Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07082008 - D.2 5E__L Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa M: Dennis M. Barry, AICP, Interim Director County Department of Conservation and Development ST`S------ DATE: DATE: July 8, 2008 SUBJECT: Rescheduled Hearing on an Appeal Jointly Filed by Save Mt. Diablo and East Bay Regional Park District of a County Planning Commission Decision to Approve a Vesting Tentative Map to Subdivide a 38-acre parcel located at#3000 Bragdon Way, in the Clayton/Marsh Creek area. County File#MS05-0030 (Bellecci &Associates -Applicant; Roger& Kandell Habig - Owners) (S.D. IV) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATIONS: A. Accept County Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-2008. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ® YES ❑ NO SIGNATURE > RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD MITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S): ACTION OF BOARD ON Aod,F APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER 6L VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND I UNANIMOUS (ABSENT L,,/,�- ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD AYES: NOES: OF SUPERVISORSohl THE DATE SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED Contact: Rose Marie Pietras [(925) 335-1216) HN EN, CLERK OF THE OARD F SUPERVISORS AND cc: Department of Conservation and Development(DCD) OUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Bellecci &Associates—Charles Capp Morgan, Miller, Blair- Patricia Curtin BY , DEPUTY Save Mt. Diablo -Seth Adams IsEBRPD - Brad Olsen Public Works Dept., Eng. Services Div. County Counsel GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Board\Board Ord ers\Habig\MS05-0030 7-8-08.bo.docRMP\RD Rescheduled Hearing on SMD/EBRPD Appeal of County Planning Commission Approval of Habig Minor Subdivision rd of Supervisors , 2008 2 of 16 B. Find that certain mitigation measures (identified in the recommended conditions of approval) from the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are either infeasible or otherwise undesirable, and that therefore those measures should be deleted and substituted in that the modified conditions are determined to be equivalent or more effective than the original measures. C. Find on the basis of the whole record before the Board (including the initial study and any comments received), there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, with recommended modifications, reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis. D. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration determination with recommended modifications for purposes of satisfying this project's compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). E. SUSTAIN the County Planning Commission approval, but reduce the project from three parcels and a Remainder, to a maximum of two parcels and a Remainder, subject to the recommended conditions (including the elimination of Parcel A). F. Deny the appeal of Save Mt. Diablo and East Bay Regional Park District. G. Adopt recommended Project and CEQA findings as the basis for this approval.' H. Adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.2 I. Direct staff to post a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. II. FISCAL IMPACT None. Applicant is responsible for applicable staff time and material costs in the processing of this application and appeal. III. RESCHEDULING OF ORIGINAL JUNE 24, 2008 APPEAL HEARING This appeal hearing was originally scheduled on the Board June 24, 2008 agenda. However, at the mutual request of both the applicant and appellants, the item was rescheduled to this date to allow for discussions to try resolving the concerns in the appeal. We delivered to members of the Board for acceptance by the Board prior to the hearing on this appeal pursuant to provisions of the Better Government Ordinance. 2 Same as preceding footnote. ADDENDUM D.3 July 8, 2008 Appeal by Save Mount Diablo and East Bay Regional Park District (Bellecci&Associates Inc Applicant,• Roger&Kendell Habig Owners)(County File#MS050030). • Catherine Kutsuris, Department of Conservation and Development, presented the staff report. She requested the Board accept additional material, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Project and Environmental Findings, as provided to the Board and the public on Monday, July 7 2008. By unanimous vote, the Board waived the Better Government Ordinance Time Limits to receive the documentation. Ms. Kutsuris said the appellants and applicants had met, and were in agreement with the recommendations presented today with the following changes: Condition of Approval No 4-D (page 6): the portion where it reads "A residential second unit within the building envelope of the Remainder" shall now read "A residential second unit (only within the building envelope of the Remainder)" Condition of Approval No. 5 (page 7): after the first sentence there will be inserted "Upon receipt copies of these draft documents shall also be provided to the East Bay Regional Park District and Save Mount Diablo for their review and comment." Condition