OF INTERSTATE 680 IN THE WALNUT CREEK AREA. BNB VENTURES, LLC (APPLICANT) & J.VUICH & BNB VENTURES (OWNERS). (COUNTY FILES: #GP04-0009, RZ04-3153 AND DP04-3119) (DISTRICT III) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATIONS A. OPEN the pubic hearing and take testimony on the project. B. CLOSE the public hearing. C. FIND the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project to be adequate for the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY TV" AND UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) CORRECT COPY OF AV ERED AYES: NOES: ON THE MINUTES r- :RVISORS ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON THE DATE SP' Contact:John Oborne(925)335-1207 ATTES- Orig: Community Development Department JOS' 'OF THE BOARD OF cc: J.Vuich, (Owner) .,,rY ADMINISTRATOR BNB Ventures, LLC(Owner&Applicant) City of Walnut Creek County Administrator's Office Clerk of the Board DEPUTY County Counsel Public Works Department File August 1, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#GP04-0009, RZ04-3153 and DP04-3119 i Page 2 D. ACCEPT the recommendation of the County Planning Commission (CPC), as contained in its Resolution No. 15-2006, which is attached as Exhibit#2. E. ADOPT the General Plan Amendment (County File #GP04-0009), including the change to the Land Use Element Map as recommended in CPC Resolution No. 15-2006 and illustrated on Exhibit 8A, as the second Consolidated General Plan Amendment in 2006. F. ADOPT the Rezoning (County File #RZ04-3153) from R-6, Single Family Residential and R-10, Single Family Residential to P-1 Planned Unit District with a variance to allow application of the P-1 District for a residential development involving less than 5 acres, as recommended in CPC Resolution No. 15-2006 and illustrated on Exhibit 8B and APPROVE the Final Development Plan Amendment(County File #DP04-3119). G. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2006-26 giving effect to the aforementioned Rezoning. H. ADOPT the findings as contained in proposed Board Resolution No. 2006/392 as the basis for the Board's action, which is attached as Exhibit 1. I. DIRECT the Community Development Department to post the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. II. FISCAL IMPACT None. The applicant is responsible for application processing costs. III. PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant requests approval of: A. General Plan Amendment: The project site currently has two general plan designations, Single- Family Residential-Medium Density (SM) and Open Space (OS). The OS designation follows Las Trampas Creek along the eastern and southern boundaries of the site, while the SM designation is extended over,the remainder of the site. The applicant requests approval of a General Plan amendment that changes the Single-Family Residential-Medium Density designation to Single-Family Residential High Density (SH). The OS designation will remain in place. B. Rezoning: The applicant is requesting approval of a rezoning application that would change the zoning of the site from R-6 and R-10, Single-Family Residential Districts to P-1, Planned Unit District with a variance to allow application of the P-1 district for a residential development involving less than five acres. See Exhibit 8B. proval: In application for approval of a final development plan to construct C. Development Plan Aa 22 single-family residences. IV. BACKROUND & REASON FOR RECOMMENDING APPROVAL A. General Plan Amendment The subject parcels totaling 4 6 acres, are currently designated Single Family Residential- Medium Density (SM) and Open Space (OS) under the Land Use Element Map to the Contra County General Plan (2005-2020). Assessor Parcel No. 184-100-032 (approximately 1 acre) was once located within the incorporated city limits of Walnut Creek and was physically separated from the city limits as a result of the freeway widening and improvements for the 1-680/State Route 24 Interchange. This land area was then subsequently detached (or de-annexed) from the August 1,2006 Board of Supervisors File#GP04-0009, RZ04-3153 and DP04-3119 age 3 Walnut Creek City Limits by Contra Costa LAFCO in 1995 and the County assumed land use jurisdiction for this land area. The subject parcels along Paulson Lane each contain residences built either in the 1930's or the 1950's. These parcels were' originally sized as large lots based on a semi-rural residential development pattern common to the Walnut Creek area during the 1930's-1950's. Paulson Lane was significantly altered by the 1-680/24 Interchange Project, which was completed in the mid- 1990's. What remains today) is an island of unincorporated land area bounded by the 1-680 freeway on the north, Las Trampas Creek on the east and south, and Olympic Boulevard to the west. The Paulson Lane areal is predominantly designated as Single-Family Residential-Medium Density under the General Plan, and has a zoning that is split between R-6 and R-10. BNB Venture, LLC is seeking to redevelop Paulson Lane-into a planned unit development with 22 single family residences. This development proposal would require a General Plan Amendment to re-designate I portion of the project site to Single-Family Residential High Density in order to accommodate a proposed density of 6.4 units per net acre, and a corresponding rezoning to the County's P-1, Planned Unit District. The request for a General Plan Amendment and rezoning is reasonable given that the redevelopment of Paulson Lane into a planned unit development provides an opportunity for infill residential development in an unincorporated area adjacent to downtown Walnut Creek, and provides a public benefit of more housing in close proximity to downtown Walnut Creek. B. Rezoning The subject.property is surrounded on the east, south and west by several zoning districts including R-6 (Single-Family Residential, 6,000 square feet minimum lot size), R-10 (Single- Family Residential, 10,000 square feet minimum lot size), and P-1 (Planned Unit District). To the north and of the site is -1-680/24 freeway interchange and downtown Walnut Creek. The 4.6 acre project site is made up 5 contiguous parcels. Four of them are zoned R-6 single- family residential, and the remaining parcel is zoned R-10 single-family residential. The applicant is proposing to rezone the project site from R-6 and R-10 to Planned Unit District (P-1), with a variance to allow application of the P-1 district for a residential development involving less than five acres. Adoption of this rezoning (andI approval of the accompanying Final Development Plan) would benefit the public by eliminating the possibility of piecemeal development across these 5 parcels. The entire project would be subject to the same design guidelines and conditions of approval, which would result in a cohesive development. C. Final Development Plan The applicant proposes development of project site into a 22 lot residential subdivision in two phases. As part of the Development Plan, a sidewalk is planned from the project site down to Olympic Boulevard to encourage walking to downtown Walnut Creek. The applicant proposes to to replace the 98 trees proposed for removal. The proposed plant 214 trees across the site homes are from approximately 2375 square feet to 2485 square feet in size. August 1,2006 Board of Supervisors File#GP04-0009, RZ04-3153 and DP04-3119 Page 4 l {' D. County Planning Commission Hearing The County Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed project on May 9, 2006. At the hearing several members of the public and a representative from the City of Walnut Creek commented on various aspects of the proposed project including noise from the freeway, trees that are proposed for removal and a proposed trail alignment through a portion of the project site. After evaluating the project in its entirety, including all pubic testimony and evidence in the record, the Commission unanimously voted to approve the subdivision portion of the project and to recommend the Board approve the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and the Final Development portions City of Walnut Creek's Request for Trail Alignment through a Portion of the Site The City of Walnut Creek requests that a portion of the project site be dedicated for a trail alignment. A portion of the site that is located along the adjacent Las Trampas creek is identified in the Walnut Creek - Creek Restoration and Trails Master Plan. The Creek Restoration and Trails Master Plan identifies a "future extension of main creek trail" as passing through the project site at the top of creek bank. A representative from the City of Walnut Creek submitted a letter to the County Planning Commission (attached in Exhibit 6— Pertinent Correspondence) that requested that the Commission only approve this project if an extension of the proposed trail and/or right-of-way dedication is included as a condition of approval. ' Staff Response While the County General Plan and other County plans encourage the development of trails in the unincorporated area, staff cannot recommend that a creek side trail be conditioned for development on this site for the following reasons: 1. No Policy Basis In County Ge eral Plan To Impose Trail Requirement At This Location The future trail connection that is shown in the City's Creek Restoration and Trail Master Plan is not identified in any County planning document, including the County General Plan (2005-2020). The County is obligated.by law,to rely on policies in its own General Plan, or other plans to which it is a party to, as the basis upo1n which it requires dedications of easements for trail corridors. 2. No Trail Alignment or Feasibility Studies At This Location In addition to the question of 1whether there is policy basis under the County General Plan to require a trail dedication on the property, a trail right-of-way dedication on private property is typically secured by the County following a thorough evaluation of the trail's potential feasibility and alignment on the property, and consideration of the proposed trail section location in overall relationship to the trail networkl or system that is being developed. The County has not prepared trail alignment or feasibility studies for this location because as noted above it is not identified in .any County plans for a future trail. To our knowledge the City of Walnut Creek has not completed or commissioned a study as to the feasibility or alignment of a trail along side Las Trampas creek for any portion of the properties near Paulson Lane. Absent any trail feasibility or alignment ` studies for this location, it is not possible to establish where or how to align a trail on the development site. August 1, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#GP04-0009, RZ04-3153 and DP04-3119 ( 1Page 5 3. Lack of Trail Alignment or Feasibility Studies Imposes An Undue Burden On Development Staff believes that condition ling a trail on the development site without any supporting trail alignment or feasibility studies imposes an undue and potentially substantial burden on the development The County would essentially be requiring the developer to reserve an area for a trail, but at this time we are unable to tell the developer how, when, or where the trail would be built on the development site. This seems on its face to be an unreasonable imposition that would cause uncertainty and impede the orderly development of this infill residential site. 4. No Nexus Relationship Has BI en Established In written comments submitted to County Planning Commission, staff from the City of Walnut Creek have advanced the view that since the General Plan Amendment is a legislative act the Board of Supervisors has broad discretionary authority to impose the condition for a trail on the development site. While it may be true that the Board has more discretionary authority involving a legislative act, such as General Plan Amendment, this does not relieve the Board from establishing a nexus relationship between the request to amend the General Plan and the proposed action to impose a condition for a trail running through the development site. As noted above, the lack of any frail alignment or feasibility studies suggests to staff that the foundation or evidence to establish a nexus relationship is rather tenuous. Staff is concerned that there maybe a claim of a property taking where the proportionality between the development and its impacts, =`. and Walnut Creek's request to impose a trail dedication as condition of approval, have not been -- `�-: clearly established, 5. County Public Works/Flood Control District Concerns Staff from the County Public Works and Flood Control District have identified serious concerns or reservations with locating a trail in the unincorporated area along Las Trampas Creek as envisioned by the City of Walnut Creek. First, aligning the trail on the top of the creek bank may encroach into the creek setback area as established under County Ordinance Code Section 914- 14.012. Since the Board has established a firm policy of not granting an exception to the creek setback requirements, this would mean that the trail would have to be re-aligned out of the setback area and placed further into the area identified for residential development affecting the layout for 12 out of the 22 proposed lots (potentially eliminating some of these lots). Second, the creek at this location is a natural unimproved channel with very steep slopes and vertical drops up to 40 feet. Natural channels are potentially unstable and are susceptible to erosion during heavy rains. This raises concerns about the long term maintenance and safety for a trail along the creek in this section. Third, aligning the trail along Las Trampas Creek to connect at Olympic Boulevard presents an engineering challenge because of the topography where it slopes down toward Olympic Boulevard. Fourth, based on their observation it does not appear that there is sufficient vertical clearance for, a creek side trail under the I-680 freeway without extensive excavation, which may not only,affect flood control facilities in the creek downstream, but would also require approval by Caltrans to encroach in their right-of-way, and potentially involve approval by other Agencies (e.g� streambed alteration permit). Fifth, it is unclear who (the County or the City) would be responsible for the maintenance and liability of a creek side trail that traverses through the unincorporated area. i August 1, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#GP04-0009, RZ04-3153 and DP04-3119 Page 6 6. Public Testimony From Neighbors A majority of the neighbors, in the immediate vicinity of the development site testified at the County Planning Commission hearing that they did not support aligning a trail along the top of the creek bank because of privacy and safety reasons. County Planning Commission— Trail Alignment Alternative As an alternative to the creek side trail the County Planning Commission recommended that the developer work to implement a trail that instead follows the Caltrans owned right-of-way next to the 1-680 freeway sound wall in a northwesterly direction after it comes under the freeway instead of following a southerly alignment through the site along the creek. This alternative alignment could accomplish a trail connection from downtown Walnut Creek to Olympic Boulevard without imposing an undue and potentially substantial burden on the Paulson Lane development. EXHIBITS 1. Board Resolution No. 2006/392 and Rezoning Ordinance No. 2006-26 2. County Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-2006 3. Conditions of Approval 4. CEQA determination 5. May 9, 2006 Staff Report to County Planning Commission 6. Pertinent Correspondence -- 7. Notification List 8. Maps and Plans G Wdvmcc?1=ingWv-p)=%Gm al Pim"md mcsNSDM939Cardordapm m,dm I I Exhibit 1 Board Resolution No. 2006/392 and Rezoning Ordinance No. 2006-26 i 4 I I I THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA Adopted this Order on Tuesday, August 1, 2006,by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOLUTION NO. 20061392 SUBJECT: PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION ) APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ) (COUNTY FILE #GP004-0009),A REZONING FROM R-6, SINGLE ) FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND R-10, SINGLE ) FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT I ) TO P-1 PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (COUNTY FILE#RZ04-3153), ) A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ) ("^ (COUNTY FILE #DP04-3119) IN THE WALNUT CREEK AREA, DIST. III ) WHEREAS, BNB Ventures, LLC (Applicant) & BNB Ventures & J.Vuich (Applicant & Owners) proposed development of 4.6 acres in the unincorporated Walnut Creek area of Contra Costa County comprised of five parcels with Assessor Parcel Numbers 184-100-030,028,007,& 008 (together the "Subject Site")I for which an application was received by the Community Development Department on December 16, 2004; and WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, a report dated August 2005 titled " CEQA Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration, Paulson Lane Subdivision" was prepared to determine whether an environmental impact report should be prepared for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study identified potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology, noise, and the Initial Study recommended mitigation measures which would reduce each identified impact to a less than significant level; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2006 the County published a Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, which Notice recited the foregoing facts, indicated that the Applicant had agreed to accept each mitigation measure recommended by the Initial Study and started a period for public comments on adequacy of the environmental documents related to the Project that ultimately ran to April 14, 2006; and WHEREAS, after notice, having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, May 9, 2006, during which the Commission fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter and forwarded a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to approve the project as contained in its Resolution No. 15-2006; and WHEREAS, after notice,having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, August 1, 2006, whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors ("this Board") takes the following actions: 1. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA Guidelines and theCounty's CEQA Guidelines (together, "CEQA"), this Board FINDS that the proposedIMitigown ated Negative Declaration ("MND") is adequate for the purposes of compliance with CEQA and ADOPTS the MND for the Project. In support of these actions and conclusions, this Board ADOPTS the CEQA Findings. This Board ADOPTS these findings specifically for each of the Approvals and Entitlements it approves for the Project. This Board certifies that it has been presented with the Initial Study and that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study.and the other information in the record prior to making the following recommendations, determinations and findings. The Board further certifies that the Initial Study reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis, and that the Initial Study has been completed in compliance with the CEQA Guidelines. 2. ADOPTS the proposed General Plan Amendment (County File #GP04-0009) as part of the 2nd Consolidated General Plan Amendment for 2006, which changes the General Plan Land Use Elementa Map land use designations for the subject site from a combination of Single Family Residential Medium Density (SM) and Open Space (OS) to a combination of Single Family Residential High Density (SH) and Open Space (OS) as illustrated on the map tithed "Exhibit 8A"which is attached. 3. ADOPTS the proposed Rezoning (County File #RZ04-3153), changing the zoning designation of the subject site from R-6, Single Family Residential District and R-10, Single Family Residential District to P-1, Planned Unit Development District, with a variance to allow application of the P-1 district for a residential development involving less than 5 (five)acres. 4. ADOPTS the proposed Development Plan (County File #DP04-3119) subject to the conditions of approval as recommended by the County Planning Commission and subject Board Resolution No. 2006/36 Page 2 to the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this proj ect; r BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for these actions are as follows: FINDINGS I. Growth Management Element Performance Standards Traffic: Streets that provide access to and around the project site include Paulson Lane, Newell Avenue, Olympic Boulevard, Alpine Road, and South California Boulevard. Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 680 (I-680) and State Route 24.. Traffic engineers and planners use the concept of Level of Service (LOS) to qualitatively describe traffic conditions. LOS ranges from LOS A, which describes free flow or ideal conditions with little or no delay; to LOS F, indicating problems where traffic flow exceeds design capacity. Based on discussions with Contra Costa County Transportation staff, six intersections were selected for evaluation. New AM and PM peak period (7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m.) turning movement counts were conducted at the six study, intersections by Omni-Means, Ltd. From these peak period counts, the AM and PM peak hour volumes were derived using the accepted methodology for Contra Costa County and the City of Walnut Creek. _ According to the Transportation Study (Omni-Means, Ltd. 2004), all project study intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels (LOS D or better) during both the AM and PM peak hours. Vehicle congestion (queuing) was observed at the Olympic Boulevard/I-680 northbound ramps and Olympic Boulevard/Alpine Road intersections during both the AM and PM peak hours. Due to recent upgrades in signal timing and coordination at these intersections by the City of Walnut Creek, most of these vehicle queues clear the intersections within one signal cycle phase. Future base (near-tern) conditions represent existing traffic conditions plus anticipated traffic generated by approved and/or pending development over the next three to five years. These would include projects located in Contra Costa County and the City of Walnut Creek. Future base traffic conditions do not include traffic volumes generated by the proposed project. With future base traffic added to existing traffic volumes,. study intersection LOS would remain unchanged from existing conditions. The Olympic Boulevard/South California Boulevard intersection would experience the largest increase in vehicle trips from future base projects and would continue to operate at LOS A during the PM peak hour. The proposed project would generate 22 AM peak hour trips and 22 PM peak hour trips. Water: The proposed project would be located on a suburban infill site that is already served by utilities and public service systems. Proposed uses on the site would include 22 Board Resolution No. 2006/36 Page 3 residences. The level of public services required for the site would be slightly greater than the level currently demanded. The subject site lies within the service area of East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD). The EBMUD ,has indicated that a main extension, at the project sponsor's expense, will be required to serve the proposed development. Sanitary Sewer: The proposed project would be located on a suburban infill site that is already served by utilities and public service systems. Proposed uses on the site would include 22 residences. The level of public services required for the site would be similar to or slightly greater than the level currently demanded. The subject site lies within the Contra Costa Central Sanitary District. The application for this project was routed to (them for comment when it was submitted to the Community Development Department and no response was received. However, the applicant would be required to comply with the District's standards as part of this development. Fire Protection: The Project site is within the service area of the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Protection District. The District requires that each residence be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system. In addition, the District has indicated that the proposed configuration of the loop road in both Phase I and Phase II comply with their tum around requirements. Public Protection: The applicant shall be required to comply with all county ordinances regarding public protection. (7� Parks and Recreation: The Project is required to pay an in lieu fee of$2000.00 per unit for neighborhood park purposes. Flood Control and Drainage: The project will provide for the flood control and drainage needs of the development with appropriately sized facilities. The project is required to pay drainage area fees as adopted by the Flood Control District. II. Findings to Adopt a Rezoning A. Required Finding: The Change proposed will substantially comply with the General Plan. Proiect Finding: The site currently is zoned R-6, Single Family Residential District and R-10, Single Family Residential District. The proposed rezoning to P-1, Planned Unit Development District will be consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment to Single Family Residential -High Density. B. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and with uses authorized in adjacent districts. Board Resolution No. 2006/36 Page 4 Proiect Finding: The use proposed is a residential P-1 development to Single Family High Density standards (5.0-7.1 units per net acre). The site is compatible with the adjacent districts to the,south and west, which are residential, and zoned Single Family High (SH) and Single Family Medium (SM). C. Required Finding: Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. Project Finding: The proposed use will assist in meeting the housing development needs identified in the Housing Element of the General Plan. III. Findings for Adoption of a Planned Unit District (P-1) and Approval of a Final Development Plan A. 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 indicated they will start construction of Phase I immediately following recording of the map. B. Required Finding: The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the County General Plan. Proiect Finding: The Project site has General Plan designations of Single Family Residential — Medium Density and Open Space. The proposed General Plan Amendment would change the land use designation of the Single Family Residential - Medium Density to Single Family Residential — High Density. The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the General Plan as it is proposed for amendment, as explained in Section IIA of these Findings. C. 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. Proiect Finding: This project integrates residential units into a pocket of land that is. bounded on the north by I-680 and on the south by Las Trampas Creek, and is connected to Olympic Boulevard by a sidewalk. The development is in harmony with the surrounding older neighborhoods to the south, east and west. D. Required Finding: The, development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions from the normal application of this code. Proiect Finding: The proposed project harmoniously integrates a high density development close to downtown Walnut Creek. i Board Resolution No. 2006/36 Page 5 E. Required Variance findings for the application of P-1 District for residential development involving less than 5 acres. .\ Proiect Finding: The special circumstance of the project site is its location and shape. The project site is a pocket of land that is otherwise isolated by the creek on the south and 1-680 on the north. By allowing this project, it provides high density residential development close to downtown Walnut Creek. IV. General Plan Consistency A. The Project, which includes the General Plan Amendment, is consistent with the proposed General Plan designation. The General Plan Amendment approved for this Project will not cause the General Plan to become internally inconsistent. The General Plan Amendment and the remainder of the General Plan comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the County. The various land uses authorized for the Project, and each of its components, are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan. The Project is compatible with and conforms to the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. The Project will further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment. The Project is compatible with, and does not obstruct, General Plan goals and policies. The Project is in harmony with the policies of the General Plan. B. The Board has considered the effects of the Project on the housing needs of the region and balanced those needs against the public service needs of County residents and environmental resources. The Project helps to achieve a desirable balance. The Project is in harmony with surrounding land uses, and the site as designed for the Project is physically suitable for the development proposed. C. The General Plan comprises many objectives, policies, principles, programs, standards, proposals and action plans (collectively "policies"), as well as performance standards. At times the policies necessarily compete with each other. Examples of the tensions between General Plan policies are found between those policies that promote managed growth, and those that provide for protection of resources that exist because land is undeveloped (such as open space, visual resources and agricultural land). As part of approving the Project, all applicable General Plan policies and the extent to which the Project conforms to each of those policies have been considered. D. The Board has fully evaluated the extent to which the Project achieves each policy, including those pertaining to compatibility of land uses, compliance with principles of the Urban Limit Line land Measure C-1990, protection of open space, standards regarding geology, soils and earthquake risks, hazardous materials, flood hazards and drainage, protection of water quality, protection of biological resources, transportation standards and goals, regional and local housing needs, jobs/housing balance, noise, protection of air quality protection of visual resources, standards for public services and utilities, and protection of archeological and historical resources. The Board has also fully considered the Project's compliance with all performance standards in the Board Resolution No. 2006/36 Page 6 General Plan, including the Growth Management Element policies and standards (including those for traffic levels of service), and performance standards for public services and facilities. 1 E. The Board finds that through the development of housing at various economic levels, the Project will help implement housing-related goals of the General Plan. F. The Board acknowledges that the existing General Plan designations for the subject site were intended to separate the portion of the site available for housing development from the areas generally known to contain the Las Trampas Creek. The pending General Plan Amendment is intended to recognize the delineation of these two areas. The proposed residential designation is compatible and in harmony with densities in neighboring development in the vicinity. V. Measure C-1988 and Related Resolutions A. The Board has consider Id the Project's compliance with the traffic service objectives of Measure C-1988, the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program and related Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) resolutions. B. Measure C-1988 established a Growth Management Program, "to assure that future residential, business and`commercial growth pays for the facilities required to meet the demands resulting from that growth." The Program requires the County to adopt Traffic Level of Service (LOS) !Standards keyed to types of land use, and to comply with the adopted standards; to "adopt a development mitigation program to ensure that new growth is paying its share of the costs associated with that growth;"to participate in the forum established by the Authority to cooperate in easing cumulative traffic impacts, using the CCTA computer model; and to develop an implementation program that creates housing opportunities for all income levels. C. The County has complied with all these requirements. Most important, the County is achieving Measure C-1988's overarching goal that development pay its own way. The County has identified Project mitigations to ensure that the Applicant will defray the cost of those improvements that are proportionately attributable to the development. G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\SD048939boardreso.doe Board Resolution No. 2006/36 Page 7 ORDINANCE NO. 2006-26 (Re-Zoning Land in the Martinez Area) ( The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains asfallows: SECTION I: Page N-14 of the County's 2005 Zoning Map(Ord.No.2005-03)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. RZ043153 ) R-6 Single Family Residential FROM: Land Use District R-10 ( Single Family Residential 1 TO: Land Use District P-1 ( Planned Development 1 and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec.84.2.002. Walnut Creek �. �`o m � NeWe1�P' 1 I h 1 ' c .� w I `z � _ rrcle Ot VC �d97 �j �I k SECTION Il. 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. PASSEDon bythe following vote: Supervisor Ave 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. 2006-26 RZ043153 BNB Ventures,LLC i Findings Map R-6, Rezone From RR-10 To P-0 Walnut Creek Area I, r) Snyder Chair of the Contra Costa County i Planning Commission,State of California,do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of bane N-14 of the County's 2005 zoning map. indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission in the matter of BNB VP_nturPs, 1-1-C - R7043153 ATT6T: Secretary of the Contra Costa Counly Planning Commission,StateofCalif. i Exhibit 2 County' Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-2006 RESOLUTION NO. 15-2006 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE REQUESTED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING, FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR THE "PAULSON LANE" PROJECT IN .THE WALNUT CREEK AREA OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, BNB VENTURES, LLC (Applicant) & BNB VENTURES, LLC & J. VUICH (Owners) proposed development of a 22 lot subdivision on five parcels with Assessor's Parcel Numbers 184-100-030, 028, -007, -008, and -032 comprising 4.6 acres in the unincorporated Walnut Creek area of Contra Costa County, for which an application was received by the Community Development Department on December 16, 2004; and WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, a report dated August 2005 titled "Paulson Lane Subdivision and Mitigated Negative Declaration" (the "Initial Study") was prepared to determine whether an environmental impact report should be prepared for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study identified potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biology, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology, hazards and noise, and the Initial Study recommended mitigation measures which would reduce each identified impact to a less than significant level; and WHEREAS, on May 15, 2006 the County published a Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, which Notice recited the foregoing facts, indicated that the Applicant had agreed to accept each mitigation measure recommended by the Initial Study and started a period for public comments on adequacy of the environmental documents related to the Project that ran to April 14, 2006; and WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, May 9, 2006, during which the Commission fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission ("this Commission")takes the following actions: 1. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA Guidelines and the County's CEQA Guidelines (together, "CEQA"), this Commission FINDS that theproposed Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") is adequate for the purposes of compliance with CEQA and ADOPTS the MND for the Project. In support of these actions and conclusions, this Commission ADOPTS the CEQA Findings. This Commission adopts these findings specifically for each of the Approvals and Entitlements it approves or recommends for approval for the Project. This Commission certifies that it has been presented with the Initial Study and that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study and the other - information in the record prior to making the following recommendations, determinations and findings. The Commission further certifies that the Initial Study reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis, and that the Initial Study has been completed in compliance with CEQA. 2. Recommends to the Board of Supervisors APPROVAL of the proposed General Plan Amendment (County File #GP040009) changing the General Plan land use designations for the subject site from a combination of Single Family Residential — Medium Density (SM) and Open Space (OS) to a combination of Single Family Residential- High Density (SH) and Open Space (OS) as illustrated in the map attached as Exhibit B, and recommends that the Board ADOPT the findings. 