Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07242007 - D.5 CO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS •:f''= � Contra FROM: DENNIS M: BARRY, AICP %'tom` ' o .,. County ,Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR : ' . `County �vir-:.,,y DATE: JULY 24, 2007 smob SUBJECT: Hearing on a Recommendation- of the San Ramon Valley Regional .Planning Commission on a Request to Rezone a two acre parcel from General Agricultural, A-2, to Single Family Residential, R-20, located at 299 Las Quebradas Lane in the Alamo area (Robert McAdam & Ray Vogt — Applicants & Owners) (County File #RZ06-3178) (SD III) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATIONS - After accepting any public testimony and closing the public hearing, adopt a motion to: A. ADOPT the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration as adequate .for purposes of compliance with the review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE COMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE ✓APPROVE OTHER SIGNA'I-URE(S): ACTION OF BOA ON1r��?r6Vj'> APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OT VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE `UNANIMOUS(ABSENT- AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact:.Rose Marie Pietras(925)335-1216 ATTESTEDZ, Orig: Community Development Department JOHN CUL ,CLPkK OF E BOARD OF. cc: Robert McAdam&Ray Vogt(Applicant Owner) SUPERS COUNTY Public Works Department ADMI STRATOR Assessor CDD-GIS BY File DE Y -D.s a�r-d7 July 24,2007 Board of Supervisors Rezoning Request(McAdam/Vogt—A/O)Co. File#RZ063178 Pa(Te 2 B. ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program; C. ADOPT the proposed rezoning of the approximate 2-acre parcel from General Agricultural (A-2) to Single Family .Residential (R-20) as recommended by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission; and D. ADOPT the findings contained in Planning Commission Resolution.No. 08-2007 as the basis for the Board's action. E. DIRECT the Community Development Department to post a.Notice of Determination with the County Clerk, and F. ADOPT the ordinance giving effect to the aforesaid rezoning,- II. FISCAL IMPACT: The applicant is responsible for the cost of processing these development applications. III. BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking to subdivide a 2+ acre parcel containing an existing residence that is under construction located in Alamo. Towards this objective, the applicant filed concurrent and related rezoning and tentative map applications with the County on April 13, 2006. The General Plan designates the site Single Family Residential — Low Density (1.0 — 2.9 units per net acre). The rezoning application is proposing to rezone the site from General Agricultural (A-2) to Single Family Residential (R-20). The tentative map application is seeking to create two one-acre parcels. Approval of both requests would allow the development of one additional residence on the site at a location above the existing residence. The subject property is located on a southwest-facing slope with slopes as steep as 2:1 (Horizontal:Vertical). However, the slope becomes less.steep in the vicinity of the proposed building site. The applicant has obtained a geotechnical report that was prepared by a professional geotechnical consultant, Engeo, Inc. that was prepared for the residence that is presently under construction, not the proposed residential site that would result from approval of the subdivision. The report determined evidence of soil instability including several landslides, but recommends measures that would stabilize the site including construction of a keyway and buttress fill within the footprint of the residence: The County Geologist conducted a peer review of the geotechnical report and determined that similar measures are likely to be recommended for Parcel. B. From a geotechnical perspective, the County Geologist has determined that the project is manageable, but is requiring preparation of a new geotechnical report for the subdivision prior to filing a parcel map, and to require a geotechnical engineer to observe and approve all keyway excavations, removal of fill and landslide materials down to stable bedrock. or in-place material, and installation of all sub-drains including their connections. The applicant has agreed to these measures. 7---SN--67 July 24,2007 Board of Supervisors Rezoning Request(McAdam/Vogt—A/O)Co. File lt'RZ063178 Page 3 The site lies within the services areas of East:Bay Municipal Utility District and the Central Sanitary District. Neither agency has indicated any major concern with being able to service the project. The Alamo Improvement Association opposes the project. In a letter dated August 10, 2006, the Association'indicates that the slope.of the property limits its development potential and that the existing A-2 zoning (which allows a minimum five acres per parcel) is better suited for the site. A. Environmental Review For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff conducted an initial study on the project for purposes of determining whether the project would result in a significant effect on the environment. The staff analysis indicates that the project could result in significant effects relating to geology and archaeology. However, staff identified measures that would mitigate those potential impacts to less than significant levels, and the applicant has agreed to those measures. On the basis of this review, staff is recommending the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for purposes of this project's compliance with CEQA. The proposed determination was posted and noticed on December 14,' 2006, and allowed for public comments until January 3, 2007. The County received no comments on the proposed environmental.determination. B. February 21, 2007 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Hearing and Decision The San Ramon Valley."Regional Planning Commission heard the rezoning and subdivision applications on February 21, 2007. The staff report to the Commission recommended approval of the two applications, but included recommended conditions (#7 — 9) of the subdivision to limit the siting and design for the new residential site. The staff recommendation also includes the mitigation measures from the environmental review as conditions-to the tentative snap approval. No one testified in opposition to the project; After taking public testimony and closing the hearing, the Commission deliberated on various concerns including the change of zoning from agriculture to single family residential and the steepness of the site. However,' after evaluating the proposal and the evidence submitted, a majority (four commissioners) of the Commission agreed with the staff recointnendation and voted to: • Adopt the proposed Mitigated Necrative Declaration; • Recommend that the Board of Supervisors grant the proposed rezoning to the R-20 district, and • Conditionally approved the subdivision. X� July 24,2007 Board of Supervisors Rezoning Request(McAdam/Vogt—A/O)Co. File#RZ063178 Page 4 Three Commissioners (Gibson, Couture, and Matsunaga) felt that due to the steepness of the property; additional development of the site and the proposed rezoning should not be found consistent with the General Plan and voted to deny both the rezoning and subdivision applications. Following the Commission decision, no appeal of the Commission's approval of the subdivision was timely filed. Consequently, the approval of that application has become final. Moreover, staff is not aware of any party that is opposing the Commission's decision. II1. DISCUSSION The only items before the Board for this project are the consideration of the recommended environmental determination and R-20 rezoning for this property. The General Plan designates the site Single Family Residential — Low Density (I — 2.9 units per net acre). The General Plan also.provides that in the Alamo area, the R-20 and R-40 are consistent with this designation; it also provides that any.Agricultural district (including the A-2 zoning district) could be found consistent with this designation. Based on the review of the subdivision, including the protective measures contained in the geotechnical report that has been prepared for this project, the development of this site can be done in a safe manner. Moreover, change in zoning would allow it to become consistent with the General Plan designation for this site. G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Board\Board Orders\RZ063178-rev 7-1-2007.doc RMP\RD\ EXHIBIT I Rezoning Ordinance No. 2007,='3.q _ ORDINAIVC-=IVU°:-�- 200! fly - - - `- to e �oninq.�ano.in _ - - - - Alamo Area) . The Contra Costa County Board.of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION I: Page Q-15 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. RZ - 063178 ) FROM: Land Use District A-2 ( General Agriculture ) TO: Land Use District R-20 ( Single Family Residential ) and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.002. ' A-2 ` ®o A- n oP -� 2 —B aP -e.o..a...�...v O P1 R-40 II •Ji j' h.. e d' .d t......._......._...... . ............... • p ' •.: 0 Kb ' .......... 3 . 0 ,0 c , uA SECTION ll. 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 C-ci -,a. 6css47Z r;re\-e,s a newspaper published in this County. PASSED onJ th-I ��! Z«v7by the following vote: Supervisor Ave No Absent Abstain 1. J. Gioia QQ ( ) ( ) ( ) 2. G.B. Uilkema 3. M.N. Piepho ( ) ( ) U) 4. S. Bonilla ¢Q ( ) ( ) ( ) 5: F.D. Glover ( ) ( ) ATTEST: John Cullen, County Admir—istrator and Clerk o he Board of Supervise Chairman of the Board By Dep. (SEAL) ORDINANCE NO. 2007 -'3q-. RZ063178-Robert McAdam&Ray Vogt f Findings Map -A 2 o.�_�q m �- -- P-1 Eamino,Nlonle:S� R-20:• 6 ;'Q� 2 P.1 A-2 u �� R-4O p B n Fi , •..._.,.\ B - ; HL ""ii Oaks"PI i- ,OaksFi 21 T.. . : n / a G c , m: \. ',,. I t• .. ,gy5 Rezone from A-2 to R-20 ® Alamo Area r Neal Matsunaga Chair of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, State of California do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of page Q-15 of the County's 2005 zoning map. indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission in the matter of Robert McAdam & Ray Vogt - RZ 063178 ATTEST: Secretary,of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, State of Calf.. EXHIBIT 2 County Planning Commission Resolution No. 08-2007 RESOLUTION NO. 08-2007 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL - PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION FOR THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (COUNTY FILE #MS060014) AND THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN ZONING BY ROBERT MCADAM & RAY. VOGT, (APPLICANT & OWNERS) (COUNTY FILE #RZ063178) I.N THE ORDINANCE CODE. SECTION PERTAINING TO THE PRECISE ZONING FOR THE ALAMO AREA OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, on April 16, 2006, the County received related applications for a.two- acre parcel in Alamo from Robert McAdam and Ray.Vogt (Applicant & Owners) to rezone 2.06 acres from General Agricultural (A-2) to Single Family Residential (R-20) and to subdivide the site into two parcels; and WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, the Community Development Department conducted. an initial study of the project and determined that the project may result in several significant effects to the environment, but identified measures that would reduce those effects to a less than significant level, and the applicant agreed to implement those measures; as a consequence, for purposes of compliance with CEQA, staff recommended that the County adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration determination, and posted that determination and issued a public notice of it as required by law on December 14, 2006 and allowed for any public comment on it until January 03, 2007; and no public comment on the adequacy of that determination was made to the County; WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing -was scheduled before the San Ramon Valley .Regional Planning Commission of the County of Contra Costa on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 where all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, on Wednesday, February 21, 2007, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the applicants' requests to rezone his property from General Agriculture (A-2) to Single Family Residential (R-20) and for the proposed subdivision. WHEREAS, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; Resolution No. 08-2007 Review of Proposed Rezoning/Subdivision McAdn►n/Vogt(A/O) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Ramon Valley Regional .Planning Commission: a 1. FINDS that the,proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate for the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program; 2. RECOMMENDS to. the Board of Supervisors the APPROVAL of the rezoning of the site from the General Agricultural (A-2) District to the Single Family Residential(R-20); 3. APPROVES the Vesting Tentative Map for a two lot subdivision, subject to conditions. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this recommendation areas follows: A. REZONING FINDINGS: 1. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the General Plan. Project Finding: The project site is currently zone General Agriculture (A- 2), and designated Single Family Residential -Low (SL) land use district in the general plan. Presently, the zoning and land use designation are not compatible. The basis for the R-20 rezone will allow for consistency with the General Plan. It should be noted that other properties within the immediate vicinity are in the single family residential zoning district (R-20) and designated Single Family Residential-Low in the County General Plan. The proposed rezoning to R-20 is for the purpose of developing one additional single fancily home that substantially complies with the SL land use designation. 2. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts. Project Finding: The subject property lies in. the vicinity of Alamo, arc unincorporated area of the County that has been in transition fi•oni semi- rural to residential. The majority of.the properties in this vicinity (ire both single fancily residences,and to a small degree semi-rural. 3. Required Findine: Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. -2- Resohition No. 08-2007 Review of Proposed Rezoning/Subdivision McAdam/Vogt(A/O) Protect FindinZ: The County demonstrates a meed for housing opportunities of all types. This rezoning of this property to R-20 will allow the -higher density consistent with the SI, designation while providing a highly desirable and aesthetically pleasing product. B. GROWTH MANAGEMENT: 1. Traffic: The proposal to establish two (2) single family residences on the site does not trigger the Measure C requirements of the County Ordinance. The number of peak trips generated by the project is two (2) additional peak hour trips. The impacts that the project will have on the major arterials in the area will be minimal. 2. Water: The County pursuant to its police power and as the proper. governmental entity responsible for directly regulating land use density or intensity, property development and the subdivision of property within the unincorporated areas of the County, shall require new development to demonstrate that adequate water quantity, and quality can be provided. The property is in the East Bay Municipal Utility District, which can adequately serve the project once the necessary improvements are made. Therefore, the applicant shall provide a will serve letter to the County prior to recording the Parcel Map. The applicant shall bear all expenses associated with constructing a water system capable of meeting the fire flow and water demand and water quality requirements of the water district and of the fire district. 3. Sanitary Sewer: The County pursuant to its police power and as the proper governmental entity responsible for directly regulating land use density or intensity, property development and the subdivisiori of property within the unincorporated areas of the County, shall require new development .to demonstrate that adequate sanitary sewer quantity and quality can be provided. The Contra Costa Central Sanitary District has responded verifying service.to the project subject to their standard fees, specif cations, and conditions. 4. Fire Protection: The project site is located within one mile of Station 32 at 1101 Stone Valley Road, Alamo, therefore for purposes of meeting the County's Fire Protection Growth Management Finding, no automatic sprinklers are required. 5. Public Protection, The project will not result in a population increase of 1,000 persons, therefore there are no . special capital improvements contributions required of this project. The project will be required to provide for an assessment district to allow for a supplemental tax on each residential lot for augmented police services. -3- 2 ;) Resolution No. 08-2007 Review of Proposed Rezoning/Subdivision McAdam/Vogt(4/0) 6. Parks and Recreation: Per the requirements of the County Ordinance, the applicant will be required.to pay an in-lieu fee for park dedication purposes. This money is placed in a trust, to be used for the purchase of future park property within the County. 7. Flood Control and Drainage: The property is not located in a flood zone. As part of the application the applicant has submitted a drainage plan. The plan identifies the location and type of drainage systems that will be used on the site. (Ref The Growth Management.Element, Chapter 4, of the General Plan) C. TENTATIVE MAP FINDINGS 1. Required Finding: The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning.Commission shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for design and improvement, is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans required by law. When approving the tentative map for a minor subdivision, the advisory agency. shall make findings as required concerning the fulfillment of constriction requirements. Project FindinL The General Plan identifies the property's designation., single family residential-low. The General Plan density range is 1.0 to 2.9 units per net acre. The single funnily residential-low portion totals the whole property totals 2.05 acres, at 1.0 unit per net acre. The proposed project is for 2 single family lots. -4- V•s,��ay 7 Resolution No. 08-2007 Review of Proposed Rezoning/Subdivision McAdam/Vogt(A/Q) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of this Planning Commission sliall sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California. The instructions of the San Ramon Valley Region Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was given by motion of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 21, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Mulvhill, Neely, McPherson, and Bowlby. NOES: Commissioners: Gibson, Couture, and Matsunaga ABSENT: Commissioners: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None NEAL MATSUNAGA Chair of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: 0 Dennis M. Barry, A1CP, Secretary San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California GXurrent Planning\cure-plan\Board\Resolutions\IZZ063178 rev 7-1-2007.res.doc RMP\R.D\ -5- Appy°val °t coll d�ti���$ %,Pel--4r7 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #RZ063178 AND FOR VESTING TENTATIVE MAP COUNTY FILE #MS0500014 IN THE ALAMO AREA OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AS APPROVED BY THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION ON FEBRUARY 21, 2007. A. Findings for Approval of a Rezoning 1. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the General Plan. Project Finding: The project site is currently zone General Agriculture (A-2), and designated Single Family Residential -Low (SL) in the General Plan. Presently, the zoning and land use designation are not compatible. The basis for the R-20 rezone will allow for consistency with the General Plan. It should be noted that other properties within the immediate vicinity are in the single family residential zoning district (R-20) and designated Single Familv Residential-Low in the County General Plan. The proposed rezoning to R-20 is forthe purpose of developing one additional single family home'. that substantially complies with the SL land use designation. 2. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts. Project Finding: . The subject property lies in the vicinity of Alamo, an unincorporated area of the County that has been in transition from semi-rural to residential. The majority of the properties in this vicinity of are both single family residences and to a small degree semi-rural. 3. Required Findin7: Community need has :been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. Project Finding: The County demonstrates a need for housing opportunities of all types. The rezoning of this property to R-20 will allow the higher density consistent with the SL designation while providing a highly.desirable and aesthetically pleasing product. B. Tentative Map Findings 1. Required Finding_ The County Zoning Administrator shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the.proposed subdivision, together with the provisions.for design and improvement, is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans required by law. When approving the tentative map for a minor subdivision, the advisory agency shall make findings as required concerning the fulfillment of construction requirements. S-8 - Project Finding: The General Plan identifies the property's designation, single family residential-low. The General Plann density range is 1.0 to 2.9 units per net acre. The single family residential — low portion totals the whole property totals 2.05 acres, at 1.0 unit per net acre. The proposed project is for 2 single family lots. C. Growth Management Findings 1. Traffic: The proposal to establish two (2) single family residences on the site does not trigger the Measure C requirements of the County Ordinance. The number of peak trips generated by the project is two (2) additional peak hour trips. The impacts that the project will have on the major arterials in the area will be minimal. 