of Approval No 14 (page 11 &12): paragraph reading "The easement shall preclude further subdivision of the Property and preclude lot line adjustments. The easement shall preclude the removal of protected trees beyond those permitted to be removed as part of the Project, or for fire safety. The easement shall allow a one-acre vineyard on former grassland provided that no • additional trees are removed. No right of public access shall be created by the easement" shall be stricken and replaced with "No indigenous trees shall be removed beyond those to implement the Project,for fire safety or fire management,for wastewater and water supply provisions to meet the requirements of this project approval. " A Condition of Approval is to be added in the same section, to add a deed restriction to preclude further subdivision or a lot line adjustment of the entire 38 acre parcel. Condition of Approval No. 24 (page 22): the first sentence reading "Except for the trees specifically authorized by this approval and for wastewater and water supply provisions to meet the requirements of this parcel map approval" will be stricken and replaced with "No indigenous trees shall be removed beyond those to implement the Project,for fire safety or fire management,for wastewater and water supply provisions to meet the requirements of this project approval. " The final sentence of the paragraph, reading "Tree removal must also be consistent with the terms of the approved conservation easement", will now read "Additional tree removal must also be consistent with the terms of the approved conservation easement. " Ms. Kutsuris said the appellants are in agreement with these changes presented today and if the Board approves the project with those changes and the conditions previously provided,the appellants will withdraw their concerns. Chair Glover called for public comment on the matter. • Bob Doyle, East Bay Regional Park District and Seth Adams, Save Mount Diablo spoke in favor of approval. Page 2 Addendum D.3 July 8,2008 Appeal by Save Mount Diablo and East Bay Regional Park District(MS 050030) Supervisor Bonilla requested the Board's support to initiate a rezoning study of the surrounding area, to an A- 20 zoning district, excluding the nearby area zoned A-4, under Williamson Act contracts. The area covered in the evaluation would be located to the north of Marsh Creek Road, include the Clayton Ranch property to the west, the 360 acres that was part of the original subdivision that created the Habig's property (MS 64 — MS 90), and the 155 acres to the south, which was divided with MS 5-90. Supervisor Bonilla said she would also like to include a direction to staff to communicate with the Planning Commission to clarify that easements to restrict development are appropriate as mitigation in balancing project impacts and are called for and supported by the General Plan for protection of agricultural and open space lands. Supervisor Glover clarified with Ms. Kutsuris that a portion of land bounded by an A-4 Williamson Act contract and included the Clayton Ranch was within District V. It was agreed by Supervisors Bonilla and Glover and Ms. Kutsuris that it was logical this portion be included in the proposed study. Supervisor Piepho inquired about who would bear the cost of the study, and requested a report back to the Board on the outcome of the discussion with the Planning Commission regarding easements. Ms. Kutsuris noted the study would be County-initiated, and the Department did have the ability to fund it. She agreed the Department of Conservation and Development could return a report to Board in regard to easement discussions with the Planning Commission. By unanimous vote, with all Supervisors present,the Board took the following actions: CLOSED the hearing; WAIVED the time limits of Ordinance Code Section 26-2.206 for distribution and consideration of the Mitigation Monitoring an Reporting Program report and Project and Environmental Findings report; ACCEPTED County Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-2008; ADOPTED the Recommendations A-I as outlined in the Board Order; DIRECTED the Department of Conservation and Development to enter communication with the County Planning Commission to clarify the Board's position on the use of development easements and report back to the Board the outcome of said communication; and DIRECTED the Department of Conservation and Development to initiate a study in regard to rezoning certain lands around the vicinity of the Habig property(MS 050030)to an A-20 zoning district. • Rescheduled Hearing on SMD/EBRPD Appeal of County Planning Commission Approval of Habig Minor Subdivision Board of Supervisors *1 2008 3of16 IV. PROGRESS ON RESOLUTION OF THE APPEAL The applicants and the appellants have met on a number of occasions to resolve the issues of the appeal. The work among the parties continues and the staff will update the Board on additional progress at the hearing. This report identifies issues of agreement. The proposed conditions have been modified to incorporate the areas of agreement. A. Summary of Agreement: • Reduction in Lots: The number of additional