3. Recommends to the Board of Supervisors APPROVAL of the proposed Rezoning (County File #RZ043153), changing the zoning designation of the subject site from R-6 Single Family Residential District and R-10 Single Family Residential District to P-1 Planned Unit District, with a variance to allow application of the P-1 district for a residential development involving less than 5 (five) acres. 4. Recommends to the Board of Supervisors APPROVAL of the proposed Final Development Plan (County File #DP043119) in two phases, subject to the mitigation measures contained in thel MND for this project and subject to the conditions of approval for this project. 5. APPROVES the Vesting Tentative Map (County File #SD048939) in two phases, subject to the mitigation measures, conditions of approval and adoption of the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning by the Board of Supervisors, and this Commission ADOPTS the findings supporting sui h approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for these recommendations are as follows: FINDINGS I. Growth Management Element Performance Standards Traffic: Streets that provide access to and around the project site include Paulson Lane, Newell Avenue, Olympic Boulevard, Alpine Road, and South California Boulevard. Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 680 (I-680) and State Route 24. Traffic engineers and planners use the concept of Level of Service (LOS) to qualitatively describe traffic conditions. ILOS ranges from LOS A, which describes free flow or ideal conditions with little or no delay; to LOS F, indicating problems where traffic flow exceeds design capacity. Based on discussions with Contra Costa County Transportation staff, six intersections were selected for evaluation. New AM and PM peak period (7:00-9:00 a.m. Page 2 and 4:00-6:00 p.m.) turning movement counts were conducted at the six study intersections by Omni-Means, Ltd. From these peak period counts, the AM and PM peak hour volumes l were derived using the accepted methodology for Contra Costa County and the City of Walnut Creek. According to the Transportation Study (Omni-Means, Ltd. 2004), all project study intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels (LOS D or better) during both the AM and PM peak hours. Vehicle congestion (queuing) was observed at the Olympic Boulevard/I-680 northbound ramps and Olympic Boulevard/Alpine Road intersections during both the AM and PM peak hours. Due to recent upgrades in signal timing and coordination at these intersections by the City of Walnut Creek, most of these vehicle queues clear the intersections within one signal cycle phase. Future base (near-term) conditions represent existing traffic conditions plus anticipated traffic generated by approved and/or pending development over the next three to five years. These would include projects located in Contra Costa County and the City of Walnut Creek. Future base traffic conditions do not include traffic volumes generated by the proposed project. With future base traffic added to existing traffic volumes, study intersection LOS would remain unchanged from existing conditions. The Olympic Boulevard/South California Boulevard intersection would experience the largest increase in vehicle trips from future base projects and would continue to operate at LOS A during the PM peak hour. The proposed project would generate 22 AM peak hour trips and 22 PM peak hour trips. Water: The proposed project would be located on a suburban infill site that is already served by utilities and public service systems. Proposed uses on the site would include 22 residences. The level of public services required for the site would be slightly greater than the level currently demanded. The subject site lies within the service area of East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD). The EBMUD lias indicated that a main extension, at the project sponsor's expense, will be required to serve the proposed development. Sanitary Sewer: The proposed project would be located on a suburban infill site that is already served by utilities and public service systems. Proposed uses on the site would include 22 residences. The level of public services required for the site would be similar to or slightly greater than the level currently demanded. The subject site lies within the Contra Costa Central Sanitary District. The application for this project was routed to them for comment when it was submitted to the Community Development Department and no response was received. However, the applicant would be required to comply with the District's standards as part of this development. Fire Protection: The Project site is within the service area of the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Protection District. The District requires that each residence be equipped Page 3 with an automatic fire sprinkler system. In addition, the District has indicated that the proposed configuration of the loop road in both Phase I and Phase II comply with their turn around requirements. Public Protection: The applicant shall be required to comply with all county ordinances regarding public protection. Parks and Recreation: The Project is required to pay an in lieu fee of$2000.00 per unit for neighborhood park purposes. Flood Control and Drainage: The project will provide for the flood control and drainage needs of the development with appropriately sized facilities. The project is required to pay drainage area fees as adopted by the Flood Control District. II. Findings to Adopt a Rezomng A. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the General Plan. Proiect Finding.- The site currently is zoned R-6, Single Family Residential District and R-10, Single Family Residential District. The proposed rezoning to P-1, Planned Unit District will be consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment to Single Family Residential-High Density. B. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and with uses authorized in adjacent districts: Protect Finding: The use proposed is a residential P-1 development to Single Family Residential - High Density standards (5.0-7.2 units per net acre). The site is compatible with the adjacent districts to the south and west, which are residential, and zoned residential. C. Required Finding: Com+II unity need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. Proiect Finding: The proposed use will assist in meeting the housing development needs identified in the Housing Element of the General Plan. III. Findings for Adoption of a Planned Unit District (P-1) and Approval of a .Final Development Plan A. 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 4 Proiect Finding: The applicant has indicated they will start construction of Phase I immediately following recording of the map. B. Required Finding: The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the County General Plan. Proiect Finding: The Project site has General Plan designations of Single Family Residential — Medium Density, and Open Space. The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the General Plan as it is proposed for amendment, as explained in Section ILA of these Findings. C. 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 project integrates residential units into a pocket of land that is bounded on the north Eby I-680 and on the south be Las Trampas Creek, and is connected to Olympic Boulevard by a sidewalk. The development is in harmony with the surrounding older neighborhoods to the south, east and west. D. Required Finding: The development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions from the normal application of this code. Project Finding: The proposed project harmoniously integrates a high density development close to downtown Walnut Creek. E. Required Variance Findings for the application of P-1 District for residential development involving less than 5 acres. Project Finding. The special circumstance of the project site is its location and shape. The project site is a pocket of land that is otherwise isolated by the creek on the south and I--680 on the north.I By, allowing this project, it provides high density residential development close to downtown Walnut Creek. IV. Findings to Approve a Tentative Map A. Required Finding: TheCounty 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. Project Finding: As demonstrated in Section V of these Findings, the proposed project (which includes a tentatil e map) is consistent with the General Plan, as it is proposed for amendment. There are no specific plans applicable to the subject site. Page 5 Based on the entire record and as summarized herein, the tentative map is consistent with the County General Plan, as it is proposed for amendment. B. Required Finding: The' County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision fulfills construction requirements. Project Finding: As required by the conditions of approval and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, the tentative map shall fulfill all applicable County imposed construction requirements. Based on the entire record and as summarized herein, the proposed subdivision fulfills construction requirements. V. General Plan Consistency A. The .Project, which includes the General Plan Amendment, is consistent with the proposed General Plan designation. The General Plan Amendment approved for this Project will not cause the General Plan to become internally inconsistent. The General Plan Amendment and (the remainder of the General Plan comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the County. The various land uses authorized for the Project, and each of its components, are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan. The Project is compatible with and conforms to the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. The Project will further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment. The Project is compatible with, and does not obstruct, General Plan goals and policies. The Project is in harmony with the policies of the General Plan. :. B. The Commission has considered the effects of the Project on the housing needs of the region and balanced those needs against the public service needs of County residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. The Project helps to achieve a desirable balance. The Project is in harmony with surrounding land uses, and the site as designed for the Project is physically suitable for the development proposed. C. The General Plan comprises many objectives, policies, principles, programs, standards, proposals and action plans (collectively "policies"), as well as performance standards. At times the policies necessarily compete with each other. Examples of the tensions between General Plan policies are found between those policies that promote managed growth, and those that provide for protection of resources that exist.because land is undeveloped (such as open space, visual resources and agricultural land). As part of approving the Project, all applicable General Plan policies and the extent to which the Project conforms to each of those policies have been considered. D. The Commission has fully evaluated the extent to which the Project achieves each policy, including those pertaining to compatibility of land uses, compliance with principles of the Urban Limit Line and Measure C-1990, protection of open space, standards regarding geology, soils and earthquake risks, hazardous materials, flood hazards and drainage, protection of water quality, protection of biological resources, transportation standards and goals, regional and local housing needs, jobs/housing Page 6 balance, noise, protection of air quality, protection of visual resources, standards for public services and utilities, and protection of archeological and historical resources. ( The Commission has also fully considered the Project's compliance with all performance standards in the General Plan, including the Growth Management Element policies and standards (including those for traffic levels of service), and performance standards for public services and facilities. E. The Commission finds that through the development of additional housing, the Project will help implement housing-related goals of the General Plan. F. The Commission acknowledges that the existing General Plan designations for the subject site were intended to separate the portion of the site available for housing development from the areas generally known to contain the Las Trampas Creek. The pending General Plan Amendment is intended to recognize the delineation of these two areas. The proposed residential designation is compatible and in harmony with densities in neighboring development in the vicinity. VI. Measure C-1988 and Related Resolutions A. The Commission has clonsidered the Project's compliance with the traffic service objectives of Measure C-1988, the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program and related Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) resolutions. T B. Measure C-1988 established a Growth Management Program, "to assure that future residential, business and(commercial growth pays for the facilities required to meet the demands resulting from that growth." The Program requires the County to adopt Traffic Level of Service (LOS) (Standards keyed to types of land use, and to comply with the adopted standards; to "adopt a development mitigation program to ensure that new growth is paying its share of the costs associated with that growth;" to participate in the forum established by the Authority to cooperate in easing cumulative traffic impacts, using the CCTA computer model; and to develop an implementation program that creates housing opportunities for all income levels. C. The County has complied with all these requirements. Most important, the County is achieving Measure C-1988's overarching goal that development pay its own way. The County has identified Project mitigations to ensure that the Applicant will defray the cost of those improvements that are proportionately attributable to the development. WHEREAS, at the May 9, 2006 hearing the Commission modified two conditions of approval as follows: COA#10 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute $2000.00 per lot upon which a residence is being built to the County for Park Dedication fees. During their involvement with the project, the applicant shall cooperate with the County, the City of Walnut Creek, Caltrans and Friends of Page 7 v the Creek in the iimplementation of a trail along Paulson Lane and property owned by Caltrans. COA# 39 Final landscape plans shall consist of pest-resistant plants and plantings appropriate to site soils, slopes, climate, sun, wind, rain, land use, air movement, ecological consistency and plant interactions. Final landscape plans shall be designed to minimize irrigation and runoff and to minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to stormwater pollution. Driveways and parking areas shall drain to bio-retention areas or swales and the plantings included within these areas shall be tolerant of the site specific soil and moisture conditions. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) information, stormwater pollution prevention information and the brochure "Don't Plant a Pest" published by the California Invasive Plant Council shall be provided to new homeowners. NOW BE IT RESOLVED that the secretary of this Commission will sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California. This Resolution was approved upon motion of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Clark, Terrell, Battaglia, Gaddis, Wong and Snyder NOES: None ��- ABSENT: Commissioner Murray ABSTENTIONS: None Donald Snyder Chair of the County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: Dennis M. Barry, Secretary County of Contra Costa State of California Page 8 i i Exhibit 3 Conditions of Approval I , , , i CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL COUNTY FILE #s SD048939 & DP043119 Administrative 1. This approval is based on the exhibits/reports received by the Community Development Department listed as follows: A. Tentative, Map and Development Plan, Sheet TM-2, TM-3, TM-4 & TM-5 of 12, dated January 26, 2006 B. Tree Preservation and Grading Daylight Line Plan, Sheet T1\4-6 of 12, & Tree Retention Schedule, Sheet TM- 7 of 12 dated January 26, 2006. C. Preliminary Development Las Trampas Creek Setback Exhibit, Sheet TM-9 of 12, dated January 26, 2006. D. Preliminary Storm Water Treatment Management Plan, Sheet TM-11 of 12, dated January 26, 2006. E. Biological Resources Report Paulson Lane Residential Development, dated October 20, 2004. F. Tree Survey & Report, Paulson Lane, by Joseph McNeil, Consulting Arborist, dated December 10, 2004 & follow-up memo, dated February 13, 2006 G. Preliminary Geotechnical Study Paulson Lane Residential Subdivision, by tart C, Ltd., dated December 8, 2004 & and follow-up memo dated February 10, 2006. H. Environmental Noise Survey Results and Recommendations for Paulson Lane, by Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc., dated December 10, 2004. I. Transportation Study for the proposed Paulson Lane Residential Project, by Omni Means Engineers, dated October 2004. J. Preliminary House Location and Landscape Plan, by Camp & Camp Associates, dated November 23, 2004. K. Preliminary Tree Mitigation and Existing Tree Plan, by Camp & Camp Associates, dated May 12, 2005 and revised May23, 2005. Page 8 L. Preliminary Air Quality Analysis Paulson Lane, by LSA Associates, dated December 2005. -' 2. This subdivision is approved contingent upon the following Board of Supervisors actions; A. Approval of the proposed General Plan amendment, County File#GP04- 0009. B. Approval of the rezoning application (County File #RZ043153) placing the 4.6 acre property within the P-1 zoning district, to allow application of a P-1 district for a residential development less than 5 acres, and conforming development plan. 3. This approval allows for a maximum of 22 residential lots in two phases. 4. This application is subject to an initial application fee, which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 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. You . may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If you owe additional fees, a b 1 will be sent to you shortly after permit issuance. 5. Except as modified by the Application Exhibits or by the conditions herein, the guide for development shall be the Single Family Residential (R-6) District, and subject to the Zoning Administrator's review and approval at least thirty (30) days prior to the issuance of building permits. Indemnification 6. Pursuant to Government Code § 66474.9, the Applicant (including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Costa County Planning Agency ("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 project, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code § 66499.37, and provided that the County has promptly notified the Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding and cooperates fully in the defense. Page 9 ( Compliance Report 7. 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. (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 335-1207.) B. Unless otherwise indicated, the applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the condition of this report prior to filing the final map. Child Care 8. At least 301 days prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay a fee of$400.00 per lot upon which a residence is being built for childcare facility needs in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors. Police Services 9. 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 gat 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. Page 10 Park Dedication 10. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute $2000.00 per lot upon which a residence is being built to the County for Park Dedication fees. During their involvement with the project, the applicant shall cooperate with the County, the City of Walnut Creek, Caltrans and Friends of the Creek in the implementation of a trail along Paulson Lane and property owned by Caltrans. Aesthetics Lighting Control 11. All outdoor lighting associated with the proposed development shall be designed and located to minimize ambient light levels for any given application, consistent with public safety standards. Lighting shall be placed in areas of pedestrian activity and at building entrances, and shall be minimized elsewhere. Ornamental, pedestrian scale lighting fixtures shall be utilized to the degree possible. Area lighting shall be directed downward with no splay of lighting directed offsite. Outdoor lights that are greater than ten feet high shall incorporate a cut-off shield that (— prevents the light source from being directly visible from areas offsite. No lighting shall blink, flash or be of unusually high intensity or brightness. (MM AE9-1). 30 days prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant slall provide a street lighting plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Air Quality Control Measures for Construction Emissions 12. The "Basic IMeasures" and the "Enhanced Measures"listed in Table I shall be incorporated into the construction plans for the proposed project. The "Optional Measures" listed in Table 1 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. (MMAIR-1) Page 11 _ Basic Control Measures—The following controls should 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 (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. I 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. Install wheel washers for all (exiting trucks, or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site. Optional Control Measures — iThe 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 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, 1999. Biology Las Trampas Creek California Red-Legged Frog and Western Pond Turtle Pre-Construction Surveys. 13. Pre-construction surveys for California red-legged frogs and western pond turtles shall be conducted not more than 48 hours prior to the commencement of site disturbances. If California red-legged frogs are detected in an area where there is potential for a take during construction, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shall be consulted to determine the appropriate course of action. If western pond turtles are detected, and they are likely to be disturbed during outfall construction or riparian Page 12 restoration, they shall be relocated to a suitable reach of creek upstream or downstream from the project. (MM BI0-1) Silt Fencing. 14. Prior to construction, silt fencing or equivalent shall be installed along the top of bank to prevent the movement of amphibians or reptiles from the riparian area onto the project site. The bottom of this fencing shall be buried and shall be checked and maintained weekly by the construction team to ensure that no gaps develop through which amphibians oT reptiles could pass. This fencing shall be removed once construction of the proposed project is complete. (MM BI0-2) Regulatory Compliance 15. __ A Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be acquired prior to construction of the storm drain outfall to Las Trampas Creek if it is situated below creek top of bank. If the placement of fill within waters of the U.S. is required for the outfall, a 404 permit from the. U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers and a.401 certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board must be issued prior to the outfall construction. (MM BI0-6) Creek Protection & General Clean-pT 16. Prior to rjording the final map the applicant shall submit for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and the Public Works Department draft language for a deed notification. The draft language is for the Grant Deed of Development Rights for the creek structure setback area in accordance)with condition of approval #80. The approved language shall be recorded on each applicable lot concurrently with the map. (MM BI0- 7) 17. The project shall be responsible for removing debris that is now present in the creek within the project site boundaries. This includes, but is not limited to, such things as a wheel barrel, a car battery and broken limbs that are present from a recent storm. No wildlife or living plant life shall be removed. 18. __ Prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a training session on California red-legged frogs and western pond turtles for construction personnel. (MM BI0-3) Page 13 I Trees Passerines and Nesting Raptors. 19. If site disturbance is commenced between February 1 and August 31, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist. If nests of either migratory birds or birds of prey are detected on or adjacent to the site, the applicant shall consult with the CDFG to determine size of a suitable buffer in which no new site disturbance is permitted until August 31, or the qualified biologist determines that the young are foraging independently. If more than 15 days elapses between the survey and site disturbance, the survey shall be repeated. (MM BI04) Bat Roosts 20. An assessment of the suitability of the trees and buildings on site to support special-status bats shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. All potential roost areas, suitable trees and structures shall be examined for evidence of bat activity. If there is evidence that bats have been roosting within structures or trees on the site that would be removed for the proposed project, a mitigation plan that addresses avoidance of impacts r during the roosting season, humane eviction, and partial dismantling of an occupied structure or tree shall be prepared. (MM BI0-5) Tree Replacement 21. The applicant shall generally follow�the Tree Mitigation Plan, dated 5/12/05 & revised 5/23/05 by Camp & Camp Associates that provides for a total of 214 replacement trees, except that, the proposed trees along the sidewalk down to Olympic Blvd. from the project site shall not be planted in the public right-of-way and approximately 10 feet in back of curb. Prior to grading the applicant shall submit for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator a revised tree mitigation plan that shows those trees either planted outside of the public right-of-way per the above specifications or relocated on site. The total number of trees to be replaced shall remain 214 replacement trees. The applicant shall also generally follow they Preliminary House Location and Landscape Plan dated 11/23/04. Page 14 Tree Protection Zones. i 22. Tree protection zones shall be established around trees to be preserved. Traffic, parking, material storage, or wash-out of equipment shall be prohibited in these zones throughout the duration of the project. Tree protection zones shall be fenced with temporary 6-foot chain link fence. Fencing shall be in places prior to demolition, including removal of trees not to be preserved. When it is necessary to work within a protected zone, or to install landscaping, such work shall be done in cooperation with the arborist. If!it is necessary to open the fence temporarily, the arborist shall be notified. A sign, provided by the arborist, shall be posted every 100 feet along the temporary fencing. (MM BIO-8) 23. Ten days prior to site disturbance of any kind the applicant shall submit for review sand approval of the Zoning Administrator a site plan showing where the fencing around the tree protection zones will be located consistent with the above noted arborist report. This site plan shall be prepared by the project arborist and the approved fencing shall be installed prior to any site disturbance. The project arborist shall confirm, to the County, the fencing is in place prior to any site disturbance. Tree Protection. ', 24. As much as possible, natural leaf litter shall be allowed to accumulate under all existing trees that will be preserved, as natural mulch. No pruning shall occur except for specific reasons, under the direction of the arborist. During construction, an irrigation regimen shall be established for trees near construction activity. No paints or solvents shall be discarded on site, and excess concrete, stucco, and mortar shall be disposed of off-site. Root Protection 25. Areas where roots may potentially be cut shall be monitored. Cuts for trenches orl walls that are adjacent to or in protected tree zones shall be covered and moistened daily until they are backfilled. (MM BI0-10) 26. The recommendations in the Tree Survey & Report by Joseph McNeil (2004), and his follow-up memo dated February 13, 2006 shall be implemented. Page 15 1 27. Per the February 13, 2006 memo from the project arborist Joseph McNeill, ( the health of trees # 368, #351, #360.1, #392-398 shall be evaluated prior to the issuance of building permits. If necessary, the health of these trees shall be putt into a deed disclosure for each associated lot. Native Trees 28. Native trees and shrubs shall be incorporated into landscape plans developed for the project wherever possible and shall be compatible with existing trees on site. (MM 13I0-11) Cultural Resources Unanticipated Discoveries. 29. If deposits of prehistoric or historic archaeological materials, including but not limited to charcoal, obsidian or chert flakes, grinding bowls, shell fragments, bone, pockets of dark, friable soils, glass, metal, ceramics, wood or similar debris, are discovered during grading, trenching, or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 100 feet of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist certified by the Registry of Professional Archaeologists (RPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), as deemed necessary. (MMCULT-1) Paleontological Resources 30. If paleontological resources are uncovered during grading or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 100 feet 'of these materials shall be stopped until a certified professional archaeologist/paleontologist has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate'Mitigation(s), as deemed necessary. (MMCULT-2) Native American Burials 31. If human remains are encountered, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the situation. Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains and associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner,must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of identification. The Native American Heritage Commission Page 16 will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendent (MLD) to inspect thel site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the evaluation, a report shall be prepared documenting the methods and results, as well as recommendations for the treatment of human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report shall be submitted to the City and the Northwest Information Center. (MM CULT-3) Geology Final Geotechnical Report 32. At least 30 days prior to recordation of Final Map, the Applicant shall submit a final geology, soil, and foundation report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for review and approval by the Planning Geologist. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall(carry out the recommendations of the approved report. This report shall include evaluation of the potential for liquefaction, seismic settlement and other types of seismically-induced ground failure by recognized methods appropriate to soil conditions discovered during subsurface I investigation. It shall also evaluate the hazard posed by expansive soils and provide appropriate recommendations for remediation of geotech�nical/geologic hazards, along with specific standards and criteria for grading, foundation and drainage design that are sensitive to geologic constraints and UBC seismic parameters. (MM GEO-1) Deed Acknowled mg ents. 33. The Applicant shall record a statement to run with the deeds to the property acknowledging the approved geology, soil, and foundation report by title, author (firm), and date, calling attention to approved recommendations, and noting that the report is available from the seller. (MM GE 2) Engineered Slope Gradients 34. Engineered slopes shall have gradients of 2:1 (or flatter). Where needed, retaining walls or reinforced earth shall be utilized with proper design. (MM GEO-3) Page 17 Hazards Hazardous Materials Management Plan. 35. Prior to construction, the construction contractor shall prepare a Hazardous Materials Management Plan for approval by the County. The plan shall include specific information on how the Contractor intends to safely transport and store fuels, oils, coatings, and cement, and conduct fueling and equipment maintenance operations. In addition, the plan shall describe measures to contain rinsate resulting from the cleaning of equipment. Rinsate shall not be allowed to be discharged to the ground or to the creek but must be contained and disposed of off site, at a location designated in the plan. The plan shall also include specific measures to be implemented in the event of a release of a hazardous material into water or onto land. The Contractor shall be required to have on hand at all times adequate absorbent materials and containment booms to handle a spill equivalent to the largest container of fuels or oil in their possession. (MM HAZ-1) ACM and Lead-Based Paint Sampling 36. Sampling shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of ACM and lead-based paint. An ACM Investigation shall be performed by an Asbestos Hazardous Emergency Response Act (AHERA) certified inspector under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Title IT and certified bylCal Occupational Safety Health Administration (OSHA)under State of California rules and regulations (California Code of Regulations, Section 1529). Surveys for lead-based paint shall be conducted prior to demolition of structures within the project area. Lead-based paint and ACM shall be remediated according to all applicable state and federal regulations. (MM HAZ-2) Hydrology BMP Operation and Maintenance 37. All accessible street inlets shall be marked with the words "No Dumping! Flows to Bray" and these markings shall be periodically maintained or replaced. Inlets and pipes conveying stormwater to BMPs will be inspected and maintained as part of BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan. (MM HYDRO-1) Page 18 Swales and Infiltration Planters. 38. Swales and infiltration planters shall be designed and constructed according`to the criteria included in the Storm Water Control Plan for the Project site. (MM HYDRO-2) Final Landscape Plan Requirements 39. Final landscape plans shall consist of pest-resistant plants and plantings appropriate to site soils, slopes, climate, sun, wind, rain, land use, air movement, ecological consistency and plant interactions.Final landscape plans shallI be designed to minimize irrigation and runoff and to minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to stormwater pollution. Driveways and parking areas shall drain to bio-retention areas or swales and the plantings included within these areas shall be tolerant of the site specific soil and moisture conditions. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) information, stormwater pollution prevention information and the brochure "Don't Plant a Pest" published by the California Invasive Plant Council shall be provided to new homeowners. (MM HYDRO-3) Noise Final Noise Study. 40. __ Prior to issuance of building permits, a final noise study shall be prepared and submitted to the County for review and approval. The final noise study shall specify appropriate construction details and building shell components to ensure the project meets all Contra Costa County noise level requirements. Building plans shall carry out all the recommendations of the approved report. (MM NOISE-1) Landscaping 41. Comply with the following landscape/irrigation improvement and initial protection requirements subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator: A. Final Landscape Plan: At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit a final landscape/irrigation plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect shall be submitted to the Community Development Department(CDD) for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The Final Plan shall be designed in general accord with the preliminary landscape plan exhibit dated November 23, 2004, and the Tree Mitigation and Existing Tree Plan exhibit, dated May 12, 2005, except that,the proposed trees along the sidewalk down to Page 19 Olympic Blvd. from the project site shall not be planted in the public right-of-way and approximately 10 feet in back of curb. B. Minimum Size Plants: All proposed trees shall be a minimum of 15- gallon size; all shrubs shall be a minimum 5-gallon size. C. Mainte ance Cost: Landscaping shall generally be designed to minimize landscape maintenance cost. D. Compliance with Water Conservation and Sight Obstruction Ordinance Requirements: The landscape plan shall contain sufficient information to demonstrate compliance with the reporting requirements and standards of the Water Conservation Landscaping in New Developments ordinance (Chapter 82-26) or better, and the Sight Obstruction at Intersections ordinance (Chapter 82-18). The latter ordinance applies tointersections with public roads. The landscape architect shall certify that the plan complies with the ordinance improvement standards and reporting requirements. E. To assure the long term viability of this landscaping the applicant shall post a bond for the value of the landscaping, installation plus 20%. The term of the bond shall extend 24 months beyond the completion of construction (i.e. occupancy). Prior to the acceptance of the bond by the County a qualified landscape designer shall assess the value of the landscape and,provide a copy of that assessment to the Community Development Department. Prior to the release of the bond a landscape designer shall submit a letter to the Zoning Administrator that the landscaping is in good health. Construction Conditions 42. __ The Applicant shall comply with the following construction noise, dust, litter control and construction traffic requirements: A. Construction Period Development Activity Restrictions — Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction noise, dust, liber, and traffic control requirements: 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: Newl Year's Day(State and Federal) Birthday of Martin Luther King,Jr. (State and Federal) Page 20 Washington's Birthday/Presidents' Day (State and Federal) Lincoln's Birthday(State) 1, 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) Days 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.opm.Qov/fedhol/2006.asp California Holidays http://www.edd.ca.aov/eddsthol.htm B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors; concrete pumpers and power generators as far away from existing residences as possible. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. C. Prior to the commencement of any construction (e.g. grading, demolition) on the site, the applicant shall designate a construction supervisor to serve as a noise disturbance coordinator. The coordinator will be responsible for responding to any inquiries/complaints regarding noise actii ity on the site. The name, title, and telephone number of the coordinator shall be posted conspicuously at the project site. The coordinator shall transmit to the Community Development Department at two weeks intervals, any records of any complaints along with the dispositioi n. D. At least one week prior to commencement of grading or construction, the Applicant shall prepare a notice that grading or construction work will commence. This notice shall be posted at the site and mailed to all owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the 24-hour Page 21 emergency number, shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of major grading and construct ion activity. A copy of all notices shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community Development Department. A list of the names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed shall accompany the notice. E. At least 310 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval, addressing construction noise, dust, litter and construction traffic, along with specific measures to address these impacts. Any violation of the approved program or applicable ordinances shall require an immediate work stoppage. If necessary, construction work shall not be allowed to resume until an appropriate construction bond has been posted. F. ' The Applicant shall not interfere with existing neighborhood traffic flows. Ari on-site area in which to park earth-moving equipment and employee vehicles shall be provided. G. The worksite shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site. H. All chemicals and petroleum products stored on-site during construction shall be within a bermed containment area or other appropriate facility. The handling, storage and disposal of any hazardous materials used on the site will be in accordance with a business plan (or equivalent) on file with the County Health Services Department, Hazardous Materials Division. All refueling and vehicle maintenance activity shall be located away from the creek corridors. Street Names 43. At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map, proposed street names (public and private) shall be submitted for review by the Community Development Department, Graphics Section (Phone 4335-1270). Alternate street names should be submitted. The Final Map cannot be certified by the Community Development Department without the approved street names. Page 22 Residential Design 44. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit, for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, revised residential elevations showing the building height from finish pad (building Height not to exceed 35 feet from finished pad) and revised garage do rs, the design of which breaks the mass of the door up. Paint color samples shall also be submitted for review and approval. Deed Disclosure regarding Second Story Decks 45. __ At least 10 days prior to the recording of the map the applicant shall submit a deed disclosure for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator . The purpose of the deed disclosure is to inform the buyer that second story decks are not allowed on the homes that back up to Las Trampas Creek. The statement shall be recorded concurrently with the map. Construction and Demolition Debris 46. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of the building and/or Demolition Permit(s), the developer shall submit a "Debris Recovery Plan" demonstrating how they intend to recycle, reuse or salvage building materials and other debris generating from the demolition of existing building and/or the construction of new buildings. At least 30 days prior to the final inspection of the first residential unit not including models, the developer shall submit a completed "Debris Recovery Report" documenting actual debris recovery efforts including the quantities of recovered and landfilled materials) that resulted from the project. PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 04-8939 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 January 26, 2006. 1 COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP. ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED UNDER EITHER PHASE 1 OR PHASE 2 SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO BOTH PHASES AND MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP FOR PHASE 1 AND/OR PHASE 2. Page 23 General Requirements: 47. 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 January 26, 2006. 48. 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. Roadway Frontage Improvements (Paulson Lane): Phase 1 (Lots 4-19) 49. Applicant shall construct curb, four-foot six-inch sidewalk, and necessary longitudinal ., and transverse drainage, and street lighting along the entire south side of Paulson Lane. The applicant shall construct these frontage improvements to conform to existing curb and gutter and shall extend from the intersection of Olympic Boulevard and Paulson Lane to the easternmost limit of the public portion of Paulson Lane. A standard driveway depression shall be constructed at the existing driveway access serving the Vuich and intervening properties 50. Applicant shall install street lights on Paulson Lane. The final number and location of the lights will be determined by Public Works. Phase 2 (Lots 1-3 & 20-22) 51. 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 "A" Street and Paulson Lane, as shown on the revised vesting tentative map. 52. Applicant shall construct a curb ramp on each curb return along the project frontage of Paulson Lane to conform to current County curb ramp standards. A detectable warning surface (e.g. truncated domes) shall be installed on the curb ramps. Page 24 Private Roadway Improvements (On-Site): Phase 1 53. Applicant shall construct an on-site roadway system that meets current County private road standards with a minimum traveled way width of 20 feet within a 21-foot wide access easement and an additional 5-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) on each side, as shown on the revised vesting tentative'map. Access rights to use the entire on- site roadway system shall be granted to all properties within Phase 2. 54. Applicant shall construct a turnaround at the end of"A" Street (near Lot 14) as shown on the revised vesting tentative map, subject to the review and approval of Public Works and the Fire District. 55. Applicant shall construct a temporary turnaround at the end of"A" Street (near Lot 18) to serve Phase 1, as shown on the revised vesting tentative map, subject to the review and approval of Public Works and the Fire District. This temporary turnaround may be removed and access easement encompassing the turnaround quitclaimed after construction of Phase 2 is complete and through access is provided via proposed "A" Street. 56. Applicant shall record a deed notification to inform all future property owners that "A" Street may be extended westerly, through Phase 2, in the future to Paulson Lane. 57. No gate shall be installed along the on-site roadway system until such time that an adequate turnaround is provided at the terminus of Paulson Lane, subject to the review of the Public Works Department. Phase 2 58. Applicant shall extend the private roadway system constructed as part of Phase 1 to Paulson Lane as shown on the revised vesting tentative map. The on-site roadway system shall meet current County private road standards with a minimum traveled way width of 20 feet within a 21-foot wide access easement and an additional 5-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) on each side. Access rights to use the entire on-site roadway system shall be granted to all properties within Phase 1. Access to Adjoining Property: Proof of Access 59. 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. Page 25 Encroachment Permit 60. 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 Paulson Lane. Site Access 61. ., Applicant shall relinquish abutter's rights of access along the project frontage of the public portion of Paulson Lane, with the exception of the private road and driveway intersections shown on the revised vesting tentative map. Road Dedications: Phase 1 62. The Public Works Department will consider a request for the vacation of public road right of way for Paulson Lane, as shown on the revised vesting tentative map. The applicant shall submit a letter to the Public Works Department, Real Property Division, requesting the County to initiate the vacation process of the specific road right of way. Phase 2 63. Applicant shall dedicate a public access easement over the private road at the intersection of the private road and Paulson Lane to provide a turnaround for public access. The limit of dedicated easement shall accommodate current Public Works and Fire District design standards for a"pikehead" turnaround. Sight Distance: 64. Applicant shall.provide adequate sight distance at the intersections of the proposed private road and Paulson Lane for a through traffic design speed of 35 miles per hour. Landscaping, walls, fencies, signs, or any other obstructions must be placed to maintain adequate sight distance at these intersections. Phase 1 65. Applicant shall provide adequate sight distance at the on-site private roadway intersection 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. Page 26 Parking 66. "No Parking" signs and pavement markings shall be installed along the proposed private road and turnarounds, subject to the review and approval of Public Works. Phase 1 67. Parking shall be prohibited along one side of Paulson Lane, which has a road width of 28 feet. "No Parking" signs shall be installed as necessary along Paulson Lane, subject to the review and approval of Public Works. Maintenance of Facilities: 68. Applicant shall develop and enter into a maintenance and plan of operation agreement that shall insure that all common areas and open space, the on-site private roadway system, private landscaped areas, private drainage facilities, any private street lights, and retaining walls throughout Phase 1 and Phase 2 shall be maintained by the future property owners, for the review and approval of the Public Works and Community Development Departments. 69. 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 landscaped areas, private drainage facilities, any private street lights, and retaining walls throughout Phase 1 and Phase 2. Pedestrian Facilities: 70. 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. , 71. The applicant shall design all public and private pedestrian facilities in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap Access), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and current County standards. This shall include all sidewalks, paths, driveway depressions, and curb ramps. Underground Utilities: 72. All new and existing utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground along the project frontage of Pl asel and Phase 2 and internal to both phases. Page 27 Street Lights: 73. Applicant shall apply for annexation to County Service Area L-100 Lighting District by submitting: a letter of request; a metes and bounds description; and pay the current LAFCO, fees. Annexation shall occur prior to filing the Final Map. The applicant shall be aware that this annexation process must comply with State Proposition 218 requirements, which state that the property owner must hold a special election to approve the annexation. This process may take approximately 4-6 months to complete. Annexation into CSA L-100 does not include transfer of ownership or maintenance of street lighting on private roads. Drainage Improvements: Collect and Convey 74. 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. Phase 1 75. All storm drainage systems constructed as part of Phase 1 shall be adequately sized to accommodate storm water runoff from both Phase 1 and Phase 2 to the ultimate point of discharge. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements: 76. Applicant shall design and construct all storm drainage facilities in compliance with the Ordinance Code and Public Works Design Standards. 77. Applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s) in a concentrated manner. 78. Any surface or subsurface storm drain facility 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. 79. Applicant shall construct an adequate access road and pads extending from proposed A Street to the existing Flood Control District easements over Las Trampas Creek and associated outfall structure, as shown on the revised vesting tentative map and to the satisfaction of the Flood Control District. The access shall be of adequate width to Page 28 allow for necessary equipment required to enter and maintain the outfall structure. An appropriate turnaround shall be constructed at the terminus.of the access road, as shown on the revised vesting tentative map. An easement to the County and Flood Control District shall be recorded to allow access from Paulson Lane to the existing Flood Control District easements over Las Trampas Creek and associated outfall structure. Creek Structure Setback: 80. The applicant shall relinquish "development rights" over that portion of the site that is within the structure setback area of Las Trampas Creek. The creek structure setback area shall be determined by using the criteria outlined in Chapter 914-14, "Rights of Way and Setbacks," of the County Ordinance Code. "Development rights" shall be conveyed to the County by grant deed. Provision "C.3" of the NPDES Permit: 81. 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. 82. A Stormwater Control Plan date stamped received October 24, 2005 by the Public Works Department waIs reviewed and determined to be preliminarily complete. Although the Stormwater Control Plan has been determined to be preliminarily complete, it is subject to revision in the future 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. 83. 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) date stamped received by Public Works on October 24, 2005 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". Page 29 84. 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. 85. 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. 86. Any water 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. 87. 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 SWCPI which pertain to the transfer of ownership and/or long-term maintenance of storm water treatment or hydrograph modification BMPs. 88. 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. 89. 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. Phase 1 90. All treatment BMPs/IMPs constructed within Phase 1 shall be adequately sized per C.3 requirements to treat, at a minimum, all storm water runoff generated by Phase 1. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan: 91. 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 lof significant quantities of pollutants to surface waters, ground waters, or a municipal separate storm sewer system. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Page 30 92. The applicant shall berequired 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. Advisory Notes A. Although the Stormwater Control Plan date stamped received October 24, 2005 by Public Works 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. B. Comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements for the South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit as ladopted by the Board of Supervisors. This fee must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. C. The project lies within the 100-year flood boundary as designated on the Federal Emergency Flood Rate Maps. The applicant should be aware of the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Flood Plain Management Ordinance Page 31 (Ordinance No. 2000-33) as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property. 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 945,99, 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 too notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. F. The applicant shall compl with Fire District requirements. G. The applicant shall comply with EBMUD requirements. H. The applicant shall comply with Sanitary District requirements. I. The applicant shall comply with Building Inspection Department requirements. G:\Current Planning\curr-pian\Staff Reports\SD048939.coas.doc Page 32 Exhibit 4 CEQ A Determination i Mitigated Negative Declaration Initial Study Mitigation Monitoring Program CommunitLJ Dennis M.Barry,AICP y Contra ..Community Development-Dir ctor Development Costa Department i l County (-�ounty Administration Building 2006 1 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 xf Jim V Phone: A 6' -1210 are (925) 335 E are 200 NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION County File WS GP04-0009, RZ04-3153, SD04-8939, DP04-3119 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 Dep ment of Contra Costa County has prepared an initial study on the following project: BNB VENTIJRES,LLC (Applicant),BNB VENTURES,LLC &J. VUICH(Owners), County File #,s GP04-0009, RZ04-3153, SD04-8939,DP04-3119: The applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment from Single Family Medium (SM) to Single Family High (SH), a Rezoning from R-6, Single Family Residential and R-10, Single Family Residential to Planned Unit Development(P-1)with approval of aFinal Development Plan with avariance to allow application of the P-1 district for a acres development involving less than 5 (five) acres and a Tentative Map to subdivide 4.6 acres into 22 Single Family lots. The project is located on 5 contiguous lots which are addressed 121,131,141,161 and 160 Paulson Lane in the Walnut Creek area. (R-6, R-10) (ZA:N-14) (CT:3420) (Parcel #'s 184-100-007,008,028,030,032) Potentially significant impacts related to Aesthetics,Air Quality,Biological Resources,Hazardous Materials, Cultural Resources, Hydrology, Noise, and Geology have been identified in the Initial I Study. However,the applicant has agreed to mitigation measures that would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. A copy of the mitigated negative declaration and all documents referenced in the mitigated negative declaration may be reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department, and I Application and Permit Center at the McBrien Administration Building, 651 Pine St.,2"0.Fir.North Wing , Martinez, during normal business siness hours. Public Comment Period-The peri I od for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents extends to April 14, 2006. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address: Office Hours Monday- Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the I st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month I CEQA INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION NUMBER 8939 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: John Oborne Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street 4h Floor—North Wing Martinez,CA 94553-1295 (925) 335-1207 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 (510)236-6810 LSA Project No. CCC531 March 14, 2oo6 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION..,..............................................................................................................I ENVIRONMENTAL FACTRS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED.....................................................7 DETERMINATION...........................................................................................................................8 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST...................................................................................................9 1. AESTHETICS.,.............................................................................................................9 I1. AGRICULTUAL RESOURCES.............................................................................15 III. AIR QUALITY..........................................................................................................16 IV. BIOLOGICAL,RESOURCES. ..................................................................................20 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................27 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS...........................................................................................28 VII. HAZARDS.....l...........................................................................................................32 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY...............................................................36 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING.................................................................................40 X. MINERAL RESOURCES..........................................................................................42 XI. NOISE............j...........................................................................................................42 XII. POPULATIONIAND HOUSING..............................................................................45 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES..................................................................................................46 XIV. RECREATION�..........................................................................................................47 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC...............................................................................48 XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS...................................................................50 XVII. MANDATORY)FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE....................................................53 REPORTPREPARERS ...................................................................................................................54 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................................55 1 APPENDIX: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ,FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location Map............:.......................................................................................................5 Figure2: Proposed Project.............I..............................................................................................................6 Figure 3:Paulson Lane Site Plan Depicting Location of Trees Proposed for Removal.............................12 Figure 4: Paulson Lane Tree Mitigation and Existing Tree Plan................................................................14 TABLES Table 1:Diameter of Trees Scheduled For Removal..................................................................................10 Table 2: Summary of Tree Species Scheduled for Removal ......................................................................11 Table 3:Health Risk Assessment Results...................................................................................................19 Table 4:Feasible Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PM10.................................................19 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION i I PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Project Title: Paulson Lane Subdivision/Subdivision No. 8939 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County,Community Deve]opment Department Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4`'Floor—North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: John Obome, Senior Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street 4`b Floor—North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-1295 (925)335-1207 4. Project Location: r The project site is located adjacent to Las Trampas Creek and Interstate 680 in an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. The site consists of approximately 4.6 acres, bounded on the southwest and southeast by Las Trampas Creek, and to the north by Highway 680. Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 680 and State Route 24, with direct access to the site provided by Olympic Boulevard (see Figure 1). 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: BNB Ventures,LLC 411 Hartz Avenue, Suite 200 Danville,CA 94526 6. General Plan Designation: Single Family Residential-Medium(3.0-4.9 units per net acre)and Open Space 7. Zoning: R-6,R-]0 8. Description of Project: Existing Conditions and Setting The project area consists ofi five contiguous parcels on which several homes and associated structures (i.e., sheds, carports, fences, and a swimming pool) are currently present. Elevation ranges from 150-175 feet above sea level, with the site occupying a terrace above the bend in Las Trampas Creek. Dominant vegetation within the project area consists mainly of native oaks with a non-native grass understory, mixed riparian woodland, and landscaped areas surrounding the existing homes and structures. Approximately 200 trees are located on site, about half of which would be removed because they are either an undesired species (e.g., eucalyptus rather than oak or P:\PaulsonLme\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 1006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION walnut), in poor health or structure, or would be inconsistent with the density of the proposed project. Aside from Las Trampas Creek, which is situated along the western and southern borders of the site, no drainages, ponds or�other natural sources of water are located within the borders of the property. Along the southwestern and southeastern boundaries of the project site and Las Trampas Creek,the'l00-year flood plain extends between approximately 20 and 100 feet into the project site. However,no development is proposed in this.area. The rest of the site is in an area determined to be outside the 500-year flood plain per the Contra Costa County FIRM map 060025-290D, effective December 2,2003. The General Plan designations for the site are Single Family Residential-Medium(3.0-4.9 units per net acre)and Open Space.The site is currently zoned as R-6 and R-10. Proposed Project The applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Vesting Tentative Map and a Final Development Plan in order to develop 22 single-family homes and associated infrastructure on 4.6 acres in unincorporated Contra Costa County. The density of the proposed project is 6.4 units per net acre. The current General Plan designation for the project site is Single Family Residential-Medium which allows between 3.0 and 4.9 single family homes per net acre. The proposed General Plan Amendment would change the land use designation to Single-Family Residential-High (5 to 7.2 units per net acre) in order to bring the general plan designation in Y conformance with the proposed density. The project would be rezoned from R-6 and R-10 to P-1, l Planned Unit District, with la variance to allow application of the P-1 district for a residential development involving less than 5 (five) acres. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map and Final Development Plan are for development of 22 single family residential lots in two phases. The proposed project consists of the phased removal of existing structures and landscaping on the five parcels, development of 22 single-family homes and ancillary services, and construction of an outfall to Las Trampas Creek(see Figure 3). Homes would be constructed on individual lots arranged along a circular loop road connecting to Paulson Lane. The smaller lots would be located within the interior of the site with the larger lots backing up to Las Trampas Creek along the outer edges of the project site. Three different single- family, detached, housing types would be developed, with house sizes ranging from 2,375 to 2,485 square feet on an average lot size of approximately 8,280 square feet. The houses would be two stories tall with a maximum height of 35 feet. Direct access to the project site would be provided by Paulson Lane via Olympic Boulevard. Paulson Lane is a long, north-south cul-de-sac. The proposed residential units would be served by short courts and a circular loop connecting to Paulson Lane. Paulson Lane is 28 feet wide and the proposed circular loop drive would have a 20-21 foot width.A total of 19 parking stalls are planned in order to compensate for the narrow road widths that would inhibit street parking: five of these stalls would be placed at the entrance to the site, along Paulson Lane, and the remaining 14 would be distributed throughout the site and set back from the street. P:\PaulsonLane\Finallnitial5tudy.doc(3/1412006) 2 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION The project would be completed in two phases. Phases I and Phase II are independent legal parcels, each with a separate owner.i Phase 1 would consist of construction of 16 residential units and associated infrastructure. Phase I would commence upon receipt of project approvals. Phase I1 would entail construction of six (6) residential units and associated infrastructure. Phase II would begin construction at a time decided by the owner of the Phase II parcel.A pike turn around would be constructed during Phase I where Phase I and Phase II intersect at A street to allow emergency vehicles and other automobiles to exit the site until the circular loop road is completed. The pike turn around may be removed upon completion of Phase II.' Approximately 200 trees are located on the project site, of which approximately 98 trees are proposed to be removed.According to the Tree Survey and Report(Joseph McNeil,2004),most of the trees proposed for removal are not "intrinsically desirable" based on species type, health, structure, and size. The trees) to be removed are located at the interior of the site and primarily within the footprint of proposed new development. A number of desirable trees immediately surrounding the proposed new homes would be retained. Trees along Las Trampas Creek would also be retained and the vegetative buffer that exists along the creek between the proposed development and the existing neighborhood to the south and west would be preserved. The Tree Mitigation Plan prepared for the project(Camp& Camp Associates, 2005), specifies that 214 trees of various species and size,lincluding native species, will be planted as part of the proposed development, resulting in a net gain in the total number of trees on the site as compared to existing conditions. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The proposed project is surrounded by suburban and urban portions of the City of Walnut Creek and unincorporated Contra Colsta County, and includes the following: North and East.Directly across Interstate 680 to the north and northeast,land uses include office buildings and multifamily housing.Downtown Walnut Creek,with pedestrian retail, is located approximately '/2 mile from Paulson Lane on the other side of I-680. South. Las Trampas Creek encloses the project site along its southern boundaries; residential housing is located on all other isides of the creek. West. Las Trampas Creek borders the site on the west,as does Olympic Boulevard,which is a four- lane arterial street which extends westward into residential development. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g.,permits,financing approval,or participation agreement): 1 • Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD) • California Department of FisIh and Game(CDFG) • Contra Costa County Public(Works Department • Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB) • United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) • Contra Costa County Fire District P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doe(3/142006) _ LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 5006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION • Public Works Flood Control District • EBMUD • Central Contra Costa Sanitary District • Building Inspection Department P:\PaulsonLane\FinallDitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 4 -s ,.. ��5!.t m R I a,y ,'#lam Y"R 4i , � �, F�`.+5� ¢ �'.;, e , 4 Aw• �• s �. '«,� a.. 9,..5 � t -t d?ss;r�' € �4 er{t` »f <tzti{�- i�1 a b p > >•; e � Is �� ^�+ '� ��a r ia, � �,cda�'��"l a r �aCti1�Ei;. -i� � xcn�:f�+� tom. 4b .�, d A F p °i,d.Y�,,•3 l t '1 ��>> e ,"ra.a- ,n °§-.,;g.i t a ��p �aa�Co'enry ti' � .res• i' any h ti !�.#..."•r v� af"+� y, '"' t s X Ulnp }.. �1' ���i _ �� �,F m�wra :'.vy rY ^!«aL,.F Y# a-.Y�',� -r-? Op l�"'���` � � e 1ti#- � � x rrtr �t'� L��a�F P � � t z° �2�d ''`•�"a 'i' z$ Yay �"�� �r t pp tlt Nrti ry\ i 1 • s. k s + y�L tie43.�. do r "r • .g S G n i e s.+ tt .n ,`.°+4, b .. '��� - � ,'",,,"w �v � re ��� �Y bti � � v�2x� ro .� �. `p� ya '°rte �C A� •,4,s. �\.$ �"°"2'a �s.as a JP ,x; �•". I �� iDlAB Y w S a A� \�* " T C�"s' -L r �. ''A\� a t •� �. § � � c .��el c � $$ rTMi � yd`s v�' ed sj�""", Y""3 e ,�i\...'�" ��y �S,- a r a - � ��a. t #� � PROJECT AREA �'� � ��� � � . � �'--��:� � " '�• � k��?^ a�Rr-' �Y ® ,F ¢�"► �S{As, � aa'(rgv 5 � a'�Y � �n ��� �u #^z �.- e -"� " ."#' � 1 - s7: � r-".✓^ ;� 'T�'� �'t�,i,. H 5 t \ maocl h' "y 1,g. k �'' � .� �yy' �� i?� ✓°5 ''ry, �4' ",ry'�"„.+ 9 i � � air Pa$iV�'( I+�� r r � 'IFti'1 680 � �"�_�.�'-0'P �. ,.i.+ p��/e. g ...f=C' ^.p. s c \ Sp3 i+c ti3` 9 `� f '-T•- t'�S k -+» t 1 '. `" j" w S`. �. r'Fl• € 4 t d �'*. `"^ § an n5 E,Sw '� ��,� � .,. n 4 -"a) f �,d .�++.p u, r - €,'� }} `+" ^'✓ r,.7rt°" ,+5.„ *e. F fa a ,. �s '"` l:r' 'v r* -�'yryti:: Ip�z':` ti '`',,, ��"+•�' 3i Ott 2 ,��r^.��,M.Y> �„,�y`x s"rw7� ��}� ,�t* `i. R �''•j��4 � ,u'�\ Arm ,7. ��� � ..