2. Water: The County pursuant to its police power. and as the proper governmental entity responsible for directly regulating land use density or intensity, property development and the subdivision of property within the unincorporated areas of the County, shall require new development to demonstrate that adequate water quantity and quality can be provided. The property is in the East.Bay Municipal Utility District, can adequately serve the project once the necessary improvements are made. Therefore, the applicant shall provide a will serve letter to the County prior to recording the . . Parcel Map. The applicant shall bear all expenses associated with constructing a water system capable of meeting the fire flow and water demand and water quality requirements of the water district and of the -fire. . district. 3. Sanitary Sewer: The County pursuant to its police power and as the proper. governmental entity responsible for directly regulating land use density or intensity, property development and the subdivision of property within the unincorporated areas of the County, shall require new development to . demonstrate that adequate sanitary sewer quantity and quality can be provided. The Contra Costa Central Sanitary District has responded verifying service to the project subject to their standard fees, specifications, and conditions. 4. Fire Protection: Fire stations shall be located within one and one-half miles of developments in urban, suburban and central business district areas. The subject property is located near Station 32, at 1101 Stone Valley Road, Alamo. 5. Public Protection: .The project will not result in a population increase of 1,000 persons, therefore there are no special capital . improvements contributions required of this project. The project will be required to provide for an assessment district to allow for a supplemental tax on each residential lot for augmented police services. . .6. Parks and Recreation: Per the requirements. of the County Ordinance, the applicant will be required to pay a per unit park dedication fee of$2,000 S-9 per unit. This money is placed in a trust, to be used for the purchase of future park property within the County. 7. Flood Control and Drainage: The property is not located in a flood zone. As part of the application the applicant has submitted a drainage plan. The plan identifies the location and type.of drainage systems that will be used on the site. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Administration This approval is based upon the exhibits received by the Community Development Department listed as follows: a) Vesting Tentative Map dated October 19, 2006 b) Geological Peer Review dated August 4, 2006 prepared by Darwin Myers Associates C) Geotechnical Exploration dated July 31, 2006 prepared by ENGEO Incorporation. 2. _ The approval is for a three (3) year period, which may be extended, consistent with provisions of State Law. An extension request must be submitted prior to expiration of the initial approval and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. An extension request is subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 3. The maximum number of lots approved for this project is two single family lots. 4. — Payment of any upplemental Application Processing Fees Which are Due: 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 fees due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If the applicant owes additional fees; a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. Indemnification 5. _ _ At least 30 days prior recording the Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit a letter stating the following: "Pursuant to Government Code Section . 66474.9, the applicant (including the sub-divider or any agent thereof) S-10 shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the sub-divider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense." Special Districts 6. — _ Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or the filing of a parcel map, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator that proper permits or substantial review has been undertaken by the appropriate special districts. Hillside Homes 7. _ — At least 30:days prior to the issuance of a building permit, elevations and architectural ,design of the building and building roof material for lot B shall be submitted for final review and approval by the County Zoning Administrator. The roofs and exterior walls of the building shall be free of such objects as air conditioning or utility equipment, television aerials, etc. 8. _ The garage shall be fitted and maintained with automatic garage door openers. 9. _ At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit architectural building elevations for Lot B for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator based on the following design guidelines: . A. Cut the building into the slope to reduce the effective visual bulk. Step the building up the slope rather than have a single floor height. B. Minimize under-story height or foundation on downhill side of house. C. Keep buildings relatively short (28.foot maximum) and avoid steep roof pitches. • A deed restriction shall be recorded that states that the area shown as Lot B will have structures limited to 28 feet unless the Zoning Administrator approves the design with a height no greater than 32 feet and makes a finding that the S-11 �•S 7-�y d7 design is consistent with.the County policy of encouraging step down designs of homes. D. Break up the building mass into smaller elements with. a more natural flow of structures blending in with the topography of the site. Large vertical planes on the downhill'side are discouraged. E. Step back second stories. F. Avoid gable ends on downhill elevations. G. The applicant shall utilized a series of small walls with landscaping in between and avoid tall retaining walls. H. Exterior colors should be within a 5.0%maximum reflectivity. I. Extend architectural treatments around to :the sides and rear of the house. . J. Provide some landscaping on the downhill side of the house and patios. L. Screen storage.areas and out-buildings. M.' Fencing should be open.and preferably dark. N. Lighting within building envelope shall be minimized and limited to down lighting. 10. Prior to filing a Parcel Map, the applicant shall'submit two copies of a proposed disclosure statement for the review and' approval of the Zoning Administrator. The approved statement shall .be used to notify the prospective buyer of parcel B of Condition of Approval #10, which .will affect the development of Parcel B (e.g. Conditions of Approval #10). Archaeology 11. _ If any significant cultural materials such as artifacts;human burials, or the like are encountered during construction operations, such operations shall cease within 10 feet of the find, the Community Development Department shall be notified within 24-hours and a qualified;archaeologist contacted and retained for further recommendations. Significant cultural materials include, but are not.limited to, aboriginal human'.remains, chipped stone, groundstone, shell and bone artifacts, concentrations of fire cracked rock ash, charcoal, shell, bone, and historic features such as privies or building foundations. MM V.d S-12 Child Care Condition 12. _ The developer shall pay a fee of$400 per lot/unit toward child care facility needs in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors. Police Service Mitigation 13. _ Prior to the issuance of a building permit on any parcel that is not occupied by a legal residence, the applicant shall contribute 51.000.00 to the County for police services mitigation. The fee shall be paid to the Contra Costa County Application & Permit Center. Grading Conditions 14. The grading plan shall provide.for balanced cut and fill.on site (i.e., no import or export of fill material.) Tree Conditions 15. J The developer and applicant shall adhere to the following tree preservation standards required by Section 816-6.1202 of the County Code: A. Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading,- compaction, rading,compaction, paving or change in ground elevation on a site with trees to be preserved, the applicant shall install fencing at the dripline or.other area as. determined by an arborist report of all trees adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences maybe inspected and the location thereof approved by appropriate County staff. B. No grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching, paving or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline unless indicated on the grading plans approved by the County and addressed in any required report prepared by an arborist. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline, an.arborist may be required to be present during grading operations. The arborist shall have the authority to require protective measures to . protect the roots. Upon completion of grading and construction, an involved arborist shall prepare a report outlining further methods requiring for tree protection if any are required. All arborist expense shall be borne by the developer and applicant. C. No parking or storing vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials;,construction trailers and no dumping of oils S-13 0 0'. �a7 or chemicals shall be permitted within the dripline of any tree to be saved. 16.— To assure protection and/or reasonable replacement of existing trees to be preserved which are in proximity to project improvements, the applicant shall post a bond. (or cash deposit or other surety) for the required work with the Community Development Department. The term of the bond shall extend at least 24 months beyond the completion of constriction. Prior to posting the bond or deposit, a licensed arborist shall assess the value of the trees and reasonable compensatory terms in the event that a tree to be preserved is destroyed or otherwise damaged by construction- related activity. The tree bonding program shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Landscaping 17.____ A landscape and irrigation plan for all front yards shall be submitted for review an approval of the Zoning Administrator at least 30 days prior to the issuance of a building permit. A cost estimate shall be submitted with the landscaping program plan. Landscaping shall conform to the County Water Conservation Landscaping Ordinance 82=26.and shall be installed . prior to occupancy. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and shall be certified to be in compliance with the County Water Conservation Ordinance. 18.� California native drought tolerant plant or tree shall be used as much as possible. All trees shall be a minimum 5-gallon size, all shrubs shall be a minimum.l-gallon size, except as otherwise noted. Construction Conditions 19.____ _ During construction require implementation of BAAQMD construction dust control measures such as the following: . 1. Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. 2. Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soils, sand and other materials that can be blown by the wind daily. 3. Cover all trucks hauling soils, sand and other loose material or require all material-hauling tricks to maintain at least two feet of . freeboard. 4. Pave, apply water 3 times daily or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking lots and staging areas at construction sites. 5. Sweep street daily, preferably with water sweepers, if soil is carried onto adjacent streets. S-14 ?-59a7 20. Construction Period Development Activity Restrictions — Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the followin(; construction noise, dust, litter, and traffic control requirements: A. Time Limits on Construction Activity All construction activities shall be.limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays on the calendar dates that these holidays are observed by the state or federal government as listed below: New Year's Day (State and Federal) Birthday of Martin Luther King,'Jr. (State and Federal) Washington's Birthday/Presidents' Day (State and Federal) Lincoln's Birthday (State) Cesar Chavez Day (State) Memorial Day(State and Federal) Independence Day(State and Federal) Labor Day (State and Federal) Columbus Day(State and Federal) Veterans Day (State and Federal) Thanksgiving Day(State and Federal) Day after Thanksgiving (State) Christmas Day (State and Federal) For specific details on the actual day the state and federal holidays occur, please visit the following websites: Federal Holidays http://wNvw.opii-1.gov/fedhol/2006.asp California Holidays http://-vv,.vw.edd.ca.gov/eddstliol.litni B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with.. mufflers that are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generation equipment such as air compressors and concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible. C. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic'flows. D. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be .limited to the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and is prohibited on state and federal holidays." E. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site. S45 • ?�� �-�yam, F. At least one week prior to commencement;of grading, the applicant shall post at the,site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site, notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with , name, title, phone number and area of . responsibility. The person responsible for:,maintaining the list shall also be included. The list shall be kept current.at all times and shall consist of persons with ' authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles and the 24-hour emergency number shall be expressly identified oil the notice. A copy of the notice shall. be .concurrently transmitted to the Community Development Department. The notice shall be . accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed. G. Inclusion of Time Limits on Improvement/Construction Plan Notes— Prior to clearance of improvement plans (including subdivision, grading, and building), the notes for the plans shall include the above time limits on construction activity. H. A dust and litter control program shall be:submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. , Any violation of the approved program or applicable. ordinances shall require. an immediate work stoppage. Construction work shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate construction bond has been posted. 1. The applicant shall snake a good-faith.effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. Prior to issuance of building permits, the proposed roads serving this development-shall be constructed to provide access to each portion of the'development site. This shall include provision for an onsite area in which to park earthmoving equipment. J. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to weekdays between the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM, and prohibited on Federal and State holidays. Geologic Conditions. 21._ A. For Parcel B, at least 30 days prior to ,requesting recordation of the Parcel Map submit a preliminary geology, soil and foundation report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for review and approval of the County Peer Review Geologist. S-16 Improvement, grading, and building plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report. This report shall include evaluation of the potential for landsliding, seismic settlement and other types of seismically-induced ground failure by recognized methods appropriate to soil conditions discovered during subsurface investigation. The report shall include measures to protect the future residences on Parcel B from encroachment b the slides mapped by ENGEO, Inc. The report should also provide recommendations for the gradient of engineered slopes, and other criteria and standards to guide preparation of grading and building plans. B. All grading and drainage plans are subject to review of the County Peer Review Geologist and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plans shall be prepared b appropriately licensed professionals. C. Unstable soils and landslides shall be removed within graded areas. Buttressing, keying and subdrainage facilities shall be provided. In the transition areas between open space areas and the residence on Parcel B, a debris deflection wall shall be provided. D. Prior to issuance of the construction permit for Parcel B, provide a grading remediation plan and reportfor the approval of the Building Inspection Department ("BID"). The report shall evaluate open space hillsides whose performance could affect planned improvements. E. During grading, the geotechnical engineer shall observe and approve all keyway excavations, removal of fill and landslide material down to stable bedrock or in-place material, and installation of all subdrains including their connections. All fill slope construction shall be observed and tested by the project geotechnical engineer, and the density test results and reports submitted to the County to be kept on file. Cut slopes and keyways shall be observed and mapped by the project engineering geologist who will provide recommendations of modifications based on the actualgeologic conditions encountered during grading. Approval from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department shall be obtained prior to any modification. F. Concurrently with recordation of the Parcel Map, record a statement to run with deeds to the property acknowledging the Geotechnical Study by title, author (firm), and date, ,calling attention to conclusion, including the long-term maintenance requirements, and noting that the report is available to prospective buyers from seller of the parcel. G. Prior to issuance of the building permits. Submit an as-graded report of the engineering geologist and the geotechnical engineer with a map S-17 showing final . grades, subsurface drainage, subdrain cleanouts, disposal and pickup points, and any other soil improvements installed during grading, as surveyed by the project surveys or civil engineer. MM VI.a.4. Signs/Walls/Lighting 22 _ All signs shall be subject to the review and approval of the 'Zoning Administrator. No other outside displays are permitted. 23. A sample section and color of the proposed .retaining walls shall be submitted. Retaining walls colors shall be a muted earth-tone color. Construction and Demolition Debris 24. At least 30 days prior. to the issuance of the building 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 for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 25._ At least 30 days prior to. the issuance of an Occupancy Permit, the developer shall submit a completed "Debris Recovery Report" documenting actual debris recovery effects "including quantities of recovered and landfilled materials that occurred throughout the project's duration. Permit Compliance Report and Processing Fee 26. Prior to approval of a parcel map, the applicant shall provide a permit compliance report to the Community Development Department of the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The report shall identify all conditions of approval that are administrated by the Community Development Department. The report shall document the measures taken by the applicant to satisfy all.the relevant conditions. Copies of the permit conditions may be obtained on a computer file from the Community Development Department by contacting the project manager. 27._ The permit compliance review is subject to staff°time and material charges, with an initial deposit of$500.00 for a subdivision, which shall be paid at time of submittal of the compliance report. Checks may be made payable to the County of Contra Costa. S-18 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR PERMIT MS 06-0014. Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9 and Title 10 of the Ordinance Code. Any exception(s) must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the revised Vesting Tentative Map submitted to Community Development on October 19, 2006. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO FILING OF THE PARCEL MAP. General Requirements: 28.— __ Improverrment plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted, if necessary, to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, along with review'and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code for the conditions of approval of this subdivision. Any necessary traffic signing and striping shall be included in the improvement plans for review by the Transportation Engineering Division of the Public Works Department. Roadway Improvements (Public): 29.— The applicant is granted an exception from' installation of frontage improvements along Las Quebradas Lane, provided the property owner(s) execute(s) a deferred improvement agreement for the following improvements: 1. Construction of curb and gutter,. necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, street lighting, as necessary, pavement widening and transitions, and any necessary relocation or undergrounding of utility facilities along the frontage of Las Quebradas Lane; and 2. At the time the deferred improvement agreement is called up, property owner shall submit improvement plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, to Public Works and pay appropriate fees in accordance with' the County Ordinance and this deferred improvement agreement. Roadway Improvements (Private): 30.� Applicant shall improve Las Quebradas Court with curb and gutter, necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and pavement widening to provide a 20-ft paved roadway width within the existing 25-ft easement width, as shown on the revised Vesting Tentative Map. S-19 31. _ The applicant shall provide grooved concrete pavement or other equivalent pavement surfacing for any section of Las 'Quebradas Court that is equal to or exceeds 16% longitudinal grade, as approved by the Public Works Department and the Fire District. Access to Adjoining Property: Proof of Access 32. Applicant shall furnish proof to Public Works of the acquisition of all necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road and drainage improvements. Encroachment Permit . 33. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit Center, if necessary, for construction of.improvements within the right of way of Las Quebradas Lane. Abutter's Rights: 34. Applicant shall relinquish abutter's rights of access along Las Quebradas Lane with the exception of the proposed driveway to Parcel `A' and Las Quebradas Court. Sight Distance: 35. The applicant shall provide sight distance. at the intersection of Las Quebradas Court with Las Quebradas Lane by complying with current Public Works Standard Plans and the County Ordinance Code Section 82- 18 for required clearance at intersections. Street Lights: 36. Property owner shall apply for annexation to County Service Area L-100 Lighting District by submitting: .a letter of request; a metes and bounds description; and, pay the current LAFCO fees, or apply for annexation to another street light financing mechanism approved by the Public Works Department. Annexation shall occur prior to filing of the Parcel Map. The applicant shall be aware that this annexation process must comply with State Proposition 218 requirements, which state that the property owner must hold a special election to approve the annexation. This process may take approximately 4-6 months to complete. Annexation into a street light service area does not include the transfer of ownership and maintenance of street lighting on private roads. 5-20 Pedestrian Facilities: 37. _ The applicant shall design all public and private pedestrian facilities in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap Access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Utilities/Undergrouuding: 38. _ All new utility distribution services shall be installed underground. Maintenance of Facilities: 39. Property Owner shall record a Statement of Obligation in the form of a deed notification,. to inform all future property owners of their legal obligationto maintain the private roadway and street lights. 40. Property Owner shall develop or enter into a maintenance agreement that will insure that the private road and street lights will be maintained, and that each parcel in this subdivision will share in its maintenance. Drainage Improvements: Collect and Convey 41. _ The .applicant shall collect and convey all stormwater entering and/or originating on this property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which, conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. Applicant shall verify the adequacy at any downstream drainage facility accepting stormwater from this project prior to discharging runoff. If the downstream system(s) is inadequate, improvements shall be constructed to make the system adequate. 42._ Applicant shall design and construct all storm drainage facilities . in compliance with.the Ordinance Code and Public Works design standards. 43. _ Applicant shall prevent storm drainage. from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s) in a concentrated manner. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): 44. The applicant shall be required to comply with all riles, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as 5-21 promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay - Region II, or Central Valley- Region IV). Compliance shall include developing long-term best management. practices (BMPs) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate wherever feasible, the following long-term BMPs in accordance with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program for the site's storm water drainage: - Offer pavers for household driveways and/or walkways as an option to buyers. - Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. Stenciling all storm drains ("No Dumpind, Drains to Bay") using thermoplastic tape. Concrete driveway weakened plane joints at angles to assist in directing run-off to landscaped/pervious areas prior to entering the street curb and gutter. Other alternatives comparable to the above as approved by Public Works. Provision"C.3" of the NPDES Permit. Exception 45. As an alternative to complying-with C.3 requirements with the submittal of a SWCP, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed subdivision will not result in more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface by proposing to record a Grant Deed of. Development Rights over the proposed areas of the parcels to ensure that these areas will remain pervious. Once recorded, the Grant Deed of Development Rights cannot be removed (or vacated) until such time that the parcels and all proposed improvements are in full compliance with the C.3 requirements. Restricted Development Areas: 46. Applicant shall grant deed development rights to Contra Costa County over the areas indicated with "Impervious Surface Limitation Easement", as shown on the revised Vesting Tentative Map. The purpose of these restricted development areas is.. to prevent the construction of future improvements in the unimproved or pervious portions of the project site. Considering that any additional development beyond that proposed in the . revised Vesting Tentative Map may increase the overall impervious area beyond the 10,000 square foot threshold that was used to trigger the submittal of a Storm Water Control Plan, restricted development rights would ensure clean water ordinance limits are not exceeded. The Grant S-22 Deed of Development Rights_, shall be recorded prior to .or concurrently with filing of the Parcel Map. 47. _ Applicant shall record.a deed notification, to inform all future property owners of the restricted development areas located on their property. The deed notification shall inform future property owners that no impervious surfaces can be placed or constructed within the designated restricted development areas: ADVISORY NOTES PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE 'CONDITIONS OF :APPROVAL. ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF . INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. A. Additional requirements may be imposed by the Health Department or the Building Inspection Department. It is advisable to check with these departments prior to requesting a building permit or proceeding with the project. B. The Building Inspection Department will require three sets .of building plans which must be stamped by the Community Development Department and by the Sanitary District, or if the site is not within a Sanitary District, by the County Health Department. C. Vesting Tentative Map Rights_ The approval of this vesting tentative map confers a vested right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with ordinances, policies, and standards in effect as of November 2, 2006, the date the vesting tentative map application was accepted as complete .by the Community Development Department. The vested rights also apply to development fees which the County has adopted by ordinance. These fees are in addition to any other development fees which may be specified in the conditions of approval. The fees include but are not limited to the following: Park Dedication $2,000.00 per residence. Child Care $ 400.00 per residence. School Fees TBD An estimate of the fee charges for each approved lot may be obtained by contacting the Building Inspection Department at 335-1192. S-23 D. The applicant should be aware of the Fire District requirements related to this project as described in the staff report for the Sari Ramon Valley Planning Commission hearing. E. Expiration of Vested Rights: Pursuant to Section 66452.6(8) of the Subdivision Map act, the rights conferred by the vesting tentative map as provided by Chapter 4.5 of the Subdivision Map act shall last for an initial period of two (2) years following the recording date of the final/parcel map'. These rights pertain to development fees and regulations. Where several final maps are recorded on various phases of a project covered by a single vesting tentative map, the. initial time period shall.begin for each phase when the final map for that phase is recorded. At anytime prior to the expiration of the initial time.period, the subdivider may apply for a one-year extension. The application shall be accompanied by the applicable filing. fee. If the extension is denied by an advisory agency, the subdivider may appeal that denial.to the Board of Supervisors by filing a letter of appeal with the appropriate .filing fee with the Clerk of the Board within 10 calendar days. The initial time period may also be subject to automatic extension pursuant to other provisions of Section 66452.6(8) relating .to processing of related development applications by the County. F. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to .notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and, wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code. G. This project may be subject to the'requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the:applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it-'can be obtained. H. The applicant will be required .to comply with the requirements .of 'the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Alamo, South.County, and Tri-Valley Areas of Benefit as adopted by the'Board of Supervisors. I. This subdivision will be subject to compliance with the Drainage Fee Ordinance requirements for Drainage Area 73 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. This fee must be paid prior to filing the parcel map. At the expiration of the vesting.time, period, ,remaining development (i.e., new building permits) within the subdivision shall be subject to development fees and regulations in effect.at that time. S-24 J. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay- Region I1). G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\1\4S060014 & RZ063178.1.11.07- 2.doc Approved 2-21-07 jrr S-25 X�i$1� 4 E �etier�ination CEQA Commu n ity ©� �� Dennis M.Barry.AICP Community Deveiopment Director DevNopmentCosta Department - C-ounly County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 " Phone: (925) 335-1210 December 14, 2006 '.�`. ` ,'"�.. NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION .County File #RZ063178 & MS060014 Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the"Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County has prepared an initial study on the. following project: Robert McAdam & Rav Vogt, (Applicant & Owners)— A) County File # RZ063178: The applicant requests approval to rezone a 2.05-acre parcel from A-2 (General Agriculture) to R-20 (Single Family Residential). B) County File #MS060014: The applicant requests approval to subdivide a 2.05-acre parcel into two parcels. The subject property is required to be annexed to the County Service Area of the L-100 Lighting Distract. The subject property's address is 299 Las Quebradas Lane in the Alamo area. (A-2) (ZA: Q-15) (CT: 3461.02) (APN: 193-080-014) The proposed development will not result in any significant impacts. . A copy of the mitigated negative declaration and all documents referenced in the mitivated negative declaration may be reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department, and Application and Permit Center at the McBrien Administration Building,North Wing,Second Floor, 651 Pine Street. Martinez, during normal business hours. Public Comment Period -The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents extends to 5:00 P.M., Januar, 03, 2007. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address: Rosemarie Pietras -- Community Development Department I Contra Costa County _� _ 651 Pine Street, North W ing, 2nd Floor E D= 1 Martinez, CA 94553 y IS.L. 1V E _. I y,.�i'..J Ii i'.; , vL;:;,K BY Office Flours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st• 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month It is anticipated that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at ` a meeting of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 at 7:00 P.M. The hearing is anticipated to be held at the McBrien Administration Building, Room 107, Pine and Escobar Streets, Martinez. It is expectedthat the County Planning Commission will also conduct a hearing on the application at that same meeting. Rosemarie Pietras Senior Planner . cc: County Clerk's Office (2 copies) GACurrent Planning\Curr-plan\Templates\shell\notice of ne;dec example.doc �•S r7�-�-o' Environmental Checklist Form L. Project Title: MS060014 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,North Wing-4th Floor Martinez,-CA 94553 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Rose Marie Pietras, Senior Planner, (925) 335-1216 4. Project Location: 299 Las Quebradas Lane 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address Robert McAdam &Ray Vogt 1581Litana Drive Alamo, CA 94507 6. General Plan Designation: Single Family Residential—Low 7. Zoning: A-2.—General Agriculture 8. Description of Project: The applicant requests approval to rezone the property from A-2 General Agriculture to R-20 Single Family Residential and to subdivide 2.3 acres into a two single family lots. 9. Surrounding Land Uses.and Setting: The subject site has one existing: single family home. Contiguous to the property to the north and east are two properties that are 3.75 acres and 4.78 acres; contiguous to the south is a.5 and 1.0 acre parcels. The surrounding area beyond the subject site, consist of varied size lots ranging from .5 acre to one and two acre lots. 10. Other public agencies whose approval (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning _ . Transportation/ _ Public Services Population &Housing Circulation _ Utilities& Service X Geological Problems _ Biological Resources Systems Water _ Energy&Mineral _ Aesthetics Air Quality Resources X Cultural Resources Mandatory Findings of _ Hazards _ Recreation Significance _ Noise _ No Significant Impacts Identified s 7-911-0 7 2 DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment,but at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) hasbeen addressed by mitigation measures.based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or ".potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature Date �o5c Il'lhk-1C r'ET' s CCC Community Development Department Printed Name For SOURCES In.the process of preparing the Checklist and conducting the evaluation,the following references(which are available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street 5th Floor-North Wing, Martinez)were consulted: 1. Contra Costa Resource Mapping System— Las Trampas- Quad Sheet Panels 2. (Reconsolidated) County General Plan (July 1996) and EIR on the General Plan (January 1991). 3. General Plan and Zoning Maps 4. Contra Costa County Code,including zoning and subdivision ordinances and the State Planning and Zoning Law, Subdivision Map Act and California Environmental Quality Act 5. Agency Comments 6. Field Review on July 13, 2006. 7. Geotechnical Exploration—Lot 1 Las Quebradas Court prepared by ENGEO Incorporated dated July 31, 2006. 8. Geologic Peer Review prepared by Darwin Myers Associates dated August 4, 2006. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X vista? Sources 1, 2, 3; &.6 — — — -- b. Substantially damage scenic • resources, including but not limited to: trees, rock X outcroppings, and historic buildings within a — — — state scenic highway? Sources 1, 2, 3, & 6 C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its — X surroundings? Sources 1, 2, 3 & 6 d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime — — — X views in the area?. Sources 1, 2, 3 & 6 SUMMARY: No impact. a) The site is located in the Alamo area of the County along Las Quebradas Lane. The site has an existing single family home presently being constructed. Staff has made a field visit on July 13, 2006. Staff will require a Scenic Easement above the 500 contour line. b) The site is located in a semi-rural area of the county. The access to proposed parcel B is off an existing private road. There are mature oak trees on proposed parcel A,which will be retained. c) The visual character of the site would change with the eventual development of Parcel B. The proposed project would be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Many residences in the surrounding neighborhood are build on steep hillsides. d) No glare would be introduced in the area. Minimal new sources of light would illuminate from eventual development. 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 Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would theproject: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Im act a. Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the X Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of —the California Resources Agency, to non- agncultural use? Sources 1, 2, 3 &6 b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural X 4 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than, Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact impact use, or a Williamson Act contract? Sources 1, 2, 3.&6 C. Involve other changes in the existing, environment which, due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, — — X to non-agricultural use? Sources 1, 2, 3 &6 SUMMARY: No impact a,b&c) The site is located in an area designated Urban and Built-tip Lands on the Contra Costa County Important Farmland 2000 Map. During staff s field visit is was observed that the existing topography of the property is not conducive for agricultural production. The property is designated . Single Family Residential– Low in the County General Plan. This proposal will provide for one additional house fulfilling the goals and policies of the County General Plan,Housing Element. Ill. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the si�*nificance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would theproject: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No impact Incorporation. Impact Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan'? Sources 1, 2, 3,& — _ — X 6 b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? _ _ X Sources 1, 2, 3; & 6 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 — _ _ X standard (including releasing emissions which exceed `quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Sources.1, 2, 3, &6 d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial X pollutant concentrations? Sources 1, 2, 3. &6 — — e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Sources 1,2,3, _ X & 6. SUMMARY: No impacts. a) The proposal does not conflict with implementation of an applicable air quality plan. b) The.proposal would not violate air quality standards or contribute to existing air quality violations. S 7 d Ll-v7 c) The region is currently in non-attainment for ozone. and .fine particulate matter (PM 10). Implementation of the project would lead to a slight increase inozone and ozone precursors, as they are.primarily the result of the automobile emissions and development of the additional residences would lead to increased automobile use. The residential use is not an inherent producer of PM 10 pollution. Construction activities could cause a temporary increase in ambient levels of PM 10. There could bean impact from dust and fine particulates commonly associated with earth movement and construction. The project will be conditioned.to require that measures be taken to reduce PM 10 emissions during earth movement and construction. These conditions will include, but may not be limited to, watering the site multiple times daily, sweeping and collecting loose particles on-site and requiring that dump trucks be covered when hauling loose materials. The Building Inspection Department, Grading Division, will also enforce measures to reduce particulate pollution. d) No sensitive receptors are located near the site. e) Construction of new residences would produce no objectionable odors. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would theproject: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Sienifncant No Impact Incorporation im act Impact 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, _ . _ _ X policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? Sources 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 b. Have a substantial -adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans., X policies, or regulations; or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Sources 1, 2, 3 5 & 6 C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited X to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological inter- ru tion,or other means? Sources 1,2, 3, 5 &6 d. Interfere substantially with the movement of . any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or X migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Sources 1, 2, 3. 5 &6 6 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No impact Inco oration Impact Imoacl e. Conflict with any.local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? Sources 1,2, — — — k 3. 5 & 6 f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local., regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Sources 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 SUMMARY: No impacts.'. a) Development of the site would not result in significant adverse effects on special-status plant species. b) Development of the site would not result in significant adverse effects on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. c) No wetlands exist'on the site, therefore no substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands would occur by the establishment of the proposed project. d) The proposed project would not interfere with the migration of native fish or wildlife. The project site is comparatively small and is surrounded by residential development. The property does not represent a significant wildlife corridor. The proposed development would not significantly impact wildlife movement in the region. e) The proposal does not conflict with policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and protected trees . fl The County does not have an approved Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Conservation Plan. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would theproject: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than. Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inco oration Impact Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined _ _ X in 315064.5? Sources 1, 2, 3, 5, &6 b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource — _ _ X pursuant to 315064.5? Sources 1, 2, 3, 5, &6 C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique _ _ X geologic feature? Source 1, 2, 3, 5, & 6 �Jd_. Disturb any human remains, including those X 7 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inco oration Impact Impact interred outside of formal cemeteries? Sources 1, 2, 3, 5, & 6 SUMMARY: No Impact a-d). A copy of this application was forwarded to the California Historic Resources.Information System (CHRIS) for comments. The 30 day comments were received on April 25, 2006. CHRIS determined the project area has a low possibility of containing unrecorded archaeological site(s)..No further study for archeological resources is recommended. However, . CHRIS recommends that the applicant contact the local Native American tribe(s) regarding .traditional cultural and religious values. For a complete listing of tribes in the vicinity of the project, contact the Native American Heritage Commission at(916) 653-4082. Impact V.d Proposed development has the potential of significantly impacting the indigenous local tribe's cultural and religious values. Mitigation Measure If any significant cultural materials such as artifacts,human burials, or the like are encountered during construction operations, such operations shall cease within 10 feet of the find, the Community Development Department shall be notified within 24-hours and a qualified archaeologist contacted and retained for further recommendations. Significant cultural materials include, but are not limited to, aboriginal human remains, chipped stone, groundstone, shell and bone artifacts,concentrations of fire cracked rock ash, charcoal, shell, bone, and historic features such as privies or building foundations. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the roject: Potentially Significant 'Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effect's,including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake . Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or _ _ _ X based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. s Potentially Simti5cant Potentially Unlcss less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No impact Incorporation Impact Impact Sources 1, 2, 3 & 7 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? X 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including X liquefaction? Sources 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 — –� — — 4. Landslides? Sources 1, 2, 3, 5. & 6 X _ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X topsoil?. Sources 1, 2,-3,. 5 & 6 — --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 X on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, ..... — subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Sources 1, 2, 3, 5, & 6 d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1 8=1-B of the Uniform Building Code X (1994), creating substantial risks to life or — —property? Sources 1, 2,_3, 5, & 6 e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic.tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available — X _for the disposal of waster water? Sources 1, 2, 35, &6 SUMMARY: No impact. A.1 The nearest fault considered active by the California Division of Mines & Geology is the Calaveras fault. The Concord fault A-P Zone passes approximately 21/2 miles northeast of the site. A.2 According to the Safety Element(p.10-13)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,and the map assumes improvements are sited on bedrock. or engineered fill (not landslide debris or colluvium). The UBC requires use of seismic parameters which allow the structural engineering analysis for buildings to be based on soil profile types(see UBC, 1997,Volume 2,Div. 5,Page 2-23). UBS seismic parameters,based on the current code, are provided on page 10 of the geotechnical report issued by Engeo,Inc. 1 Compliance with building and grading regulations can be expected to keep risks within . generally accepted limits. A.3 According to the Safety Element (p.10-1.5), the site is rated "generally low" liquefaction potential. This is a preliminary finding based chiefly on bedrock geology of the site. That. determined is consistent with the results of the ENGEO investigation. AA With regard to landslides, all or portions of four slides are shown on. Moreover, the site is within an area rated,"highest landslide susceptibility"by the CGS. A report issued by the U.S. . 9 Geological Survey that characterizes the engineering geologic properties of bedrock(Ellen& Wentworth, 1995) indicates the rock the site is clayey, weakly consolidated and highly expansive. The Soil Survey of Contra Costa County(1977)indicates that the:erosion hazard is: high, and the soils are highly expansive and corrosive.. B. The SWPPP and Erosion Control Plan are a routine requirement of projects requiring grading permits. The SWPPP identifies the"best management practices"that are most appropriate-for the site, and the "Erosion Control Plan," which required for the grading permit, provides the details of the erosion control measures to be applied on the site and maintained throughout the winter rainy season. C. . A geotechnical report issued by ENGEO,Inc. (2005) evaluated.the stability of two drainage swales on the property (one on proposed Parcel A and the other on proposed Parcel B????). That investigation identified four landslides on the property. They were found to be relatively shallow(<10 ft.)earthflows,each have a mapped extent of the order of 7,000 sq. ft. The risk of slide movement is considered high. For the Parcel A building site ENGEO provided measures to allow construction of a residence on stable foundation soils, and recommended a debris deflection structure to protect the residence from being impacted by slide debris originating higher on the hillslide. . ENGEO considers the risk of liquefaction and lateral spreading failures to be low,based on a) test pit data, and b) corrective grading/foundation drainage improvements. D.. 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 placing slabs on select, granular fill, and by use of rigid mat or post-tensioned slabs. General foundation design criteria are provided for Parcel A by the ENGEO report. It should be recognized that expansive soils are an engineering issue,and not a land use or feasibility issue. Any building on the site must give consideration to expansion potential and corrosivity, and building pads that are astride the cut/fill transition or are astride a geologic contact of expansive claystone/non-expansive.sandstone may require special foundation design measures. These are geotechnical design details (not environmental impacts). E.. The project will be served by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. Environmental Analysis VI.a.4. Landslides and Corrective Grading—Parcel B Impact. Parcel B is an upland property that is within the outcrop belt of mudstone and clayey sandstone of Piliocene age. Based on subsurface exploration ENGEO mapped all or portions of three earthflows on the property and concluded that the primary hazards are a)landsliding,b)slope stability and c)expansive soils and bedrock. The USGS (Ellen and Wentworth, 1995) concludes that the soil mantle and bedrock are expansive and possess adverse.engineering characteristics. According to a Relative Landslide Susceptibility Map issued by the California Geological Survey(Majmundar, 1995)the site is within an area rated highest landslide susceptibility. Building.projects require detailed, comprehensive geologic and geotechnical 10 analysis(and a conservative approach to grading and development)if long-term stability.is to be achieved. The peer review geologist of the County considers the geologic and geotechnical data sufficient to define the landslide and grading impacts and to identify detailed mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures A. For Parcel B, at least 30 days prior to requesting recordation of the Parcel Map submit a preliminary geology, soil- and foundation report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for review and approval of the County Peer Review Geologist. Improvement, grading, and buildingplans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report. This report shall include evaluation of the potential for landsliding, seismic.settlement and other types ofseisrrzically-induced gr•ourrd failure by recognized methods appropriate to soil conditions discovered during subsurface investigation. 'The report shall include measures to protect the future residences on Parcel B from encroachment b the slides mapped by ENGEO, Inc. The report should also provide r•econzrrzendations for•the gradient of engineered slopes,and other criteria and standards to guide preparation of grading and building plans'. B. All grading and drainage plans are subject to review of the County Peer Review Geologist and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plans shall be prepared b appropriately licensed professionals. C. Unstable soils and landslides shall be removed within graded areas. Buttressing, keying and subdrainage facilities shall be provided. In the transition areas between open space areas.and the residence on Parcel B, a debris deflection wall shall be provided. D. Prior to issuance of the construction permit for•Parcel B,provide a grading remediation plan and report for the approval of the Building Inspection Department ("BID'). The.report shall evaluate open.space hillsides whose performance could affect planned improvements. E. During grading, the geotechnical engineer.shall observe and approve all keyway, excavations, removal of fill and landslide material down to. stable bedrock or in-place material, and installation of all .subdrains including their connections. All fill slope construction shall be observed and tested by the project geotechnical engineer, and the density,test results and reports submitted to the County to be kept ori file. Cut slopes and keyways shall be observed and mapped by the project engineering geologist who will provide recommendations of modifications based on the actual geologic conditions encountered during grading. Approval frorrr the Contra Costa County Building hrspectior:Department shall be obtained prior to any modification. F. Concurrently with recordation of the Parcel Map, record a statement to run with deeds to the property acknowledging the Geotechnical Study by title,author(firm),and date, calling attention to conclusion, including the long-term maintenance requirements, and noting that the report is available to prospective buyers from seller of the parcel. G. Prior to issuance of the buildingpermits.Submit an as-graded report ofthe engineering geologist and the geotechnical engineer with a map showing final grades, subsurface drainage, subdrain cleanouts, disposal acrd pickup points, and any other soil improvements installed during grading, as surveyed by the project surveys or civil engineer, and in accordance with requirements of the geotechnical engineer. VII. HAZARDS AND-HAZARDOUS MATERIAL: Would theproject: Potentially Significant Potentially. Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 11 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation . Significant No Imnact Incorporation Impact Impact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Sources 1, — — — X 2, 3, 5, 10 & 11 . b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the enviroriment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the — _ X release of hazardous materials into the l environment? Sources 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or X waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or — —proposed school? Sources 1, 25 3, 5 & 6 d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65 862.5 and,as a X result, would it create a significant hazard to — — — the public or the environment? Sources 1,2,3, 5 & 6 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 X public use airport,would the project.result in a — — — -- safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Sources 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 f. 'For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety X hazard for people residing or working in the — — — -- project area? Sources 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response X plan or emergency evacuation plan? Sources 1, — — — 2, 3 & 5 h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent X to urbanized areas or where residences are — — — -- intermixed with wild lands? Sources 1,2, 3 & 5 SUMMARY: No Impact aj There. will be no routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials by the proposed proj ect. . b-c) The proposed project will not create or emit hazards to the public,or within a quarter mile of a proposed or existing school or'on the environment through upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials or emitting hazardous emissions. d) In compliance with Government Code Section 65962.5 the California Department of Toxic Substances Control issued a list of hazardous waste and substances sites (Cortese List). The 2002 edition of the Cortese List no hazardous sites within the property or in close proximity. e-f) The project site is not within the vicinity of a public use airport or private airstrip. g) Implementation of the project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) The site is located in mostly a residential area with some agricultural parcels above this site: If property interfaces with wildlands or open space areas, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District requires a separate landscape plan for vegetation fuel modification and/or buffer zone(s)featuring fire resistive and drought tolerant varieties of landscaping is required to be submitted and approved by the Fire District prior to the issuance of a grading and building i permits. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would theproject: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Imnact Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Sources 1, 2, 3, & 5 — — — -- b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume. or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the .production _ — _ X 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)? Sources 1, 2, 3, &5 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 X manner which would result in substantial — — — -- erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Sources 1, 2, 3 &5 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 X substantially increase the rate or amount of — — — �— surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? Sources 1, 2, 3, &5 e. Create or contribute runoff water which would X exceed the capacity of existing or planned — — 13 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact storm water drainage systems or provide. substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Sources 1, 2, 3 & 5 f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X Sources 1, 2, 3.&5 — — g. Place housing.within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate. Map or — — — X other flood hazard delineation map? Sources 1, 2, 3 &5 h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect — _ X flood flows? Sources 1, 2, 3 & 5 1. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure.of Xf a — — — X levee or dam? Sources 1, 2, 3, & 5 j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Sources 1,2, 3, & 5 — — — X SUMMARY: No Impact a) The eventual development of a new home on propose parcel B would produce a minimal amount of polluted runoff due to leaks of automobiles, use of backyards pesticides, etc. This pollution would be-negligible. b) No water will be extracted from an underground aquifer. c) The site will not impact drainage patterns. Applicant-shall collect and convey all stormwater entering and/or originating on this property without diversion and within an .adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having.definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. d) The rate and amount of runoff from the site will be improved with the new drainage plan that the applicant is proposing and been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. e) The Ordinance Code requires collected and conveyed requirements on parcels of this size. .The applicant is subject to all the rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination.System (NPDES) permit for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards( San Francisco Bay–Regional 1I1). g-h) No portion of the site lies within a FEMA designated Flood Zone. The site is within Flood Zone A– 100 year flood zone and C–of minimal flooding, Panel #475. 14 I). No levees or dams protect the site. j) Seiche and tsunami do not occur in this area. DC. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the roject: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact a. Physically divide an established community? X Sources 1, 2, 3, &4 — — — b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with junsdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local — — — X coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Sources 1, 2, 3, &4 C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community — — _ X conservationplan? Sources 1, 2, 3, &4 SUMMARY: No Impact a) . The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. b) The property is designated Single Family Residential Low in the Land Use Element of the County General Plan. The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject site from A-2 General Agriculture to R-20 Single Family Residential, and proposing a two lot subdivision. The Alamo Improvement Association has recommended denial of the proposed rezoning due to the replacement of agriculture with residential zoning. In staff's opinion, the property is not conducive to agricultural use. The steep topography can not sustain any.type of agricultural production or use, i.e., by way of growing food products or grazing cattle. The surrounding neighborhood consist of custom made homes on 20,000 square foot lots. It was observed during staff s field visit no agricultural use on the adjacent properties zoned agricultural. . The applicant is presently constructing a single family home on proposed Parcel A. The remaining portion is underutilized for it's maximum potential of one additional residence. The proposed rezoning and two lot subdivision will be consistent with the General Plan designation. c) There is no habitat conservation plan or natural community plan in this area of Contra Costa County. X: MINERAL RESOURCES:. Would theproject: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation SignificantNo Impact Inco oration Impact Im act a. Result in the loss of availability of a ]mown mineral resource that would be of value to the _ _ X region and the residents of the state? Sources 15 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inco oration Impact Impact 1, 2, & 3 b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan — — — X X or other land useplan? Sources 1, 2, & 3 SUMMARY: No Impact a-b) No mineral resources were identified at the site. XI. NOISE: Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation . Significant No Impact incorporation Impact Impact a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or — _ _ X applicable standards of other agencies? Sources 1, 2, & 3 b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground — _ _ X borne noise levels? Sources 1, 2 & 3 C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels — _ _ X existing without theproject? Sources 1,2.&3 d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity X above levels existing without the project? — — — Sources 11 2, & 3 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 — — — X people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Sources 1. 2. & 3 f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people X residing or working in the project area to — — �– excessive noise levels? Sources 1. 2 & 3 SUMMARY: No Impact 16 a-c) The site is outside a 60dBA noise contour and the area is quiet with the exception of some farm equipment. The project site is in Contra Costa County and subject to the guidelines contained in the Noise Element of the County General Plan. The General Plan guidelines are that outdoor noise levels in new residential development should not exceed a DNL of 60dB and. an indoor noise level should not exceed a DNL of 45 db. d) There would be a temporary increase in noise levels if the applicant decides to establish a residence on proposed Parcel B. These impacts are considered less than significant due to their short duration. The project would be conditioned to require that steps be taken to reduce construction noise such as fitting engines with mufflers,limiting the hours of construction and transport of materials and machinery and locating noise producing equipment as far from- surrounding residences as possible. e-f) The site is not in the vicinity of a public use airport or private airstrip and is not contained in an airport land use.plan. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the roject: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No.. Impact Incorporation Impact Impact a. Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for _ _ _ X example, .through-extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Sources 1, 2 & 3 b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of X replacement housing elsewhere? Sources 1, .2 &3 c. Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement _ _ _ X housing elsewhere? Sources 1, 2 & 3 . SUMMARY: No impact. a-c) On average, 2.5 people reside in one residence. The proposal is for 1 additional single-family residence totaling 5 persons. The County General Plan has designated this area as Single Family Residential— Low. The pattern of development has been towards large custom built homes in the R-20 zoning district. However, this site plus three surrounding properties are presently in the A-2 zoning district. As stated above,this property is located in the last pocket of the A-2 zoning district surrounded by residential development. 17 X111. 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 Potentially . ratios, response times or other performance Significant objectPotentially Unless Less Thanves for any the. public services. Significant- Mitigation Significant -No Source 5: Impact Incorporation impact Impact 1. Fire Protection? X 2. Police Protection? X 3. Schools? X 4. Parks? X 5. Other Public Facilities? X Source 6 — — — -- SUMMARY: No impact a)1. The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District currently serves the site. The SRVFPD forwarded comments on May 1, 2006. . 