lots on the property would be reduced from 3 to 2; the portion of Parcel A to the east of Bragdon Way would be added to the Remainder, and the portion to the west of Bragdon Way would be added to Parcel B. • Building Envelopes: One-acre building envelopes would be established on Parcels B and C. A 1 '/2 acre building envelope would be established on the Remainder. The "existing shed" located on the remainder would be grandfathered and would be allowed to remain outside of the envelope. • • Home Designs: Restrictions would be included to reduce the visibility of the homes on the parcels. The maximum square footage for residences on Parcels B and C would be limited to 5000 square feet with an additional allowance of 800 square feet for garage space. Conditions to reduce the massing of the homes (e.g. roof design, step-slope design, reduced under story and overall height limitation) have been included. • Conservation Easement: The remainder of the property outside of the building envelopes, including the Remainder, would be placed in a Conservation Easement. The East Bay Regional Park District would be added as an additional grantee to the easement. • Second Units: No second units would be allowed on parcels B and C. A second unit would be allowed on the Remainder if the unit is located within the building envelope and is limited to 1200 square feel in size with no more than an additional 200 square foot attached garage. • Tree Preservation: The easement would preclude additional trees from being removed other than what is necessary for fire management. The interested parties agreed to modifications in the mitigation measures from • the environmental review and the conditions of approval that were required by the County Planning Commission. Those modifications are reflected in the conditions of approval that are recommended for adoption by the Board. Rescheduled Hearing on SMD/EBRPD Appeal of County Planning Commission Approval of Habig Minor Subdivision Board of Supervisors 2008 16 B. Balance of Staff Report The balance of this report reviews the background of the site, project description, environmental review, County Planning Commission action, and review of appeal points. V. GENERAL INFORMATION: A. Environs — The site is located approximately one mile to the northeast of Mt. Diablo State Park, on south-facing slopes to the north of Marsh Creek and Marsh Creek Road, approximately three miles east of the City of Clayton. The surrounding area is a mixture of rural residential development, grazing, and public lands for various purposes. Parcel sizes in the area range from 5 to 160 acres in area; most of the smaller parcels tend to be concentrated along the valley floors. Many of the larger parcels are subject to Land Conservation (Williamson Act) Contracts that commit those properties to exclusive agricultural uses for a period of at least 9— 10 years into the future, and require the owners of the property to file a Notice of Nonrenewal to lead to a release of the restrictions of the contract. • The Contra Costa County Jail Farm juvenile detention facility and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Sunshine Camp Fire Station are immediately west of the property. To the northwest of the site is the Clayton Ranch Landbank of the East Bay Regional Park District. The site and several other rural residential parcels gain their access to Marsh Creek Road from an 18-foot wide, dead-end, and privately-maintained road, Bragdon Way. B. Site Description -The subject 38-acre property consists of steeply sloping clay slopes with little or no exposed bedrock. The site ranges in elevation from 640 to 1,200 feet above mean sea level. The slope on the site varies, but some portions of the site have slopes approaching 2:1 (horizontal:vertical; 50%)gradient. Most of the site has slopes exceeding a 4:1 gradient (26% +). Most of the site consists of a hardwood (oak) forest. The Habigs have a private driveway off Bragdon Way that leads off to their residence, which consists of the primary residence, a storage area, several recreational vehicles, and associated outbuildings in the central portion of the study area. The existing residence is located on the Remainder portion of the subdivision. The site plan identifies an existing landslide in the northwest corner of the site, and primarily located on Parcel B. • Rescheduled Hearing on SMD/EBRPD Appeal of County Planning Commission Approval of Habig Minor Subdivision Board of Supervisors J 2008 5of16 C. General Plan and Location Relative to the Urban Limit Line - The General Plan designates the site Agricultural Lands (5-acre minimum parcel size). This land use designation includes most of the privately owned rural lands in the County, excluding private lands that are composed of prime soils or lands that are located in or near the Delta. Most of these lands are in hilly portions of the County and are used for grazing livestock, or dry grain farming. The purpose of the Agricultural Lands designation is to preserve and protect lands capable of generally used for the production of food, fiber, and plant materials. The title is intended to be descriptive