��., �"' >••{»� irk tom; ^0 �! a-` L S A FIGURE 1 N a 1000 sono Paulson Lane FEET Project Location SO UKCL:USGS 7.5'Q U AD-Walnut Creek,Ca, 1`.CC7C53I%G\Loca6nn.edr(12/12/05) N � W N O �N m n 1� / Fl Ibyb ,tea r 4w mn amp,A, �F m p � b m r y� a au Nn to sNSsuc x J fin, � on o oo, $? s S Nll 101 M3 ONV Wi51X wv. P+. �p m N 0 n u � v 8 c m � c y 4 M B O � n W P U V 'J P a r LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 1006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION 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 Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 7 Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ■ Air Quality ■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources ■ Geology/Soils ■ Hazards&Hazardous Material: ■ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ■ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ■ Mandatory Findings of Significance r . P:\PaulsonLane\FinalInitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 7 _ LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: D 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 prop Ised project could have a significant effect on the environment, 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 pre- pared. ❑ 3 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ 1 find that the proposed projelt MAY have a"potentially significant impact" or"potentially signifi- cant 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 Ion the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 11 ❑ 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 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. ID 6 Signature Date John Oborne, Senior Planner Community Development Department,Contra Costa County P:\PauisonLane\FinalinitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 8 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION l ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse eff,ect on a scenic vista? Q b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not Q Q Q 0 limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the exilting visual character or quality Q Q Q of the site and its surroundings? I d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which Q Q Q would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Affected Environment: The project site is located adjacent to Las Trampas Creek and Interstate 680 and is within an _- unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County that borders the western city limits of Walnut Creek. In fact, the site is separated from downtown Walnut Creek only by Interstate 680. The site consists of approximately 4.6 acres, directly bounded on the southwest and southeast by Las Trampas Creek, and by Interstate 680 to the northeast. It is situated between Newell Avenue and Olympic Boulevard and is immediately adjacent to the southliound on-ramp to Interstate 680 from Olympic Boulevard. Paulson Lane provides access to the property from Olympic Boulevard and is the only means of access. The site is on the northeastern fringe of an area characterized by established residential neighborhoods that feature lush, mature landscaping and homes arranged along tree-lined streets including Newell Avenue and Magnolia Way. Three private residences are located on Paulson Lane near Olympic Boulevard that are outside the proposed project limits. Existing residences are located on the project site. This development consists of five main residences plus several other structures including four carports, one garage, four sheds, one trailer, one unidentified building, various driveways, concrete patios, decks, and a swimming pool. At least one of the existing buildings is two stories high. Overhead utility lines supported by wood poles are present within the project site. Street)lights occur along the adjacent freeway on-ramp and along Interstate 680,but not on Paulson Lane. Due to several factors,the site is visually isolated from surrounding areas that are accessible to the public. The site is not visible from Olympic Boulevard due to a hill near the western end of Paulson Lane and dense trees and brush along Las Trampas Creek. It is only partially visible from Interstate 680 due to topography and a 16-foot high sound wall that extends the length of the right shoulder of the southbound on-ramp to the highway. The site is not visible from Newell Avenue due to screening by existing homes, P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 9 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CEOA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 1006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION I fences, and landscaping as well as(trees and brush along the banks of Las Trampas Creek. The creek runs between the project site and the backyards of homes on Newell Avenue and Magnolia Way. The project site is visible from Paulson Lane, including the three residences at the end of the lane nearest Olympic Boulevard. Across the freeway on the edge of downtown Walnut Creek at the intersection of Alpine Road and Botelho Drive, views toward the project site include Interstate 680 and the sound wall along the southbound on-ramp. Thee tops of trees, some of which presumably are on the project site, are visible above the top of the sound,wall. However, no direct view of the project site or the development that exists there now is possible from this location. From Magnolia Court, in one instance a view toward the project site occurs when looking between two houses. This view is through a filter of trees and brush, but gives some evidence of the existing residential development that is on the project site. However, no open views of the site occur. A total of 199 trees are located on the project site, of which approximately 98 trees are proposed to be removed (Figure 3). According to ( Pthe Tree Survey and Report (Joseph McNeil, 2004), most of the trees proposed for removal are not "intrinsically desirable" based on species type, health, structure, and size. The trees to be removed are located at the interior of the site and primarily within the footprint of proposed new development. A number of desirable trees immediately surrounding the proposed new homes would be retained. Trees along Las Trampas Creek would also be retained and the vegetative buffer that exists along the creek between the proposed development and the existing neighborhood to the south and west would be preserved). However, at the rear of lot 8, next to the creek, are two larger trees, one is a dominant oak tree (#362),l and the other tree is a redwood tree (#363). The two trees crowd into each other and the arborist recommends that one of them be removed so that there is enough room for the surviving tree to flourish. The arborist will determine which tree is desirable and may recommend removal of the other one. Tables) I and 2 summarize the species and trunk diameters of the trees scheduled for removal. (Note: These tables do not include either tree#362, a 36"oak tree or tree # 363,a 30"redwood tree noted above.) Table 1: Diameter Range of Trees Scheduled For Removal Mian e�„ � ,1 ,�Nirmber„,af�iseesf 1-5.9 inches 7 6-10.9 inches 47 11-15.9 inches 18 16-20.9 inches 12 21-25.9 inches 7 26-30.9 inches 2 31-35.9 inches 0 36-40.9 inches 3 41-45.9 inches 0 46-50.9 inches 2 P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/142006) 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION Table 2: Summa of Tree Species Scheduled for Removal Number offi esAoBe , Coast Live Oak 35 Mexican Fan Palm 18 Valley Oak 9 Coast Redwood 5 Canary Island Date Palm 5 Lombardy Poplar 4 Deodar Cedar 2 European Olive 2 Incense Cedar 2 California Fan Palm 2 Silver Wattle 2 Glossy Privet 2 Western Cottonwood 1 Weeping Willow 1 California Bay 1 Mulberry 1 Box Elder 1 California Black Walnut 1 Holly 1 Loquat 1 Queen Palm l Aleppo Pine 1 �. TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES 98 Discussion: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The Contra Costa County General Plan identifies scenic resources in the County, including major ridges and waterways. The proposed project site consists of gently sloping terrain with suburban development set among numerous trees of various types including various non-native species. The project site is not in the vicinity of the scenic resources identified in the General Plan. Further, the proposed development would generally be unseen from surrounding areas that are accessible to the public;there would be no impacts to scenic vistas. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? The project site is approximately '/2 mile from the intersection of Highway 24 and Interstate 680. Highway 24 is a designated State Scenic Highway.However, the project site is not visible from any portion of Highway 24 due to distance and screening by topography, vegetation, and structures including highway-related structures. The proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a State scenic Highway. California Department of Transportation,California Scenic Highway Program -- http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/L.andArch/srenic/schwy l.html P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 11 M GGy A C Y � as ,a 6 a". F w " �'�,+w,4 y.,;,:° S\t��\ � w > 'i i �_ �/y:,✓^ � p�� as '3 a;r "� CgacH- Y5 r k " vzze k e; will"Us! w C Ik Ste. � y ,t 14� x 'S*d• 4 rc'tE ���� Y ry � � fY I ..s.�rr {y/y t �i '�y } !�'I eBPy � �g�yg"©g•� f "� a pat Was yy � H! S"$ S$ a�Y19 a� a 9�g98� : �sp2'€eR5 Ins a� *e- pa Y pa tp gg rte. R a a 4 $ �i-" 01,�� l�'f� as 11 1a g 3Yan G Aii 11 to�Igin tin I P �'iZsr j e Gn don a 1 y 4�y` fd " el n y aS a°+ApI> F MR; 4+y�"+ Sp �1g!5 G 54X Ii d SC Y �„ Be R; " iYi"$a6$ tl 3 '$ �Y ON, 5rQ +t pl 14 (I v5 S!x` lime, Xaa $a a " A£x _ MENU )'i i r ➢ @�Y$ Ffeg9`§ s pk a§$ ° fl 1� x .� \ xl�ll(WiW ( ' !-' .i peue�i8! ' $R'#$6 4�t e x4 py:aFt fi %@ f. n`r �pc a�AkY $e8 Ryy Xi {gy$Y pis ys 7+ S L i'. 01 is al dYya $@" baa aa5 s5ep� �� �7"l ei. .. `•.'"'" ..=7 ..., � .� i.. .':C 3Y� Y'�6�4e �e i�iF a$1 .��a� xl+ fi S $ a" z o p 4 b LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 FAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION l ^` c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The proposed project would result in development of the site with 22 residences and associated infrastructure. The site is currently developed with residential uses,but at a lower density than proposed.The areas that surround the project site are suburban or urban in visual character. While the proposed project would modify the current appearance of the site,the resulting visual character would be similar in kind to that which currently exists(suburban residential).Further,the project site is substantially screened from surrounding, nearby areas that are accessible to the public. The proposed project would result in the removal of approximately 98 trees; roughly half the number that presently exists on the site. While the removal of existing trees has the potential to impact the site's visual quality, most of the trees that would be removed are not intrinsically desirable according to the Tree Survey & Report ((Joseph McNeil, 2004). The Contra Costa County Tree Protection Ordinance encourages the preservation of trees measuring 6.5 inches diameter at breast height(dbh) in or adjacent to riparian,foothill woodland,or oak savanna areas,or that are'part of a stand of four or more trees. According to the Tree Mitigation Plan prepared for the project (Camp & Camp Associates, 2005), 214 trees of various species and size, including native species, will be planted as part of the proposed development, resulting in a net gain in the total number of trees on the site as compared to existing conditions(Figure 4). Implementation of the Tree Mitigation Plan would reduce potential aesthetic impacts of removing existing trees to less than significant levels, although in most cases it will take several years for the trees that are planted to reach the same relative size as those to be removed. (�f1 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Some night lighting on the project site presently occurs since residential uses exist there now. In addition, the freeway on-ramp and Interstate 680 immediately adjacent to the,site are illuminated at night by standard highway lighting. The proposed project would represent an increase in night lighting since more homes would exist on the site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1 below would reduce this potential impact to a level below significance. The proposed project would not create a new source of substantial glare in the area. Mitigation Measures AES-1: Lighting Control. All outdoor lighting associated with the proposed development shall be designed and located to minimize ambient light levels for any given application, consistent with public safety standards. Lighting shall be placed in areas of pedestrian activity and at building entrances, and(shall be minimized elsewhere. Ornamental, pedestrian scale lighting fixtures shall be utilized to the degree possible. Area lighting shall be directed downward with no splay of lighting directed offsite. Outdoor lights that are greater than ten feet high shall incorporate a cut off shield that prevents the light source from being directly visible from areas offsite. Nod lighting shall blink, flash or be of unusually high intensity or brightness. P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 13 � S m a n. � V 6 W eo H G -o a �R•a t`g _y Pa c YL L e i a •' E m �'a 3 By3 63 g;.e f s e� E✓ J� k z IT l s:e3b s s Cr �I v $M' May wy 1 %y sign L— w 6 / . y� / .•"� SAW '. s 3 p Y Av ioAtio;044-1-N Ty"7 1 tint TAT OWN • • f -4 C v JJ .S r •k 1 . , ar , n ' p r r a 4 x�' s AT its J. ! 3 A p yy kVAT 2 0,4 is q a u u E. I SIF WF _D• w iF iVP" f ¢ E cE e g Vf pf < - o r ?a < s f n � tVi LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 1006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland U of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant tol the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or natulre, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Affected Environment: The project site is classified as "Urban and Built-Up Land" according to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the State Department of Conservation. The project site is not zoned for agricultural uses and is not operated under a Williamson Act contract. Discussion: 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,Ito a non-agricultural use? The proposed project would nl t convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning or 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? Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the extension of infrastructure into an undeveloped area,the development of urban uses on a greenfield site, or other physical changes that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. s P:\PaulsonLanelFinallnitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 15 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 1006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact impact III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the fol- lowing determinations.Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable 0 air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality 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 ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concen- trations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ( Affected Environment: An Air Quality Analysis was prepared for the proposed project by LSA Associates, Inc. in December 2005 and is available for public review at the Contra Costa County Planning Department. The discussions below summarize the findings of the Air Quality Analysis. The project site is located in uninc Irporated Contra Costa County which is part of the San Francisco Bay Air Basin (SFBAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Both the State of California (State) and the federal government have established health- based ambient air quality standards (AAQs) for seven air pollutants, including ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO),nitrogen dioxide(NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2),particulate matter (PM10,PM2.5), and lead. The State has also set standards ford a number of other air pollutants and has established a set of episode criteria for 03, CO,NO2, SO2, and PMIo representing periods of short-term exposure to air pollutants that actually threaten public health. The California Clean Air Act provides BAAQMD with the authority to manage transportation activities at indirect sources (e.g., motor vehicles at an intersection, a mall and on highways) as well as stationary sources of pollution through its jurisdictional area. Direct emissions from motor vehicles are regulated by the Air Resources Board(ARB). BAAQMD maintains ambient air quality monitoring stations throughout its portion of the SFBAB. The air quality monitoring station closest to the project site is the Concord station. These air quality data are representative of the ambient air quality standards in the project area. CO, SO2, and NO2 levels have not exceeded either State or federal standards in the past three years. 03, PMID, PM2.5 levels almost never exceed their respective 1-, 8-, and 24-hour standards; however, PM10 has exceeded the State annual P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 16 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 1006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION 1 standard in each of the past three years, and PM2.5 exceeded it once. Neither pollutant has recently exceeded the federal annual standard. Discussion: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or region classified as a non-attainment area. The main purpose of an air quality plan is to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of federal and State air quality standards. To bring the San Francisco Bay Area region into attainment, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)has developed the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan and the 2000 Clean Air Plan(CAP). 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. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan or the 2000 Glean Air Plan(CAP). b) Violate any air quality standid or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project would occur over the short term in j } association with constructions activities such as grading and vehicle/equipment use. Long-term emissions would result from vehicle trips associated with use of the project site. The following discussion describes potential air quality violations that could occur as a result of: construction equipment exhaust emissions; fugitive dust; long-term vehicular emissions; and local carbon monoxide hot spots. Construction Equipment Exhaust Emissions. Air quality impact would occur during construction of the proposed project from soil disturbance and equipment exhaust. Major sources of emissions during grading and site preparation include (1) exhaust emissions from construction vehicles; (2) equipment and fugitive dust generated by construction vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces; and (3) soil disturbances from grading and backfilling. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would reduce potential impacts to a level below significance. Long-Term Emissions. The proposed project would result in both stationary and mobile sources of long-term air emissions. The stationary source emissions from the residential uses would come from the consumption of natural gas. The 22 single-family homes would add approximately 268 daily trips and 22 AM peak liour trips and 22 PM peak hour trips to the local roadways. The net increase in long-term vehicular emissions generated by the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD's operations thresholds and .would have a less-than-significant impact on local or regional air quality.No mitigation measures are required. Local CO Hot Spots. Vehicular trips associated with the proposed project would contribute congestion at intersections and along roadway segments in the project vicinity. Localized air quality impacts would occur when emissions from vehicular traffic increase in local areas as a result of the proposed project, The primary mobile source pollutant of local concern is carbon monoxide (CO), P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/142006) 17 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 1006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION which is a direct function of(vehicle idling time caused by traffic flow conditions. CO transport is extremely limited; it disperses rapidly with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations proximate to a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthy levels affecting local sensitive receptors (residents, school children, the elderly, hospital patients, etc.). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with extremely high traffic volumes. Intersections in the project area are currently operating at acceptable levels of service) and none of these intersections would exceed federal and State standards for either one-hour or the eight-hour CO concentrations. The proposed project would contribute at most a 1.9 ppm increase to the one-hour and a 1.3 ppm to the either-hour CO concentrations at these intersections.No CO hot spots would occur;therefore, the proposed project would have no significant impact on local air quality for CO. 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)? As described above in Section III.b, the proposed project would result in temporary increases or minimal long-term increases lin air pollutants, these increases would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any air pollutants. d) Expose sensitive receptors to iubstantial pollutant concentrations? Construction of the proposed project may expose surrounding land uses to airborne particulates and fugitive dust, as well as a small quantity of pollutants associated with the use of construction equipment (e.g., diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment). Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1, described below, would reduce construction-related emissions to a less-than-significant level. As discussed in Section IIIb, the proposed project would not result in any long-term air quality impacts. Therefore,nearby sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations resulting from project construction. While the construction of the project itself will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations, the residences will be potentially exposed to significant air contaminant emissions from vehicles operating on the adjacent I-680. Historical air quality data show that existing carbon monoxide (CO) levels for the project area and the general vicinity do not exceed either State or federal ambient air quality standards(AAQS). A screening health risk assessment was conducted of the impact of particulate matter resulting from diesel exhaust from vehicles operating'on I-680. The analysis was performed according to BAAQMD's Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines and is included as part of the Air Quality Analysis prepared by LSA Associates,Inc. (2005). The study was performed using the EPA approved TSCREEN3 computer model. There would be long-term operational emissions from the diesel-powered trucks operating on 1-680. The primary health risk from,heavy-duty trucks emissions is diesel particulate exhaust. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 1. Even with the conservative modeling technique used, the nearest residences to the freeway would be exposed to an unmitigated inhalation cancer risk of no more than 0.18 in 1 million, less than the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in 1 million. The chronic HI would be 0.0001, less than the BAAQMD threshold of 1.0. Therefore, no significant health risk would occur from project-related truck traffic,and no mitigation is necessary. P:\PaulsonLmc\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 18 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION Table 3: Health Risk Assessment Results Cancer Risk Chronic Hazard number in 1 million Index Nearest Residences ( 0.18 0.0001 Threshold 10 1.0 Source:LSA Associates,Inc,December 2005. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeople? 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. Mitigation Measures: AIR-1: Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PMto. The "Basic Measures" and the "Enhanced Measures" listed in Table 1 shall be incorporated into the construction plans for the proposed project. The "Optional Measures" listed in Table 1 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. Table 4: Feasible Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PMlo f.; Basic Control Measures—The followin controls should 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(preferably with water sw eepers)all paved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep streets daily referabl with water swee ers if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Enhanced Control Measures—The folio ing measures should be implemented at construction sites greater than four acres in area. All"Basic"control measures listed above. Ilydroseed 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 uickl as ossible. 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, 1999. P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 19 i LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION r Potentially - Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse e�ffect, either directly or through Q U Q habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candi- date, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Depart- ment of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or U 0 C other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. 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 direct removal, filling, hydrological interrup- tion,or other means? d) Interfere substantially withl the movement of any native 0 D resident or migratory fish ori wildlife species or with estab- lished native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting Q N L biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conser- D E 0 vation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local,regional,or State habitat conservation plan? Affected Environment: A Biological Resources Assessment was completed within the project site by Mosaic Associates LLC in October 2004. As recommended by Mosaic Associates, an additional rare plant survey was conducted in April 2005 by Wood Biological Consulting. Both the Assessment and spring survey results summary are available for public review at Control Costa County. The project site occupies a relatively level terrace above Las Trampas Creek, which borders the parcels on the southwest and southeast.Vegetation within the study area includes mixed riparian woodland along the banks of Las Trampas Creek, mixed oak woodland with a non-native grassland understory in the western portion of the site, and landscape plants and trees associated with homes and other structures across much of the site. A total of 199 trees were identified on site, with approximately 98 proposed for removal to accommodate the subdivision project. Mixed Riparian Woodland. Mixed riparian woodland habitat is found along the banks of Las Trampas Creek. The dense woodland canopy is comprised of a combination of native riparian species P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 20 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (/ MARCH 3006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION 1 and landscaped trees. Dominant native tree species include cottonwood (Populus fremontii), California bay (Umbellularia californica), black walnut (Juglans nigra), arroyo willow (Arroyo lasiolepsis), alder (Alder rhombifolia), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), valley oak (Quercus lobata), and coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). Large patches of non-native giant reed (Arundo donax) are along the creek, as well as areas where English ivy (Hedera helix) has grown rampant,up the tree trunks that line the creek bank. Oak Woodland with a Non-native Grassland Understory. Mixed valley oak and coast live oak woodland is present on the site in remnant patches. The project site historically supported oak woodland, but much of this habitat has been replaced by residential development and landscaping. The understory supports non-native grassland,much of which has been mowed, particularly along Olympic Boulevard. The characteristic non-native annual grasses that are present in the undeveloped upland areas of the site include wild oat(A venafatua) and ripgut brome(Bromus diandrus). Residential Landscaping. Residential and landscaped development is present across much of the site. Some of the introduced plant species include coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), oleander (Nerium oleander), French broom (Genista monspessulana), gum tree (Eucalyptus sp.), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), and various fruit trees, such as orange,lemon,almond, and plum. Because of the large number of treis on site, the project area does provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of birds, both passerines and raptors. Several tall trees, such as eucalyptus and oak, may provide nesting habitat for special-status birds, such as Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), and red- shouldered hawk(Buten lineatus). Shrubs and small trees on site also provide nesting habitat for a variety of birds. Other special status bird species that have the potential to occur on site include American kestrel (Falco sparverius), rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), great horned owl(Bubo virginianus), andl great blue heron(Ardea herodias). Special status bat species, such as the California mastiff bat (Eumops 1perotis californicus), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), and Townsend big-eared bat(Plecotus townsendii iownsendii),have a low potential for occurring in the project area and may roost in trees or other structures currently on site. The rare plant survey conducted by1 Mosaic Associates in September 2004 resulted in the determination that the following special status plant species had a low potential for occurrence on the project site: bent- flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris), Mt.Diablo fairy-lantern (Calochortus pulchellus),round-leaved filaree (Erodium macrophyllum), fragrant fritillary (Fritilaria liliacea), Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens), and robust monardella (Monardella villosa ssp. globosa). A follow-up rare plant survey conducted on April 12, 2005 by Wood Biological Consulting yielded no findings of these spring- blooming(or any other) special sta s plant species on site. Las Trampas Creek provides suitable habitat for the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and western pond turtle (Actinomys marmorata) and both have been recorded upstream in the Las T.rampas Creek watershed. The western pond turtle is a California species of special concern, and the California red-legged frog is a federally-listed, threatened species and a state species of special concern. A focused survey for red-legged frogs was conducted in September 2004 by'Mosaic Associates. Red- . legged frogs and western pondturtles were not detected during this survey, most likely due to the abundance of raccoons and other predatory animals that live in the area. P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 21 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION �1 The following policies from the Contra Costa County General Plan's Conservation Element (Chapter 8) are relevant to this project: Vegetation and Wildlife Policies, Section 6: 8-21 The planting of native trees and shrubs shall be encouraged in order to preserve the visual integrity of the landscape, provide habitat conditions suitable for native wildlife, and ensure that a maximum number and variiety of well-adapted plants are sustained in urban areas. Water Resources Policies, Section 12: 8-78 Where feasible, existing natural waterways shall be protected and preserved in their natural state, and channels which already are modified shall be restored. A natural waterway is defined as a waterway which can support its own environment of vegetation, fowl, fish and reptiles, and which appears natural. 8-79 Creeks and streams determined to be important and irreplaceable natural resources shall be retained in their natural state whenever possible to maintain water quality, wildlife diversity, aesthetic values,and recreation opportunities. 8-80 Wherever possible, remaining natural watercourses and their riparian zones shall be restored to improve their function as hi itats. 8-85 Natural watercourses shall be integrated into new development in such a way that they are accessible and provide a visual element. 8-86 Existing native riparian h bitat shall be preserved and enhanced by new development unless public safety concerns require removal of habitat for flood control or other public purposes. 8-89 Setback areas shall be Irovided along natural creeks and streams in areas planned for urbanization.The setback areas shall be of a width adequate to allow maintenance and to prevent damage to adjacent structures, the natural channel and associated riparian vegetation. The setback area shall be a minimum ofid 00 feet; 50 feet on each side of the centerline of the creek. 8-91 Grading, filling and construction activity near watercourses shall be conducted in such a manner as to minimize impacts from increased runoff, erosion, sedimentation, biochemical degradation, or thermal pollution. 8-92 Revegetation of a watercourse shall employ native vegetation, providing the type of vegetation compatible with the watercourse's maintenance program and does not adversely alter channel capacity. Discussion: 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? P:\PaulsonLme\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 22 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION I� Special Status Plant Species. The spring rare plant survey conducted by Wood Biological Consulting yielded no findings of the six special-status plants that were designated by Mosaic Associates as having a low potential for occurrence on site. The botanist conducting the spring. survey also determined that there was no suitable habitat existing on site for these five of the six special-status species: bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris), round-leaved filaree (Erodium macrophyllum), fragrant fritillary (Fritilaria liliacea), Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens), and robust monardella(Monardella villosa ssp.globosa). Marginally suitable habitat is present on site for the Mt. Diablo fairy-lantern (Calochortus pulchellus), yet none were found on site during the spring survey,. Any individual plants existing on site would have been detectable during the spring survey. Therefore, project impacts to special-status plant species would be less than significant. Special Status Animal Species. No special status animals were detected during the surveys conducted for the Biological Resources Report. However, in assessing the habitat affinities and reported distributions for twenty-one special status animals, it was determined that 13 species have the potential to occur on the project site. Three species were determined to have a high potential to occur on the site, including red-shouldered hawk (Buten ltneatus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus). Two species have a moderate potential to occur on the site, including Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii) and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). Eight species were determined to have a low potential for occurrence on site. These include monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), western pond turtle (Actinomys marmorata), California red-legged frog(Rana aurora draytonil),great homed owl (Bubo virginianus), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Townsend big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii townsendii) and California mastiff bat(Eumops perotis californicus). Red-Legged Frogs and Western Pond Turtles. Las Trampas Creek provides suitable habitat for red-legged frog and western pond turtle. However, the potential for either species to be detected and to persist in the reach of Las Trampas Creek adjacent to the proposed residential development is greatly reduced by the presence on site of numerous raccoons and other species that prey upon frogs and turtles, and the extensive development both upstream and downstream of the project site, which compounds the impact of predatory species on the potential for red-legged,frogs and the western pond turtle to occur. However, construction of the proposed project has the potential to significantly impact California-red legged frog and/or western pond turtle, if present during construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 would reduce the potential for project-related impacts to a level below significance. Passerines and Nesting Raptors. The Paulson Lane project has the potential to disturb nests or nesting behavior of migratory birds or birds of prey if site disturbance activities commence during the nesting season, and are situated in close proximity to occupied nests. Construction of the project has the potential to impact tree-nesting migratory birds and/or birds of prey. This would be considered a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1310-4 would reduce the potential for project-related impacts to.a level below significance. Special-Status Bats. There ris a low potential for 3 species of special status bats—pallid bat, Townsend's big-eared bIat and California mastiff bat—to roost within existing structures or in tree cavities on the project site. Demolition of structures and tree removal has the potential to P:1PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/142006) 23 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION disturb bat roosts if present. This would be considered a significant impact. Implementation of the Mitigation Measure 13I0-5 would reduce the potential for project-related impacts to a level below significance. 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The adjacent Las Trampas Creek has jurisdictional characteristics that include the year round presence of water and the presence of wetland vegetation. Based on these characteristics, the stream is considered to be waters of the United States and waters of the State. As such, it falls under the jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act administered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and under state regulations administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) will also have jurisdiction over any activities within the bank of the creek under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. Alterations of the bed and/or bank of Las Trampas Creek would require approvals/permits from one or more of these agencies depending on the proposed work. The proposed project includI s the construction of a storm drain outfall to Las Trampas Creek. Construction of the storm drain outfall to Las Trampas Creek may require the removal of riparian vegetation, and has the,potential to result in the deposition of fill in waters of the United States and State. If the outfall to Las Trampas Creek is situated below the creek top of bank, a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG would be required. If the outfall requires the placement of fill within waters of the United Slates,permits from the Corps and RWQCB would also be required. Construction of the storm drain outfall and riparian restoration efforts have the potential to result in the removal of riparian trees and shrubs and may require the excavation and/or fill of waters of the United States and State. These would be considered potentially significant impacts.Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO 6 and 13I0-7 would reduce the potential for project-related impacts to a level below significance. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? See Section IVb above. I 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? The project will not interfere with the movement of native fish or wildlife, nor will it reduce the suitability of the riparian habitat along Las Trampas Creek as a movement corridor because project improvements along Las Trampas Creek are limited to construction of an outfall and riparian restoration. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree pre- servation policy or ordinance? The proposed project would result in the removal of approximately 98 trees (out of approx. 200 total) from the project site As required by the Contra Costa County Tree Protection and P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialSmdy.doe(3/14/2006) 24 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 1006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION Preservation Ordinance, a tree survey was prepared in December 2004 for the development project by Joseph McNeil, consulting arborist. The survey report provides a description of all trees on the site that are six inches in diameter and larger. The report recommends trees for removal based on the following criteria:poor health,structure, or position in a grove,and size and species type. A Tree Mitigation and Existil g Tree Plan (Figure 4) was prepared for the proposed project (Camp & Camp Associates, 2005) As required by the Contra Costa County Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, 214 1trees would be planted to mitigate for trees to be removed (Camp & Camp Associates, 2005). Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-8 through BIO-10 would ensure that impacts related to'tree removal would be reduced to a level below significance. Mitigation Measure BIO-11, in addition to the mitigation measures referenced in sections IVb and IVc, will ensure that the project landscaping and construction adjacent to Las Trampas Creek will be consistent with the Vegetation and Wildlife and Water Resources.Policies contained within the Conservation Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan. fi Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conser- vation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? The proposed project would!not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. rV'; Mitigation Measures- B10-1: California Red-Legged Frog and Western Pond Turtle Pre-Construction Surveys. Pre- construction surveys for California red-legged frogs and western pond turtles shall be conducted not more than 48 hours prior to the commencement of site disturbances. If California red-legged frogs are detected in an area where there is potential for a take during construction, the U.S.I Fish and Wildlife Service shall be consulted to determine the appropriate course of action. If western pond turtles are detected, and they are likely to be disturbed during outfall construction or riparian restoration, they shall be relocated to a suitable reach of creek upstream or downstream from the project. BI0-2: Silt Fencing. Prior to any site disturbance, silt fencing or equivalent shall be installed along the top of bank to prevent the movement of amphibians or reptiles from the riparian area onto the project site. The bottom of this fencing shall be buried and shall be checked and maintained weekly by the construction team to ensure that no gaps develop through which amphibians or reptiles could pass. This fencing shall be removed once construction of the proposed project is co Iplete. BIO-3: Personnel Training. Prior to any site disturbance, a qualified biologist shall conduct a training session on California red-legged frogs and western pond turtles for construction personnel. BIO-4: Passerines and Nesting Raptors. If site disturbance is commenced between February 1 and August 31, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist. If nests of either migratory birds or birds of prey are detected on or adjacent to the site, the applicant shall consult with the CDFG to determine size of a suitable buffer in which no new P:1PaulsonLane\Finalluitial5tudy.doc(3/14/2006) 25 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION site disturbance is permitted until August 31, or the qualified biologist determines that the young are foraging independently. If more than 15 days elapses between the survey and site disturbance,the survey shall be repeated. BI0-5: Bat Roosts. An assessment of the suitability of the trees and buildings on site to support special-status bats shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. All potential roost areas, suitable trees and structures shall be examined for evidence of bat activity. If there is evidence that bats have been roosting within structures or trees on the site that would be removed for the proposed project, a mitigation plan that addresses avoidance of impacts during the roosting season,humane eviction, and partial dismantling of an occupied structure or tree shall be prepared. BI0-6: Regulatory Complia i ce. A Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be acquired prior to construction of the storm drain outfall to Las Trampas Creek if it is situated below creek top of bank. If the placement of fill within waters of the U.S. is required for the outfall, a 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a 401 certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board must be issued prior to the outfall construction. BI0-7: Creek Protection. The area within the structure setback along Las Trampas Creek shall have grant deed of development rights to the County, which will restrict any building of structures in this area. BI0-8: Tree Protection Zones. Tree protection zones shall be established around trees to be '. preserved. Traffic, parking, material storage, or wash-out of equipment shall be prohibited in . these zones throughout the duration of the project. Tree protection zones shall be fenced with temporary 6-foot chain link fence. Fencing shall be in places prior to demolition, including removal of trees not to be preserved. When it is necessary to work within a protected zone, or to install landscaping,Isuch work shall be done in cooperation with the arborist. If it is necessary to open the fence temporarily,the arborist shall be notified.A sign,provided by the arborist, shall be posted every 100 feet along the temporary fencing. BIO-9: Tree Protection. As much as possible, natural leaf litter shall be allowed to accumulate under all existing trees that will be preserved, as natural mulch.No pruning shall occur except for specific reasons, under the direction of the arborist. During construction, an irrigation regimen shall be established for trees near construction activity.No paints or solvents shall be discarded on site,and excess concrete, stucco,and mortar shall be disposed of off-site. BIO-10: Root Protection. Areas where roots may potentially be cut shall be monitored. Cuts for trenches or walls that) are adjacent to or in protected tree zones shall be covered and moistened daily until they are backfilled. BIO-11: Native Trees. Native trees and shrubs shall be incorporated into landscape plans developed for the project wherever possible and shall be compatible with existing trees on site. s P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 26 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CEVA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 1006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 out- side of formal cemeteries? Affected Environment: A Phase I Cultural Resources Evaluation was prepared for the project site by Archeo-Tec, Consulting Archaeologists in June 2004 and is available for public review at the Contra Costa County Planning Department. The cultural resources study consisted of archival literature review, consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission, and an on-site archaeological surface reconnaissance of the 1 project site.No prehistoric or historical archaeological sites were identified within the project site. Discussion: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? According to the cultural resource report prepared for the proposed project (Archeo-Tec, Consulting Archaeologists, 2004), there are no known significant historic resources or events associated with this site. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? As described above, no prehistoric or historical archaeological sites were identified on the project site or within the immediate vicinity. However, presently undetected cultural resources of significance could be discovered during grading and excavation work associated with construction. Implementation of Mitigation) Measure CULT-1 would reduce potential impacts to unanticipated discoveries to a level below significance. c) Directly or indirectly destroy unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? There are no known paleontological resources, or unique geologic feature or sites on the project site, or within the immediate vicinity. The project is proposed in a location that has already been significantly disturbed. Therefore, the probability of finding additional, unknown paleontological resources is minimal. Howevler, it is possible that previously unknown paleontological resources could be discovered during grading and excavation work associated with the new construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-2 would reduce potential impacts associated with disturbance to paleontological resources to a level below significance. P:TaulsonLme\FinallnilialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 27 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 1006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION I d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? There are no known human remains within the proposed project area. The project is proposed in a location that has already been significantly disturbed due to the installation of the existing structures and underground) utilities. Therefore, the probability of finding human remains is minimal. However, it is possible that previously unknown historic or prehistoric resources could be discovered during grading) and excavation work associated with the new construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-3 would reduce potential impacts to a level below significance. Mitisation Measures: CULT-1: Unanticipated Discoveries. If deposits of prehistoric or historic archaeological materials, including but not limited to charcoal, obsidian or chert flakes, grinding bowls, shell fragments, bone,pockets of dark, friable soils, glass, metal, ceramics, wood or similar debris, are discovered during grading,trenching,or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 100 feet of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist certified by the Registry of Professional Archaeologists (RPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), as deemed necessary. CULT-2: Paleontological Resources. If paleontological resources are uncovered during grading or other on-site excavatioA(s), earthwork within 100 feet of these materials shall be stopped until a certified professional archaeologist/paleontologist has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find Iand suggest appropriate mitigation(s),as deemed necessary. CULT-3: Native American Burials. If human remains are encountered, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the situation. Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains and associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendent (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the evaluation, a report shall be prepared documenting the methods and results, as well as recommendations for the treatment of human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report shall be submitted to the City and the Northwest Information Center. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: 1 P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnilialStndy.doc(3/142006) 28 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION I � Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii)Seismic-related ground fl ilure,including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ iv)Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of 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 poten- tially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,sub- sidence,liquefaction or collapse? I 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? l e) Have soils incapable-of adequately supporting the use of sep- ❑ ❑ ❑ tic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Affected Environment: A Geotechnical Report was prepared for the proposed project by Earthtec dated December 8, 2004 and is available for public review at the Contra Costa County Planning Department. The Contra Costa County Planning Geologist conducted a review of this report and prepared the following findings. Contra Costa County is located at the northern end of the Diablo Range of Central California, with the geology in the region being characterized by several northwest trending fault systems which divide the County into large blocks of rock. The project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone designated by the State,however it could be subject to strong seismic ground shaking possible throughout the Bay Area.Nearby potentially active faults include the Calaveras Fault (southeast),the Hayward Fault (west),and the Concord Fault(northeast). The project site is located in an area underlain by alluvium that is younger than 2 million years old and consists mainly of unconsolidated gravel, sand, and clay deposits subject to redistribution by fluvial (stream)processes. Discussion: 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 P:\Pau{sonLane\Finanni[ialStudy.doc(3(148006) 29 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Pub- lication 42; ii) Strong seismic ground shaking; iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including lique- faction; iv)Landslides? i) Fault Rupture. The nearest fault considered active by the California Geological Survey (formerly California Division of Mines and Geology) is the Concord fault, which is mapped approximately 5 miles northeast of the site; the Calaveras fault is mapped approximately 5 %2 miles southeast of the site. No faults are mapped through the site, however, rupture of nearby faults could result in related seismic impacts, as described below. ii) Groundshaking. According to the Contra Costa General Plan Safety Element (p. 10-23) the site is in an area,rated "moderately low" damage susceptibility. The risk of structural damage from ground shaking is regulated by the building codes and County Grading Ordinance. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) requires use of seismic parameters which allow the structural engineering analysis for buildings to be based on soil profile types (see UBC, 1997, Volume12, Div. 5, page 2-23). Quality construction, conservative design and compliance with building and grading regulations can be expected to keep risks within generally accepted limits. Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3 would reduce potential risks associated with strong ground shaking to less than significant levels. iii) Ground Failure and Liquefaction. According to the Contra Costa General Plan Safety Element (p. 10-15), the site is rated "generally moderate to low" liquefaction potential. Because risks are relatively low, qualitative geotechnical evaluation of this hazard is typically not required. Experience has indicated that in the "generally moderate to low" category only 1 acre lout of every 1,000 acres has the unique set of conditions needed for liquefaction to be a hazard. The subsurface data presented in the Earthtec report indicates that the alluvial deposits are too clayey and too dense to liquefy. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not adversely impact persons or structures due to ground failure and liquefaction. iv) Landslides. With regard to landslides, the site has been mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey. The mapping of Nilsen (1975) indicates no slides within the area planned for development or general vicinity. This interpretation is supported by the mapping of California Geological Survey (Saul, 1973). Implementation of the proposed project would not adversely impact persons or structures due to landslides. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? According to the Soil Survey of Contra Costa County (1977), the risk of erosion is low, though construction activities have the potential to disrupt soil and cause erosion. However, construction specifications require the preparation of a storm water pollution plan (SWPPP) that would incorporate best management practices (BMPs) for erosion control that are recognized by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). An Erosion Control Plan would be required for issuance of a grading permit. The Erosion Control Plan would provide the details of the erosion control measures to be applied on the site and maintained throughout the winter rainy season. Implementation of a SWPPP and an Erosion Control Plan, submitted by the applicant and reviewed I P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 30 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION I and approved by the County,would reduce potential impacts to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil to less than significant levels. 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, lique- faction or collapse? The County Geologist's review of the existing geologic data indicates that the project is feasible. The details of the specific standards and criteria for site grading,drainage and foundation design are to be provided in the Final Geotechnical Report,which is routinely made a condition of approval. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table M-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? According to the Soil Survey of Contra Costa County (page 90, Table 6), the site soils can be expected to exhibit a moderate to high expansion potential. Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture changes that can cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements and structures founded on shallow foundations. Building damage due to volume changes associated with expansive soils can be reduced by deepening the foundations to below the zone of moisture fluctuation. General foundation design criteria are provided by the Earthtec geotechnical report, which are intended to control/minimize damage. It should be recognized that expansive soils are an engineering issue, and not a land use or feasibility issue. Any new fill associated with the proposed project would be subject to engineering and building standards for seismic integrity and if the native excavation does not meet these standards, fill meeting the specific standards would be w; imported for the project. 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? Septic tanks and alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be installed on the project site. Therefore, implementation ofthe proposed project would not result in impacts to soils associated with the use of such wastewater treatment systems. Mitigation Measures: GEO-1: Final Geotechnical Report.At least 30 days prior to recordation of Final Map,the Applicant shall submit a final geology, soil, and foundation report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for review and approval by the Planning Geologist. Improvement, grading,I and building plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report. This report shall include evaluation of the potential for liquefaction, seismic settlement and other types of seismically-induced ground failure by recognized methods appropriate to soil conditions discovered during subsurface investigation. It shall also evaluate the hazard posed by expansive soils and provide appropriate recommendations for remediation of geotechnical/geologic hazards, along with specific standards and criteria for grading, foundation and drainage design that are sensitive to geologic constraints and UBC seismic parameters. P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doe(3/14/2006) 31 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION 1 � GEO-2: Deed Acknowledgments. The Applicant shall record a statement to run with the deeds to the property acknowledging the approved geology, soil, and foundation report by title, author (firm), and date, calling attention to approved recommendations,and noting that the report is available from the seller. GEO-3: Engineered Slope GrI dients. Engineered slopes shall have gradients of 21/2:1 (or flatter). Where needed,retaining walls or reinforced earth shall be utilized with proper design. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VII. HAZARDS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- ment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of haz- ardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- ment through reasonably foreseeable upset and 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? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazard- ous materials sites compiledlpursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a signifi- cant 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 the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private air- strip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of Or physically interfere with an C) U LJ 0 adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacua- tion plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, U 0 injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where resi- dences are intermixed with wildlands? P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 32 I LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION Affected Environment: An Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed for the residential site by ADR Environmental Group, Inc. (ADR) in September 2004. This ESA is available for public review at Contra Costa County. The discussions below summarize the findings of the ESA. The subject property is located in I residential and commercial area of Contra Costa County. The area immediately surrounding the subject property consists of residential structures. Interstate Highway 680, then commercial properties are to the north. No gas stations, manufacturing sites, industrial facilities, or dry cleaners were located in the immediate area of the subject property. In addition, no pits, swales, or wetlands were observed on the subject property.A free-running stream is located along the southwest and southeast boundaries of the subject property. The site is currently developed ith several residential structures, storage structures, and private automotive garages. From a review of historical information, it can be concluded that the residential structures located on the project site were built in the 1930s. Prior to the 193Os, the site was structurally undeveloped. The adjoining properties were historically undeveloped or sporadically utilized for agriculture until the 193Os. Residential structures have occupied the adjoining properties since the 195Os. Interstate Route 680 was built on the northern adjoining property in the 196Os. At the time of the site inspection, the majority of the subject property was residentially developed land with no significant hazardous material storage. ADR did not observe any physical evidence of underground storage tanks (USTs)at the site, such as fill caps,vent pipes, fuel oil lines, or concrete pads. (^ According to information supplied by the Contra Costa County Fire Department and the Contra Costa County Department of Hazardous Materials, no USTs have been reported at the subject property. There was no evidence of existing petroleum aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) on site, and the subject property is not a recorded source of soil or groundwater contamination. A site specific Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) search found no recorded sites that may have impacted the property based on hydraulic gradient,site distance,regulatory status, or contamination considerations. The ESA prepared by ADR identifil d no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property,with the exception o£ • Suspect asbestos-containing material; and • Suspect lead-based paint. Discussion: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of new residences and associated infrastructure. Although small quantities of commercially-available hazardous materials could be used within the new residences consistent with residential uses, and potentially for landscape maintenance withal the project site, these materials would not be used in sufficient quantities to pose a threat to human or environmental health. While gas and diesel fuel would typically be used by the construction vehicles, Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be utilized to ensure that no construction-related fuel hazards occur. Therefore, implementation of the P!\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 33 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 7006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials. As part of the building permit process, all plans are reviewed for compliance with applicable Building and Fire Departmerit requirements, pursuant to the Uniform Building and Fire Codes, and all other related City requirements.No additional measures would be required. b) Create a significant hazard tp the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involiving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Construction activities would include the use of ordinary equipment fuels and fluids. In the unlikely event of a spill, fuels would be controlled and disposed of in accordance with county and state regulations. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would ensure that handling of materials during construction activities would not create a hazard to the public or the environment, thereby reducing potential impacts to less than significant levels. During on-site observations conducted by ADR, suspect asbestos-containing materials(ACM)were identified, including, but not necessarily limited to: interior gypsum wallboard and joint compound, interior plaster, exterior stucco, window putty, exterior Transite(D ducting, interior spray-on ceiling fixture, rolled vinyl flooring,)floor tile, and roofing materials. Based upon the age of the buildings observed on the property (pre-1978),it is possible that painted building surfaces contain lead-based paint. Demolition of the existing structures on site could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the release of ACM and/or lead-based paint. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? There is an existing school (within '/4 mile of the project site. Parkmead School is located just southwest of the site, off of Olympic Boulevard. However, as described in Section VIIa, the proposed project includes the construction of residential units and would not result in the routine use,transport, or disposal of substantial quantities of hazardous materials. 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 pub- lic or the environment? The project site is not located on the list of hazardous materials sites prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and would not pose a significant health hazard to the public or 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 the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The project site is not located within the boundary of any airport land use plan and would therefore not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Buchanan Airport, which is located approximately eight miles north, is the closest airport to the project site. J) For a project located within,the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/142006) 34 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 1006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION t The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would therefore not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The proposed project is the development of a residential site and associated infrastructure, it would not impair implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency 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? The project site is in a suburban area and development of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to an increased risk of wildland fires. In addition, as part of the building permit process, all plans are reviewed for compliance with applicable Building and Fire Department requirements, pursuant to the Uniform Building and Fire Codes, and all other related County requirements. Mitigation Measures: HAZ-1: Hazardous Materials Management Plan. Prior to construction, the construction contractor shall prepare a Hazardous Materials Management Plan for approval by the County. The plan shall include specific information on how the Contractor intends to safely transport and store fuels, oils, coatings, and cement, and conduct fueling and equipment maintenance operations. In addition, the plan shall describe measures to contain rinsate resulting from the cleaning of equipment. Rinsate shall not be allowed to be discharged to the ground or to the creek but must be contained and disposed of off site, at a location designated in the plan. The plan shall also include specific measures to be implemented in the event of a release of a hazardous material into water or onto land. The Contractor shall be required to have on hand at all times adequate absorbent materials and containment booms to handle a spill equivalent to the largest container of fuels or oil in their possession. HAZ-2: ACM and Lead-Based Paint Sampling. Sampling shall be conducted to determine the presence of absence of ACM and lead-based paint. An ACM Investigation shall be performed by an Asbestos Hazardous Emergency Response Act (AHERA) certified inspector under Toxic Substances Contiol Act (TSCA) Title II and certified by Cal Occupational Safety Health Administration (OSHA) under State of California rules and regulations (California Code of Regulations, Section 1529). Surveys for lead-based paint shall be conducted prior to demolition of structures within the project area. Lead-based paint and ACM shall be remediated according to all applicable state and federal regulations. P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 35 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑ requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere sub- ❑ ❑ ❑ stantially 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)? 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 mannerl which would result in substan- tial 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 flood- ing on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑ ❑ ❑ capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage sys- tems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrl de water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 i flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which ❑ ❑ ❑ would impede or redirect flood flows9 i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ injury or death involving flooding, including flooding of as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ Affected Environment: The project site is bounded on the southern and eastern sides of the site by Las Trampas Creek. A drop structure exists in Las Trampas Creek, behind Lot 10, and the creek flows beneath the overpass of Highway 680. The proposed 22 residences for this project would be situated above the top of bank and outside of the structure setback that will be established for the creek. P:\PaulsonLane\FinalInitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 36 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION Las Trampas Creek is a sub-watershed of Walnut Creek,the most significant water body in central Contra Costa County. It is 12.37 miles ink length and flows north and east along the project site toward San Ramon Creek. Walnut Creek is formed by the confluence of these two creeks, and the Walnut Creek watershed flows northward to Suisun Bay(CCCCWP 2004). Currently, drainage sheet flows across the land and over the banks to the creek. Only partial yard drainage systems exist and those release onto the ground surface. The site is generally relatively flat and gently sloping and the streets do not generally exceed 2.5%. Discussion: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? The proposed project would include the construction of nine roadside bio-retention swales and five front-yard bio-planters to mitigate increased levels of stormwater runoff. Runoff from the roof and paved areas of 16 lots, as well as street runoff, will be conveyed to one of the nine grassy (bio- retention) swales situated along the sides of the street. Runoff from the roof and paved areas of 2 lots will be conveyed to a bio retention swale located inside the private drainage easement and will have access through a 15' Contra Costa County Flood Control District(CCCFCD) access easement, serving the drop structure. Swales remove pollutants primarily by filtering runoff slowly through an active layer of soil. Routine maintenance is needed to insure that flow is unobstructed, erosion is prevented and that soils are held together by plant roots and are biologically active. Because the remaining four lits are situated lower than the streetside swales, runoff from the roofs and paved areas of these fourllots will be conveyed individually to five infiltration planters. Planter boxes capture runoff from downspouts or sheet flow from plazas and paved areas. The runoff briefly floods the surface of the box and then percolates through an active soils layer to drain rock below. A Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the project has been prepared by the project civil engineer and reviewed and approved by the County Public Works Department as part of the {Grading and Improvement Plans. County inspection during site preparation and construction lwould confirm the implementation and on-going maintenance of the SWCP and BMPs and other pertinent County requirements related to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-I through HYDRO-3 would ensure regulatory compliance and reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-6 and BIO-7 would ensure compliance with the applicable Water Resources Policies contained in the Contra Costa County General Plan and listed in Section IV of this document. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a nIet 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)? The project would not result in direct additions or withdrawals to existing groundwater; the project would utilize the public water system. Therefore, impacts to groundwater supplies would be less than significant. P:IPaulsonLane\FinallnitialSmdy.doc(3/142006) 37 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION 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? Las Trampas Creek borders 12 of the 22 lots included within the project area. Currently, the property drainage sheet flows downslope to the creek. The proposed bio-retention swales and infiltration planters will catch and treat the majority of the drainage generated by the site; however, these rear yard areas designated as Area 20 on the Storm Water Control Plan(SWCP) will continue to sheet flow over the banks and are not included as a treated area. The impact of erosion due to the continued, but significantly reduced, sheet flow will be minimal because many trees with varied understories exist in these riparian areas above and on the creek bank and these riparian areas provide ample natural area toI filter pollutants and silt fines. These areas will not be developed since they are regulated by the creek structural setback ordinance, in Title 9 of the County Ordinance code. Additionally, if patios,lwalkways,roofs or any impervious surfaces are installed in the yards between the creek structural set back line.and the house, all drainage will flow to catch basins and be routed to the bio-retention facilities provided on the site. Therefore, given the information above, there would be no significant change in either drainage patterns or on-site or off-sitef effects from erosion and siltation. During construction, Bws would be implemented consistent with the stormwater permit issued by the RWQCB, so that on-site and off-site erosion and sedimentation would be controlled to the extent practicable. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1 through HYDRO-3 would ensure regulatory compliance and reduce potential impacts related to erosion and siltation to a level below significance. y, 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? The proposed project would develop the site with 22 residences and associated roadways, driveways and landscaping. The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surface and thus increase the amount of surface runoff from the site. However, the proposed project would include eight bio-retention swales along the roadside and one within the outfall drainage easement to capture and filter stormwater runoff. Five infiltration planters would be constructed within those lots where slope prevents the conveyance of storm water to the roadside swales. This project has minimized roof areas by providing all two-story homes, which results in limited impervious surfaces. Driveway aprons to several homes are short in order to compensate for longer driveways. Most driveways are 18 feet in length, two feet shorter than required in conventional zoning. In addition,the small)yard sizes of these homes limits the size of projects homeowners may construct in the future that would expand impervious surfaces, such as extended patios or concrete barbeque areas. An increase in impervious surfaces by yard expansion is also limited by the creek structure setback line and the existence of heritage trees. Additionally, the minimum five-foot side setbacks provide little opportunity for impervious expansion by the homeowner for storage areas normally utilized in wider side-yards. As compared to other prof Icts with larger lots, the number of lots in this project creates less impervious surfaces per the number of dwelling units and per square foot than a larger project due to the creek structure setback line and drip line coverage from protected trees. Implementation of P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 38 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION l � Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1 through HYDRO-3 would ensure regulatory compliance and reduce potential stormwater impacts to less than significant levels. e) Create or contribute runoff later which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm- water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Refer to Section VIILd above! f Otherwise substantially degra e water quality? Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-I through HYDRO-3 would ensure regulatory compliance and reduce potential water quality impacts to less than significant levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-6 and BIO-7 would ensure compliance with the applicable Water Resources Policies contained in the Contra Costa County General Plan and listed in Section IV of this document. g) Place housing within a 100-year food hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Bound- ary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other food hazard delineation map? Along the southwestern and southeastern boundaries of the project site and Las Trampas Creek, the 100-year flood plain extends between approximately 10 and 50 feet into the project site. No development is proposed in&s area. The rest of the site is in an area determined to be outside the 500-year flood plain per the Contra Costa County FIRM map 060025-290D, effective December 2, 2003. The proposed project would not result in the placement of housing in the 100-year flood _ hazard area h) Place within a 100 year food hazard area structures which would impede or redirect food flows? See Section VIII.g. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, includ- ing f ooding of as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Any flooding on the site would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudf ow? The potential for the project site to be inundated by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow is less than significant. Mitigation Measures: HYDRO-1: BMP Oneration and Maintenance. All accessible street inlets shall be marked with the words "No Dumping! Flows to Bay" and these markings shall be periodically maintained or replaced. Inlets)and pipes conveying stormwater to BMPs will be inspected and maintained as part of BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan. HYDRO-2: Swales and Infiltr tion Planers. Swales and infiltration planters shall be designed and constructed according to the criteria included in the Storm Water Control Plan for the project site. HYDRO-3: Final Landscape iPlan Requirements. Final landscape plans shall consist of pest- resistant plants and plantings appropriate to site soils, slopes, climate, sun, wind, rain, P:\PaulsonLmc\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/142006) _ 39 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 1006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION / land use, air movement, ecological consistency and plant interactions. Final landscape plans shall be designed to minimize irrigation and runoff and to minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to stormwater pollution. Driveways and parking areas shall drain to bio-retention areas or swales and the plantings included within these areas shall be tolerant of the site specific soil and moisture conditions. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and stormwater pollution prevention information shall be provided to new homeowners. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation - Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicabl land use plan, policy, or regula- tion of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (includ- ing, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoninglordinance) adopted for the pur- pose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? I Affected Environment: The General Plan designation for the project site is Single Family. Residential-Medium which allows between 3.0 and 4.9 single family homes per acre. The project is zoned R-6 and R-10. Discussion: a) Physically divide an established community? The proposed project site is surrounded by primarily suburban residential uses. The proposed project can be characterized as infill and would not divide an established community. 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 fol the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? As described above,the General Plan designation for the project site is Single Family Residential- Medium which allows between 3.0 and 4.9 single family homes per acre. The density of the proposed project is 6.4 units per net acre; therefore the proposed project includes an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Diagram to change the land use designation from Single Family Residential Medium to Single Family Residential—High, which allows for a density range of 5.0 to 7.2 units per net acre. With approval of the proposed project and associated General Plan Amendment, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the project site. P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doe(3/142006) 40 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION I � The project site is zoned for, development of residential uses consistent with the R-6 and R-10 zoning designations for the site.The proposed project includes a rezoning from R-6 and R-10 to P-1 Planned Unit District with a variance to allow application of the P-1 district for a residential development involving less than 5 (five) acres. With approval of the proposed project and associated zone change, the proposed project would be in conformance with the zoning regulations for the project site. The Contra Costa County General Plan contains several policies that encourage the preservation of existing native riparian habitat (8-78, 8-80, 8-86, and 8-92) and are provided in the Biological Resources section of this document.The project does not propose to remove any riparian vegetation along Las Trampas Creek; in fact,the Tree Mitigation and Existing Tree Plan (Figure 4) depicts the locations of 54 riparian corridor supplemental plantings that will be sited along the creek. Thus, the project is in accordance with the riparian preservation policies included in the Contra Costa County General Plan and no mitigation measures are necessary. The City of Walnut Creek's Creek Restoration and Trail Plan shows a trail connection along Las Trampas Creek to Olympic Boulevard. Although the future trail connection is shown in the City's Trail Master Plan, which was adopted in 1993, it is not identified in any County planning document,including the Courity's General Plan (2005-2020). Additionally,the trail is not identified in the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, which was adopted in December of 2003 by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, following an extensive collaborative planning effort involving the nineteen cities in the County, the County, the East Bay Regional Park District, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and bicycle and pedestrian advocacy groups. The - County is obligated by law to rely on policies in its own General Plan, or other plans to which it is a party to, as the basis upon which it requires dedications of easements for trail corridors. It is for this reason that the County is unable to find a policy basis to help establish the nexus between the requested extension of the trail,and the approval of the Paulson Lane project. In addition, the topography of the site and location of surrounding roadways present challenges for using this site as an appropriate location for a trail that links downtown Walnut Creek to the Lafayette/Moraga trail. c) Con,Jlict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The project site is not subject to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Mitieation Measures: None required. P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 41 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION � I Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCESi Would the project: 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 min- ❑ ❑ ❑ eral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Affected Environment: No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Discussion: 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. No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on r a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? See Section X.a. Mitigation Measures: None required. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact -Impact XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess ❑ ❑ ❑ of standards established inIthe local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or I generation of excessive ground ❑ ❑ ❑ bome vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in ❑ ❑ ❑ the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? P:\PaulsonLme\Finallnitial5tudy.doc(3/14/2006) 42 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION /f MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION 1 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 pub- lic airport or public use airport, would 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, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Affected Environment: An Environmental Noise Survey was completed for the proposed project by Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc. in December 2004 and is available for public review at Contra Costa County. The discussion below summarizes the findings of the study. Present Noise Environment. The primary source of environmental noise in the project vicinity is Interstate-680 (I-680)vehicular traffic. A noise survey was conducted for.the project site.At a height of 5 feet,the 24 hour average noise level(DNL)generally ranged from 60 to 65 DNL,which is consistent with expectations due to shielding of 1-680 traffic noise introduced by both the sound wall built by Caltrans and by natural barrier effects created by the prevailing terrain features. At 15 feet high,however,the level of noise varied throughout the site,,exceeding 70 DNL near the northwest corner of the project site. The higher levels of noise in this area are due primarily to the premature interruption of the Caltrans sound barrier at a distance of approximately 150 feet east of the east edge of Olympic Boulevard and of the inappropriate height of the barrier in an area where the terrain on the northern edge of Paulson Lane slopes downward. Future Predicted Noise. Since the noise environment is dominated by I-680 traffic, changes in traffic volume would directly affect the level of ambient noise at the site. According to the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) data provided by Caltrans, an increment in volume of approximately 15% is expected between the years 2000 and 2010. As most of the noise exposure at the site is due to freeway traffic and not to Olympic Boulevard traffic, the expected future increases in traffic volume along Olympic Boulevard are not expected to noticeably change the overall noise environment within the site. According to the noise study (WilsIL Ihrig & Associates, Inc. 2004), the resulting increase in ambient noise level based on year 2010 traffic volumes would be less than one decibel (dB). These results apply to a future no-build condition. With the buildings in place, however, shielding effects to be introduced by the intervening structures would significantly reduce the level of exterior noise at the site, particularly for those homes located beyond the first Tow of homes closest to 1-680, including existing homes on the south side of Las Trampas Creek. Discussion: 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? P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/142006) 43 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION Yom. As described above,the primary source of environmental noise in the project vicinity is traffic on I- 680.Results of the noise survey show that the 24 hour average noise level (DNL)ranged from 60 to 65 DNL at a height of 5 feet land from 60 to 70 at a height of 15 feet. These levels are just slightly higher than those considered"Normally Acceptable"under Contra Costa County standards and in a few areas are within the range of "Conditionally Acceptable." Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 would reduce potential impacts to a level below significance. b) Exposure of persons to or g I neration of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Construction of the proposed project would require excavation and earthwork activities. Although these activities could result in infrequent periods of high noise, this noise would not be sustained and would occur only during the temporary construction period. No pile driving or other construction activity that would generate very high noise levels or ground borne vibration would occur within the project site. ,Therefore,this impact is considered less-than-significant. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The long-term use of the project is residential. This land use would not generate high ambient noise levels. Conservative estimates for the increases in noise on the project site as a result of increase in traffic levels on I-680 due tol increases in background traffic are one dB. No substantial long-term increase in ambient noise levels is expected as a result of project implementation. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project could temporarily increase ambient noise levels. However, these noise levels would occur in association with minor excavation and earthwork activities, would be intermittent and short term, and would not be considered significant. 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? The County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan includes noise contours from aircraft operations at Buchanan Field. The project site is not in a zone of increased noise from the airport, the 55 dB contour is located approximately 3,600 feet from the site, east of I-680. The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. J) 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? See Section XI.e,above. Mitigation Measures: NOISE-1: Final Noise Study. Prior to recordation of Final Map, a final noise study shall be prepared and submitted to the County for review and approval. The final noise study shall specify appropriate construction details and building shell components to ensure the project meets all Contra Costa County l noise level requirements. Building plans shall carry out all the recommendations of the approved report. P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialSmdy.doc(3114/2006) 44 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.Would the project: a) Induce substantial populatii n growth in an area, either �] directly (for example, by proposing new homes and busi- nesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, D necessitating the construction of replacement housing else- where? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 0 construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Affected Environment: The proposed project site is located within unincorporated Contra Costa County. The designated use of the project site is residential. Discussion: 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 infrastruc- ture)? The proposed project would develop the site with 22 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 60 persons (22 x 2.72 = 59.84). The additional 60 residents represent less than one tenth of one percentlof Contra Costa County's existing population, which was 948,816 in 2000 according to the US Census. In addition, the project site Is within the Urban Limit Line and the proposed project would not induce any population growth beyond that anticipated for the area. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Although there are currently individuals residing in the several existing homes located on the property,the project applicant includes these individuals.Therefore,the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing else- where? See Section XII.b,above. P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 45 LSA ASS OCIATES, INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION Mitigation Measures: None required. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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: Fire protection? Police protection? Ll L) N L Schools? Q E L) y Parks? U 0 LJ Other public facilities? 0 Q Affected Environment: The proposed project would be located on a suburban infill site that is already served by public service systems. Discussion: 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: Fire protection,police protection, schools,parks, other public facilities? The proposed project would result in an increase of 22 residences on the project site. The level of public services required for the site would be similar or slightly greater than the level currently demanded. As part of the building permit review process, all 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. P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 46 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 1006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION r� r Mitigation Measures: None required. Potentially - Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact -Impact XIV. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or otherl 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? Affected Environment: The proposed project.would include 22 single-family residences and increase the population on the site by approximately 60 persons. The proposed residences would include rear yards, and the project would include undeveloped areas along Las Trampas Creek. Discussion: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recrea- tional facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accel- erated? The increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result of the proposed project would not be such that substantial physical deterioration of these facilities would occur or be accelerated. The payment of in-lieu fees (required for residential development and totaling approximately $44,000 for a 22-unit project) would further reduce potential impacts related to the provision of parks. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recrea- tional facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed project does not include construction of-recreational facilities nor require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Mitigation Measures: No additional measures required. P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doe(3/14/2006) 47 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CEPA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to ❑ ❑ ❑ the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity, ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service ❑ ❑ ❑ standard established by the county congestion management agency on designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ sharp curves or dangerous in or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ parking inadequate Result in inade capacity? f � 9 P g P �'? ❑ ❑ ❑ � g) Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? Affected Environment: A Transportation Study was prepared for the proposed project by Omni-Means,Ltd. in October 2004 and is available for public review at Contra Costa County. The discussion below summarizes the findings of the study. Streets that provide access to and around the project site include Paulson Lane,Newell Avenue, Olympic Boulevard, Alpine Road, and South California Boulevard. Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 680 (I-680) and State Route 24. Detailed descriptions of these streets are included in the Transportation Study(Omni-Means,Ltd.2004). Traffic engineers and planners use I he concept of Level of Service (LOS)to qualitatively describe traffic conditions. LOS ranges from LOS A, which describes free flow or ideal conditions with little or no delay; to LOS F, indicating problems where traffic flow exceeds design capacity. Based on discussions with Contra Costa County Transportation staff, six intersections were selected for evaluation. New AM and PM peak period (7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m.) turning movement counts were conducted at the six study intersections by Omni-Means, Ltd. From these peak period counts, the AM and PM peak hour volumes were derived using the accepted methodology for Contra Costa County and the City of Walnut Creek. P:TaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 48 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ^\ MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION i I According to the Transportation Study (Omni-Means, Ltd. 2004), all project study intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels (LOS D or better) during both the AM and PM peak hours. Vehicle congestion (queuing) wast observed at the Olympic Boulevard/1-680 northbound ramps and Olympic Boulevard/Alph e Foad intersections during both the AM and PM peak hours. Due to recent upgrades in signal timing and coordination at these intersections by the City of Walnut Creek, most of these vehicle queues clear the intersections within one signal cycle phase. Future base (near-term) conditions represent existing traffic conditions plus anticipated traffic generated by approved and/or pending development over the next three to five years. These would include projects located in Contra Costa County and the City of Walnut Creek. Future base traffic conditions do not include traffic volumes generated by the proposed project. With future base traffic added to existing traffic volumes, study intersection LOS would remain unchanged from existing conditions. The Olympic Boulevard/South California Boulevard intersection would experience the largest increase in vehicle trips from future base projects and wouldcontinue to operate at LOS A during the PM peak hour. Discussion: 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)? According to the Transportation Study (Omni-Means, Ltd. 2004), the proposed project would generate 268 daily vehicle trips with 21 AM peak hour trips and 28 PM peak hour trips. With proposed project traffic added to future base traffic volumes, study intersection LOS would remain unchanged from future base (no project)conditions. The Olympic Boulevard/I-680 southbound off- ramp/Paulson Lane intersection would experience the largest increase in vehicle trips from future base projects but would continue to operate at LOS A. b) Exceed, either individually J, cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency or designated roads or highways? Implementation of the proposed project would add approximately 268 daily vehicle trips with 21 AM peak hour trips and 28 PM peak hour trips to the local roadways. This increase would not exceed a level of service standard established by the Contra Costa County Congestion Management Agency. As described above,) with proposed project traffic added to future base traffic volumes, study intersection LOS would,-remain unchanged from future base(no project) conditions. 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? The project site is located I approximately eight (8) miles south of the Buchanan Airport. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a change to air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersec- tions) or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? The project site would be accessed from Olympic Boulevard with home sites located off of Paulson Lane. The proposed residential units would be served by short courts and a circular loop connecting to Paulson Lane. The Fire District has reviewed the proposed road configuration and is satisfied that it meets their standards. As outlined in the project description, a temporary pike tum around would be constructed during Phase I to allow emergency vehicles and other automobiles to exit the site until the circular loop road 1s completed. The temporary pike turn around would be removed P:\PaulsonLanc\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 49 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION upon completion of Phase II. The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. e) Result in inadequate emerge cy access? Emergency vehicles could access the site via the internal loop road. As described in Section XV.d. above, a temporary hammerhead would be constructed during Phase I to allow emergency vehicles and other automobiles to exit!the site until the circular loop road is completed. The proposed project would have adequate emergency access. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? The proposed project would provide parking capacity consistent with the County Zoning Ordinance. In addition to the code requirement of 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, the project would include 19 parking stalls to compensate for the narrow road widths that would inhibit street parking: five of these stalls would be placed at the entrance to the site, along Paulson Lane, and the remaining 14 would be distributed throughout the site and set back from the street. Each residence would include a two-car garage . g) Conflict with adopted police), plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The project does not conflict with adopted policies or programs supporting alternative transportation. Mitigation Measures: _ None required. ~- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste- ❑ ❑ ❑ water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environ- mental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water ❑ ❑ ❑ drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environ- mental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project ❑ ❑ ❑ from existing entitlements)and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/142006) 50 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC, CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment pro- vider which serves or may serve the project that it has ade- quate capacity to serve thelproject's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, State,( and local statutes and regula- tions related to solid waste? Affected Environment: The proposed project would be located on a suburban infill site that is already served by utilities and public service systems. Proposed fuses on the site would include 22 residences. The level of public services required for the site would be similar to or slightly greater than the.level currently demanded. Construction of new facilities related to provision of utilities would not be required as a result of the proposed project. Discussion: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? The implementation of the proposed project would not lead to an exceedance of 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 existingfacilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? See XVI.a, above. 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? As described in Section VIII.I Hydrology and Water Quality,the proposed project would include the construction of nine roadside bio-retention swales and five front-yard infiltration planters to mitigate increased levels of stormwater runoff. Runoff from the roof and paved areas of 16 lots, as well as street runoff, will be(conveyed to one of the nine grassy swales situated along the sides of the street. Runoff from the roof and paved areas of 2 lots will be conveyed to a grassy swale located _ inside the private drainage easement and will have access through a 15' Contra Costa County Flood Control District (CCCFCD) access easement, serving the drop structure. Swales remove pollutants primarily by filtering runoff slowly through an active layer of soil. Routine maintenance is needed to insure that flow is unobstructed, erosion is prevented and that soils are held together by plant roots and are biologically active. Because the remaining four lots are situated lower than the streetside swales, runoff from the roofs and paved areas of these four lots will be conveyed individually to five infiltration planters. Planter boxes capture runoff from downspouts or sheet flow from plazas and paved areas. The runoff P:U'aulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/1412006) 51 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 1006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION I briefly floods the surface of the box and then percolates through an active soils layer to drain rock below. A Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the project has been prepared by the project civil engineer and reviewed and approved by the County Public Works Department as part of the Grading and Improvement Plans. County inspection during site preparation and construction would confirm the implementation and on-going maintenance of the SWCP and BMPs and other pertinent County requirements related to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1 through HYDRO-3 would ensure regulatory compliance and reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.No other mitigation measures are required. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? The proposed project would,be located on a suburban infill site that is already served by public service systems. The proposed project would include 22 new residences on the project site. The level of public services required for the site would be similar to or slightly greater than the level currently demanded. As part of the building permit review process, all departments and agencies responsible for providing services would be consulted to determine their ability to provide services to proposed development projects. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the pro- ject that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the pro- 1 vider's existing commitments? See XVI.d, above. J) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? See XVI.d,above. g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Recycling receptacles would be provided within the project site, in accordance with all statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Mitigation Measures: None required. P:1PaulsonLanclFinalinitia)Study.doc(3/142006) 52 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 1006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the p Itential to degrade the quality of 0 L Ll 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 impor- tant examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, U L1 N L1 but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively consider- able"means that the incremental effects of a project are con- siderable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will Q Ll 0 ' cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 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-sus- taining 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 per- iods of California history or prehistory? As described in Section IV, the proposed project could adversely affect special status plants and animals. However, implementation of Mitigation.Measures 13I0-1 through BIO-11 would ensure that impacts to these species fare reduced to less-than-significant levels. As described in Section V., Cultural Resources, there are no identified cultural resources within the site, and it is unlikely that resources would be uncovered during the construction period. Implementation of the proposed project would not: 1) degrade the quality of the environment;2)substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; 3) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; 4)threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 5)reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or 6) 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 viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects ofprobable future)projects.) The impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would result in the development of 22 residential units in suburban Contra Costa County. All environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project would P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/14/2006) 53 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION 1 C be reduced to aless-than-significant level through implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The proposed project would result in no environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings. REPORT PREPARERS LSA Associates,Inc. 57 Park Place Point Richmond, CA 94801 Laura LafleT,Principal Shauna Guiler, Senior Planner Kristin Granback,Assistant Planner Other Preparers Tom Packard,Principal,Tom Packard &Associates(Visual Assessment) John Oborne, Senior Planner,Contra Costa County i� P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/142066) 54 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEOA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2006 PAULSON LANE SUBDIVISION I 1 BIBLIOGRAPHY ADR Environmental Group,Inc.2004.Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. September 23. Aliquot Associates,2005.Storm Water Control Plan for Paulson Lane Subdivision 8939, Contra Costa County, CA. Archeo-Tec Consulting Archaeologists. 2004.Phase I Cultural Resources Evaluation.June 17. California Department of Transport)tion, California Scenic Highway Program --httn://www.dot.ca.gov/ hq/LandArch/scenic/schwy l.html Camp& Camp Associates,2005. 1ree Mitigation and Existing Tree Plan. May,23. City of Walnut Creek.2004.Letter to the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator Re:Pre-Application Review Submittal#PR 040028 Paulson Lane.August 25. Contra Costa,County of.2005. Contra Costa County 2005 General Plan. Contra Costa County Clean Water Program, 2004. Contra Costa Creeks Inventory and Watershed Characterization Report: httn://www.cccleanwater.o.-g/ ndfs/Creeks Inventorv.ndf Earthtec Ltd.,2004 Preliminary GeI technical Study Paulson Lane Residential Subdivision.December 8. Joseph McNeil Consulting Arborist.2004. Tree Survey&Report,Paulson Lane, Walnut Creek, California.December 10. LSA Associates,Inc.20u-)..Air QuI lity Analysis Paulson Lane.December. Mosaic Associates LLC.2004.Biological Resources Report Paulson Lane Residential Development, Unincorporated Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County. October 20. Mosaic Associates LLC.2005.Bo I ical Survey Results,Paulson Lane, Walnut Creek,Contra Costa County.April 19. Omni Means,Ltd.2004.Transportation Study for the Proposed Paulson Lane Residential Project. October. Wilson, Ihrig& Associates,Inc.2004. Environmental Noise Survey Results and Preliminary Recommendations. December 10. P:\PaulsonLane\FinallnitialStudy.doc(3/142006) 55 APPENDIX MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 1 O G .,. V C O N O ' o cQ) <oz v ,�•o o coo- Mc y Mc � a?w ami ami a. oi E s0. ..00 tO O N ,Z ; tYOC 'd G waOAZ 'F td 0 C G U N v v z d M tC O w t O G C G o m< [ OD C Gy O Z p C y N b0 "' LO, � "a C � N a � '+'3 O C y C O Ob o ° E cs o ? w g vG o o a a Ivo wo N o v N � rn� E °° 03 0 0 G o .0. rZ O Qy ¢ pp dry " cd y p C . o o pj e e t4 0 � v YO O � r. C U s cd o °o° q o ° U a"i ^ o F .. Z a t''°3 0 • '> G ttb w x �°' os ;> a v Q � ¢ eg H 4° o oO v S t G v CL HO y N t O O 0. p •C d N w A N c -0 2 � ,. v o o a ¢ ., o " a 'G _ W H Ccy Tf �^ N r ¢ o e3 E �'C�l {� Co ai CIO U W g E .�Y <o�4 o>o zyoO 7 Zmoi 0 z x WZo O O M.'4 a o 5 L Udo O O o °L � F z Z o o y � c O C b o a+ O § � �3 < 9Is " '00 O Y CFi 0 'rte'., 0 'O h� R E a ° > c a1 m SaS+ x �' h L C•0 LCI U c (n •S .�Oj 7 Q v as '� '3 N o a o •'c '9 m ° '�s °' n o ai rn C*y ° rp � N$ o . w 'fl aE � `c cOa " O o > 0 C o .�. .� • o` ° ..Lo ca �' " nc •j .c o -- L = d y y G ep La m �iL ❑ _ La _�y ona � a .D � � � � w -o _ a.g4Q Q :o h 45 .