2. The site is currently served by the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department. The increase in demand for police services would be mitigated by an increase annual tax assessment per parcel of the property. New facilities would be constructed according to community need. 3. The site is served by the San Ramon Unified District.. The District was noticed and comments were received April 28,2006. The increase in demand for school services would be mitigated by the collection of school district fees at the time building permits. were issued for the new residences and by the increased tax assessment of the property. No facilities would be constructed according to community need. 4. No new facilities would be required as a direct result of this subdivision. New facilities would be constructed according to community need (see "Recreation"below). 5. No other facilities would be affected by the proposal. XIV. RECREATION: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial _ _ ^X physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Sources 1. 2 &3 t -2yD7 18 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation ]moact Impact b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational' facilities which might have an — X adverse physical effect on the environment? Sources 1,2 & 3 SUMMARY: No Impact. The East Bay Regional Park District were noticed and replied with no comments. a) The proposal would not result in an increase in demand for parks and recreational facilities. b) There is no proposal to expand existing facilities. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would theproject: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant .Mitigation Significant No impact Incorporation Impact Impact 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 _ X. vehicle trips, the volume.to capacity ratio on — roads,or congestion at intersections)? Sources 1., 2, 3,4 & 5 b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively_a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for — — _ X designated roads or highways? Sources 1,2,3, 4 & 5 C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels ora X change in location that results in substantial — — safety risks? Sources 1, 2, 3,4& 5 d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous X intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm — -- — equipment)? Sources 1, 2, 3, 4 &5 e'. Result in inadequate emergency access? Sources 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 — — — X f Result in inadequate parking capacity? Sources 1, 2, 3,4 & 5 — X g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation — — _ X (e.g., bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? Sources 1, ` 19 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 2, 3, 4. & 5 SUMMARY: No Impact a-b) The Public Works Department reviewed the application and forwarded a series of comments on May 2, August 17, and c) Air traffic patterns would not be affected. d) No hazardous design features or incompatible uses are proposed. e) The Fire District comments were received November 28, 2005 f) The property consists of 2.3 acres of land. The proposed development will have ample space for one more residence on the lower portion of the site along.Las Quebradas Court. g) The proposal does not conflict with adopted policies or programs supporting alternative transportation. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would theproject: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Imnact Impact a. Exceed wastewater treatmenf requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control _ _ _ X Board? Sources 1, 2, 3, 4&5 b. Require or result in the construction of new Water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction _ — X or which could cause significant environmental effects? Sources 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 C. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which — _ — X could cause significant environmental effects? Sources 1, 2, 3, 4 &5 d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlement and resources, or are new or expanded entitlement — — — X needed? Sources 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 e. . Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve X the project's projected demand in addition to — — — –� the provider's existing commitments? Sources 1. 2, 3,4 & 5 -)0 Potentially Sienificant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid' _ _ X waste disposal-needs? Sources 1, 2, 3, 4 &5 g. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Sources, _ _ X 1, 2; 3, 4 & 5 SUMMARY: No Impact. a) The applicant must comply with the County's Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance and all rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. b) The subject property is served by a Central Sanitation District. No written comments were . received from the Central Sanitary District. Therefore, no new wastewater facilities are required by the district. c) The proposed project will not require the expansion of or result in storm water drainage facilities. d) The property is served by the East Bay Municipal Utility District. e) The property is served by Central Sanitation District. The District was noticed,however no comments were forwarded. Staff verified with Russell Leavitt on December 11,2006 per phone conversation. f) The project would be served by a landfill facility within Contra Costa County. County landfills have capacity to serve a project of this size. g) Refuse collection from the new residences would be deposited in a landfill that must comply with state and local regulations for disposal of solid waste. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish and wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce X the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant. or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of ' California history or prehistory? 21. Potentially Significant Potentially unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 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 — — = X with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable futureprojects)? C. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on _ _ X human beings, either directly or indirectly? ^ SUMMARY: No Impact a-c)' The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment, nor will the project have significant cumulative impact on the environment. This project is in a semi- rural area of the southeast county. The County General Plan has designated this property as Single Family Residential Low. GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Environmental Review\Initial Studics\ms060014.I2.0Y,.06.doc -7-a yon Rose Marie Pietras, Senior Planner Contra Costa County Community Deveiopment Department 651 Pine Street, North Wing; - 41h Floor Martinez, CA 94.553 12;13/1)6 Ere: Environmental Checklist Fonn MS0600.14 Dear Rosi:Marie, I.have read your t IlViTOlnnental Checklist Fonn MS060014. I ager with your analysis and determination that you have presenled.in the. checklist. Please move forward on this application with this checklist. incerely, R bent L. McAdam �,� �'a'�"d� V to.000 r � O teo tY 0. 4 r w O T 2. 00 O tool coo C , r 2 W ra. i w ja=Q p p C • C's 0 oD n L L c . o C n ci bo CL O.n C o C v O u CL N 7 Jz 0 ca O: y..c . N u c I V a E F C p '7 CO CU C O ,O121 O O w U d o > cy " 5 °r uu ca>> a a li T cq�.. lj •s.. c� a 7 .w 7,v E. a - �^' •'O c._ O7J N O O U co _ W u =9 L '7 '1. 41 C N O C U N O - C O i'- ."7 u O c`a O - :,a::.a: .,., r•1 ,- .0 SM t •D G C GO"O .wJ w �] ,� > = 2 T v C - cz .� C C O o O y u U C O v v d O rJ Q 'C'O U in o '! v c7 :o 'O C. w w . 'y in ` d `v O L C. 0- 4, x O O a.'' c — o o u a ow c ai �_ cy 'o U c ro < ;,<: R.:: o .: �' .� acv o n •o s uo :.��,x:"•r :;_.,'ey^, m' n7 O O cq @ w 4. O v C_ :A O c3 •� :7 .0 z c .� v C7 v vo v .c c u = .N .� o L 'O = CL i1. cd t w w w y '� i CE C O C O =�'C v Y " C C -p > O O n aNi V L a c y o v o �'ti ° c v _ o N n'�- n .. ... ...' v 7O O N C v t O C L 2 O .L iv.. T i L u L ca L ( a m ap ca o u v n V i a < . . u iv_ c cn ro w '� w a c u T c v 4, w ,y O �, cd O T T L L O = z u• O v y 3 s c, r� , o %� a'. �i ^� v Cl) c v n 25 L uw _ — ` O > O 55 O d v v v cJ 1 3 v C ,C v 0.'ofi v� U - . T.O 4 U O O n D ai C3 c : .::":.:.:.: .. d O C w y U t cJ O :y C- 7 ;::.:;.xa; . O o u n. L o o — o x o a q °un c a u y o y u Gi •i:;. .;::= ,. r C, LV -� v 3 r :a u cci .�, C o =� .0 _ L v- 5 C O ,O O T s w •D u m y c .D . C c .0 �- N 'a '1 y O — L v' �- O N O C 7 u w 2 O C C b V U > > N dol y:.c a. ..� v = u o . o w u v °.0 c, v ay y o - y H c cd � �:;Gt; .� o 0 0.E 'w - - c -5 u 'y n s .o c o c v '� c o w ;'U, a .N a u o_ n o o y. o n a Q U 5 a o W) ° m � E v cvn o .E � � Z ;a" u, . :y,Q D O Q 'Y� C O N � C G cy U 'o c CL u u a o U. C LO U Q•� I uLLJ u .�.,.0•; Q U Q Q Q C CL N C ccs ci u O ° a o � s U ao u L) LYS o - ^ c 1 O C O O — `v c c o a: u = rs :o .D •o co -o ro n y v c o U o c y t_ ° a y 3 ti ,y a is €•. �.:-s:' : U UCcLm - > Lav �io � c _o t v..: N a :� ro N -p' to'O U in ° uo yy a:• ':.:., 71) v, > O N N G .0 .41 U U CJ 'S7 O O Y � C 7n < C S, > 7 N 0. T "O C '0 O s .. .? ..° _ G a -� N m 0. 'n L 0. 'O ` vi O •? U O L C > 'D j ° Or El v -p '.C: b q �-p ` 'D bU O y C cu) N .� y C C U T"O � 2 din N M � O .°- "" o C a0.1 U O y ,ctl C 0..a `) = ° `y r^^- 3 Cn U -- p z C- rm :d _ 'D j ` cC7 II a :<� :...V•;,;: :CJ '� N 0. 7 O �' 7 — L _ c7 7 @ U U c7 — to 'D 'D O j y ^ V U F our, v U o < 52 cl :c L rn.S:Q p p p ,:pC'CC u 3 in•'� c =o Fn O .2'E o ;.o t: c a a U J,u. O•� c o O C r,3j p 'O — ro C U R > U 0= aci U C-5 ^— S 01) E2p _ C C ..:,'".i%. `•: 4. i y c c cy u 'U''p i �.c (a •D 7 C :7 y U -O aoi v v 0 0 T � .. U L c � U - c ^t c C a a ` C o� - p C . OD c^ ra bq L L •O U C.'D O U y 0-•� ;y u O c u a �_ i'm > CL s ?S+:-..:•:.: �^— p O"c U tqU N C c U O T L <7 L ^ Z .D N v� [3 O cd N ` :7 0 c E ro a.u c u c U d J cJ L c7 U C c7cz `;.s..cs o o = c = v a o o c o o < a: _ U L U :a 2 ca o o. N u u w v a a`� c`a u �. u E cy a) u u c:: � is :,�, cJ U 3 r•� m — o01, z 73 all Y.� L J sG. ✓) C, C.7= u CG I v j EXHIBIT 5 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Staff Report February 21, 2007 Agenda Item #6 &7 Community Development Contra Costa County SAN RAMON VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2007 I. INTRODUCTION Robert McAdam &Ray Vogt, (Applicant & Owners)— A) County File #RZ063178: The applicant requests approval to rezone a 2.05- acre parcel from A-2 (General Agriculture) to R-20 (Single Family Residential). B) County File #MS060014: The applicant requests approval to subdivide a 2.05-acre parcel into two parcels. The subject property's address is 295 Las Quebradas Lane in the Alamo area. (A-2) (ZA: Q-15) (CT: 3461.02) (APN:.193-080-014) Il. RECOMMENDATION A. Adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration B. Adopt a motion recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed rezoning from A-2 (General Agriculture) to R-20 (Single Family Residential). C. Approve the two lot subdivision with the attached conditions of approval.' III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: The General Plan designation is Single Family Residential— Low. B. Zoning: General Agriculture.- A-2 Zoning District. C. CEQA Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted on December 14, 2006 at the County Clerk's Office. The public comment period ended on January 13, 2007. No comments have been received from the public. D. Previous Applications: ZI0511060B—Small Lot Review E.' Regulatory Programs: 1. Active Fault Zone: Subject site isnot in an active fault zone. 2. Flood Hazard Area: Subject site is -in Flood Zone. C of minimal flooding, Panel 475. 3. 60dBA Noise Control: Subject property is not within a 60dBA noise control area. 4. Redevelopment Area: Subject property is not within a redevelopment district. IV. SITE /AREA DESCRIPTION The site is a 2.05 acre parcel located on east side of Las Quebradas Lane and on the north side of Las Quebradas Court in Alamo. The parcel is situated on a relatively flat area adjacent to Las Quebradas Court and extends to the north on a steep south to southwest facing slope. Vegetation consists of weeds and grasses with a mature oak tree in a Swale that extends upslope of the'planned building site. The surrounding area. consists of upscale residences on half and one acre lots with mature vegetation. V. PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant is requesting to rezone this property from A-2 (General Agriculture) to R-20 Single Family Residential. The rezoning of this property would be consistent with the County General Plan designation of Single Family Residential =Low. The applicant also requests approval of a two lot subdivision. VI. AGENCY COMMENTS A.- Central Sanitary District: Per phone conversation with Russ Levett on January 18; 2007, the property is within the Central Sanitary District. B. East Bay Municipal Utility District: Memorandum dated April 25, 2006. Once the property is subdivided, separate services for. each lot will be required.- When the development plans are finalized, the project sponsor should contact EBMUD's New Business Office and request a water service estimate to determine the costs'and conditions of providing water service to the development. Engineering and installation of water meters requires substantiallead time, which should be provided for in the project sponsor's development schedule. No water meters are allowed to be located in S-2 driveways. Due to EBMUD's limited water supply, all customers should plan for shortages in time of drought. C. California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS): Memorandum dated April 25, 2006. This office has no record of any previous cultural resources studies for the proposed project area. CHRIS recommends that the applicant contact the Native American tribe(s) regarding traditional, cultural, and religious values. For a complete listing of tribes in the vicinity of the project, contact the Native American Heritage Commission at (916) 653-4082. . The proposed project area has a low possibility of containing unrecorded archaeological site(s). Therefore, no further study for archaeological resources is recommended. D. San Ramon Valley Unified- School District- Facilities Development: Memorandum dated April 27, 2006. See attached. E. Public Works Department: Memorandum dated May 2 and August 17, 2006. See attached. F. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District: Memorandum dated May 1, 2006. See attached. G. Contra Costa County Health Department — Environmental Health Division: Memorandum dated June 20, 2006. Plans must be submitted to our office for review if public utilities (water and sewer) are not available. H. Alamo Improvement Association: Memorandum dated August 10, 2006. Subject application was reviewed by the Alamo Improvement Association's Planning Committee on May 91h and July 12`h, 2006. Application was presented by applicant's representatives and engineer. After a thorough review of the applicant's information which showed the Proposed division of the property, site location for the existing home under . construction and the location of the proposed new home site along with the topography map of the area and the general location map of the site a discussion was held regarding the area and the difficulty of construction on the created lot. The surrounding area has a mixed zoning ranging from R-20 to A-2. The application was recommended for denial on the basis that there was no justification for changing the zoning. The site that would have been created required extensive grading with a result of a very small building pad. The S-3 entire parcel is now a conforming lot under the A-2 zoning and this lot serves a buffer to the surrounding R-20 parcels and works well in the general plan of the area. VII. GEOLOGICAL REVIEW The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Exploration prepared by ENGEO Inc. dated on July 28, 2005.. A Geological Peer Review prepared by Darwin Myers Associates dated August 4, 2006 concluded as follows: A geotechnical report issued by ENGEO,Inc. (2005) evaluated the stability of two drainage swales on the property (one on proposed Parcel A and the other on proposed Parcel B). That investigation identified four landslides on the property. They were found to be relatively shallow (<10 ft.) earthflows, each have a mapped extent of the order of 7,000 sq. ft. The risk of slide movement is considered high. For the Parcel A building site ENGEO provided measures to allow construction of a residence on stable foundation soils, and recommended a debris deflection structure to protect the residence from being impacted by slide debris originating higher on the hillslide. ENGEO considers the risk of liquefaction and lateral spreading failures to be low, based on a) test pit data, and.b) corrective grading/foundation drainage improvements. With regard to landslides, all or portions of four slides are shown in the Geotechnical.Exploration Report prepared by Engeo, Inc. dated July 28, 2005. Moreover, the site is within an area rated, "highest landslide susceptibility" by the CGS. A report issued by the U.S. Geological Survey that characterizes the engineering geologic properties of bedrock (Ellen & Wentworth, 1995) indicates the rock the site is clayey, weakly consolidated and. highly expansive. The Soil Survey of Contra Costa County (1977) indicates that the erosion hazard is high, and the soils are highly expansive and corrosive. 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 placing slabs on select, granular fill, and by use of rigid mat or post-tensioned slabs. General foundation design criteria are provided for Parcel A by the ENGEO report. It should be recognized that expansive soils are an engineering issue,.and not a land use or feasibility issue. Any building on the site must give consideration to expansion potential and corrosivity, and building pads that are astride the cut/fill transition or are astride a geologic contact of expansive claystone/non- expansive sandstone may require special foundation design measures. These are geotechnical design details(not environmental impacts). S-4 Parcel B is an'upland property that is within the outcrop belt of mudstone and clayey sandstone of Piliocene age. Based on subsurface exploration ENGEO mapped all or'portions of three earthflows on the property and concluded that the primary hazards are a) landsliding, b) slope stability and c) expansive soils and bedrock. The USGS (Ellen and Wentworth, 1995) concludes that the soil mantle and bedrock are expansive and possess 'adverse engineering characteristics. According to a Relative Landslide Susceptibility Map issued by the California Geological Survey (Majmundar, 1995) the site is within an area rated highest landslide susceptibility. Building projects require detailed, comprehensive geologic and geotechnical analysis (and a conservative approach to grading and development) if long-term stability is to be achieved. The peer review geologist of the County considers the geologic and geotechnical data sufficient to define the landslide and grading impacts and identified detailed mitigation measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration that is incorporated as conditions of approval of this subdivision. VIII. PUBLIC WORKS CONSIDERATIONS The Public Works Department reviewed the Revised Vesting Tentative Parcel Map received by your office on October. 19, 2006 and submit the following Staff Report and Conditions of Approval: Background The applicant proposes to subdivide an approximately 2.05-acre parcel into two parcels at 299 Las Quebradas Lane in the Alamo area. One single family residence is currently under construction on the subject site. The applicant is also requesting a rezone of the parcel from A-2 to R-20. Traffic and Circulation . The subject property is located on the east side of Las Quebradas Lane, a public road, and on the north side of Las Quebradas Court, a private road. The applicant'proposes to have Parcel `A' access the proposed site directly off of Las Quebradas Lane, while Parcel `B' will gain access via Las Quebradas Court. Las Quebradas Lane has a current road width of approximately 36 feet within a 56-foot right of way. The ultimate right of way has already been dedicated along the project frontage by separate instrument per Official Record 6545 OR 248,thus the applicant will not be required to dedicate any additional right of way along the frontage of Las Quebradas Lane. Construction of frontage improvements, necessary pavement widening and .longitudinal drainage improvements, if not currently installed on. Las Quebradas Lane, will not be required at this time, however, the applicant will be required to execute a S-5 deferred improvement agreement for the future construction of these improvements. The applicant will be required to improve Las Quebrada§ Court with concrete curb and gutter, and necessary pavement widening to achieve a 20-ft pavement width within the existing 25-ft easement width. Also, the applicant will be required to provide grooved concrete pavement or other equivalent pavement surfacing for any section of Las Quebradas Court that is equal to or exceeds 16% longitudinal grade, as approved by the Public Works Department and the Fire District. Drainage Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code requires all storm water entering and/or originating on this property to be collected and conveyed without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse having a definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse. The applicant will be required to show that the existing storm drainage system proposed to tie into is adequate. The.applicant shall obtain access rights to make any necessary improvements to off-site facilities, if necessary. Stormwater Management A Stormwater Control Plan is required for applications to subdivide land where the resulting project could potentially create a total amount of impervious surface area that exceeds the 10,000 square foot threshold. The maximum potential area of development should be based on the total remaining lot .area after discounting all zoning setbacks, easements, deed restricted areas, and other encumbrances on the subject property. As an alternative to complying with C.3 requirements with the submittal of a SWCP, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed subdivision could not result in more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface by proposing to record a Grant Deed of Development Rights (GDDR) over the proposed lots or by recording easements or other encumbrances to ensure that certain areas/lots will remain pervious. Once recorded, the GDDR could not be removed (or vacated) until such. time that the lots and all proposed, improvements are in full compliance with the C.3 requirements. IX. STAFF ANALYSES a. Appropriateness of Use: The applicant is proposing to rezone the property to R-20, ldu/per 20,000 square feet and to subdivide the property allowing S-6 for one additional single family resideWlal lot. The proposed rezoning and subdivision is an appropriate use of the site that is consistent with the surrounding area. b. Design Review: The applicant will be subject to conditions of approval for hillside design. Buildings on hillsides should complement the topography of the site. The exterior building shall be compatible with the surrounding homes. Exterior building.materials of wood, wood shingles, and brick are preferred. Exterior colors should be 50% maximum reflectivity. Bright colors should be,avoided. The design of the building should be cut into the hillside to reduce the effective visual bulk. Cutting into the hillside reduces the amount of building foundation and results in cost savings for the project: The second story should be setback from viewline below, which in effect, reduces perceived bulk. Attached is a staff study graphic that illustrates ' design principals for hillside development as Exhibit (I) c. Rezoning/Zoning Compliance: The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from General Agriculture — A-2' to R-20 Single Family Residential Low Density. The General Agriculture - A-2 zoning district is antiquated and not in compliance with the General Plan designation of Single Family — Low Density. In staff's opinion, the property is not conducive for agricultural production or use, whether the growing of food products or grazing for cattle. The property is underutilized. The rezoning of the property encourages the County's need for housing .by adding one additional residence on underutilized property. The applicant's request for rezoning will bring the property into compliance with the General Plan designation for one additional building site on a 20,000 square foot lot. d. General Plan. The General Plan designation of the site is Single Family Residential — Low. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plans designation. X. CONCLUSION The determination of the environmental review concluded that the whole of the project does not adversely affect the environment. The two lot subdivision promotes single family residences that helps create a sense of community. The houses share a private road designed as a "country road" without curbs and gutters. The road;is lined with mature vegetation on the. In staff,s opinion, the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the surrounding single family residential properties on one acre lots. S-7 �f�. �.����� DARWIN MYERs AssociATEs ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ■ ENGINEERING GEOLOGY August 4", 2006 Rose Marie Pietras, Senior Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 2"d Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Geologic Peer Review- CEQA Section MS060014/McAdam APN 193-080-014/295 Las Quebradas Lane Alamo Area, Contra Costa County DMA Project# 3065.06 Dear Rose Marie, At your request we have reviewed the minor subdivision map submitted by the project proponent. The map was prepared by.RMR Design Group. Accompanying the application was a geotechnical exploration report prepared by Engeo inc.-' Our review is organized to first provide an explanation of our approach. We then provide background data on the geologic setting of the property, including Safety Element policies. Finally we provide an overview of the geotechnical report and VTM, followed by our evaluation. Approach We analyzed 1973 vertical angle aerial photographs, and reviewed pertinent geologic literature; along with review of documents submitted by the project proponent. Subsequently we evaluated the data gathered and prepared the peer review presented herein. Background 1. Bedrock Geolo�v In 1994 the U.S. Geological Survey issued a digitized geologic map of Contra Costa County that emphasized bedrock formations.'` This map used existing published mapping as a point of departure for their study, and performed thousands of hours of research resolving geologic problems. As Figure 1 indicates that the property is located withinthe outcrop belt of non-marine sedimentary rocks of Pliocene age referred to as the Green Valley—Tassajara Group (Tgevt). ' Engeo,Inc., 2005. Geotechnical Exploration, Lot 1, Las Ouebradas Court,Alamo, California. Engeo Job #6762.1.002.01 (report dated July 28,2005). `Graymer,R.,D.L.Jones&E.E.Brabb, 1994. Preliminary Geologic Map Emphasizing Bedrock Formations in Contra Costa County, California. U.S.Geological Survey Open.File Report 94-622. 130E PINE STREET 0 MARTINEZ. GA 94553 0 925/370-9330 o y- Page 2 2. GeOlOM Structure With regard to geologic structure, the trace of the east-dipping Mt. Diablo thrust fault is mapped approximately 2,000 feet southwest of the site. Additionally,ancestral traces of the Calaveras fault are mapped approximately 2 miles southwest of the property. This segment of the Calaveras fault is not considered to be active by the U.S.Geological Survey and California Geological Survey,but it is a potential seismic source. Specifically, a 1998 report prepared by Geomatrix found evidence of activity during the Late Quaternary on this fault system within the Walnut Creek area (minor offset with a ri(Tht-normal-oblique sense of displacement). The alluvium that was offset was dated 31,410 radio-carbon years before present.' By extrapolation from nearby measurements, bedding on the site can be inferred to dip to the south-southwest at 54 to 88 degrees. 3. Engineering Geology Properties Table 1 Engineering Geologic Properties of In 1995 the US Geological Survey issued a Green Valley- Tassajara Group professional paper that characterizes the composition and engineering properties of rock Compo""a.: Unit consists largely of variably dinv and davev 4 sandstone and mudstone, some (locally equally abundant) clean and soils that most influence slope stability. . .sandstone,minor to some conglomerate,and minor tuffandtuffaceous I The USGS report describes the composition of sandstone. Composition of soft dark-toned zones on aerial photographs is estimated to be abiout 45 percent mudstone,45 percent the rock unit that occurs on the. site as is clavev sandstone,and 10 percent cleaner sandstone,composition of presented in.Table 1 ligtit- laced resistant_ones is about 30 percent clayey sandstone,30 percent clean sandstone,30 percenl mudstone,or possibly dominant clean compositions. 4. Quaternary Deposits Bedding:Medium to verythick(50feetormore.)beds,in any thick to 10 feet, variably regular to lenticular and irregular. Mudslone intervals are as thick as 50 jeer or more;conglomerate in places makes rip 80 in 1997, the U.S.,Geological Survey issued a percent of 150-foot sections. Distinctness of beds depends upon compositional contrast; some contacts are distinct and provide digitized'Quaternary deposits map of Contra potential parting,some are indistinct and lack potential parting. Costa County.'. map es This a divides the surficial Fracture:Mudstane and clayey sandstone have close to rens close deposits in'the Alamo area into three units I spacing ofwealheringfraciure;clean andsiltysandstonehavecloseto wide,mosily moderate,fracture spacing. Tuffhas moderate to 4 font (Qhaf,Qhfp,and Qpaf),which are identified as spacing,and.some has additional weaiheringfracatre at close to very alluvial fan .and floodplain deposits of close spacing. Conglomerate is unfractured. Holocene and Pleistocene age. This map Permeability:.Iniergranular permeability of mudstone is veru low; clayey and dirty sandstone low: clean sandstone moderate; indicates that the upland portion of the site is conglomerate low to moderate;probablY largely low;nlfflow to very underlain by bedrock (br), with alluvial fan low;tuffaceous sandstone low. deposits of Holocene age (Qhaf) mapped Weathering:Mudstane is weathered to depths less than 8 feel,clean sandstone probably to depths greater than 30 feet. at/near the south property line. ' Fapansivity:Much bedrock is•severelvexptm.sive(mudsione),probably most is expansive;almost all mantle is severely expansive. 3 Geomatrix, 1998. Final report, Walnut Creek Prater Treatment Plant Expansion,Seismic Study-Phase II. Geomatrix Job#3970(report dated October.30, 1998). °Ellen, S.D. and C.M.Wentworth, 1995.Hillside Materials and Slopes in the San Francisco Bay Region, California. U.S.Geological Survey Professional Paper 1357. 3 Helley,E.J.and R.W.Graymer, 1997. Quaternary Geology of Conrra Costa County and Surrounding Areas. Derived from the Digital Datbbase. U.S.Geological Survey,Open File Report 97-98. DARWIN IVIYERS.ASSOCIATES MW --- Page 3 5. Landslides-U.S. Geological Survev Table 2 Selected Ground Failure & Landslide In 1975 the USGS6 issued photointerpretation Hazard Policies County General Plan maps of landslide and other surficial deposits of Contra Costa County. To enhance 10-22 Slope stability shall be a primary consideration in die ability of land to be developed or designated for urban uses. readability,this map has been enlarged from its published scale to V = 600' (see Figure 2). 10-23 Slope stability shall be given careful scrutiny in the design of development and structures, and in the adoption of According to this map,there are no landslides conditions of approval and required mitigation measures. on the site. The shaded area immediately south 10-24 Proposed extensions of urban or suburban land uses into areas characterized by slope over 1� percent and/or and'west of the site represents colluvial soils generally unstable land shall be elevated with regard to the that have accumulated within drainage swales. . safety hazard prior to the issuance of any discretionary . The nearest mapped slide areas passes approvals. Development on open hillsides and significant approximately 450 feet south and southwest of ridgelines throughout the County shall be restricted,and PP hillsides with a grade of 26 percent or greater shall be the site. They do not pose a hazard to the site protected through implementing zoning measures and other but do indicate that the steep hillsides on the appropriate actions' property may be at its stability limits. 10-26 Approvals of public and private development projects in areas subj ect to slope failures shall be contingent on geologic and engineering studies which define and delineate 6. Landslides - California Geolo�ieal potentially hazardous.conditions and recommend adequate mitigation. Survey 10-27 Soil and geological reports shall be subject to the review and approval of the County Planning Geologist. The most recent landslide map of the Alamo 10-28 Generally, residential density shall decrease as slope area was the product of a study performed by increases,especially above a 15 percent slope. the California Geological Survey(formerly the 7 10-29 Significant very steep hillsides shall be considered California Division of Mines and Geology).- unsuitable£ortypesofdevelopmentwhich require extensive The scope of the study included: a) review of grading or ether land disturbances. pertinent mapping,b)geologic interpretation of 10-30 Development shall be precluded in areas when landslides aerial photography, .c) field reconnaissance cannot be adequately repaired. mapping. The products of this study include a 1 10-31 Subdivisions approved on hillsides which in ciudeindividual landslide feature map and.a relative landslide lots to be resold at a later time shall be large enough to provide flexibility in finding a stable buildable site and susceptibility map. The purpose of these maps driveway location. is to aid in evaluation of building permit 10-32 The County shall not accept dedication of public roads in applications. At risk properties require detailed unstable hillside areas,orallowconstructionofprivateroads engineering geologic investigations. According thbre which would require and excessive degree o}' a e maintenance and repair costs. to the Landslide&Related Features Map,there are no mapped landslide deposits on the property (see.Figure 3). Like the mapping of the USGS,the nearest landslides are mapped approximately 450 feet south and southeast of the site. Accompanying the Landslide Features Map is a Relative Landslide Susceptibility Map, which is presented in Figure 4. It.is intended to assist local govemment to trigger detailed engineering °Nilsen,T.H., 1975. Preliminary Photointerpretation Map of Landslide and Other Surficial Deposits of the Las Trampas Ridge 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. U.S. Geological Survey,Open File Report 75-277-24. Majmundar,H., 1995,Landslide Hazards of the Las Trampas Ridge and Parts of the Diablo Quadrangles, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California. California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 95-15. - 1 DARWIN MYERs ASSOCIATES Page 4 geologic studies for at-risk sites. This map classifies 100 percent of proposed Parcel B "Area 4", which it defined as follows: Area 4 MOST SUSCEPTIBLE AREA. This area is characterized by steep slopes and includes most landslides in upslope areas, whether apparently active at present or not, and slopes upon which there is substantial evidence of downslope creep of sui face materials. Slopes within Area 4 should be considered naturally unstable, subject to failure even in the absence of the activities of man. The thrust fault of the CGS reportis that for lands within Area 4, the risks of slope failure are substantial and consequently detailed engineering geologic investigations addressing slope stability are needed for any proposed development. 7. Soils According to the Soil Survey of Contra Costa County the soils on the upland portion of the site are the Los Osos clay loam,30 to 50 percent slopes(LhF);and the Botalla clay loam,2-9 percent slopes (BaC) are mapped on the valley floor areas. The Los Osos clay loam is a class VI (non prime) agricultural soils, witha Storie Index rating of 19. Conversely, the Botella clay loam is a prime agricultural soil with a Storie Index rating of 77. With regard to engineering properties; the soils .mapped on Parcel B are considered to be "highly"expansive.and "highly" corrosive (Soil Survey, Table 5, page 82-83). Safety Element 1. Liquefaction The Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone that encompasses recently active and potentially active traces of the Concord fault are mapped approximately 2'/miles to the northeast of the property;and the active Calaveras fault A-P Zone is mapped approximately 2'/i miles to the south of the site. These faults are considered capable of generating an earthquake of magnitude 63/4: With regard to liquefaction potential,the Safety Element of the General Plan divides Contra Costa County into three categories: "generally high", "generally moderate to low", and "generally low". Accord*m,to this map.-the parcel is in the "generally low" susceptibility category. The Safety Element includes a number of policies indicating that at-risk areas require evaluation of liquefaction potential and effective mitigation of the hazard posed to new development. During the processing of land development applications,the Countyrequries rigorous evaluation of liquefaction potential in areas of"high potential", and less comprehensive investigations are demanded in the 'moderate to low" category. Evaluation of liquefaction potential is not requried for sites in the "generally low" category. I -'; DARWIN MYERS ASSOCIATES Paae 5 2. Slope Stabilitv County General Plans historically have classified major slope areas in excess of 26 percent as "not readily developable" and "undevelopable", recognizing.the cost and engineering difficulties of grading in areas of steep slopes(Policy 10-29); and density is to decrease as slopes increase above 15 percent(Policy 10-28). In this case;the undeveloped lot that would be created by approval of the minor subdivision is characterized by slopes on the property range from 3:1 (within 30 ft of Las Quebradas Court)to 50.-75 percent over the remainder of the property. The Safety Element contains a number of policies that are intended to protect development from landslides hazards and minimize grading of steep slopes (see Table 2). The data indicate the rock is relatively weak and landslide hazards are substantial. Engeo,Inc. Investigation 1. Purpose The purpose of the investigation was is to characterize subsurface conditions at the MS060014 site, assess the engineering properties of.soil and bedrock materials, and develop conclusions and recommendations for a)site preparation and grading, b) foundation and retaining wall design, and c) site drainage for the residence (on what is Parcel A). That residence is currently under construction. In summary,the Engeo study are included the entire property(Parcels A and B),but the. Engeo study preceded submittal of the Vesting Tentative Map (VTM). Their report does not address the development potential of proposed Parcel B. 2. Scope The scope of the study included a) review of the findings of previous exploration of the site, b) laboratory testing of the samples collected from an exploratory test pit at the site, c) engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data, and d) preparation of a geotechnical report summarizing Engeo's conclusions and presenting recommendations regarding site preparation, grading, foundation and retaining wall design, site drainage, and pavement design. 3. Subsurface Investigation Fiaure 2 of the Engeo report provides an original geologic map of the MS060014 project area. According to this map the site.is within the outcrop belt of the Green Valley / Tassajara Group (Tgvt). The lower elevations of the property are mapped as colluvium (Qc). Additionally, four landslides were mapped on the site (each having a mapped extent of about 7,000 sq. ft. =). The subsurface data included six test pits (labeled TP-1 through TP-4, TP-12 and TP-13). With regard to geologic structure bedding was found to strike N60-80°W, and dips at 56' to 65°S . 4. Laboratory Testing A representative sample of soil recovered from Test Pit.TP-13 was tested to determine Atterberg Limits in accordance with Test Method ASTM D=4318. The near surface soil was found to have a Plasticity Index of 23'. . DARWIN MYERs ASSOCIATES Page 6 5. Conclusions Table 3 Engeo Hazards Assessment MS060014 The geotechnical issues for the proposed development are landslide hazards, slope Landslides stability, along with expansive soils and In general,the risk of instability of the identified landslide areas is considered high. These landslides appear ppear to be earthflows. bedrock. Table 3 provides a summary of the The steep, upslope portions of these landslides periodically Engeo hazards assessment. shed small quantities of soil and weathered rock. This debris accumulated in the downslope portion of the slide area. Soil Creep 6. Recommendations Clayey soil materials on the slopes are subject to soil creep. Soil creep is the slow, downslope movement of soil that is The Engeo report provides recommendations caused by the annual cycle of wetting and drying under the influence of gravity. .The building foundations should be for the construction of the residence which is designed to accommodate the potential for adverse impacts under construction on proposed Parcel A. from soil creep. They have not commented on the building site Expansive Soils on proposed Parcel B.:There are all or portions Laboratory testing indicates that the clayey soils at the site have moderate plasticity and high expansion potential. Expansive of three landslides on proposed Parcel B. On I soils shrink and swell as a result of seasonal fluctuation in Parcel A Engeo recommended construction of moisture content. This can cause heaving and cracking of a keyway and buttress fill within the footprint slabs-on-grade,pavements,and structures founded on shallow foundations supported on the expansive soils.Building damage of the residence, and a debris deflection due to volume changes associated withexpansive soils can be structure upslope of the residence. Similar reduced through proper grading and foundation design. measures are likely to be recommended by Fault Rupture Engeo on Parcel B. The site is not located within a State of California Earthquake FaultHazard Zone for active faults and no known active faults are shown on regional geologic maps covering the site. No DMA Recommendations and Evaluation indications of faulting were encountered during our exploration of the site. Based on these findings, the potential for fault Our evaluation is presented in Appendix A. rupture appears to be low. � Ground Shaking We trust this letter provides the evaluation and Seismic design provisions in current building codes generally comments that you requested. Please. call if prescribe minimum lateral forces, applied statically to the you have any.questions. structure, combined with the gravity forces of dead and live loads. The cod:-prescribed lateral forces are generally considered to be substantially smaller than the peak forces that Sincerely, are associated with a major earthquake. Structures should be DARWIN MYERS ASSOCIATES designed to: a) resist minor earthquakes without damage,b) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage, but with some nonstructural .damage, and c) resist major �,'•t�_��f, �- {� _f earthquakes without collapse,but with some structural as well Darwin Myers, CEG 94 ; as nonstructural damage. Principal Liquefaction Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated cohesionless cc: Gary Faria,Building Inspection Department soils are subject to a temporary loss of shear strength because Ray Skinner,Engeo,Inc. of pore pressure build-up under the cyclic shear stresses associated with earthquakes. No materials susceptible to Robert Rourke,RMR Design Group liquefaction.were encountered during our exploration of the ,Robert McAdam;Homes by McAdam site. The potential hazard of liquefaction appears to be low. Lurching Cracking EDn� Movement of weaker soils on slopes or adjacent to open ochannels during strong ground shaking is referred to as 0, lurching,which is often accompanied by the development of, W. DARWIN y/ ground cracking. With proper grading and foundation design MYERS Cn the potential for damage from lurch cracking can be kept to a NO. 946 low level. * CERTIFIED * UBC Seismic Parameters ENGINEERING Engeo provides UBC seismic parameters on page 10. CP ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST oa^ DARWIN MYERS ASSOCIATES CA i '. . ., �/':,,:%-': �+�►• ��!;::•'la• IIP\ T - ,l . .... .