of the predominant land-extensive agricultural uses that take place in these areas. The uses that are allowed in the Agricultural Lands designation include all land- dependent and non-land dependent agricultural production and related activities. The designation provides that the following standards shall apply to all uses allowed in the Agricultural Lands designation: Any subdivision of lands shall include conditions of approval which conform with the requirements of the "Ranchette Policy" (aka Rural Residential Development), which is outlined in the "Agricultural Resources" section of the Conservation Element (Chapter 8 of the General Plan). • Urban Limit Line—The site is located outside of the Urban Limit Line (ULL). The ULL is located approximately three miles to the west of the site and is congruent there with the eastern City limits of Clayton. Marsh Creek Road Scenic Route and Corridor—The Transportation and Circulation Element designates Marsh Creek Road a Scenic Route. By definition, the scenic route includes the road right-of-way and the adjoining "scenic corridor" consisting of much of the adjacent area that can be seen from the road. The Scenic Route policies provide that it is within this area that development controls, dedication, and the purchase of easements or lands in fee simple will be required. Further, controls should be applied to retain and enhance scenic qualities, restrict unsightly use of land, control height of structures, and provide site design and architectural guidance along the entire scenic corridor. Slope Protection Policies — The General Plan also provides for slope protection policies, including: 8-14. Development on hillsides shall be lirnited to maintain valuable natural vegetation, especially forests and open grasslands, and to control erosion. Development on open hillsides and significant ridgelines throughout the County shall be restricted, and hillsides with a grade of 26 percent or greater shall be protected through implementing zoning measures and other appropriate actions. Rescheduled Hearing on SMD/EBRPD Appeal of County Planning Commission Approval of Habig Minor Subdivision Board of Supervisors 2008 6of 16 10-28.Generally, residential density shall decrease as slope increases, especially above a 15 percent slope. A Slope Analysis Map segregates the site into three slope range categories: 0 — 15%; 15 — 26%; 26%+. D. Zoninq - General Agricultural (A-2) District. This district allows for all types of agricultural production activities, and one dwelling. It also allows for parcels with a minimum area of five acres. This district limits building height to 2 '/2 stories or 35 feet (compliance with only one height standard is required). Building height is measured from natural (existing)grade or finished grade, whichever is lower. Minimum yards(structure setbacks)as follows: front — 25 feet; side; 20 feet each; rear— 15 feet. The zoning district includes in its definition of a structure a retaining wall that is taller than three feet. E. Subdivision that Created the Subject Site and Follow-on Development Activity— The subject property and adjoining parcels to the north and east are the product of a minor subdivision application that the County processed for Robert J. Costa and • Associates, and Bradford Land and Cattle Company between 1990 and 1993, County File #MS 64-90. 1 . 1990 County Planning Commission Approval of Vesting Tentative Map - The County Planning Commission heard the application on the earlier subdivision proposal in September 1990. At that time, the General Plan designated the site General Open Space. The Marsh Creek Scenic Route and Corridor policies were similar to what they are today. To address concerns regarding retention of the agricultural character of the area, the Planning Commission included the following in its conditions of approval: "2. The applicant/owner shall provide for an Agricultural Conservation Easement to Contra Costa County on all of the 160 acres of the project site. The 160 acre remainder is not included. Building site areas shall be permitted and not exceed three acres. Leach field sites approved by the Health Department shall be identified in each parceL1 Building site areas shall be permitted and not exceed three acres. Leach field sites approved by the Health Department shall be identified in each parcel. This easement shall not prevent the erection of agricultural related buildings or structures anywhere on the site, subject to the related setbacks. Easement shall be shown on the Parcel Map, and shall indicate a 3-acre building site is permitted, as well as referenced in deed description. Rescheduled Hearing on SMD/EBRPD Appeal of County Planning Commission Approval of Habig Minor Subdivision Board of Supervisors 2008 7of16 3. Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit plans including tentative building envelopes all within the 3-acre envelope as stipulated in Condition of Approval#2, a grading plan, and an erosion control plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Future modification of the building envelope must be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. The maximum grade for the proposed private road shall be identified and shall not exceed 20 percent." There were no appeals of the County Planning Commission approval, consequently, the decision on the tentative map became final.3 2. Processing of Parcel Map— Based on the tentative map approval, a parcel map was prepared in 1991 . However, in recommending approval of the parcel map, staff did not require an agricultural easement on each of the four parcels as required by COA#2. Instead, staff allowed the substitution of a note on the face of the parcel map as "substantial compliance with the tentative map approval." A memorandum dated April 1, 1992 (attached) from the Community Development Department states it had no objection to placing the note on the • title sheet "to fulfill the requirement of Conditions #2 and #3..." The memo further states that the requirement to deed development rights and restrict building sites "will no longer be applied to new proposals at the direction of the Board and is to be replaced by the Board's `Ranchette'policy.„4 The Parcel Map Note states: Prior to obtaining a grading permit or a building permit, the applicant/ownershall select a building site and deed development rights to Contra Costa County for all but (3) acre [sic] of each parcel excluding the remainder parcel. This agreement shall not prevent the erection of agricultural related buildings or structures anywhere on the site subject to zoning related setbacks. When 3 Following initial approval, the applicant filed for a modification to the tentative map approval to allow the proposed private road to be built prior to issuance of building permits rather than at time of approval of the parcel map. On January 8, 1991 the Planning Commission approved that request. 4 The "Ranchette” policy, concerning the subdivision of lands within the Agricultural Residential and Open Space General Plan categories, was adopted by resolution of the Board (Resolution No. 83/407) on March 15, 1983, and was applicable to Minor Subdivison 64-90. The policy generally discouraged ranchettes in prime agricultural areas where active cultivation was taking place and imposed a number of conditions • regarding water availability, septic tank use, access, flood control and other matters. The subject site is not a prime agricultural area. The 1983 policy did not include requirements to relinquish development rights to the County. The Ranchette policy was subsequently added in modified form to the Conservation Element of the General Plan in 1991. Rescheduled Hearing on SMD/EBRPD Appeal of County Planning Commission Approval of Habig Minor Subdivision Board of Supervisors Jam, 2 p��3 off16 the pending General Plan amendment has been adopted,5 the County will consider relinquishing the development rights. The Parcel Map was subsequently approved by the Board of Supervisors and recorded in 1993. Attached are the set of documents constituting the Parcel Map. The Habig property is Parcel "A" of that map. 3. Subsequent Development of Site and Other Parcels within Subdivision — In 1999, the current owner(Habig)obtained grading and building permits for Parcel A. Grading and building permits were also issued that year for Parcels B; a grading permit was also issued for Parcel C, but no building permit has yet been issued for that parcel. For reasons unknown, the County did not require compliance with the Parcel Map Note before issuing any of those permits. In 1999, the owner of Parcel D (Michaud) obtained a building permit, prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner provided staff with a grant deed to convey development rights over the majority of that site, but the deed has not as yet been presented to the Board of Supervisors for acceptance or been recorded to staff's knowledge. F. County Processing of Similar Proposals to Subdivide Other Properties Created by Minor Subdivision 64-90 1 . Tentative Map Approval of Remainder Property (MS 27-93; Bradford Financial) and Expiration of that Approval — On December 30, 1993, Bradford Financial filed to subdivide the 151-acre Remainder property of MS 64-90 into four parcels (20+ acres) and a 60-acre Remainder. The County Planning Commission heard the application on December 13, 1994. After completing the hearing, the Commission unanimously approved the project subject to conditions. Save Mount Diablo appealed that approval, but subsequently withdrew that appeal allowing the Commission approval of the tentative map to become final. The approval of the tentative map allowed for an initial three-year period for filing a parcel map to December 23, 1996. By provision of State law, the period for filing the parcel map was automatically extended an additional 12 months to December 23, 1997. However, the record indicates that the subdivider apparently failed to make a timely filing on the tentative map approval; that the period for exercising this approval has expired. At this time, any proposed subdivision of this site would require the approval of a new tentative map application. Prior to approval of a subdivision or issuance of any other permit, an applicant would also be required to apply for and obtain a Certificate of It is not clear what was intended in the memo by reference to the "pending General Plan amendment." At the time that the 1992 memo was issued, the Board of Supervisors had already adopted on January 29, 1991 the major countywide update to the General Plan, Contra Costa County General Plan. 1990- 2005. Rescheduled Hearing on SMD/EBRPD Appeal of County Planning Commission Approval of Habig Minor Subdivision Board of Supervisors 2008 of 16 Compliance from the County.6 Further, Bradford Financial subsequently conveyed the property. The current owners are John and Eloise Pound. 