= 42 ICU yH o 11 0 0 C e„ S +� 7 T+ ° p 0 Y S S Y m T L ' tv ° La — nc " 3m ° mss E- E'y :� ° N is y oa, bD r„ sY. = b .b co aa � ap _ � on � ° L 'LA 00 c mY '� a 'bs m,�',.,S c� •> t ^fl ° H UL C Sbb n .5Cq E ti o r vis v 'cw .c o d — z 18 E a Lw° 3 a O rn NLZI 04 0 tz R�4 °' �s w- - oq � •=� c' api o s § a, c' _ L L U c y v 'D '_ .n m yi a.Vi a ° to S Q W L � y b0 ma p G7 •p _a v� W N N d � y •x -� y U v W, m 0 o L c api 'c g a ° w Y 'O •� s u m > o c"a 9. ` d ca O 0 h b ro � m �" o - c � s ° ° $ ° sip so _ s loco � :x ° ❑ c o a o`n F- a m La '� o YE v H a ':. p •N N N .� a ° O N 4n _' i 17 aOL+ 0 ° y `' U L N h F• Z O.G C �. L '�O bi h L O O O C d O A ' V Cw� ° •-• Or E itip'e:.t F3�e:. M ioz daa � W mk 2m �. azF O Lw mx0 N L' oNk mar «m Up0 Z U � k O F h Z x O U X O � x � O � F � � X d L � ao > c . y 1 O � tNC y 3 N R .p y � .... G•r3 y0 O c`� C N N N CI..N N p- C1. G 6 Q o zs •T V VH" b4 � "S w N N °..�. J 'MO' •t1. > 'O ° .UQ� � .y— O y O O N N U6 y0 yN ° O v U O G p O w �� V� U EE +td N'` O RN •n > y '7 "" a) r i2 4 F N N . v c O 7 Q .O Ll tirL3 t`y d Vs `s m r • y � N y 'C • • • • • • • ' N • W d i� Ot W•j iU <a �X � O PWN Z�U F .r m'Un O Yyr y Y � G O u i-" �,•gyp±. .�%.:: V.� . aF° Gt mm Y J O Y 4 S+ Z i•i N <, •iYea O y � � � G N G •.. `cd Q �-� N ao -Dq ... 3wx� �•ew . tz R p A �� L� J O .�.. D ."+ �''C;p aJ+ p � N a C� ,U q yn, ° m•�.`1 y J q W mL J J s Un O y 0-0 ty N ✓ N N'OA N yL�" D J a r .9 F 'O w o � � Noq Nva3a fj7 a+ .. � CT Y7•, O O � ,G •C W D � t.. % F' � � o my µ,•�� � � N a m Vi i4al °' E y- o Cy N �4 d N � � ✓ i` fi y .m.. J ^mD Ow •� W N O O .d✓+ ✓ O i w0 N "� O L W1 C. m O O t� G ?ti m � � v i a ••� O i G mom. J q C :� : • •�' Y d q m a °) ry y•ca 'D qy E b15 O VJ w m m w m •'� 0 0 E ;j q N y 0 R N Yi q D W i a w ✓"�" R p Nei m G 'D ✓ w.s.� .a � y � J q C 'O � N O m � m is C,.) U A � � V E '�S Yl w � �""" O E J i A✓ J � w PJ. w Q i r U c j On u 4i N Z 0 U U Zn r p A C bU h4yF CL•Q U V I � D .Qr M •O aon a c o o UCO <<o N N b6 V y G 'CS V U N O Jo o CC y w bll YO `� O 1�.• ,ft. < .. p 2 'Q0 p-0p U y, U Y N p pp w Si C �OO+•. U O 0 C3. w "❑ ❑ U .j G°—N bA X03 OI y O. of r- N > C •� .U9 w O it O�'^ 0. N V O ❑ bD y Y Q+ tC w N, C d s'17.+ N d 9D acd 0 m ❑ . o v o o U ❑ a�' ayi > 3 � Ea °mcsop � o °i� a'Y' oGyva❑ ¢ ° d N N 0 0 C/1 O "w p 0 a a. .- .D in Vt U G '6 V �„ �C) Y 7. 0 O. F .Or a _ T ❑� O a p•wM " i3 'N Y v a> . ..3 .O p, °� L� > G ❑ aNi O G O T1 ^' d o Noo o n > ° �❑� yczy °' Cti d 2 ca u Qy �^oo ❑ p a^ Boo ❑ ❑ cy ❑ cs: ta bN = tj u C N n ? g ° " Y w •�- '0. O �'NO N 'V ❑ O N N � N i+ N N Q u C •a `� � .�' � " > � � "G G Tag; W O •NU„ Y03 -CC OCL Y ^� a.O '� ea ai vi ❑ '- U Y •ri � i. Cfi � i Q 3 un ° o U ONDcc N o Y 'y •O'CS " o V d p`. fi w •❑�- W stn C 0 0 cl G ❑ CQ .. 7 ❑ N p � W O d ,��O p a 0 C 43 is N v, o d - ❑^ N � WU. m •❑ U Y C aD rz a rr a y h •" w = eNp p O y W 6! CO ❑ LV C I AA"6 Vl �" @ • 06 v W Y N . •U C C C d O'U U N w (n Ug ON � n5 <U i� j2< p <Oz K� O; >> 0;0 _ L pm< L a1 O 7 7 Z O O O O m O ° U U W U U Z C < O F F Z O O z c vba O a N N iC — ea °' Y c •0 v � o m s N s o N s ° s a w abo M o r Cr, �' c c N o O b 'Q'> ai w o N o w o Q a>i 3 0 o a y a ° 0 a ❑ a ° c o .° .� d Z' h i° >' c L a E C 0 U o c c ro o a • $ 0 .� > .0 E D •� a a 0 .00 0 .v c _ z 'Ev ° E t u •> o a• ? '> ° a E a E Q - ° > o u c c v U h R Q v o° a ° = s a d y — U N >, N N N C W to = N 'O = c y v o w° t .4 Y .c Cd Cd Ds 5w ybn . N ++ U O c •-Oi aW m D cae N � � N � � N •U y N � � �w m a� � ... � � n, s � 3 .9 o C N N o y N a V o 0 6 ,may •D U c R .. a s v > ami F ° a`ai N iG w •yw a. � a=i o � N ,wr '2 y ° " `o � •a � YE � o � a� c _ s LA y �' N N ate.. •; G W N E 0 � N ItS F N O r.+ = v = .t.+ cd N ° y U ."' N N = yy'3, O ? O _ U ° o 0. D bo u tw° actli d W aEi cn°a ° N y o y y F z c = ` ° ° ° N U o t m U o U 6 ] E o •- N U o ° E o _ E -o N m ° w v °c° C4 aci c v N = o u E 3 = � a a �� fi b = to -0, -5: ^� 0 0 o R � n`n 0 —o M v � ` 0 > < X 7 O s C O i > N p wO U O N e N s ¢ >, N 0.1 w U �a d s 3 c .. o o„ �xtz r ° w �4 N 0 ao; aP+ UU � UUa' °'m4 'N C A �.•u z.m0. O •V � � 9 as [-0 G O o.p Z 4 y U Q Y H@ R O rl p T 6 p O G �' O Yr N A G•U 'y Q � •�, y O 9 b o °on 0 p $ C < % 'z p � v 't1 N N CY U iO 6) �" A U K G *- G •~✓„ N 9 q 0 d y0 N• N V 'O N N N O• o tz¢• Q p'u� R u �' N �'L4� 7 L r• @ N .'tipp t+ O tj•V G+ O O V N � J A p N v N .�. � C) � E) Qr' a' 2'+id'O N id G P' to G�Q'�'+ 'Y N lC fd ✓Q ' Oy y p N rw .3 O '•� i Y a+ �' a•+ .° .G l0 G F t4 G J O y 7 Y w G 'O y OSS G ! N d N SZ 4 Lw•4� O J N y� V 'O E"' A O W V .0'0to ✓ r O N N N wo t° r o r-o — :rs ' y ° p O ¢. e� ). ¢ 'n y O ca YD N ` A Y E y a) �O„ ` '4 �' G• G'"Q •Q A O aQ oo y w d O N O CS e w �, 'y C* b �, 7 5a N Cd yY i d O fY 'E" .4 .'S ,L' N V ✓ i r•Gi� KiV.. A G ' •U G's.25 O N +O C� `cd S"' al OO.O `�_,. p5 ••:, '.^M cdto O t7 i ✓ '� O G .� .ty �" •✓ i Y G N Ir- td a Q � � y cC Op .n U .Q� `� N G• G � '3 N ^O N OA �_ U d G •td ts 4) J G y g r4 G• •� N G a) y ��O, O °) G OV ci? .G+ �d'' ..•cC `d"` w a �cC O a UU31 .y •N y O µ G F�D d N N d G O Y L D q T p D O r G dO 4a � om Oa 4U 4 ag 1 <o z O O 47 + K,hi Z+ �+ 3.p' -`�C C o.m R ❑ rRw r- O r. O ou Z.noo -0 QI a ❑ %_ ❑ C ' �a mzh p ttlW R ed .^, O. z O -m N y i. N W N w d O.^ O 0 0 sz0 - �N�/ U U O O O U U O U O O FrM R �•N R R v R a ❑ O .n ❑ • C U p d z.0 u ¢ U iU ¢ U ❑, a O t• z z z O O U ❑ ,. z G d O O O O La U U U U F R y ❑ O Q R pr R sar Q R q [tl '3 A i s .0y d C m a"i ❑' ° d 6 pOi ❑ O U O L d U L R N O N L R 7 E N a - VJ O w 'F+ Ry R U Y+ ❑. N ❑ L r N N C ° F a � � 12a n � caR � 0a = Eiaa°>i � aE � v E o E R °� " ° o Q o 'bq o x . C) ❑ gs B EY ° tea o O rbN cd $ ¢ xC$EE o = O =a •`—L° ' Nn.`- EsENLN° Cc to E m a N 00L b0 0 U i U C) 0 U O ❑ ❑ L U O, 0 0 ❑ L N r R 0 C LA R Y U R N a ❑ L R 'y N ❑ R R U O ❑ y ..❑ L td II. X _. O O •�;, 'N O N N j 0 ° U w N C U N �., s ted..L b0 N R 'a x O CL R. O R O U ❑� O ° r- N o 3 ss .E a _ a U 0 "- O LO =O = 0 L bo w- ° n ° ro ❑ � Y N ' o _ '� = c >, O ;m c C Y N bpo _ Y o ❑ w R c a J.. y N c c X m a o v m a o E ❑ a° a °a R y . 3 m o N R L tl R = d �L N N !2 L ;a'-.�°s" tYOV = C 3 3 �.y troa N v o0 s W .b L itl R rr :, M O R E ., pp 0.. O a> C oj y � oa � oja �°Oa = ° oNa °aL' .� � oO4 ooL' X .ga°� ai i d Y a F `° N ;:. .E a on R .R ° m .b❑_p•- c o °' a G O > ❑ '. ❑ L :� O '� aLi R .❑ �' R R N ;j iC U °w F ❑ $ M ;'o ° s N ..` s _ s ° o ai E a ¢ E g 1 U o " R N RN� C7 Pt rl rl rl ptPy .� t• a''O G�•G5 Oo UrU z O a^ G G> lit i.N N O R •^" F G gyp+ 4`, Y R � R N W DGj N pp i O�n„ R � u' y 'F4. (� w ,e R o r, f O ✓° 0' ti.�-' N R J � N,� F G U .'� GO � GO jid GO Nr✓ "' � d d .. ^ � G �, � •Jp 43 o F J r d•O N•'y 0 �,-`• N o F "V' {'x..°,�.'p. O Q -6 GCC G G 'R Y i G r Y G ✓ N b�^ O '"; r Q G 7 bA G 'C 'N v� �.!� N 00 N ob N .y >G, G Gi J Y F.+ .� > G J Y J J 0 0 d R f" „d Rob R U+ o ^O N +y •Y cGV �'' i Y R w0 rC'C d C6 7 J d w 'O v�N y ��R i O *.{.'�, a i O O.r ra'4 N R 4 F � V 4 pp✓ Y '• Z'F G y.. O N G y J\�, °U y J 'y� •C .cy Q, a: R O,. O ✓ S"}r y G O N O N (d Wc. h R R ' •, J G 'O ✓ �,.,, 3 ...'Y 'N ,R R d ,N,,," 0' f0 7 �. G� R y y U W G6 U J 2 M W H W o« v W� <U I� O O � o yx ° v+ () t O Z .Y U O •`Aw @ o-o A >pavo rl � Ui .Ln U U o wx° p,pU 109 t y mfr 4 U uo-v O F G z ,w U �•7 4"" w .- � N bfl y (,1. J U Nate. M N G w LY G Uqq •j G J N R. fit` ". .. p, c� y cp v 9 O 'O ? d m 3 0 ° F wd Jsoc' v G �. ° Oy O3 d zr,+a U i G C•C F O � U C /. �N Ud op C� qMg d w•�`� Y i3'. '.. q N " Y J ° fl•N v Y g J A ,Nw A xi 10 id V. oD N 9 0 y@ A W F N �. G O @'"'`' � N d r ':^�..W O i .r -� G � @ o��✓ � i y .ry `i' ^ %"6 O' O b0 cd O '" •RO u' „O Z y U 4' " id ✓ O '.'p LIZ G, i O N N„!' CG •JG, L�+ G r y�� G p Ji iz i Uy., .J..A O O y°,, U1 w 7 i '.w-, O O Y � S� G A N T reg, CC F �p Ga O O G trd G d q N oO G N i �. y^� N�!y ap wU„ N., tily�f«,. 25 p6 0 GO �fY y, ✓ K p+ G Y a� epi � 'j' Jy O[1 Y C p(} N y � � � q c6 � r G o� � � p a� �«� �'t5F F r M � i U q aFi � � °� Y � .,�+ � +„✓ p' N v N .J.. �",•y' J � � �w G � � O � � OS T �1'. w �•• G'$ �. @ G OO U O q ✓ C �' N ¢ N q °U •bp cd N .9 O O w O O .N�',: w ;S F O N F ¢A G O d G '� A� � v Ot.YJ..•� U a G �p FO w r G R q` & N O FO t..1 � .y+ O O 7 6'L i 9 C+ O T N O OL. A•.� J � N �••' G '.'+ q N O J N U U G '" m G �^.. �.+ N v' A y N w G iy ." r ♦ "3 J O +U� w J ¢. @i. @ N O U y^ R J DD U O y✓U°.�+ d�oUfZ VOu` R 4 b7 1@1 tGo.@J+.-0}"'•2.i.&e^`�.¢ °..'@moi✓(FJI 3 AT u O✓ G@ O N 00 N G 'zo qqC ' 0N M N ! .0 O rRN U U O n c vas° oN ci p•�' t'? w r V a 0 r "x <U <°t N Z 1 O? d 'C3 4 aoo CC+ ° o bR y C - G t "'.. N ❑ A. �� +�+ R+ y y •v �C 'CS .0 3 c a; a E o o � � bo 2 c o� s c6 d fn a? CL m � aJ � .. ca �o a.� � a x•34. I w Y � s •> JE ° � '� � ° may `° '" c .�, � cao E ° UNc ° 5 � o °'° 4cm � ovd, NWo5' ob :�a JOyRon oo O O .0 C G -0 r`i"+ U O.Ln �") O ttz C G A [n •Dpp tn XO- � d > � c ai � a� m � t�. � o w".' T� a`ai o y ��` �� E "' •n � y � c d � RC) R � 4NUQ. � ga � o c � N� a � °°a a C..o ••. w0 Ty •d E N b 'C y !n .a !✓' „��'' py, C� 'C V•y y �”. bl f1 (n lJis E O .Jr N � GO � G Y, N dl `.�, '�' 0— L'+. ?G W C O w E y n m o a R o cPi cd JJo ' { 'Cs . v as ° GN v J W •V L of ns .O 03uO� bOFd E� tdJRyg ar NrO 0R -tip 'A —cd d yUR° Cn .O T -0 C nO ca ono § r- Ty .G C RC 1 YerC• 'OG6D yq 0 N^ O L a� L� S> w UEa°ic c ° � o -0tnOM c Edu �•c �°°° zp cx'� ¢v).U0 n.N t,3 'OCr ya O 20' a <e N Uw N `x O Q ate! <U I 1� i ;t . N � r - 0 U � O R z w ,fl U y,00 U '. F I- 40 j<Q on 0.0 F Q Y< is N w G Q ol cl A A u • OA PA C�A PA d ... 9•() G U p \ p G 4 `� m y ,. .a .y, G d O D G d �d 25 ,9 7 ^NOG � R O N r N ON• 7d (1^ .G N d i• � � � � �' O i�6n O YA O °� C�• p `�. bn�0, � .°.Y� i i w N P• V i D G .E�gy t"' U d td fj Y � i�lY N O (l1 N I ���`•� Y Q F d G ��C�y Y� 'on N G•N �. O d .D✓VA wcw�oCd•� Q•poY � "Gcs ia �DRooU � � r YG y "" Dfl•4 'yG r i d N d •i N d N �r A•p .4 N@ � N �O �� N N YG Dn y '. O• N �, •r✓ 4' id G V N 7 \. d G i 00 V A O �• ° 'v is � O V �, a N N a 9• °> cG V '� Q A W o �'�. Atj O 'O G i P• A G N'd Yb ✓ O � 1�, v+ c6 �u* O N •'� O '� �a N i •o m � �.°.� R s� o o c c � 0 3. -da ..0 a�D w� °' � Y �. 'a •"a q G o o:'y Y '"' W ON N U e5 W � m N W U`� �0 m� 5 �U f Exhibit 5 May 9, 2006 Staff Report to the County Planning Commission i Agenda Item# t - Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2006 Paulson Lane Subdivision L INTRODUCTION BNB VENTURES, LLC. (Applicant), J. VUICH & BNB VENTURES, LLC (Owners), County Files GP04-0009, I RZ04-3153, SD04-8939 & DP04-3119: Applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Major Subdivision and a Final Development Plan as follows: A. General Plan Amendment #GP04-0009: Change the General Plan land use designation from Single Family Residential Medium-Density (SM) to Single-Family Residential High-Density(SH); and B. Rezoning #RZ04-3153: Rezone the project site from R-6, Single Family Residential and R-10, Single Family Residential to P-1 Planned Unit District, with a variance to allow application of the P-1 district for a residential development involving less than --' 5 (five) acres;-and C. Maior Subdivision #SD04-8939: Subdivide the project site into 22 single-family residential lots in 2 phases; and D. Final Development Plan #DP04-3119: Develop 22 single-family residential lots in 2 phases. The project site is approximately 4.6acres and is bounded on the south by Las Trampas. Creek and on the north by Interstate 680 in the Walnut Creek area. (Zoning: R-6, R-10) (Zoning Atlas Page: N-19) (Census Tract 3420.00) (APNs: 184-100-030,028,007,008,032). II. RECOMMENDATION A. Find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was presented to the County Planning Commission, and I the Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to making a decision on the project; and B. Find the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis and was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and County CEQA Guidelines and designated the Community Development Department as the custodian of the documents which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the decision is based; and C. Find that on the basis of the whole record before it, the County has determined that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment after mitigations; and D. Adopt a motion to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the following: an amendment to the Land Use Element Map of the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020) to, re-designate a portion of the site from Single-Family Medium Density to Single-Family High Density; rezone the site from R-6, Single Family Residential and R-10, Single-Family Residential to P-1, Planned Unit Development, with a variance to allow application of the P-1 district for a residential development involving less than�5 (five) acres and, approve the Final Development Plan in 2 phases subject to the attached conditions of approval and mitigation measures. E. Approve the vesting tentative map in 2 phases, subject to the attached conditions and mitigation measures. The approval of the vesting tentative map is subject to the Board's approval of the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning. F. Adopt the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: The project site has two general plan designations, Single-Family Medium(SM) and Open Space (OS). B. Zoning: The project site has two zoning designations, R-6, Single-Family Residential and R-10, Single-Family Residential. C. CEQA Status: A+Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted on March 15, 2006 for a 30 day comment period that ended April 14, 2006 (State Clearing House #2006032084). Impacts to aesthetics, biology, hazardous materials, cultural resources, hydrology, noise, air quality and geology were identified as potentially significant unless mitigated. The applicant has agreed to mitigations that reduce the impacts to less than significant. During the public comment period three letters were received. The response to these letters is contained in section VII of this report. D. Regulatory Progams: I 1. Flood Hazard Area: That portion of the site that runs along Las Trampas Creek is in Flood Zone A, with the remainder of the site located in Flood Zone d SR- 2 I 2. 60 dBa Noise Control Zone: The present noise environment at the site is dominated by Interstate 680 vehicular traffic, which exceeds the 60dBa standard. IV. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION The subject site is' made up of 5 contiguous parcels for a total area of 4.6 acres that is located east of the Olympic Boulevared in the Walnut Creek area (see the Paulson Lane Vicinity Map attached to this report). The site is occupied by several single-family residences, sheds and detached garages. This is a relatively level site occupying a terrace above the bend in Las Trampas Creek. Interstate 680 bounds the site to the north, while to the southwest and southeast of the site is Las Trampas Creek. Vegetation on the site consists of native oaks, willow and black walnut, as well as many imported non-native trees. V. PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed scope of the project includes the following: A. General Plan Amendment: The project site currently has two general plan designations, Single-Family Medium (SM) and Open Space (OS). The OS designation follows Las Trampas Creek along —� thel eastern and southern boundaries of the site, while the SM designation is extended over the remainder of the site. There is a General Plan Amendment that is being processed concurrently with this application that changes the Single-Family Medium designation to Single-Family High (SH). The OS designation will remain in place. See Exhibit A attached to this report. B. Rezoning: The applicant is requesting approval of a rezoning application that would change the zoning of the site from R-6, Single-Family Residential and R-10, Single-Family Residential to P-1, Planned Unit District with a variance to allow application of the P-1 district for a residential development involving less than 5 (five) acres. See Exhibit B attached to this report. C. Development Plan Approval: An application for approval of a final development plan to construct 22 single-family residences in two phases. See Exhibit C attached to this report. D. Subdivision Map: The applicant is requesting approval of a vesting tentative map subdividing a 4.6 acre site into 22 single-family residential lots in two phases. See Exhibit C & D attached to this report. SR- 3 VI. AGENCY COMMENTS Saranap Homeowers' Association: In a letter dated March 1, 2006, the Association indicated that there would be two basic impacts to the surrounding community; traffic and noise. Summary of comments: As far as the traffic is concerned, they felt that the additional traffic generated by the project would be a minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhood based on their discussions with the applicant and a County traffic engineer. In regard to noise, they felt that the noise from the freeway may be increased to the neighbors living across Las Trampas Creek due to the removal of trees on the site. But this may be mitigated by retaining the larger trees along,the Creek that separate those neighbors from the freeway, as well as planting more trees on the site as part of the project. This, they felt, should also be a condition of project approval. There are approximately 200 trees on the project site, of which approximately 98 trees are proposed for removal. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall replace the approximately 98 trees with 214 new trees. The trees along the Creek shall be retained. City of Walnut Creek: In letters to the County dated August 25, 2004 and January 20, 2005,the City had the following comments: Summary of comments: The six parking places that are shown on the plans may not be adequate for the project. Response: The plans have been revised to include a total of 19 parking stalls across the site in order to compensate for the narrow road widths. This is in addition to 2-off street parking places being provided for each proposed residence. Summary of comments: The development is located close to downtown Walnut Creek and other facilities, and sidewalks should be included in order to encourage walking. Response: There is a sidewalk planned from the project site down to Olympic Boulevard to encourage walking to the downtown Walnut Creek area. Summary of comments: The development should be clustered residential units so that it would preserve the site's natural features such as the creek and trees. SR - 4 Response: The project is designed to cluster the residential units up and off the creek corridor so that there is ample setback from the creek. Trees along Las Trampas Creek as well as a number of desirable trees immediately surrounding the proposed residences would be preserved. Summary of comments: The ownership of Paulson Lane should be clarified as well as the traffic impacts from the proposed development. Response: Paulson Lane is a Public road, not private. In addition, according to traffic study done for this project there would be an additional 21AM peak hour trips and 28PM peak hour trips to the local roadways. This increase would not exceed a level of service standard established by the Contra Costa County Congestion Management Agency. Summary of comments: The City of Walnut Creek's Creek Restoration and Trail Master Plan shows a connection along Las Trampas Creek on a portion of the project site. The project should dedicate the required trail right-of-way. Response:Although the future trail connection is shown in the City's Trail Master Plan, which was(adopted in 1993, it is not identified in any County planning document, including our General Plan (2005-2020). Additionally, the trail is not identified in the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan; which was adopted in December of 2003 by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, rte, following an extensive collaborative planning effort involving the nineteen cities in the County, the County, the East Bay Regional Park District, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and bicycle and pedestrian advocacy groups. The County is obligated by law to rely on policies in its own General Plan, or other plans to which it is a party to, as the basis upon which it requires dedications of easements for trail corridors. It is for this reason that the County is unable to find a policy basis to Whelp establish the nexus between the requested extension of the trail, and the approval of the Paulson Lane project. In addition, the topography of the site and location of surrounding roadways present challenges for using this site as an appropriate location for a trail. Summary of comments: As proposed, the appearance of the homes from the roads will be dominated by two-car garage doors, and the home design should be changed to emphasize the front of the homes not the garage doors. Response: The project is conditioned to re-submit elevations that that do not emphasize the galrage door. Department of Fish and Game: In a letter dated January 3, 2005 the Department of Fish and Game stated that any activity that will divert or obstruct the natural flow, or change the bed, channel or bank of the river or stream may require a stream bed alteration agreement. SR - 5 In general, the project is not proposing construction or grading near, the creek. However, the project does include construction of a storm drain outfall to Las Trampas Creek. Construction of the storm drain outfall to Las Trampas Creek may require the removal of riparian vegetation, and has the potential to result in the deposition of fill in waters of the United States and State. If the outfall to Las Trampas Creek is situated below the creek top of bank, a Streambed Alteration Agreementftom California Department of Fish and Game would be required. If the outfall requires the placement of fill within waters of the US,permits from the Corps and RWQCB would also be required. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District: In a memo dated September 13, 2005 the Fire Protection District submitted comments on the application (attached). In a follow-up memo they indicated that they have no new requirements of the revised tentative map. East Bay Municipal Utilities District: In a memo dated December 28, 2004, EBMUD indicated that water service is available subject their requirements. VII. CEQA REVIEW During the public comment period for the mitigated negative declaration there were three letters received by the Coity. Below is a response to these letters. Letter from Parkmead Community Association, dated April 12, 2006; -_ i- Summary of comments: The project should preserve large mature trees within the project site as well as the trees along the top of the creek bank. And, those trees that are removed should be replaced following the landscape design presented to the Parkmead and Saranap neighborhood associations. The project should be required to closely monitor preservation of trees and tree roots during the construction period. Staff Response.- Approximately ?99 trees are located on the project site, of which approximately 98 trees are proposed for removal. According to the Tree Survey and Report by the project arborist, Joseph McNeil, most f the trees proposed for removal are not "intrinsically desirable" based upon species type, health, structure and size. The trees to be removed are located at the interior of the site and primarily within the footprint of proposed new development. Trees along Las Trampas Creek would be >etained. The trees that are to be removed would be replaced as generally shown on the Tree Mitigation and Existing Tree Plan, by Camp and Camp Associates, 5/12/05, which was presented to the Parkmead and Saranap associations. Also, the project is required to establish tree protection zones which are fenced off with cyclone fencing before site disturbance to ensure that construction impacts to the trees are mitigated. The project is also required to work closely with the project arborist. Summary of comment: The project should preserve the existing high quality night sky along the creek channel and prohibit second floor decks,overlooking the backyards and into windows of existing homes across the creek. SR - 6 I r Staff Response: All outdoor lighting associated with the project shall be designed and located to minimize ambient light levels for any given application. The project shall be conditioned so that area lighting shall be directed downward with no splay of lighting directed offsite. The project is conditioned to provide deed restrictions to restrict second story decks in the backyards of those homes that back up to the creek. Summary of comment: Closely monitor the drainage for the project to ensure the creek channel and riparian habitat is protected . Also there should be no retaining walls along the creek channel. Staff response: The drainage of the site shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department and a Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be acquired prior to construction of the storm drain outfall into Las Trampas Creek. There are no retaining walls proposed along the creek. Summary of comment: The project should preserve and improve the riparian habitat along the Las Trampas Creek Channel including removal of arundo from the creek channel where appropriate. Staff response: The project is conditioned to clean up debris from the creek within the project boundaries. The arunda, however, was not required to be removed because not all of it is located on the project site and the County General Plan contains policies that encourage creeks to be retained in the natural state whenever possible. Letter from Friends of the Creeks, dated April 14, 2006 1 Most of the comments contained in the letter from Friends of the Creeks are the same ones found in, and responded to, in the above letter from Parkmead Community Association. The one additional comment from the FriJJends of the Creeks is as follows: I Summary of comment: The project should include a trail as described in the Creeks Restoration and Trails Mater Plan and the City of Walnut Creek General Plan (2006). Staff response:As previously noted, the City of Walnut Creek's Creek Restoration and Trail Plan shows a trail connection along Las Trampas Creek to Olympic Boulevard. Although the future trail connection is shown in the, City's Trail Master Plan, which was adopted in 1993, it is not identified in any County planning document, including the County's General Plan (2005-2020). Additionally, the trail is not identified in the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, which was adopted in December of 2003 by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, following an extensive collaborative planning effort involving the nineteen cities in the County, the County, the East Bay Regional Park District, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and bicycle and pedestrian advocacy groups. The County is obligated bylaw to rely on policies in its own General Plan, or other plans to which it is a party to, as the basis upon which it requires dedications of easements for trail corridors. It is for this reason that the County is unable to find SR- 7 a policy basis to help establish the nexus between the requested extension of the trail, and the approval of the Paulson Lane project. 'l Letter from Palma Dell, 1760 Magnolia Wav, Walnut Creek, dated Mril 11, 2006. Summary of comments: The proposed development is a high density housing project that will negatively impact our neighborhood in the following ways: Increased noise from high density housing (e.g. neighbors, vehicles,barking dogs, music). Increase traffic noise from nearby freeway due to the proposed tree removal. The view from our backyard would be of numerous other neighbors instead of the foliage and trees we currently enjoy. Staff response.- The proposed development would result in more houses in the area but the density, Single Family High Density, is consistent with Single Family High Density designations that are located to the west and southeast of the site. The increase in traffic noise from the freeway because of tree removal is mitigated by the fact the large mature trees that are along the creek are being retained, and some of the large trees in the interior of the site are being preserved as well. In addition, according to the noise study for this project, the shielding effects introduced by the proposed homes would substantially reduce exterior noise levels for the existing homes on the south side of Las Trampas Creek. The retention of trees along the creek would also screen any views of new homes. VIII. STAFF ANALYSIS / DISCUSSION General Plan Amendment: A General Plan Amendment ford the project site is concurrently under review. The site currently has two General Plan designations: Single-Family Medium(SM) and Open Space (OS). The SM designation allows between 3.0 and 4.9 single-family units per net acre. Sites can range up to,14, 519 square feet. Witli an average of 2.5 persons per household, population densities would normally range from about 7.5 to about 12.5 persons per acre. Under the current land use designation of SM the site would yield between 14 and 17 single-family units. The OS designation includes publicly owned, open space lands which are not designated as "Public and Semi-Public, "Watershed", or "Parks and Recreation". Lands designated "Open Space" include, without limitation, wetlands and tidelands and other areas of significant ecological resources, or geologic hazards. SR - 8 The general plan amendment under consideration proposes to change the SM portion of the site i to Single-Family High (SH), which allows for a greater density of between 5.0 to 7.2 single- family units per net acre. With approval of the SH designation the maximum allowed density on this site would be 25 single-family units. The applicant is requesting 22 single-family units. The Open Space designation, which follows the Las Trampas Creek through a portion of the site would remain in place. The reason the SH designation was considered, is that, given that the Paulson Lane area was significantly altered by the I-680/24 Interchange Project, a privately initiated proposal to redevelop the area for additional housing would be appropriate because it could provide a public benefit of more housing in close proximity to downtown Walnut Creek. Rezoning: The subject property is surrounded on the east, south and west by several zoning districts including R-6 (Single-Family Residential, 6,000 square feet minimum lot size), R-10 (Single- Family Residential, 10,000 square feet minimum lot size), and P-1 (Planned Unit District). To the north of the site is 1-680 and downtown Walnut Creek. The 4.6 acre project site is made up 5 contiguous parcels. Four of them are zoned R-6 single- family residential, and the remaining parcel is zoned R-10 single-family residential. The applicant is proposing to rezone the project site from R-6 and R-10 to Planned Unit District (P-1), with a variance to allow, application of the P-1 district for a residential development involving less than 5 (five) acres. Approval of the proposed zoning will be contingent upon approval of the proposed General Plan amendment. This proposed zoning constitutes a reasonable balance in the way in which a project can be fitted to a site and the existing neighborhood. The 4.6 acre area to be rezoned to Planned Unit Development(P-1) corresponds with the area to be placed within the Single-Family High (SH) and Open Space (OS) General Plan designations. Upon approval of the General Plan amendment the proposed P-1 will be consistent with these land use designations. Phasing of the Subdivision &Final Development Plan The applications for the subdivision (SD048939) and final development plan (DP043119) are proposed in two phases (see exhibit C attached to this report). This was done to establish a consistency of development across the five parcels that make up the project site. Phase One and Phase Two are owned by two separate owners, but the applications were filed jointly as one project. Phase Two cannot record nor construct first, without the prior construction of Phase One. SR- 9 Currently, it is planned to record the finalmap of the first phase and begin construction. Phase Two will record, thereafter, and begin construction at a time decided by the owners of Phase Two, within the statutory extension periods of the tentative map. Residential Designs: There are three house designs ( see exhibit F attached to this report), with floor plans ranging from 2375 square feet to 2485 square feet in size. Each of the three house plans has two different street elevations. These options' are dispersed among the lots. With several earth-tone color schemes, no two street elevations are the same. The Craftsman styled homes are clad in a muted blend of plaster, wood and stone with the slate-style shake roof. The standard for development is R-6, with exceptions as noted in the development plan. Tree Removal: Trees on the site consist of native oak as well as many imported non-native trees. There are approximately 200 trees on the project site, of which approximately 98 are proposed to be removed. The applicant proposes to replace the approximately 98 trees with 214 new trees. None of the trees along the creek are proposed for removal. However, at the rear of lot 8, next to the creek, are two larger trees, one is a dominant oak tree (#362), and the other tree is a redwood tree (#363). The two trees crowd into each other and the arborist recommends that one of them be removed so that there is enough room for the surviving tree to flourish. The arborist will determine which tree is desirable to keep and may recommend removal the other one. In addition, there is one pine tree (#2501) located in the front of the adjacent parcel (184-100-027) which will be removed to make room for the planned sidewalk from the project site down to Olympic Blvd. The County has permission from the owner of this parcel to remove the pine tree. According to the Tree Survey and Report (Joseph McNeil, 2004), most of the trees proposed for removal are not "intrinsically desirable" based on species type, health, structure, and size. The trees to be removed are located at the interior of the site and primarily within the footprint of proposed new development. A number of desirable trees immediately surrounding the proposed new homes would be retained. Noise Issues: The current noise environment at the project site is dominated by 1-680 vehicular traffic. To help mitigate the noise impact thereI is a sound wall between the freeway and the project site and, according to a sound study that was prepared for this project, the noise levels generally range from 60 DNL at southern most portion of the site, up to 70 DNL nearest the freeway at the north. According to the General Plan, up to a level of 60 DNL is normally acceptable for a residential use and up to 70 is conditionally acceptable, which means new construction should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise impacts is made and the needed noise insulation features are designed into the project. SR- 10 i In this regard, prior to filing the final map for the project, a final noise study shall be prepared that specifies construction details and building shell components to ensure the project meets all County noise level requirements[ The building plans for the residences shall carry out all the approved recommendations in the report. There is also a concern among the neighbors, across the creek to the south, that when the trees are removed on the project site the noise from the freeway will be increased on their property. This is mitigated by the fact than the trees along the creek, which provide a buffer between the freeway and them, will not be removed and some of the larger trees within the site will be retained as well. In addition, thelproposed homes would provide a barrier between the freeway and the neighbors across the creek to the south, which according to the sound study done for this project, would reduce the noise level on the neighbor's property. Creek Issues: Las Trampas Creek runs along the eastern and southern border of the project site. The project was designed to have minimal, if any, impact on the creek. The proposed lots are arranged so that the creek runs along the rear yards of 12 of the lots. There are no trees along the creek proposed for removal, except as!noted above, and there is not grading within the creek structure setback area. However, there is a proposed storm drain outfall behind lots 10 and 11, which the California Department of Fish and Game will have jurisdiction over. Currently there is some debris in and along the creek as it runs through a portion of the project site. This debris includes such things as an old wheel barrel, a car battery and broken branches from a recent storm. As part of a general creek clean-up the development is conditioned to remove this debris from the creek area that is located within the project area. No plants or wildlife shall be removed as parte of this clean-up. Frontage Improvements & Landscaping: The applicant proposes to construct a sidewalk from the project site down to Olympic Blvd. The project "Tree Mitigation and Existing Tree Plan" (attached as exhibit D) by Camp and Camp Associates, landscape architects, establishes trees, of mixed variety and species along the new sidewalk. This plan is generally acceptable to the County, except that these trees shall be planted outside of the public right-of-way, and in some cases may be relocated. The road will be extended and paved along the project frontage and eventually providing two entrance streets to the project. Grading: Project grading will consist of street and lot grading with minimum cutting or filling of earth. Nominal conform grading with ithe existing ground is setback from the creek bank. To minimize filling, excess earth will be hauled offsite. SR- 11 I C IX. PUBLIC WORKS CONSIDERATIONS Traffic and Circulation The subject property fronts on Paulson Lane, a public road, with a 28-foot pavement width. The existing right of way is irregular, but adequate, and no additional dedications will be required. Frontage improvements will need to be installed to bring the road up to current County standards. In Phase 1, the applicant shall be required to construct curb, four-foot six-inch sidewalk, necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and street lighting along the entire south side of Paulson Lane. The applicant shall construct these frontage improvements to conform to existing curb and gutter and shall extend from the intersection of Olympic Boulevard and Paulson Lane to the easternmost limit of the public portion of Paulson Lane. A standard driveway depression shall be constructed at the existing driveway access serving the Vuich and intervening properties. When Phase 2 develops, a street-type connection with minimum 20-foot radii curb returns shall be constructed at the proposed intersection of "A" Street and Paulson Lane, as shown on the revised vesting tentative map received by the Community Development Department on January 26, 20061 The applicant shall construct an on-site roadway system that meets current County private road standards, with a minimum traveled way width of 20 feet within a 21-foot wide access easement and an additional 5-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) on each side, as shown on the revised vesting tentative map received by the Community Development Department on January 26, 2006. Reciprocal access rights between the two subdivision phases shall be dedicated. The applicant shall construct a turnaround at the northeast end of proposed "A" Street (near Lot 14), as shown on the revised vesting tentative map and subject to the review and approval of Public Works and the Fire Distract. The applicant shall construct a temporary turnaround at the terminus of"A" Street in Phase 1 (near Lot 18)to serve Phase 1, as shown on the revised vesting tentative map and subject to the review and approval of Public Works and the Fire District. This temporary turnaround may be removed after construction of Phase 2 road improvements is complete. 