•.. - -. -r:; 'Q`•�. R•,ti: i° •'Y n• •;� r--w'.• ISR +�� �' 1 •° :;ems:'• ` Y •••• , ',°-•,'J•'i\' i - I°•.• .'� a• r} ,:a tip.- J e S' ,•j• I ✓. - ^.:.+� _ ;I�a • �� � '•-� ,', 1 Irl s .' V. (,� �• ,• •r.. ,.. •. •.s... '' S '�\ .'�.. '��.•'' a ,-�..-�,.. ^.• M1 %, •, ;R�y .--•- �:° �1 I / .,•... � ,':. .,.•.f'r,.... .•.n', '.T,.1. '. f•Y5 •rte r t. :2.38 � •'�.;. .j:.f:. �i �, y� ,r'•. ..' 'ice: � ✓,•,, `.+,•, _ - _ �'• .'•"•` to� �, �: • .tt(' CCC... C;. , � ([ •� '•,;. ,r 1 *X �_:� _. it +, -.•�.. •' .:.'%: : '.' :I • v' +,- 7i�:.tv'i . .-;�:; ,��, •�. .fir. Surficial Deposits r Tr Rodeo shale Qu - Undivided Quaternary deposits Th Hambre sandstone Assemblage II Assemblage IV Tn Neroly Formation-blue sandstone Tes Escobar Sandstone Thr Briones Formation,undivided in the southern part Tehs - Escobar Sandstone,sandstone and shale member Tbg - Briones Formation,G member-sandstone and shell breccia Tvhu - Upper Vine Hill Sandstone The Briones Formation,E member-sandstone and shell breccia Assemblage V Tbd - Briones Formation,D member-massive sandstone Tgvt__Great Valley/Tassajaza group Figure 1 USGS Digitized ' Geologic Map Graphic scale: Emphasizing Bedrock Formations I 0 0.5 mi. Source: O 'en File Report 94-6221 I • �-S ��-y-off l= as1 r - Cl CQ ••rf _ l� - ` r- I i , 1 •1' .. . - cn Ln 1 r'" I : - i • � �f = ' '� j tai �,�, :. � .••�•. Z (V I : , i '1 1 bl) at kv • jj 77 •' it a ..-ti�.)+:u-`h,{:i:��,;�v:::�,_•„_ :'::�,.�Vl:i�.� u� a !.'1,,�. `'i V��o y``.� i. e• y, ��:ti.'C.P•.-1. ':.O.oa :y. � � U� \ V I�T.'U �� Y CF 74 ------------ a_h ,t I�•4.�.,:.�^:: �-�, gal. � .'�..:,,. �,��,�'�°.>��,:� �.. '.,. Ln 'riN'�^•' r } i ='"�".``,�.� y �i'`.'r'' ' �`"",i•�x{'r"2 t F r�.a,r,.r, j )' FY CIS �� '.•� .v..,` v.�`. t j 1�' ` r,l�� i" j �i.r•aa � t .' •r. :`� ��"�^ ,1 / � J,r'r '•14. > �' l "�°'` Std,•"^,.✓ � � (�` �.J �^� ' "�.�. � .rr. •.r' •+r i �� „rgy.f v-e,1.,....... ,,,,��' �'w``",~�* �4`5 (3 �'� �- [" ;t •'"`� �.,�r..�`'^^^, r jt..,`� „r�ry.,�o.,,.�° }', {. � � i 'yip. rfy `L !'_ � t,� t" '*yam �+Z „"y+,•t1 l i� ... '�•"\.....+'• "}. :i'�, � i� '��y � .. "' g "mow :.,�;:>:�'""�' ,rr jN• ,... ,..' ti 4 �� •�Y . rv,. ,J (�,; i � r^-,,. � w�T ,'w..��4 Pte✓'' " ,, +, .l i •` Jf;.},,r� ^`� tet,. _;� K .,,.. ` 4ti�`+,, 06 Ln '�*.,'� � t '' tic �' .4"�•:.i,�, Rf� '��, � 3j i. J.lr i'I; .`kh !�' « •.�-.f.,":, "tt'��ii1 V r 04 53 ?'� '" ° �,• r t v_ Q c.�c o w v•$ y � c > >, .a 'a •, °m �' o�=c c " z':S me q•o 9'o :a 60`.Y x c n E c v 'o. a y.3 a ti u uc". 'S > c >,G-•. c H c a y " c Z3 Gp� o � CuEp �.S oMd � -$ L c Y s °' "� -_.° Y3�, C u 3 o a m `u �, m M °"'6 rj u°'o t cp n. .�`6 w o U,=F c ° .:a.�'-' 3 -m o � �'2� c= c �.0 �G �c r r;�u c a—�� � '. s a o m�, ti $ G au, u G <C'� c•.�va - O .. c� v'c.,"—s-,'� v ycCu,� "'c � �� �, .;�c -' C a- �.���•� ° o � $ =' r �•� lac-n i7 � O � c, C� �✓ .'.:_ w E o 0. -� c° � � E a l y � c c u� '� C U � O �. v ,�. u� ur ,; c _ Z __, E v v cc„m �;� _ �3-�•� a,�� o Z o�� G p `� �v 6�."M �.,,. W� a v rn'•. a�C� � �-' ° <_ o m co v u J u e ._ 3 O d,° u °`�, `�' '�=J c n �" ... = '2 c a v > '< o= 0 .`_ o ° G r .. 7 v, ., �.`•- - F �•r "J c y 3 _ _e. G F/ ( \ 41t �. 'ti 11 ice` �-,-';,r.-•.'..,,.n.. ;,�,,..,• �`: � '� . � � ..r/ 'M�.•'y.` t,1•t•l � � � � .At• '4 irn. . �.` ^ 'p �tr✓ _ ii u�...� syr/ '� ;1 f .t y�.. � ;�` � ./^• `� � ti'1;.,.y�,,Q7:r!....+�'j7�- } � � f "`` .. � :1.�.t+�,•,�t•'`t'S',.' ,;y `,.' �, 'r G �"" �'`:1 � / f p .y'tu'�-:w- �}` .rte ,,."';,r:,�r_��rr.s 1 �.,:`.. •ce. „rte ,� +,r,,;...� ' j7L ► Y Jr�/•7' 1.,,,•,. ,�`�.,� '�'•k s tl> ''`v.�yt..,.y ;.,� Ja •1i. ,... t ,.1 'i `'ttiti � r. ^..,_,�..,. '4,,,,,,: ,s-••�•. , � '• i 1, tea` j � i 'c v ,,. � t.-.`.•�,• '-• w.-~'•,.... � �.1 __...::.�.�+:;' ; 'k �:��,_••jam,,; '.ti..\� �- . • � ; �Yr.utt •^" ✓ ' Y ,f� '�Y.^.` .,tire' �,1. } � ,.� \."rte �'..,�^`^+'F •.M w•.•.`^ter `+�""` 4 �. ` ,`'' 1 W se �'� '•'} ,� ' 4 ,1' r' tet.\ •�",,,1�'"r-`�� '""� ...�••� >' � C,%^^ , •-,.- ; i ,� J :? '• c.y„lr'' �`: 'Alt. tie JAI- I�� YY^^ \�. . d'^•' r +] N� Fi'i '+".,t^' � �,.^°„ y �' � �� O •� G U f `1 1�i 'i � K � � G i G ., G i � .�"- N � i� v G, r :,, N .��`• 1 ` �y i O .7.� i M N " i G v� O �i � �Jl i i '' -�i ,i �r✓ "' i C 'r r^, �i � O �` . .:} ...,,3• u .„ �,.'�:� � E+� m �N G G. l G1�'•� �'J- i U J � F � F�'H'' � N r o OY G u�`J �t,`l`^o ti Nlzl m o — ,^e'r. ' o v '7^ 7 N G•' �eG�s y. ai t,L ee t%, m .t%y G'-o a W J y, e, O 'a U U U R (t' -" ' - i, U Z. i U1'- N 2 T'^. i i ✓ O � /:.T •� P ° 34 ,`� G F � U C i i i� N �, •^�' .a i '7r ,., /• � w O � O.' � ^° i ' � J •,. � � ^ i U , Z t3 � J �^ � O t �'r '� �r�' R i• N• +e•r APPENDIX A MS060014 Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Vi. GEOLOGY AND SOILS- Would the project? A. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse. effects, including the risk of loss, injury,or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based . on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. X 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? X 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X 4. Landslides? X B. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in ori-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X D. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? X E. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? X Discussion Al. The nearest fault considered active by the California Division of Mines&Geology is the Calaveras fault. The Concord fault A-P Zone passes approximately 2'/miles northeast of the site. A2. According to the Safety Element.(p: 10-13)-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,and the map assumes improvements are sited on bedrock or A-1 engineered fill (not.landslide debris or colluvium). The UBC requires use of seismic parameters which allow the structural engineering analysis for buildings to be based on soil profile types(see UBC, 1997,Volume 2,Div. 5,page 2-23). UBS seismic parameters,based on the current code,are provided on page 10 of the geotechnical report issued by Engeo,Inc l Compliance with building and grading regulations can be expected to keep risks within generally accepted limits. A3. According to the Safety Element(p. 10-15),the site is rated"generally low"liquefaction potential. This is a preliminary finding based chiefly on bedrock geology of.the site. That determination is consistent with the results of the Engeo investigation. A4. A. With regard to landslides,all or portions of four slides are shown on. Moreover,the.site is within an area rated "highest landslide susceptibility' by the CGS. A report issued.by the U.S. Geological Survey that characterizes the engineering geologic properties of bedrock (Ellen & Wentworth, 1995) indicates the rock the site is clayey, weakly consolidated and highly expansive. The Soil Survey of Contra Costa County(1977) indicates that the erosion hazard is high, and the soils are highly expansive and corrosive. B. A SWPPP and Erosion Control Plan are a routine requirement of projects requiring grading permits. The S WPPP identifies the"best management practices"that are most appropriate for . the site, and the"Erosion Control Plan,"which is required for the grading permit,provides the details of the erosion control measures to be applied on the site and maintained throughout the winter rainy season. C. A geotechnical report issued by Engeo,Inc.(2005)evaluated the stability of two drainage swales on the property (one on proposed Parcel A and the other on proposed Parcel Q. That . investigation identified four landslides on the property. They were found to be relatively shallow (< 10 ft)earthflows, each have a mapped extent of on the order of 7,000 sq.ft. The risk of slide movement is considered high. For the Parcel A building site Engeo provided measures to allow construction of a.residence on stable foundation soils, and recommended a debris deflection . structure to protect the residence from being impacted by slide debris originating higher on the hillside. Engeo considers the risk of liquefaction and lateral spreading failures to be low,based on a)test pit data, and b) corrective grading/foundation%drainage improvements. D. 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 associatedwith expansive soils can be reduced by placing slabs on select, granular fill, and by use of rigid mat or post=tensioned slabs: General foundation design criteria are provided for Parcel A by the Engeo report. It should be recognized that expansive soils are an engineering issue, and not a land use or feasibility. issue. Any building on the site must give consideration to expansion potential and corrosivity, and building pads that are astride the cut/fill transition or are astride a geologic contact of expansive claystone/non-expansive sandstone may require special foundation design measures. These are geotechnical design details (not environmental impacts). Engeo, Tnc.,2005. Geotechnical Exploration, Lot 1, Las Quebradas Court,Alanio, California. Engeo Job #6762.1.002.01 (report dated July 28,2005). A-2 E. The project will he served by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. Environmental Analysis 1.. Landslides and Corrective Grading—Parcel B Impact. Parcel B is an upland propertythat is within the outcrop belt of mudstone and clayey sandstone of Pliocene age. Based on subsurface exploration Engeo mapped all or portions of three earthtlows on the property and concluded that the primary hazards are a)landsliding,b)slope stability and c)expansive soils. and bedrock. The USGS (Ellen and Wentworth, 1995) concludes that the soil mantle and bedrock are expansive and possess adverse engineering characteristics. According to a .Relative Landslide Susceptibility Map issued by the California Geological Survey(Majmundar, 1995)the site is within an area rated highest landslide szisceptibility. Building projects require detailed,comprehensive geologic and geotechnical analysis(and a conservative approach to grading and development)if long-term stability is to be achieved. The peer review geologist of the County considers the.geologic and geotechnical data sufficient to define the landslide and grading impacts and to identify detailed mitigation measures. . Mitigation Measure .4. For Parcel B, at least 30 days prior to requesting recordation of the Parcel Map .submit.a preliminary geology, soil, and foundation report meeting.the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.4.1210 for review and approval of the County Peer Review Geologist. Improvement,grading, and buildingplans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report. This report shall include evaluation of the potential for landsliding,seismic settlement and other types of seismically-induced ground failure by recognized methods appropriate to soil conditions discovered during subsurface investigation. The report shall include measures to protect the future residences on Parcels B from encroachment by the slides mapped by Engeo, Inc. The report should also provide recommendationsfor the gradient of engineered slopes, and other criteria and standards to guide preparation of grading and building plans. B. All grading and drainage plans are subject to review of the County Peer Review Geologist and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The.plans .shall be prepared by appropriately licensed professionals. C. Unstable soils and landslides.shall be removed within graded areas. Buttressing, keying and subdrainage facilities.shall be provided .In the transition areas between open space areas and the residence on Parcel B, a debris deflection wall shall be provided. D. Prior to issuance,of the construction permit for Parcel B,provide a grading remediation plan . and report for the approval of the Building Inspection Department-("BID'). The report shall evaluate open.space hillsides whose performance could affect planned improvements. E. During grading, the geotechnical engineer shall observe and approve all keyway excavations, . removal.of fill arzd landslide materials down to .stable bedrock or in-place material, and installation of all subdrains including their connections. All fill slope construction shall be observed and tested by the project geotechnical engineer, and the density test results and reports submitted to the.County to be kept on file. Cut slopes and keyways shall be observed and mapped by the project engineering geologist who will provide recommendations of A-3 S- 7-aI1-,&7 modifications based on the actual geologic conditions encountered during grading. Approval from the Contra Costa County BID shall be obtained prior to any modification. F. Concurrently with recordation of the Parcel Map, record a statement to run with deeds to the property acknowledging the Geotechnical Study by.title, author (firm), and date, calling attention:to conclusions,•including the long-term maintenance requirements, and noting that the report is available to prospective.buyers from.seller of the parcel. G. Prior to issuance of the buildingperrnit, submit an as-graded report of the engineeringgeologist and the.geotechrrical engineer with a map showingftn'algrades, subsurface drainage,subdrain cleanouts, disposal and pickup points, and any other. soil improvements installed during grading, as surveyed by the project surveys or civil engineer, and in accordance with requirements of the geotechnical engineer. A-4 •Roof mass Is reduced 'and lowered. •Effective Bulk When Seen from Afar Second story Is setback from vlewllne below.which In effect; reduces Perceived bulk. •Viewpoint from Cutting Into hillside reduces amount Below of building foundation and results In cost savings for the protect. Cut building Into hillside to reduce effective visual bulk. • expose maximum of a half story (=5 feet) of foundation to view in elevation; • expose maximum of a half story of roof to elevation. YE5 - same amount of Ilving space redeolgned reduces vlewshed from below.. 102 X�IBi� 6 E s o�aen�el Corte P ts ALAMO .IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION P.O.BOX 156 AI.,AMO: CALIFORNIA.94507 August 10. 2006 13Y FAX TO 335-1222 Community Development 1.)ept. 651 Pine Street., 01 Floor, N. Wing Martinez, Ca. 94533-0095 Attn: Rose Marie Pietras Re: MS 06-0014 Site: 299 Las Quebradas Lane Request to review an application for minor sub-division ora 2.05 acre parcel into two parcels with the need for rezoning the parcel from A-2 to R-2(:. Dear hose Marie I'ietras: Subject application wits reviewed by the Alamo Improvement Association's. Planning Committee on May 9`h and again on July 12'h. Application was presented by Applicant's representatives and engined,. After a thorough review of the Applicant's information which showed the proposed division of the property, site location for the existing home under construction and the location of the proposed new home site along with the topography map of the area and the general location map of the site a discussion was held regarding the area and the difficult.) of construction.on the created lot. The surrounding area has a mixed zoning ranking Isom R-:20 to A-2. The Application was recommended for denial on the basis that there was no justification for changing the zoning. The site that would have been created required extensive grading with it result of a very, small building pad. The entire parcel is:now a conforming lot under the A-2 zoning and this lot serves as a buffer to the surrounding R-20 par..-el.,., and works well in. the general plan of the area. Sincerely, Jezy F�cClun , C'o-Chair in Planning Committee C;c: AIA Secretary Robert McAdam Roger F. Smith, Co-Chairman X�IBi� � E t����ati'��1,ist �� 19308001ii 193080094; 193570023 1 RUONG VINH TRF.. MCKEIN'NA J.ANIES C &MARY ELLEN OSTROSKY PETER 273 I.AS QUEBRADAS LNT .267 LAS QUEBRADAS LN 17 SUGARLOAF TERR ALAN40 CA ALAMO CA ALAMO CA 94507 94507 94507 193080087 19357002?- 193570015 , CALLAIIAN DON K HUNT GRANT M&SUSAN M TRE MILES CLYDE E 255 MICHELLE LN, 3073 OAKKAIDER DR 298 LAS QUEBRADAS ALAMO CA ALAMO CA ALAMO CA 94507 .94507 94507 193570011 193570009 193570012 KUNG HENRY I&JULIET J R TRE MILLER MATTHEW J& LISA C ROBSON JAMES T III&C M TRE 266 LAS QUEBRADAS 3077 OAKRAIDER DR 274'LAS QUEBRADAS ALAMO CA . ALAMO CA AI.AMO CA 94507 94507 94507 193080116 193570016 193080002 SPEETS FRANS G J & ROCIO POND RANDALL& CYNTHIA BISSET LOUISE.S.TRE 247 MICHELLE LN 48 BRIGHTWOOD CIR. 335 LAS QUEBRADAS ALAMO CA DANVILLE CA ALAMO CA 94507 . 94506 94507 193570019 . 193592012 - 193080018 YA:MAGUCI-II KRISTINE T JOHNSON HARRY T &L.ILLIE S TRE MCADAM ROBERT LANCE& PAULA 290 LAS QUEBRADAS 259 LAS QUEBRADAS 1581 LITINA DR ALAMO CA ALAMO CA. ALAMO CA 94507 94507 94507 193080014 19.3592017 193080107• MCADAM ROBERT LANCE&PAULA J EYVAZZADEH EMIL &DONIARINA WATSON NANCEE 1581 LITINA DR TRE 1847 NEWELL AVE ALAMO CA 249 LAS QUEBRADAS WALNUT CREEK CA 94507 ALAMO CA 94595 94507 193080015 l 193080098 193570020 , SMITH STANLEY W GORDON ROSS C&HELENE TRE FANNING STEPIIEN J&LTIDA TRE 295 LAS QUEBRADAS LN 234 MICHELLE LN 282 LAS QUEBRADAS ALAMO CA ALAMO CA ALAMO CA 9450.7 94507 94507 193570010' 193080113 193080095 WAZ MATTHEW C&ANNE-MARIE AVELAR RICHARD & LISA=JOY TRE OFOGH MAHDOKIIT DORIE 3081 OAKRAIDER DR 170 TRACY LN PO BOX 245 ALAMO CA ALAMO'CA DIABLO CA 94507. 94507 94528 HSD ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC WORKS- BUILDING INSPECTION HEALTH ENGINEERING HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFO. SYSTEM-FOUNDATION CENTER. NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE BUILDING 300 COMMISSION FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1303 MAURiCE AVENUE 915 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 364 1500.BOLLINGER CANYON RD. SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 SAN RAMON, CA 94583 ROHNERT PARK,CA 04928-3608 EBMUD-COMMUNITY AFFAIRS CENTRAL SANITARY DISTRICT 375-11TH STREET SAN RAMON SCHOOL 5019 IMHOFF PLACE P.O. BOX 24055 DISTRICT MARTINEZ, CA 94553 OAKLAND, CA 94623 699 OLD ORCHARD DR DANVILLE, CA 94526 ALAMO IMPROVEMENT DIST. P.O. BOX 156 ALAMO, CA 94507 AN1$IT g Maps • - C a _ C Ln -� •.`�, o—` � ` �'..l"1 � gra� �- en ,1 _,;., :�r. e �T`;a' =?, .! '45 .���✓''„ �a��gi�i�c't/lm�= o. j' ci*t\= cD _� •--- ; /J/ / y �v, •r� '�-..1 �.�' r •i\ x �tom_�.�,'=��c .-- lP `��/// l.o; �/i77 ,�.,�;'_ �'�,`�cy r � '.�r�\'f\ �(= `+r,r'Si:"�'-'.g?_rtl .:-�--1,t'-•�.�+1 -at Lj %�;' R r, til w; �rytu�' + Y wo ~r _ r"' J_ C� �i ir.^+�-C.0 n_x t, •:;..,Q � , '. � r �\'`�.S 7 r�`�� � jr r t2,99^`y t[ll•r `! 1� !^.�J` C� /^� ..,(\ : ' 11),•pe'1e"w •'��� �� in�+4 �\,s6r;s,�Or:�> --.,_�=�z= may '..� �:r„3 r :>� d' � 'f9 J� .� Ucl ,V \' ��utsn,\ <S- '�� `?'r •1,`"�'. y�40' (�ca'}� / ��.. c\.� � Nwt� ��r r't q gyp. o: �. ., 4a �� ` .4 >s ra\ !•_,k `y \..,. ..�\ �.. N � rip apo' F' �-- �__j rte,..)Oq) ;�OrC'� �� o m N.�� to � c" C,.: ✓w`;`'\, ��\� \^- Ln � ;.r o N cp (3't Ln Z r ci _ � d' t' !�" ��, �� [-- ��iFt., \� n,^•'3.'.',�'C:mg,s. Z''�y�� °�' . {$" cL (f1 Q, `! d' m ,n d tZ- �l w y '�� � t! �._� m'.:•.Ob'�., i# cp Lnop. cl- t!) cT i,J :a \y --`'�' _ x6 M co ." any i �7�r-SL 'ten-.��__ ' •� �.;:N',.. 193-080-014 Aerial Photograph x�. -„ .:. rJ,•.. .•}s"r...r: �,- 1r ,•^ Y;;'. +i. yr• .,',,,pp•.1_`_ r-.d,•�2.:•s'�'-?,::� Itf;c:•,, r i;�,r .- :.*`_ .s� . irr' ''�p, ,.G ., •�":_..c �',�'.r":* stt:.-i�,;yt {t _ $ ,ry, J .::;-�,:_r ,: ,:r •a 'r,r��•" .rt+�•(,5,1;.•_.1� �] f...� ..�� ,y r. y rZ. •r.' _�.r+�i ,.,r--�,.f. ..3t,..v'+s� �!. .i'"K.,� ;t - ;! F• :r i54, .� 1}�r..' ��r >! :I.l 'tYtt;. ,:jr`; ,,. .. d- �yl�I.�%J��T,`. �`5; %.�. ��,;.. 2i' �� -�. .iyE:s .C':; '��• � .t. ..y:"'� '' �`'�, r:5_ �..;.r• li�t� {�_ Z_ "�.•. 4i . y ,{!r, ..�f,;:�• --�:<r�,+ •... `;. r � :yiat:�i�:, rar- ;�,r,:. �.� �:,'•';y"''N:•(4:?tfi r' '•,,.[-�.•'. 'vw i��r i`T`,�-�<. �Cl�.. i91_ 'y'',', .st"' '::i: .5vf•�a�?3:' �+a� �:1'':•:::.c. i° -� "r:1. i�.C'� .'t''' .,� -- ',•!• ��' ~ �"/£p'/� " '�'� ,R,� t._ �� .•moi.. F At fl'�,M"? 5 f'"F ..�,: .,�, - r ��, .�ti•:: -��, �•. fir= �/ i "'''.• - - _syrA _ D. r- tir'J}�4 :`f I ,1�':'- _;'4.• :iY::.•. I, .1T"•C7 }�,yc,.r.� - •es' - •.�: y:' 3r'�r' .� \� "I•!:` gg �• �._ :..t. '•if' .'S'"I;I :!-S'�-tr�.. s' �'\' .%.' ;r::I fy:' _i!♦ r '�... :<. uaT•'. :.Ir.: "-.1. •ri��'�•,_ J'L..._, ::(p 1�_: .s IN �,y_ ,ti•�� C r �*fi' '.f�t..-' .�•:. „i;: •:"'r•K' :�/ .(iU .'S. _ _ i^`r,•';.,� T.��,: -vf,.r ••��,,`/ yl��'•«y1,..{�-J�jy�`1' "Q.f;_c' ':'.!-W.+.t'{F _ - -,'t•%. !� .� � iL. �7"..,�..YL'-'.- -itis. �:it�i...��L.• :��' � �ry.� i _ ,.�, ''.Y •.!' •qty,-� t: '�:.. rf�,r:r,. ,'$'....; ••t}_,• `. ..��fl<', �.._ -1y _ :, r,•t: -tis, r�-tr �y �'+•..r. -_ rh .i I _ _ rr' •., �,�� i*� I _..x1 fi<..� ri'n•'<�.4 �i.s<.1 �n::' :'-i:� ,.:, /i �, "a:i.� Y- :7:s^.u�>..ti.c, ,:'-rd''<..s•, SITE rr �� -':f:;�t �-'•'-����::;f . ,�. �.;:,, '�_7 •, ':d��1r�i•_� .-.�;i•,.�i�.... l�r�;r".:�- r:�`��;/ .1-f,-':' ::ti' '�'�.' =;�L•�.. '; .rig I p_�.}:�.� *r.' iV! } �'I �!f,. i�:` ��..•,�'' .1� ,:m •!- �t -..�., �.�'sw� J �'�'q �.:;•"/•::� V ri I' .I-�°"„!'±C` 'I`.:�; Ca';t;� •C' a 1•�: +a _.i'tre'.� •i`�' •� rr -j :.��i :�%�.. r•f / ...{*. .- '— � ti ,;['�'- � :1.•i�'•'r �\ .y-,,�� '-'''-��.s��(t.�'/ ' �.&tC _ s” .;r:.;r%. ,�-.^^•,T�L-�rp..ae;.-�.:,��- fi�r`�y-: •-I' f '4.�.� •r4:ti - \�y*r_... ,ye•:.r;�•+ _ .,"!! �: .}- ril�:'S{sj='il:�N��...r" : •A �S5 .i:. -. "YP' el., .: ,�s: '.5 / '� ., ...AE:iY,•. .,p Jru:r tx,:�fi". t 1.. ��,i•.r;j� � „y:y !:_r"'(': .S �i.'�l �• •�,'�+f,'(J• i:�<-. .� 'w1..'.:�' - t, ''�- - •A' a•' .c ,,' '+ ;*. �'M1'•'•gi� j +I =r1�' fa,.:�,.;c-,;i:' �� �-t - ,;•�''�:itcl::o ,;r��v :i,z,,. f� _ !,lr� .f.