2. Gregory Subdivision Proposal of Parcel C — In 2003, the owner (Gregory) of another 40-acre parcel created from MS 64-90, Parcel "C", applied to the County for a tentative map approval to subdivide that property into four 5-acre parcels and a remainder, File#MS03-0031. Unlike the present application, the Gregory site did not contain an existing residence. The proposal did not include provision for the deeding of development rights for the entire site except for a three-acre building site. During the review of the application, staff expressed concern with the proposed subdivision. One of the key concerns with the project was its inconsistency with the Parcel Map Note on the 1993 Parcel Map. The proposed development would result in a total of five building sites (including the proposed remainder), not limited to one as required by the Parcel Map Note. At that time, staff told the applicant that it would be difficult for staff to recommend that the County support the project in view of this conflict, and related policies pertaining to protection of open space. Staff also indicated that the conflict with the Parcel Map Note • restriction would have to be addressed in the required environmental review for the project. With staff's urging, the applicant withdrew the subdivision application on November 1, 2005, prior to completion of the environmental review for the project or scheduling it for hearing before the Planning Commission. However, in so doing, the applicant(Mr. Gregory) indicated that he may still wish to pursue a subdivision of his site at a later date. VI. PROPOSED MINOR SUBDIVISION The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide Parcel "A" of MS 64-90 consisting of 38- acres into three parcels with a 21.79 acre designated remainder. The designated remainder contains an existing residence. The proposed parcels are sited on the west and north sides of the property, and would gain access from the existing private road. The Tentative Map identifies a house, leach field, and well site for each proposed parcel, and indicates in its notes that "House sites are shown in approximate locations. Future approved house sites will be contained within a 2 acre area as dictated by the County Ranchette Policy." 6 Government Code §§ 66424.6 and 66499.35. Rescheduled Hearing on SMD/EBRPD Appeal of County Planning Commission Approval of Habig Minor Subdivision Board of Supervisors Jam, 2008 p� 10 of 16 The size of each parcel is as follows: Parcel A - 6.2 acres; Parcel B - 5.0 acres; Parcel C - 5.0 acres; Designated Remainder— 21.8 acres. The Map Act allows a subdivision to include a "designated remainder"which is not divided for the purpose of sale, lease, or financing. The application was filed with the County on July 22„ 2005. For purposes of compliance with the processing requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act, the County deemed the application complete (by default) on August 23, 2006. Parcel A is proposed to be configured to straddle the existing road. The site plan identifies a house site, driveway, and proposed leachfield on each proposed parcel. The proposed house sites and leachfield sites do not encroach within the area of the slide located in the northwest corner of the site. A segment of the driveway that would serve the proposed house site on Parcel C extends onto an adjoining property to the north (DeYoreo). I• Removal of some trees and impacts to other trees that:are to remain are proposed as part of this project. VII. INITIAL 2006 COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON SUBJECT SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL On May 23, 2006, staff scheduled the application for an early hearing before the County Planning Commission. At that time, an environmental review of the project had not been completed. The purpose of the hearing was to present the Commission with the background pertaining to the requirement to the 1993 Parcel Map requirement to convey development rights on this project, and whether that requirement might constitute an obstacle for consideration of the current subdivision proposal. At the request of the applicant, the Commission rescheduled that hearing to June 27, 2006. At the June 27, 2006 hearing, a quorum of Commissioners was not present. Consequently, the matter was rescheduled to the next Commission meeting, July 11, 2006. Prior to July 11 hearing, a private organization, Save Mt. Diablo, expressed concern about the project, and indicated that it wished to testify to the Commission, but