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 stone 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 applicant proposes to construct a collection of on-site swales and storm drains to ultimately convey and discharge storm water runoff to the creek. All storm drain systems constructed as part of Phase 1 shall be adequately sized to accommodate storm.water runoff from both Phase 1 and Phase 2 to the ultimate point of discharge. Any surface or subsurface storm drain facility within the subdivision conveying runoff from private streets or more than one parcel shall be installed within a minimum 10-foot wide private storm drainage easement. The,applicant shall SR - 12 construct the outfall structure to meet current County standards, obtain any necessary permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g. Department of Fish and Game, Army Corp of Engineers, and Flood Control District, and establish all necessary drainage easements for access and maintenance, as required in these conditions of approval. Las Trampas Creek traverses the western and southern boundary of the subject property. The applicant shall relinquish "development rights" over that portion of the site that is within the structure setback area of Las I rampas Creek. The creek structure setback area shall be determined by using the criteria outlined in Chapter 914-14, "Rights of Way and Setbacks," of the County Ordinance Code. "Development rights" shall be conveyed to the County by grant deed. 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.cceleanwater.org) and the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A Stormwater Control Plan date I stamped received October 24, 2005 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 future revision based on any changes or design modifications that may be made during the preparation of improvement plans. GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\SD048939.stfrpt.doc.doc SR- 13 i Exhibit 6 Pertinent Correspondence I' i 1 I EAST BAY . REGIONAL PAR P A R K D I S T R I C T FOR ME I ME LP ' BOARD OF DIRECTORS Carol Severin President July 18, 2006 Ward 3 John Sutter John Obome Vice-President Contra Costa County Ward 2 Community Development Department Ayn Wieskamp 651 Pine Street, 2nd Floor NW Treasurer Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Ward 5 Ted Radke RE: County File No. GP04-0009 Ward 7 Secretary Paulson Lane Subdivision Number 8939 Beverly Lane Ward 6 Dear Mr. Obome: Doug.Siden Ward 4 - East Bay Regional Park District is writing to express its support for the inclusion of a non- motorized trail connection across the above-referenced subdivision. A trail connection at this Nancy Skinner Ward 1 location would assist in linking together the major central Contra Costa County trails, the Iron Horse Regional Trail and Lafayette Moraga Regional Trail. Pat O'Brien General Manager Currently,pedestrian access along Newell Avenue is severely constrained by the lack of sidewalks and narrow traffic lanes.Providing a non-motorized alternative along Las Trampas Creek could improve pedestrian access to the downtown area,reducing traffic congestion and _ the need for additional parking. It could also reduce the need for pedestrians and bicyclists to brave the very crowded Olympic Blvd/I680 undercrossing. Study after study has shown that the inclusion of trails in development projects reduces vehicular use and improves property values. Trails,even local connector trails, are almost never acquired and developed all at once. Developments such as this provide ithe opportunity to acquire the"building blocks"necessary to create at/ idor that can be developed into a workable local system of connectors to the Park Di ict's Regional Trails.The Park District urges the County to provide for a workable trail c ct"on through this development project. T yo for y consideration. burs I , o se Tr I s Development Program Manager 5 -544-2602 cc: Andrew Smith, City of Wa'Inut Creek 2950 Peralta Oaks Court P.O. Box 5381 Oakland,CA 94605-0381 T_: 510 635i 0135 F., 510 569-4319 TDD 510 633-0460 www.ebparks.org t� C I T Y O F WALNUT ' CREEK May 3, 2006 Contra Costa County Planning Commission 651 Pine Street 4`I' Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re: Paulson Lane Subdivision Dear Commissioners, The proposed Paulson Lane Subdivision is located within the City of Walnut Creek's sphere of influence and immediately adjacent to the city limit line between the city and unincorporated county. During the preliminary review process County planning staff referred the application to • our department for review and Jwe discussed with County staff our concerns regarding the placement and design of the proposed homes, and the trail corridor along the adjacent creek that is identified in the Walnut Creek Creek Restoration and Trails Master Plan. The Creek Restoration and Trails Master Plan identifies a "future extension of [the] main creek trail" as passing through the subject property on the north side of the creek at the top of the creek bank, and this trail alignment is meant to fill a gap between the existing Lafayette Moraga Regional Trail and the proposed Las Trampas Creek Trail connecting with the Iron Horse Trail in downtown Walnut Creek. Requiring right-of-way dedication and/or trail development as a condition of the entitlement process is called for by the Creek Restoration and Trails Master Plan which states that "...as the development or redevelopment process continues in Walnut Creek, project segments can be installed as part of required street improvements or developer- dedicated land or easements in accordance with the Creeks Restoration and Trails Master Plan." In the staff report prepared by Ithe County Planning Department, staff makes the claim that because the proposed trail alignment is not included in the County General Plan or the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan that no nexus exists between the requested extension of the trail and the approval of the Paulson Lane Subdivision. The Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, however, is not intended to be a compilation of all bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the County. In fact there is no plan for a pedestrian network, only design guidelines. What Ithe Plan does show is bicycle connections in this area along Olympic Boulevard and a future connection along Newell Avenue. On page 2 of the Countywide Plan it states, "ThisI countywide network, however, will need to be supported by an expanded system of local connections to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian movement." Post Office Sox 8039, 1666 North Main Street,Walnut Creek,CA 94596 tel 925.943.5899 wwwci.walnut-creek.ca.us pnnted an recycled paper The trail planned for in the Walnut Creek Creek Restoration and Trails Master Plan was not 1' intended as a regional transportation facility. It was envisioned as a creek access plan not as a ..regional..bike.route. _Page..55 _off.volume -one-of-the .states, "Cyclists in-a-hurry--to reach-their various destinations will probably use the straight Iron Horse Trail and the connection streets rather that the more circuitous and scenic Creekside Trail. Safer for recreational bicyclists than the city streets, the Creekside Trail should become the preferred route for the families, children and visitors seeking a leisurely route through the downtown area, rather that for serious through cyclists." This is not the description of a regional route but rather a local route. Therefore it was not included in the Countywide Plan. While the County is not legally obligated to implement the plans and policies of the City of Walnut Creek, it is in both the County's and the City's best interested to work cooperatively in such matters of regional importance, particularly when considering that this portion of the proposed trail will primarily benefit residents of the unincorporated Saranap neighborhood and that this trail alignment will tide directly into the recently constructed and County funded extension of the Lafayette Moraga Regional Trail along the adjacent portion of Olympic Boulevard. While the lack of 'its inclusion into any County planning documents may be a reasonable policy basis to not require the extension of the trail for an application that would only involve a subdivision, it is certainly not the case for this application that also requires a General Plan amendment that will result in significantly higher residential densities. Unfortunately, the City of Walnut Creek was not notified of the preparation of the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, or even of the submittal of the final plans. The City was not made aware of this oversight until after the expiration of the comment period for the Initial Study, and consequently we are now left with no recourse but to appeal directly to the County Planning Commission. Therefore, the City of Walnut Creek hereby respectfully requests that the Contra Costa County Planning Commission only approve this project if an extension of the proposed trail and/or right-of-way dedication is included as a condition of approval. Sincerely, l Andrew M. Smith Senior Planner (925) 943-5899 x213 asmitbgwalnut-creek.org cc: City of Walnut Creek: Mayor Kathy Hicks Councilmembers Mike Parness, City Manager Valerie Barone, Community Development Director Sandra Meyer, Planning Manager i C I T Y O F WALNUT CREEK August 25, 2004 Ms. Aruna Bhat Zoning Administrator Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Re:Pre-Application Review Submittal #PR 040028 Paulson Lane Dear Ms. Bhat: The City of Walnut Creek appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comment on the above Pre-Application Review. The Community Development Department and Engineering Division have reviewed the materials provided by your office and have the following comments on this project which is located within the City's Sphere of Influence: 1. The proposal seeks an increase in residential density from the existing Single Family Medium Density designation of 3 to 4.9 units per acre (which is consistent with the City of Walnut Creek's land use designation for this area) to Single Family High Density 5 to 7.2 units per acre(equivalent to the City's Single Family High Density designation allowing 6 to 9 units per acre). The site constraints discussed below(including numerous trees and the creek) call for a development:that,clustersxesidentialrunits,and preserves the site's natural features ito the extent feasible. To that end, a higher density may be justified. A townhouse development with homes clustered in areas with fewer trees would allow preservation of more trees and would create opportunities for larger green spaces between the homes and creek. This design would be more consistent with preserving the site's natural features and would be preferable to the layout of the single-family homes and the site plan that has been proposed. 2. The proposed site plan shows that Paulson Lane is private but it is not included in any of the three parcels that it serves. The ownership of Paulson Lane needs to be clarified. Because the development includes all of the Post Office Box 8039, 1666 North Main Street,Walnut Creek,CA 94596 tel 925.943.5899 www.ci.wainut-creek.ca.us printed on retycled paper properties that use Paulson Lane for access,the developer may wish to consider relocating Paulson Lane if that would improve the layout of the homes. In addition,the proposal should examine the capacity of Paulson Lane to handle additional traffic and the street improvement that would be required. 3. The City of.Walnut Creek's Creek Restoration and Trail Master Plan shows a connection along Las Trampas Creek from the portion of the creek on the east side of the freeway to Olympic Boulevard(see attachment). The project should dedicate a pedestrian/bike easement and build an 8 foox,,wide decomposed granite trail from Olympic to the freeway. The trail should also be integrated into the residential development to provide pedestrian access. 4. The site plan shows a minimum setback from the creek based on a height of top of bank above the creek of less than 20 feet. However,the County's ordinance also allows for extension of the setback line where significant riparian vegetation exists beyond the minimum setback. We recommend additional study of the creek and surrounding vegetation and extension of the setback line if appropriate. 5. The proposal sh I ld address the responsibility for the long-term maintenance of the creek. 6. There are approximately 150 trees identified on the site, including several ' oaks and other Highly Protected Trees. According to neighbors these trees provide visual and auditory screening of the freeway. Although some trees along the creek are retained, the proposal shows most of the trees on the site removed. The redesign of the site plan to cluster residential development may allow the retention of additional trees and would create the opportunity for more open space within the development. 7. The plan submitted shows development on the three parcels as separate from each other. In order to improve pedestrian and auto circulation and to create a more cohesive neighborhood, a roadway should connect these parcels. The proposal shouldralso explain the proposed phasing of the project and address the future maintenance of the roads in this development. 8. Visitor parking should be provided throughout the development. Currently it is shown only on the Tillman/Hork parcel. 9. A sidewalk/pathway should be provided along Paulson Lane from Olympic Boulevard to the development. 10. As proposed, the appearance of the homes from the access roads will be dominated by two-car garages. The site plan should be amended to minimize the dominance of the garage doors and instead emphasize the front of the homes and the main front doors to the homes. 4 11. Given the crisis in providing affordable housing in the Bay Area,this project should provide at least ten percent of the for sale units (4 units) affordable-to moderate income households. Again, thank you for considering our comments in your review of this application. The City is very interested in staying informed on this project as it proceeds through the County's review process. Please keep me informed on the project's progress and all major changes. Cordially, r tern,AICP Senior Planner (925) 943-5834 x. 213 stern@ci.walnut-creek.ca.us Enc. c. Valerie Barone, Community Development Director Rachel Lenci, City Engineer John Hall, Transportation Planning Manager Brad Blake, Blake Hall Ventures Pam Romo,Friends of the Creek , a .• rN jam -:) D' o 000 YMI C11FlN 1111Y1 :t1� (• QDPDMI,I.K mNICIgNf U� PROPOSED ,. �. D \DON�N DO� �D� ('/ • , ERWNE,E,uI NMO MWDfED CDENX TR" D. R O. .e � \ ✓ \'�/ r �� MID CONNECTgME CREEKS RESTORATION \� OF S MASTER PLAN 011 of . nn wuwT cN[!. C.L,IOwu ro w,.mE. ..�....-.�........o.... ® e o Figure 31 in separating users. A pedestrian-only trail, though smaller, would require a similar construction right-of-way asl the combined trail. Unfortunately, bicycle use is likely to occur on the narrower trail regardless of signage to the contrary, maldng the pedestrian-only trail potentially more hazardous to the various users than the wider trail. In areas where it is a anticipated that people may congregate or stop, larger spaces are proposed out of the flow. In somewhat constricted areas or areas with obstructions, the trail will split in order to separate the users for limited distances. Cyclists in a hurry to reach their various r destinations will probably use the straight regional Iron Horse Trail and the connecting streets rather than the more circuitous and scenic Creekside Trail. Safer for recreational bicyclists than the city streets, the Creekside Trail should become the preferred route for families, children, and visitors seeking a leisurely route through the downtown area, rather than for the serious through-cyclists. I CREEKS RESTORATION AND TRAILS MASTER PIAN-Volume 1: Summary MASTER PLAN re 55 ua.nnu uunl vnnlunna, 11vi, L9JUU1/UU1 BNS VENTURES, LLC May 9, 2006 0 Mr.Donald Snyder Planning Commission Chair 651 Pine Street, 4a'Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Creek side trail abutting Paulson Lane,Walnut Creek properties Dear Don: I am writing to you in response to the issue raised by the City of Walnut Creek regarding the requested creek trail easement along the rear of the BNB, Vuich and Westerlund properties located along Paulson Lane. We have worked with Parkmead and Saranap neighbor?ood groups for the past three years regarding this project and have worked especially close with the immediate neighbors of the project who have homes adjacent to the creek in order to fully understand their concerns about views,sound mitigation and security along the creek. We told the neighbors early in the process we would follow their lead in regard to the trail. The trail connection through along the cl eek would be impractical for several reasons: (1)the creek bank within this area is very steep and unstable, along the adjacent property the slope exceeds 90%, with a 40 foot vertical drop; (2) the proposed trail connections underneath(Olympic Boulevard and I-680 would be extremely difficult and expensive to construct due to inadequate vertical clearance underneath the two structures; and (3) the property owners within the immediate neighborhood have stated their staunch opposition to us regarding a proposed creek side trail, due to lack of . visibility to the area and associated security concerns and potential maintenance issues. As a result of the site constraints and I mtenance and security issues regarding a creek side trail,we would propose any future trail be routed west along the new Paulson Lane sidewalk to ultimately connect with the Cal Trans right of way between the northern edge of the BNB;properties and the Cal Trans sound wall and then continue under the freeway, It appears this existing Cal Trans' landscape easement area is more than adequate to accommodate a trail and can be easily accessed via the new sidewalks to be constructed along Paulson lane that will provide a direct connection to Olympic Boulevard. It is our desire to work this issue out in way that is mutually acceptable to everyone involved, if you have any questions please contact me at your earliest convince. Sincerely, BNB Ventures,LL UP Bradley N.Blake Manager cc: Bob Walsh Andy Byde John Obome 411 Hart,Avenue,Suite 200 Danville,CA. 94526 Phone: (921)314-1700 Fax: (925)314-2704 1710 Newell Avenue _ Walnut Creek, CA 94595-1432 May 9, 2006 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 6S1 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-1229 ATTN: JOHN OBORNE, COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Re: Las Trampas Creek Public Trail Dear Mr. Oborne: Our home is located at 1710 Newell Avenue in Walnut Creek on property that runs along and across Las Trampas Creek. We are opposed to any public pathway built along the residential portion of Las Trampas Creek for the following reasons: Privacy A public path along the back yards of adjacent properties will tum areas of private sanctuary into areas of display to the public. Security A path open to the public will be open not only to those with good intent,but also to those with criminal intent who will relish the opportunity for new access to private property. In addition,it will increase access for those who currently reside in a homeless encampment under the bridge on South California Boulevard. Safety and Liability The attractive nuisance of the creek itself will draweo le into the creek. The creek and its banks are hazardous, and we do not P P want to see anyone injured or killed as a result of accidentally or intentionally having strayed from the path into the creek. We do not want to assume the liability for this)nor should our neighbors or the county. Violation of Community Although we have not conducted a comprehensive poll,our sense of the community is that there is a lack of support for a creekside path. To the contrary,I have heard general opposition. If a path is forced on the community despite opposition, it will not be welcome and will be considered a violation of the will of the community. Economically Unfeasible We believe that the money spent building, maintaining,securing,and mitigating the effects of a pathway would be better spent elsewhere in the community. Public funds could be spent on the infrastructure,and private funds could be better spent on the public schools in our neighborhood. We also suggest that any cost estimates prepared for the pathway should include the cost of a protracted legal battle over the project itself. Opposition to a public pathway along the r sidential portions of Las Trampas Creek has been expressed repeatedly within the Parkmead community. There has been a considerable amount of discussion already,and the general consensus is that the pathway is neither welcome nor feasible. Despite this,individuals who do not represent the interests or the concerns of homeowners in the county who would be diJl�ectly impacted by the consequences of this pathway continue to resurrect the idea. We hope that it is dispatched with finality! Sincerely, Troi and Steve Nelson cc Contra Costa County Supervisors John M. Gioia Gayle S. Uilkema Mary N. Piepho Mark DeSauinier Federal D. Glover Bob Walsh,BNB Ventures Exhibit 7 Notification List i i 184100007 184100008 184100027 BNB VENTURES LLC BLAKE HUNT VENTURES PHILLIPS TRACY L 411 HARTZ AVE#200 411 HARTZ AVE#200 6603 HORSEMANS CANYON DR DANVILLE CA DANVILLE CA WALNUT CREEK CA 94526 94526 94595 184100028 184100030 184100032 J ARMINTROUT DIABLO VLY TRUCKINGCO BNB VENTURES LLC 1661 INCA DR 121 PAULSON LN 411 HARTZ AVE#200 LARAMIE WY WALNUT CREEK CA DANVILLE CA 82072 94595 94526 184191014 184191015 184191016 CUNNINGHAM JOHN W&C H TRE COCHRANE E H EST OF KING KURT&INOK TRE 20 MAGNOLIA CT 1790 MAGNOLIA WAY 1780 MAGNOLIA WAY WALNUT CREEK CA WALNUT CREEK CA WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 94595 94595 184191017 184191018 184191019 MUZZINI ANNE E DELL DAVID&PALMA TRE ROEM SACH DANIEL D 1770 MAGNOLIA WAY 1760 MAGNOLIA WAY 1750 MAGNOLIA WAY WALNUT CREEK CA WALNUT CREEK CA WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 94595 94595 184191020 184191021 184191022 TORANTO TERRY J KLEISATH WILLIAM&MARILYN TRE MARINCHAK JOHN M&MARJORIE E 1740 MAGNOLIA WAY 1730 MAGNOLIA WAY 1720 MAGNOLIA WAY WALNUT CREEK CA WALNUT CREEK CA WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 94595 94595 1-� 184191024 184191027 184192001 PENDERGRAFT FLINT A&MARY G TULLUS DAVID SHELTON JR VAFA SAIED 30 MAGNOLIA CT 31 MAGNOLIA CT 1721 MAGNOLIA WAY WALNUT CREEK CA WALNUT CREEK CA WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 94595 94595 184193006 184193007 184193008 HAYES JEFFREY S&JODI S WALLACE VIRGINIA J TANG HENRY 1801 MAGNOLIA WAY 1761 MAGNOLIA WAY 1751 MAGNOLIA WAY WALNUT CREEK CA WALNUT CREEK CA WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 94595 94595 184193009 184193010 184193011 MACDOUGALL KRISTIN A GUSTAFSON MARY B LANG LYNDA G TRE 1741 MAGNOLIA WAY 1731 MAGNOLIA WAY 120 CAMELIA IN WALNUT CREEK CA WALNUT CREEK CA WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 94595 94595 184202002 184202003 184202004 POTTER LOIS D TRE DESLIPPE LEE J&JANICE L SNYDER JAMES &LIESELOTTE TRE 1732 NEWELL AVE 1764 NEWELL AVE 1780 NEWELL AVE WALNUT CREEK CA WALNUT CREEK CA WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 94595 94595 184202005 184214005 184214006 JARDENAL JOHN&SUSAN J ALM SUSAN D NELSON STEVEN R&TROI A 1710 MAGNOLIA WAY PO BOX 2594 1710 NEWELL AVE WALNUT CREEK CA WALNUT CREEK CA WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 94595 94595 184214007 184214008 184214012 HUNT MORGAN R&MELINDA H WILT MICHAEL&GLORIA TRE BERGE THOR CALVIN 1712 NEWELL AVE 1706 NEWELL AVE 1690 NEWELL AVE WALNUT CREEK CA WALNUT CREEK CA WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 94595 94595 184214013 184214014 HORLEY EDWARD ROEMMICH DUANE C 1670 NEWELL AVE 1680 NEWELL AVE WALNUT CREEK CA WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 94595 John Vuich Pacific Union Brad Blake 121 Paulson Lane Attn: Bob Worthington BNB VENTURES, LLC W 'nut Creek, CA 94595 2085 N. Broadway# 100 411 Hartz Ave., Ste 200 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Danville, CA 94526 Public Works/Engineering Serv. ? Public Works/Traffic Control Public Works/Flood Control EBMUD CCC Fire District Building Inspection David Rehnstrom375- 11`h Street MS 701 Oakland, CA 94607-4240 Department of Fish And Game Central Contra Costa County iFrancine Podenski Region 3 San.District 1750 Magnolia Way P.O.Box 47 5019 Imhoff Place Yountville, CA 94599 Martinez, CA 94553 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Friends of the Creek Parkmead Community Association Attn: Leslie Hunt Michael Frederick Attn: Pete Johnson 236 Warwick Drive 71 (WiIlow Ave 1701 Lilac Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94598 .Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 City of Walnut Creek Attn: Andrew Smith P.O.Box 8039 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 APN SITUS_NBR SITUS_STRI SITUS_STRI SITUS_STRI SITUS-APT SITUS_FRAI SITUS_CITY 184100007 141 PAULSON LANE WALNUT CF / 184100008 161 PAULSON LANE WALNUT CF 184100027 111 PAULSON LANE WALNUT CF 184100028 131 PAULSON LANE WALNUT CF 184100030 121 PAULSON LANE WALNUT CF 184100032 160 PAULSON LANE WALNUT CF 184191014 20 MAGNOLIA COURT WALNUT CF 184191015 1790 MAGNOLIA WAY WALNUT CF 184191016 1780 MAGNOLIA WAY WALNUT CF 184191017 1770 MAGNOLIA WAY WALNUT CF 184191018 1760 MAGNOLIA WAY WALNUT CF 184191019 1750 MAGNOLIA WAY WALNUT CF 184191020 1740 MAGNOLIA WAY WALNUT CF 184191021 1730 MAGNOLIA WAY WALNUT CF 184191022 1720 MAGNOLIA WAY WALNUT CF 184191024 30 MAGNOLIA COURT WALNUT CF 184191027 31 MAGNOLIA COURT WALNUT CF 184192001 1721 MAGNOLIA WAY WALNUT CF 184193006 1801 MAGNOLIA WAY WALNUT CF 184193007 1761 MAGNOLIA WAY WALNUT CF 184193008 1751 MAGNOLIA WAY WALNUT CF 184193009 1741 MAGNOLIA WAY WALNUT CF 184193010 1731 MAGNOLIA WAY WALNUT CF 184193011 120 CAMELIA LANE WALNUT CF 184202002 1732 NEWELL AVENUE WALNUT CF 184202003 1764 NEWELL AVENUE WALNUT CF 184202004 1780 NEWELL AVENUE WALNUT CF 184202005 1710 MAGNOLIA WAY WALNUT CF 184214005 1702 NEWELL AVENUE WALNUT CF 184214006 1710 NEWELL AVENUE WALNUT CF 184214007 1712 NEWELL AVENUE WALNUT CF 184214008 1706 NEWELL AVENUE WALNUT CF 184214012 1690 NEWELL AVENUE WALNUT CF 184214013 1670 NEWELL AVENUE WALNUT CF 184214014 1680 NEWELL AVENUE WALNUT CF Exhibit 8 Maps and Plans i M . o iWpap an ITT a OSOO 8 4 BGG# Y ' 7s � 'I �h,.✓' i J� �P 'w�v * APs 4 Y i. . Ti'+ 't .,j t, ,7 t `' '•`�� r X44 '�'-s` x""W e t MSI f ^ F TVA 4 v rL, 1►+ r'Y X"`i }e M xt F .. } i�ps 'fes .i ,rpt s L§ �a a 4 is y yJ ­Y �r.}. 'S. 11L 1✓ *fLF y+r � 2t + �+'.S3§t , 1i. • 0 L py� «s,} 1 tt -i�C gya, � s Z,$" s" N £ .Y ► s �'1 3. I S a'v i' - . P ,�-.if„�^" ak �3Y' fir" ,. ..• r +l s ,� 1 s'.rF � :u•. ,��YTC� i s�'a�.�t�p- �tai ;:w �� �''�r'y�, s L kl t�..f�l � ! �'Ei.,4"''"Y`• >� � s T 5 7`x 1 r-�+ o- Jy" c yi F.Yy,�4yd� r sY 9 � Al t ,sr ssA"� t "'S, i xpT� i 2-�_ I C .• � �� P ` ^Y( '�r }.�•„fyri �' YE f's { �,, o �r'� r� � Yi,i� Kef `' �um^°+�yaa�N� e, T M 9 R CY SO A Z X tiro cn j� 75, rAiar V I C4 i v Nq CL o � �k } � O 1 _� cn m V m � b I ON A / ty} 0 m CZ {p 6 I t , � 1 _-�--� r TO �� � Q� �. TN. m a g ?• 3' � m 3_. 1 � c �• / f � t � 0 -0 - zo y Q 0 :0 fOi2 m O � r1 f � rjj � �� � // • e p i SittF o o z a N n v _ c ao N < X N r _ < W vO _ w -p to w c O -� `° m z CO a � 9. n 0 •° CA) n z ID p ti ,�titi N A*p� j ti�� 3A N 'i�X2515r, low �!f c m m r SEE(SHEET TM-4 UD• O\ I l yjj I o o 09 rn w RE! \ � pa (Jt O 9� / (y9 zs.zp' I. ppr, �I 0.7, - it a =" j j 5 CO 9r cn •�P/�/0Y"z � � .. .. 'o��� \�� � � / / "' . ,-cam ri Aw C Iv' O `..tip-1 J • � _� � \` CO / / A ���lApa •� •v ti 03'38+ x 39'45,00"E �5p Jq5 0 45)C ON N l0 NT ES 30 Tas • N. 0¢ '35..136' Ca Ivr cn 'r6' c eo 5 t9' 9 `D ST9�0, a O Tr \ 8' N N o w m in v v O o �J20 J m Cb � a \ \ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N XO Z ` Q N \ 96+ � N U W N � W U -• N U W W N � N ��' /' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Ep O o m o D Z \ l N a 4 A N A U mrr1 1 11 V � aM r z m m J a 0 ca m m 0 J w w m w m m m m J m n c�y J O: W 0 0 J V 0 0 V V m O O J J+ m J J U J m-p ���0999999 O m N l0 IP O TI z r n ti M m r N O -• N H N N � N �' N N � i N N � N N � A D O � N A O D� A O I V m N mC N � � -' " N N �' -' -• N N r �' � N N - N N � N ' N N O N N 1D l0 O N N p b .O N N O N U W ZO- Cn NQi AB NO 206024.2 n o n SL.,E ,.. _ 24 VESTING TENTATIVE MAP ,,�a,DSD '`"�. N sN V)s-or I , 1/26/2006 DEVELOPMENT PLAN Dn1E DEsmu VJD RC ,Z N m SUBDIVISION 48939 so-�. a' N po m A^ a aovaa�O `JVJD CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA No. BY DATE REMSIONS l t li ji N ti N J U A U N a� PAULSON LANE oz (PRIVATE) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N mOI N O 2 N N N U G k+ G W W W W W W W f W (w W W N N O Mm m pl CO �P A A A A W_ A A_ W A A lI G_ p I O] � n rp( 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 O O O D O O O O Co O O C O O O O w O O O O A m 0, U U a W A U A U lP W Of W P N W N N m m _ 1p J D• U A l0 U D• A O J N U N J U O � VI y � O =I STr^�J � 2z tp 9� J m m CO W N m J W W J W W W Cb J W Ol J m �1 rtpA1 V V Z Q J OI W O O V J O O O� J J T O O J J 01 J J W J VV O tP U lP V� N V1 tP t0 V1 U �O N VI U U 4J U O tD O A p A � ti m m o z-a A N A W W O q U U O A V N O O O yO S m � G C3G)Z A� O O U J U O A J N O U O A t0 O b O U UI m J p m O m N ZM W / O I m T m i c > F—o D J VU1, H 15,0 ' m y o! w. '� X35'5300"E w s 225.50' �. /I 3NI7�aeruv_o.__13D.�p' n Oy I W'o� S acw w�"' u N Oro w O -N - �' nc � .fi �p .d m N • Ad N35•¢ ^ 25.3 47 •wk 0 O J � a N OI �o N N O m p o` w II .- m YH Rfr wnc/ C� / IX 8;t I F �• Rk alnr,zf ..W 5.08• CP NE •ww I pyc / C� -.,cn . 5.50' / / / / ca) ►N �� / v O t- ® u, R T ww 4 �TdM 13N •m O� ./ J3' / Q. N s s r t�k t 'a115 1tfi31x�.._ '/ b E SHEET 7 --- 1 AB NO $04024,2 o SOME _ 20' VESTING TENTATIVE MAP R n obit 1/26/2006 DEVELOPMENT PLAN m - _ z ocs cN rs VJO/0.0 tr No.1210 k m Z C QI.6-JO-O6 N m ORA" NLJ SUBDIVISION #8939 `"l \� o.N o i O Z.� /�� II"���'® �N m N v IIp1V• bvvrso�[o vaD CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA u m 1n No. BY DATE REVISIONS m .+ R t SEE SHEET TM-2 m 00 v v� II 0s?1 u N 14 nl tJ - L"J V(/L.h, R sr, kl _ fr -.: WAC[ \ r o flisRl�_/ ar0r�LINEE&AµO 1r ="•�L�' � 61 ' 64I ro+ , � � .'N .!. � .. ``�/ •tet= ! >. Pq ae a,(n ay P� j), -)Dim sOl /// rnvwi,-P „\ I/ '1 L.'t': II N 1 L If � CO rs rn / P. y n� ;` / o. / ..._..... o.� _ .._'`yJ� /' r•.'r r .I/ rid EY /// / :NLn / 178.48 i .�l �C'� , �, / / �. v`•'I° c� �,�^, �l�-./ _ '` l '001- CC) ` V)21 N �I ti� fF �/ O[n o�� _� "b im > p N 1 x TI c I • 00 O _.\ �`�Oti/r /r Ottr�` �—] in OO a �. _. / 1 N , _:,' I r. S64,r r___ O \ _ O + / CIO I CL 01 LO �a Oy `e fir+ i II JrjiJ ) �� j L U 6,CnA IIN ,, N of ._ 2,.\ v �\ r'`" /"Y_ / / ,.� II o r r r ,� �� ate, . .2r \•\ 1*1 W\ �� 1660 \ y/, \ :N ? t \ •'� oo.n r r,��i/r "�\y,�` VI s D hr, C�cc L r 600 N ` �. / � '�r� __� m ✓ II� .. � �3� �[�1L ♦ r. X6065 fh� r� '- I • - f9� •�%.. f '. r / Ali l.- Oiti fS 4",U.{"_'' lY'1 1 1 ' r� •=r ,..1 `E1 rte' + — J 1^ ,u•'.. 7\I J \�+w f \ - r '}'g/ W ('� y J c. J Il Y trb• VTq x� 1 _ "" - ...._ r0$3$, ! Err � -� L r'.rc�..; l E( 'r✓`,� y' °F"°a' 03 �j / �ON nNG.p[0 ` <..`� (r i O �• ' J`:il ti P�0O N N3945'00 J94$O o^E l7 v0 Oq OS C .o ? 189. �\ I\ :.. `• �t r (J.. _ ,'J;/�I/ ��II II iO4Oq-ZS . y\U 6100 ✓ a, 7 OF r. 9d7 �1`e� T II �a -�a 1 r, '•:r�roaG� Li \ q4 !V �tJr ' tr61oJ(�b•-•.51'.`. _.V r'f' is/V�,>"tI`�%P ``\ Gr �/ v n 1��I' •_I''-. Q'�7...... °G,I, J O .yAl rjJ�O•rin / ^ \\ \ \i\ oi, I 00Bf .10 It, t' P 12 x / rq n \ 0111 a n � 11� ski J �� .� \ . •G \\ .. I nv m,�( z 0.G oO bz id Z r(TJt ts0 na I \ tip G lylVdJjj „ e 4 • n £ iy '�"nn,0p e"'x mg o�x Q 4 ll 1 p1/1 S? O yoi b4, �g� CO 0 isi" n E a a L p pp i ym� n1 pp E F F S� C a C a s p a n > p�p A L $2 �•, y mz,, CIO mOy !Y^� �r .... .. s a a C 2 C F n m ^I r L r_l• !.' a -Zi A n m m m (� n o P�Ir t z p yr Z Y O O ^' O 2 m t �, 2 m ^�;Om IAj srn to lai, A rT a D n �- 2 O m O m 2 a t � A > rn 2 Z Y 2 A m A S A rn %> 0_,08 "N� x� ul�n r I om0 m A � i c " i Ts 3 < ttc� A � Lgmy czi A "' i�o � Ot � ; n �AmT ,A,o 0o iO , Vin ^' n t `clQR � oN � O � n n F,a 000 0yi3 'gym m R mz caA` yAl •- ^, � z ", a ��yza Q � '''z is '^nom a-Icv 2n Or1 i �IlI-J j maim SmAg ,-7 F-gAmm op Asc Nz bm Nm n� -z• `�' � '^ A m m f 20z axle >i, � 0^' o; o m m s2 `n g �_ zia Op0m pi CD mO Zn� m .a- h, O 2 A yn0 20� 0yp poo �"inl IV O A ? ro yN ZOA T O O " a S a n A a� 0 8 g e ry''-c al {I'�i�lYts a � dsr t y''s% V7'rla xim..l Ce`i`i F JOB DD 204024.2 VESTING TENTATIVE MAP wD r� x N o cn s r A SCALE 1" - 20' 1 ¢ Lt 2v N0 S CIO u GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN """' Z i Dai[ 1/26/2006 D'ALD �A� f�, , o d Ne.IEID 0 Pm?LWK{0Z IIII 1�1 Ii DES1D" WD RC OzmSUBDIVISION #8939 �V) (n O 1111100 � m O"L"M' NLJ APCRO• D VSD CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA No. BY DATE REVISIONS a N 0�_wpic LANE N $ ��SON P AN � \+ PR Is t tvla 4 1 It u Wl \1. l v u 1 i i + {p It�t�1'i,�y ` i t \ OD tI l 1 1 1 la Q 1, i m Al �9r SmFK � v'r Wrv,,n mi U+ � t _ a0''" �''� �m-' a it CQ dao camp on P 36s 'S�< �+ N n Fob S � SAVE l N3553�7Cii 22550 'v:omr�M minry rn( ,.,,N3 ,,.. r•;i�.,i`�, �'` li�,� ➢ ; N .Z,�.. '4 `�P+. l', .., m PN 1 N�u Z� m (� a il+• � '`()�C �` 1' �: Nt1 114>:0 �. ,� S rnzm -� r yyt - �.j�' ....- �• 4 °Y '43471 �vo�o r� 1� �4 } U ,{'��' 11�7� 1 � � '� av '� �1 7��'✓; n> vNxS t oP.,, o'ri. .-a. t { 11Vit -:!` ' V -`.7 i'"'�"'^v>. ,r'- f��s.2539� a'w 173 '1 CD 198W N -.o x m ✓ a w , ( V „�y` ,�+..� ��; �y t FG g 3 - rq ill rq s 4 /��✓/r" m+� At a 14Y `���i,�if\� 1I � n��... n� �'i��i���� - t�T`_O' �\I\ j •t.�t14 '"��. At It CO v LG ~ _ o s / 3 1 f � i 1 SJAgRki S � bLO o h> {{ r, � ''' rrt ! - .',. 1i(N.a, 11 n° so 16 a o„��` 1' ...- ' J-7 q 1 r - CD ' i�t NI 1 � 't 00 �� g u � r au'Aot uHe. i uNe 1 7 N t4i t , l7Qto4''l PHASEt = r _ } �, "�f` .;., 1 , VU` _r' -7�.OT tinE 8 N W. ONE;r - v 1 3N a n `1 /� -1{- .( MASE� �:.5i1t �• cric!ca oG i Nt$17I< ` 4 .r.,,✓" jj`" r` ro N.'."- ronu+cAt�'Z� ^(�fi O oaf x A O 1U\i��• ,� Y. _ 1177 F^• d 5 wo 1}A+ -� �ti-2r,-i�1' �q �r :} �t ,a& t, �:.,.;b.� � � ase RE�s10 ? t( a 1: - �f'4 ?' > Q S Y� T � 7 sr b°� No 5Y s,igil TP P of or t VESSING'T�Da���p,GE 1 l 2nsna^' oG�p,�iNG p,N� #8g39 1,i CA�1�pRN\A�w��oN eve os i zv� COSTA 'PF`"".NlJ �,ONTR N N F vro PSPPOh° J tP CT rn A� ? W � O "! O « J � m N - O� { � r1• <� �Rr3s �-� .a-.Ib^'�2r' `u�~S »L• } �t. 33 44 �.4� '.'-'spy Cg Rn2 M [ �i�' OW _- coo' _' � >Oi'� .Ni C9 � � `� ��� �~i .. � �•� i"��y I�E£ ov N rc ���� $, � N a; •— .oz I � j N���� n 4z��z cw �t� � Irk� et ig »xr. Ct ar m Yu EXISTING R 1 »Ai ANO EW!01 LINE PHASE 4 g a a Zai n < , OT LIN �a - - _�� �3 �`�'• 2B �& � � � � � � � � � � � � � 7� 'ZT - ,, ,"a po x "j / YL 8z x wow4 o' x � � cam"' .•�o m �AZ �Z O yr y r"(fin yN 'O �y JN h r � r u+ v � � >. co o C) �__ i f O. �� 'act � / �� mN N � (�� _T Z n'i"+: A a Y�t'�-.YL AV: fZn !�•'l� fl _ O �N iP I .P� � •1 t'.F O O `L � :. -.---'_'" �' to '(r• n `v+ m O 1t11Y�} ....5 is .,r! 25• yt{pxgi cw "_-----_"- -_ i v 4' w 09 Pl p'41P T�NTp,TNE ND 20+024.2 TITLE SHEET `t t4�~ Y ppTE SHOWN p4�g No. D SCALE /26/200' Sqqt]G0Y jl Jts,ON iv`+ CAUrORNiA n VJD/PD COSTA COUN" vJD CONTRA