� [ ::��.:�':. ''1 s+:i`.i.._ :,1^.1:,�jti1* �\ p:� -'�'Sr•.:: iTu:'fj� r a-7�• '� >r t.;���s /y�;l.', :i J�'?° ..;f - .,; � 1 fyy ;1' '�11.''- -,gyp{: -�`i�..• .1 �..e :l •t, _ � , d 1r7 y� ',�?i:rT..,;.. �cu7'.0&E�:.1. �y,,r•n,�,s• .+ 't'��, ,;,i+..�'�, �` •=4 -6 fv {-r.'+" x ..-i'-'Lr - F �� 'ti_ - .+I 'a+ ''i::'�r- ,.l•2�"rc', •. Ftp �r:�:, L•�, -f 0-1 • �: J /"' ,\,"� - '•A+!'- _ r •,���r L:: .. r�T Z:I.ii.',.I.��I. rd/ - •'�.d°'/ J';; •.1 �M,f' �� 'fir>t�:•vrr,:: ' !'� 'i• •� }Y �:�s�?r�_. ..Ir' '� rKl }� r 1: Jg I!i�IrS \w3: � �• ter' +`� t N '�''`•;' 'r r f- '.�v,^xn^t 1..uf; rr ' ./ j.' : 1'� .a. _ F`,' °.oe b,,+'c. o� �. 'r;• .i� � - <,. JJ �~ �:'t. �r.� sJ �' .ij�':. '_a r�� �j111 �-�••:. r3 �f y` .j% a/�' ;'l. '.q'� F` '�'i ?''i\~:.�'1. I t'• Vit:T�` ,���•`r.' •\. Ss���• C,j.O r r �• 'i ! ""'" :�' •T+7. rJ"r¢:1`�_ � t�.r�' �� �'W�.* '.� -Y• •:: +�'�d_ + f .t-.4-'1' :......"'�'.�.t.. S •r•'' •�i J::'• .: tr,F'.\•l�'.!-' ekal % ll•. I:�i..j. - rl y.,�r c� - � �r "{'���8 �4i'• •% I�i>.•:► •4'•r' i.:. \ .,7 i.��. �.� ":.r'+ �, •. f ,�.'�. .Iy -(j r..r<%.}��it�-„`,:". 1. l'rT*�'�!�•i' .;C.J_. Je.v 'yam, .9✓•`fy.-'' � 3 e t � .M .ti S.:°-�. '4's,-.•: ':moi,;`y�.4 i \1-:!::f`.' c'.. .4 t r3 A'. :..3':R rl1,J..4 ..�.tij. .,F. .'�Y:-.1.:.:.. •i' i!1 .t,.;L, -.,,.- .r..�l,.;`3=Q;ai' ,'-' `��;f:": •.;&,?✓�,�f:N - e,,.'pr -y,,.,.i5`=.q;. S.;�a - :'�•n- �a,/ �'�f.'�:� ,ov% ...> .fic:='•Yrr'Sx�1': '�r�:::l•:•'.�s ':1.��,:.. ,�(` � ..S. reo'atl 420/2007 This map or tlatesot was created by the Contra Code County Community Dewslopmanl Feet 'T by Contra Coss County Community Dswlopnani,GIS Group Departmentwithi amI1s from I, Contra Costa County GIS an:1.In.Some C y /� 1V 651 Pins Street,4th Fbor NOM Wing,MaNnei•CA 94559-0095 base tlata,prlmarly Ciy lJmlls,Is tla:Hatl Imm the CA Stab BoarE of EquellxeYon'a O 5O IOO LOO 37:59:4845N 1220695.9BCYy Wrate areas.White obligated to use Ins data tine County assumes no—ponsiblliy for Its accuracy.This map contains mp)tlgMetl raf Nlmmotion amay not be atbretl.It may be repmtluoud m Its o:rrenl stats II No couma is otatl.user,of This Thep ograe to raetl antl sccepf Ne County of Contra Cott maclelmar of l abl:ily fol geogtapnc Inform rton. 193-080-014: General Plan Designations �so� � � I / \� / /° l� I SITE \7/ Ala . 'c) c) j i General Plan Designations % 0 SL �. \ \ D AL Map croeled 41202001 This map or Cetasel was created by.e Cont.Cos.County Community Development Feet 'T by Contra Costa Coun Community Development.GIS Group Daperlmonl veth data trom.e Cant.Cos.CountyGIS Proprem.Some n 1� 651 Piro Sbaat,4M Floor NOM Woq,M.Mriu,CA94553-009i base tlab.Prlmadly Clry Limits,.dorlvod Qom Uie CA S.:o Boeitl of Equallzotlon's _ 0 50 100 200 37:59:40.455N 122:09:35.391W .x.:e areae.Mie oblpsled to usa.Isl.the County aysumos no.,pon,iblilty lot Its eau.ry.This map con.Inscopynpht=kmnation and may not be altered.Il mayW reprodur.d.IL•anent s.w d tho sou—s cltod.Users of this map eproe to read and omapt Ne County of Contra Costa msdaimer of liability for paopraptdc Information. r 2-a5�o� Proposed Rezoning for Parcel 193-080-014 from A-2 to R-20 R-40 ; \ I �k _ � I __ Sh�re•A, j Current Zoning \ A-2 y mf F (O \ � �� �I \ Y-- -20 f - lar O) A-2 (D �C)00 del —_ R-2 '5 / ��. R-1 5i —R-40 I Proposed Zoning _ h/r R 20 Ji A-2 . , _2 pt � oI - d. / R-2a \ aero' ro vim. \ Cur t � / R-15 Feet Ntop seated 4¢drzod� this map or tletesot was aWdbyfM ,tm Cosm County Commmityoomlopment by Contra Costa COunty Gammunly Devebpmanf,GIS G Wup DepadmeN wt dato fmm No Con:®CostoCountyGIS Program.Some 0 501 0o n00 N 651 Plne Street,4N Floor NoM Vying,MaMnoz.CA 94553-0095 baso&Is primarily,City Lhc:ls,Is dammd from the CA State Board of Equa9zaGon's JVl L 37:S9.46455N=05:35.3UW W,trote Drees.WhoobWs to use s tl to the County assumes no Wsponsib:l:ty for ILsamrreq.TNs mepouOWns mpyrightod Wfunnadon Dna may not be amay be reproduced In Its cement-sad the sour®Is cit: fWrod.NUsers of N¢map agree to road and avapt one County of Contra Costa d W,lmer of Ilao,Vity for geographic infonno.on. O- LIVOPNq RG 1 I I r r• ,7 T J `J r� STONE t VjC a'TS MqP f ii......_..',', ., ! r.�t'�. .,.�;:'rl;:r�?I;t�•i �i ROgfit pK'NfR O U rn` 3 ¢t � r j,_:'._'•.:.;.. ,I i�i ��i;I�J. ! rsg7 �a+wp "' a Re, °i 0CA ' A AM en C M0.pq ORNF ORq.r vO :1i� ,Sr583-+ X507 C' 19� T O,73a EMS77NG ACC... •.._,'=t .`;,`,':�,.:,; I R08ER7 k EBMUD E ESS'�UDU7Y. x;: ;. � :.,��'��`''-'•`�•. �'; �OMEs gMrA,OpM Nr (k r?/7 ASEM f, qIVE "0 1N<OR AM y0 1 4tj -J 77 � •,.._...;.:,-.::.:. ..,: '� .�:\� `�!^* RMRROAERTmR t ROp P. (� MS-7$S -DEDICAApJ-: I is 4' r923, CONCpRRNETTq�EUP F..AtCP RESa n r.:t9�M Zy i, _.... •r':1\:�'. ` 9r RCe s6 C e".A .6`oFa SER. 2D03 \ sg l(,j , f NO. x`2488/551 ,,v .,, }� rot ACRES Op ErrT ` t O I CO q j.., 7^,' 3."11? /•• �'^..N' 1 `\�i''•+ A`'sfg , 3 R,S 0. -0 _ f L41 DR i A 1 O NG GWn i.ENCE� G C.o r REStp nsrroaron, [l/'�"' '�... : St-St+GtE FAr�R t A ICfS% _r A '',iC - PROP tY.{pr t+r�'P:�" 1 , Q / l;�h "\l: \ r S OsFO JOF7,{ s "i! / L ` `� fJ Li. L�J L" i. �`•t 100 t'SpIGL`AAjj4 4 Pt,CN S/7'1, { +n 1 r.J JYk_ O 21 IOU ¢ l .4oap3FO� (r _ F SVT ,t 1...1'r Pp0 0 ' OPpsf _..._ �.Gp��'.}.rFANUIygFR tO , \ . . ...__. _ wr POAitC MJtrLOT's )Is (� r 4 �, .. (- sEWFA h1177fs ry. '. I'• SFtn,'ER COttFCT t` Q I r WATER rl"AleACr"I: _....,.. `' GAS SERvl r'F1JT ELS k IECTk�C E CD`OrITPF C pUSLIC SE iJ17. C_,BCtAieT qS qND�qL OTtLARq!!?AP y 0t'TRICT G FTE.vICs tC.aELECTRIC CO1STRlC�IS7grCr hl ' 4\•.t,,.r-,,_. ,C�tOC�SFRvtCESt COt?R OMPgrtr 's� � . LOlsTR1CT COIJTR;COSTq CO 0 A rrCN SAI�R COUt•LT MCC'K Ta CO AMOIOVg11c'y�iltfy t$tiEPDFpAR7rdEr1T IIraIXJN �L �,FANO T,a CEIfCNMARk FG SCNOOODS R/Af&, ` 4P I OAp qH0 tpV p�UDy OP OF C�OItS7STt m G4Re0r ATA yCA OU EARAp SRpIE.Fe FV'hFOF y COF rFR{Ity OFAgCO?e CO Q �\ BV gr CAR7KCRp NT 6..,20'WITH '35.12; HE IreiFRSF jrOP �tij q �W 1 tS CO ER/A{S.",,4F5"�N7pUR y FM,P MPILfO PROM RECORD 0c 7Ep I j31R/Q51 OF"EF7 � ,Q g .O/R,{�IOHAS EEE."P INFORM m m Gfi.ArtO APPRp,E1)'Ar ATION ZER O�0 W O 7 v 3131rp7 OA7� .�c zM.mC.m s. U I '✓� FNIi OF 3 pp t. 02010✓Ec1 rlO. 9 71—0,38y ? '� '��-�,. `� ��.. �. -._,�� i 1 �'`-�.. V13 Gni s4e : IWI 4 X ani ,��"� 1115 11115 1t1e1ti� •. ` INNV. 1111? 0� GOA. G�t. I,1 eu e b �0 11 0111 e� Q 01111 1110 .011' / ',crato��F Iii�ie�ps 1?ed IVP F kf'1�J r ask! tl�e d e J1a 1, b'81j�2(?( i �!�s�?e .p t 1 tp s�bfJl`l 6. y VOi�I,�� dl j_ �J�atl J Or �g For y plea o} hese�p�jlr t/rl'e.eli . jbr CO to } ay Ge li�arcl tli�t; l��l�bT I?re the C�er i. e a/l US ocate� sj�e � to ers • , _she�ker ,, , , . v a {�ti Qfi1A U" -4100, / Ll Q ,�a J .,alp.-.v��;,• . .. "rUtll�lai�,�.: .�`oi�s���rb t� -.. .�fy '. ,Fo f'.-.d��'y�vr.;.,,. . =:- :. .•..j�,� . ..ratite .. ods �ilay.ea.P JJtl gc% rjaZs'dJr' For yp!ea o: j�rsJ Jear�t f fid r'. llts��a `e.tJ�er prseJJ,. l Zo s� 112 af��to s 10 �� speakers p�a�els �elt� 2> 1� G CIO xNe 'gyp 11cc1 ts��, ,( O 5� i `� ��'Q •ti� 1S. �5 tai ,�'�, o{=. ,,>>1� p E 1 'ON" o �l Otis �U } c°'i �Y p�IVA� ell e`t 1 ONN y�f t t,N, j jie OF Edi :`!lair P leash qF Sp�aking, cf'tgyoels Y6-~'/, s oa t h to a-��ai�� lit o t1�� �fYou.jl�;� °rb�art j2a fou a tr�•Sp°�lr�ifY o hese 0111 Of stents • 6 ; n cl,�peatj�t :mat�rrals ,. _ ursett,ot. ,..,.,: - • th 1liata�ln�rn,aY n?acl� �1 .t�tete r �yl�e t1t1 flt by:.. C/irk.,,•` ,.4;. _ . , heard .�tt,It atl0�at pr�v!°l�ssp�ah Speakers s o ti . 1tiba�� �t Noe O. 1 : ���{. "N� tiG ti4ti�� p� GZO �11ti� `� NO ILI •4� ,`,�.� 2,��G ket `:ttt� � olettc ,: ,.'�� ¢��` Qj� ♦ G p 0� 11 S"� �1Q+ OG * .� �.��=���111e t511C 1iG1Q'. ..�{� .i'1tt11�ti� .► �/ � �� INN •V; s4 Otto stet h et 4OA0. N e s 11611 '0111 1+1. e1t5 Oy il)j to Ge gal f3Oar�/�s.CoI s` to rhe rn 1'eu O f'St�eakii cr le rat' 1 yv uG = ; 3. _./3e gilld�1I10l1@ at the IC 1�011iutC11at1', Plea loll of . . g� 1 ISI!'to Still Il. @ speak i11to t114y. resi(1 .1)yStatlil J . .. tl' sc cU111h�et1(g; 911 Gellal f Pl� /ether lal 1 all or��?hiz Yon are s y0""city o 4' at 1?ea r dr $ !olr!l ave Itat'dOut oll k lxlg fo,you S .. AvOld'�peatill hlaterials,.:�,jv �r e the ti (gat Chair hllj b'c(�aa�rlleiats laade Ott to the all y liljlit 3 Il/evio tray G�11ea1 i1 t/?e(illle alloca is spea er, feel(�s beakers so , _ xO0enl31! VIN80311VO KLNf100 V1S00 V&LNOO OWV�V LOL0989:xe9 Ot99- MV6VO'Pi00u00 00£9 989(9Z6) y el!nS'snueny uswn9 OE l L ., — - - rl.MvaO Ail Ad02ld WVCIVOA J m 1 r,Ols3a sl091143'V adeaspual 'slaaulBu3 's�auueld - � 0� _ _— _ b�00-90 S W N M o - ..: .—— ,o,-,. 3, �5 'd'dW 130�1bd 3�Ilb1N�l JNIlS�� d/��./� �./�/S�� Im u o !. r10LL dR1J530 31d(]n3 9�-91-O1'31Va ry _ " o k% I 11 az r. 0 C O I Out LL ` U W r, ` O `. t t c_l �` E I 4 .. '':ll��lj \�.. .SGP/ oo�` �rcm owu�' _o ry c,; Jbb�. �' a d�aa �a�� Uw2 m O� r `J �\ 1 .. i_J, ccj trop ao Nip�I ori p d >'u `�O ; V '� 'r--I r<'a 'j� _ ,,. f1 �� �1o , '4 1'"' ooN �m ..uiz r� O I �d z � Q . ' �..i �+ uu.. LL ,fin oma >a u � � -' P .JY/ . .- 1 FTUZ F IId�d �W S WW �I- Z -I O \ \i\ F - ', �, OOOm OOw ¢rIa Y- LL 4a0 �G -1 1__•� ,Ill,, -I . �Zvey uu� iF�w w� w Wm Z_ a ���- :'W' a� z= prmLL2 ��? u�o� �� na \I�Q1J . L9 C V' U 4, jl�, w k.<,mO UUOO wOLLO U� Wm R O U O w u m mF aU _ _ Q '� d 15 r wwa•>:n0 <Q� aOJ O wQ 'o t1t - a wo o-"-n^" �O o u0 warms a w F U HLL � nl a w Cn a o z -mow a'> - i: tt ��'oo <N v 7 /c - a � y„r - a Wm ao do o� o`o< �nma o 's ao \ . / M s Ojw,9 W u a w.i .-, a� u w2 oL rn l.: 'N ORwv i4 U wp W �>o SI KKQO 6 �Q- �: m� K_ - L7 Z 2 Wf�iYU OuIU Y?yrc N W� F f Q W O Q K,/r ma` �j= I Z "i H j= u- M UF-U2 l7w <� jW I Om� C Chi o, iU' m mm� 2u ju u Vu H Z �Wu�!-ww >WI>F �uGW_� �O¢ �Q tro rr w� �L r daa < 'L' z zanF t`. uw�z�e� w - W�< a, w��, m� w� '' w o w .�--orcvwi u'- _'n ao-= }m - z�,r•r Ni GOU VU t'r t9 c9 Z L. AGF N,Nu Q i \y ¢ �Ovmi OJWu jON mOu'COmc' mu — Qat FI-,- Orn S3 ON O w O''V Jwrcr[WaW "n.ajG Zmt-J� 'pain m� �Q i pPN i �.n s - -�ppi�w a ws F_/'. _w o0 m� p' m, 0,4, f o= ms3'W-m�m mw�x _ �SCi rye - » `-'o - ox-<- 2.-. o� og s - �wwa Y y ou `ood�. �wK o0 2-' m '. v -<a' rcx'-"<_ -4¢�um¢ r-cl alp ui a N.O 41- w not •t nr12 r�r� or, cin r.�3i9 l'-u - muusc .<z am I ,-.� -- _ .- I . _ _ . i ., f,;�.;,� _ _ _ �� _ _ _ _ . ,: , �. :. . , : :, ,. .i...' , y -- /:. — - :.:.� .: f.�: ..':.. A. .. .. .:.._ ..... - - .. ..: . ,... . .. ... ...._.... ..-. — �.. . . ..../:... - ,: ' - r``, _..: ... ../ . 1, . .. .A.-" I � — . ,... _. - - , _ . .. ,. /•.r ./� . . ... i, .._. .. - ..--- .. ._:.,.,i..:. _ :: -:. _ /. / .:,:. -. ... . ... . / . . .�\�..:�! . ....� i ,..- . .. �.. - /.. '. '---- ..,.i.:' ._ - : ';% ' % '' \. % .,. % - . .. _- . r::-: 1. % \ i..: -.. .�-:_ "_ :;J; . : _.... - '; V. . . -_ :X — ., —=' .. .... �:.: ' _—..- ;: i �; �:, , _ ::. .... .....:.... .: �'. . - , ... .r �_... /. r- . ........ :. : .. F\\ �... \`. ..... .. . .:/::... - - ... . .. . . . ... :. /; '.. \ ' .. i -� : .1 ,,.. .. .. .. .. i .. ''�'.' /. �` �' i �' . ... :....:.: ... ... j. 1 �� ..I.1.: ,:,.... .,. ..,....,.. .. .. ... �-(., \ �.�1 .. 1 / % . I (. :. ,!,. / 1 y, !._ l'i ,, . L' l I.: I ijj .I'll �\�:. / ,'\ \� `'1��.��.��'' _ f . .. 1.::.... ,1,1:11 :. . , ;..; /' ',.�'�, ::'�. !. : : I I I I >: i N ,.,� :, .,:.,II .,. .,�' .... ., ., 1 ,I: _� I _ . . ... ../ .. : .1 ... .. .. \ r \ � . . i`, , .. . ....1... .. \ �� / / .. . .:'.. . ...., ".. I .\ III. Q(n 0�1 �I :rte.., -.. � � ... .:.�. .. .::,,,,�'�tt �'���'. .......: .,'. \` I,.:. ..,..:. % — \ \,. , 1 r - �. {. .. _. __. . ._ . �_ I'. _.-_ _ \ �.. - . , ' j I. r,. I l : . \ -� = ... :I l' I- - .\'.:: \ ., J 1 t�� \ '`�� .:\ 'I'll: I I I 1+' `I' \ i! '. 'II \ I; •� i. I I�, i ,II I•: . ` : 'I ,iI r '. i : i� I � / I, :I' -- '' �' /' \ 'iI /. I ;11 1. - j'. :�I I� ;il. i j,I r: it ii r, .. ..::. r r r \ 1 %_ 1:I�. Ir, '. ), 1 is 1 % --,:: . : l : r .. l \. .I : �� :... .fes 1 1 I I ;�; `i • : . . . , ,' ., . . ; -/ _ . .. : :\ . - . I �.. I : I� \. 'I ��. _ � r l � � . 74 =;— l Z4 1' t' as 1 'i �j n r,0; , '\ ''I�'I' :I 1 I (•. i I' fY . .. ,.. .. I :¢- . . � fl �� I �II 1 4 '' E 1 1 /',.:; ..jr c '� 11 : - :. ) :\ : 1 z H. I --- �. - -.... �. K".. ..z .. is .. o _ , ':.:a� a i) `�-: ...._..moi: / - ._._.-..._. .............. .. I .. :. :,D/.:1. ./. V:� 'I= V rl(_......._._...._.. / / 1.�. :..':'j: .3, c,� :`�.. _ ....�-__..__7 .. .. .... - - - ,_ I)!'1 _.— _ " _ _ r - ' / - ,. I �: ._---._ art. .. � ... .. :� N. r. � � ..: ' _ , --- .. / �. __ -.__ r 1 ___— .._._.. _ _. .. .. .. .. _ .. .�..p ... �i - ___ - __ rf. _._ _- -- - �: I.. - , . . - _ - "- - a.. . .. - i : : lam - _ I r 1 - -- - _ — - -' / �`. 1. CSL-- ti, _ m E o9 3..(9 /I _.-.- _......_.. — .. `... ._....-_ - r r � - .. , - _� .. _. �.: J '1CWZ F 11 v - [[ 6Z t N W .L__: _.. 'LL C�I�r - - — --- - - - —.._.. r�` 'I/r i t CfT ' ti a r . t. ,. .. I ill : :.I.. ', . _..:..... .. l ,�Vi - t l ! Z; ni P �_ ��, .Q: (j) Uma �.`\ , Tom. �. - ti c " : _ .:.; � , �r �.1 LL . /' -- \ _. ry - /:::. u; t::1 .:..: yy I .-�...:.. :.•.. .. - c - /. .. 11 •.u, 4,r.1' III r�/ o$ 1 I .._� _ . _ _ __ z - - _- / r a I I '� - - �' . _._ , ... s+ �Nhp�I' it , % - .: /:, f$ : ...-- .. 1` /Z ) .......:..:::..:�_....__ FRIi I:1' : \`, �; . . QW - . - . ..- :. r -'1 / -: .,N .rr, C : - - 1 _ .. .. _ .. .. ..F ... . I _ _ - . P /:.:. .:. t I — W > J .. E J� .:..,,. .. : Iy- _ - -- z.. _- _ 'i ,- 5'va 'fl _. .__. a - ---- I , : -,. ....- ..,, . :. � I% ,.; ., A ry , �+ /.• /. . 1'33 _ , N /. E y:. . _ -- ,_T - " . . . _- .:; /. waa _ L 1 - N - .. .: /. . . . �' , I W ...!I: : ;, t7 °22 - . I` . . _....__.. . ,r. RA ___.- - I I! i .. ,.!i i . .� .. ;l : ;! .; ,. - . ,.. - . _ :8 .: �. U - i :1 . 1. � 111; . E .. ...-.....-. i ... ... - - - ��. -' -_.._...__ ..:.^._:. ... �_ _ E I I - . .- .. _...- .. 1 �A .....;;; - , S i % I_: : Y� I\I: i�. :Ir �1T .: __::: : �'y`. NE� i1 ...� ..I % � I i� L�•� .. t 1 : .. . -.-----­."-,r _�l '.0 m =�, O % :; 2^, r., . 11 • ��'•. U7 ril 8 x %� . . I 0 :• . V\ - . . . . . . m . t' ... .. .... . ......... rS'DC'x3 y / �-'�r_..�-----'------- ------- ----'---`-----.._--- -.__-.--" -- / - T -. _'-�_.-_----------' .n 9'x37 �n 7 V !� I _ i S J i �t!i :1�'J '•� /', !`. /c ^, C77 h f -i'; •f '1 ,v•I/ l F' 1/ IX70 D c )7 y �' l/ //l l :fir /n y C> / 1 =,Cn '� /-;.r11 / 1.4�:/' air, /. l: ��_� / ' ;�;• _ `/;,•,L �LC iii l � C', .. �� .. .. V.�( i,. �,� //� �� l '•lei � �/. cry lift .1 ! n 1 , r a! r j C T / � iii+ /�► . �'� / ' / ' '';�'L�!-_.t-r-- - /. --�'-`- ----'. ii'ilr Q- A, .-j'. •..;� .1 i'.� 2 • r- ��, ilk 1 a�, / .a�' / ,�/�,�`.•:� `���� f�" m� .ill;�� rA,S. '� _ _ l:$^'7 •.\ i'' `•f j� 't %1 4` . 1 _ e ,I 11 IN / cr / r 1 - , a r : _ , y t Planners ligpP Fn9/ Con'oY"'netlq�enu n e e r� Land, d CA9A5?p 87citeq and,�eRe��..//I D c Al A VES v`STi'VG '- rez5,sS � Fex:� ?o0PA AUAMO GAaAM 0414 MAP q/F:1Q 1 pS rT rf: ,.. 2 \ Ti�UIV Ty NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS ALAMO AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 1:00 p.m. in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Room 107 (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: ROBERT McADAM &RAY VOGT (Applicants & Owners), County File#RZ063178 The applicant requests approval to rezone a 2.05-acre parcel from A-2 (General Agriculture) to R-20 (Single Family Residential). The subject property's address is 299 Las Quebradas Lane immediately north of 267 Las Quebradas .Lane in the Alamo area. (A-2) (ZA:Q-15) (CT:3461.02) The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, State of California, generally identified below (a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental'Significance (no Environmental Impact Report required) has been issued for this project. If you challenge the project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written co--respondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, July 24, 2007, at 12:30 p.m., in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, to meet with any interested parties in order to (1) answer questions; (2)review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and (4) provide an opportunity to identify, resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff, please call Bob Drake,Community Development Department, at (925) 335-1214'by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 23, 2007, to confirm your participation: ---- — - - - - ---- -— Dare: July 9, 2007 1 John Cullen, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator Byu Katherine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk I BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT McADAM & RAY VOGT (Applicants & Owners), County File#RZ063178 The applicant requests approval to rezone a 2.05-acre parcel from A-2 (General Agriculture) to R-20 (Single Family Residential). Notice of hearing for Tuesday, July 24, 2007, at 1:00 pm, was mailed this day, Monday, July 9, 2007. I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited Certified Mail with Contra Costa County Central Service for mailing by the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, first class postage fully prepaid, a copy of the hearing notice, on the above entitled matter to the following: Please see attached list I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, at Martinez, California. Dated: July 9, 2007 Katherine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk n A e See Instruction Sheet 9 ' Easy Peel Labels � � , QAVERY®.5160® � Use Avery@ TEMPLATE 5160© ° Feed Paper , for Easy Peel Feature 1930��0010 1930800941 .1935700'3. TRU ONG VIN TRE MCKEI-,TNA JAMES C &MARY ELLEN OSTROSKY PETER 273 LAS QLJEBR^..DAS LIN 267 LAS QUEBRADAS LN 17 SUGARLOAF TERR AL.AMO CA ALAMO CA ALAM10 CA 94507 94507 94507 193080087 193570022' 193570015 CALLAHAINT DON K HUNTGR.ANT M& SUSAN M TRE MILES CLYDE E 255 MICI-IELI_E LN 3073 O.AKRAIDER DR .298 LAS QUEBR 4D AS AL__M10 CA ALAMO CA ALAIMO CA 94507 94507 94507 193570011 19357.0009 193570012 KUNG HENRY I &JULIET J R TRE MILLER MATTHEW &LISA C ROB•SON JAIviES 'I'III & C M TRE 266 LAS QUEBRADAS 3077 OAKRAIDER DR 274 LAS QUEBRADAS AI.A_,M0 CA . ALAMO CA ALAMO CA 94507 94507 94507 193080116 193570016 193080002. _ SPEETS FR.4\-N'S G J&ROCIO POND RANDALL&CYNTHIA BISSET LOUISE S TRE 247 MICHELLE LN 48 BRIGHT'WOOD CIR 335 LAS QUEBRADAS ALAMO CA DANVILLE CA ALAMO CA 94507 94506 94507 193570019. 193592012 193080018 YAMAGUCHI KRISTINE T JOHNSON HARRY T &L:ILLIE S TRE MCADAM ROBERT LANCE& PAULA 290.LAS QUEBRADAS. 1 259 LAS QUEBRADAS 1581 LITINA DR ..ALAMO CA ALAMO CA ALAMO CA 94507 94507 94507 : 193080014 193592017 193080107• MCADAM ROBERT LANCE&PAULA J EYVAZZADEH EMIL &DOMARINA WATSON NANCEE ;1581 LITINA.DR TRE 1847 NEWELL AVE ALAMO CA .249 LAS QUEBRADAS WALNUT CREEK CA 94507 ALAMO CA 94595 94507 193080015' l 193080098 193570020 SMITH STANLEY-W GORDON ROSS C&HELENE TRE FANNING STEPHEN J&L2iDA TRE 295 LAS QUEBRADAS LN 234 MICHELLE LN 282 LAS QUEBRADAS ALAMO CA ALAMO CA ALAMO CA 93507 94507 94507 193570010 ' 193080113 193080095 WAZ MATTHEW C&ANNE-MARIE AVELAR RICHARD &LISA-JOY TRE OFOGH M.AHDOKHT DORIE 3081 OAKRAID.ER DR 170 TRACY LN PO BOX 245 AL ALIO CA ALAMO CA DIAI3LO CA )45)07 94507 94528 R�- ao l 179 kicluettes faciles A peler O Consultez la feuille www.avery.com Utilisez le naharit AVERY0 5160 Sen',dp rharnemPnt a1; ann rn_n11c0v i A, mIIIIIiiiiiiiilll See Instruction Sheet; E4g NAVERY851600 'Easy Peel Labels Feed Paper �� for Easy Peel Featur Use Avery@ TEMPLATE 5160® ° PUBLIC WORKS- BUILDING INSPECTION HSD; E\TVIRO ?MENTAI: ENGINEERING HEALTH HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFO. SYSTEM-FOLTIv-DATION CENTER NATIVEAMERICAN'HERITAGE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BUILDING 300 COMMISSION .1303 MAURICE AVENUE 915 CAPITOL MALL ROOM 364 1500 BOLLliNGER CANYON RD. SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITYSACRAMENTO, CA 95814 SAN RAMON, CA 94583 ROHNERT PARK; CA 04923-36088 EBIvTUD-COMMUNITY AFFAIRS CENTRAL SANITARY DISTRICT 375-.11 r14 STREET SAN RAMON SCHOOL 5019 IMHOFF PLACE P.O. BOX 24055 DISTRICT MARTINEZ, CA 94553 OAKLAND, CA 94623 699 OLD ORCHARD DR DANVILLE, CA 94526 ALAMO IMPROVEMENT DIST. P.O. BOX 156 ALAMO, CA 94507 Consultez la feuille www.avery.com Etiquettes faciles a peler d'instrurtinn 1-R(10-CA-AVERY Utilisez.le qabarit AVERY®5160© Sens de chargement Kathy Sinclair/COB/CCC To cctlegals@cctimes.com 11/02/2005 11:00 AM cc bcc Subject Publication Request-McAdam-Vogt Please publish the attached legal notice in the CCTimes: One day only, Saturday , July 14, 2007 Reference PO#: 2081 Please confirm receipt of request. Should you have any questions, please call me at the number listed below. Thank you, Kathy Sinclair Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, Room 106 925.335.1902 McAdam-Vogt 072407.doc NOTICE OF A PUB. ;. IC H ARING . You are hereby notified that on WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the San Ramon School District Board Room, 699 Old Orchard Drive, Danville, California, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission will consider REZONING AND MINOR SUBDIVISION applications as described as follows: ROBERT McADAM &'RAY VOGT (Applicants & Owners), County File #RZ063178 -1-he applicant requests approval to rezone a 2.05-acre parcel from A-2 (General Agriculture).to R-20 (Single Family Residential). The subject property's address is 299 Las Quebradas Lane immediately north of 267 Las Quebradas Lane in the Alamo area. (A-2)(ZA: Q-15) (CT: 3461.02) (Parcel#193- 080-014) For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (no Environmental Impact Report required) has been issued for this project. If you challenge the project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. For further details, contact the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Fine Street, Martinez, California, or Rose Marie Pietras at 925-335-1216. Dennis M. Barry, AICP Community Development Director Maureen Parkes/CD/CCC To Kathy Sinclair/COB/CCC@CCC 06/25/2007 11:13 AM cc bcc Subject Board Item-July 10th? 2� Kathy: Is there room on the July VAh.Board agenda for a Deliberation item that will last at a minimum five minutes? (1:00 pm would be,good if you have it.) Rose Marie Pietras is the planner. It is a hearing on the recommendation of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to rezone a parcel from General Agriculture to Single Family Residential located at 295 Las Quebradas Lane in the Alamo area. Robert McAdam and Ray Vogt-Applicants and Owners, County File RZ063178. Supervisorial District III. Thanks, Maureen Maureen Parkes, Secretary CCC Community Development Dept. 651 Pine Street, NW417 . Martinez, CA 94553 925-335-1209 925-335-1222-fax mpark@cd.cccounty.us Y 1 L�'✓ � -ar CX'o l