that due to a schedule conflict, they would not be able to attend that hearing. On July 11, after accepting testimony, the Commission unanimously voted to determine that the 1993 Parcel Map note was not an obstacle for considering the present subdivision. The Commission also directed staff to proceed with the environmental review of the project and, when completed, to reschedule the project for hearing before the Commission. Rescheduled Hearing on SMD/EBRPD Appeal of County Planning Commission Approval of Habig Minor Subdivision Board of Supervisors �, 2008 11 of 16 VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC COMMENT This project is subject to the review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)for the purpose of determining whether the project may result in any significant effect on the environment. In this regard, the County completed an initial study which referenced technical studies in various disciplines. That study determined that this project may result in a number of significant impacts including impacts in the areas of: Aesthetics Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Noise Transportation/Traffic The study also identified measures for each identified impact that would mitigate those impacts to a less than significant level. Upon completion of the initial study, it was forwarded to the applicant. After reviewing the initial study, in a letter dated February 27, 2008, the applicant agreed to the mitigation • measures contained in the initial study. The following day, on February 28, 2008, staff posted a Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)for this project, and arranged for it to be noticed as required by law. The Notice provided that the period for accepting public comment on the proposed environmental documentation and determination would extend to March 31, 2008. Following issuance of the proposed MND, letters on it were received from the subdivider, Save Mt. Diablo and East Bay Regional Park District. IX. 2008 COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING AND APPROVAL DECISION On April 8, 2008, the County Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the project. The staff report recommended that the Commission adopt the proposed MND; find that the subdivision is consistent with the General Plan; and approve the project subject to conditions, including the Rural Residential (Ranchette) policies of the General Plan Conservation Element. The staff recommendation included as conditions of approval: ■ Mitigation measures from the MND; ■ Conditions based on code requirements (e.g., subdivision, Tree Protection Ordinance, etc.); and ■ Measures to assure consistency with the General Plan policies (e.g., Rural Residential) Rescheduled Hearing on SMD/EBRPD Appeal of County Planning Commission Approval of Habig Minor Subdivision Board of Supervisors J 2 , of p�12 of 16 At the hearing, the applicant indicated that they were withdrawing its acceptance of a proposed mitigation measure contained in the initial study that would require the grant deeding of development rights on each of the parcels, except for a two-acre building site. The applicant also objected to some of the recommended conditions of approval. The Commission also received testimony from representatives of Save Mt. Diablo who opposes the project. After completing the hearing, the Commission voted to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration subject to changes in the proposed mitigation measures, and directed a number of modifications to the recommended conditions of approval, including: • Elimination of a requirement to grant deed development rights to the County ("scenic easement") for all the area of the three parcels except a two-acre building site on each site; • Eliminate the requirement to limit the width of building pads; • Relax the restriction on the reflectivity of exterior colors of buildings; and • Elimination of redundancy in the conditions of approval (e.g., discovery of archaeological remains; restriction on the days of the week/times in which construction activity may be conducted). (Clark\Tyrrell m\s\c; Snyder dissenting) The initial study included color photo-simulations of how residential development might be viewed from Marsh Creek Road. The Commission indicated that it objected to the yellow coloring that was used to portray the exterior of the houses. X. JOINT APPEAL FILED BY SAVE MT. DIABLO AND EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT In a letter dated April 17, 2008, Save Mt. Diablo and East Bay Regional Park District filed a joint appeal of the County Planning Commission approval of the project. The appeal letter challenges many of the findings in the environmental initial study, and conclusion that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate determination for the project, and is recommending that the Board instead require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report on the project. The issues of the appeal have been substantially resolved through discussions with the parties; the results of these discussions are reflected in the proposed conditions. XI. INVESTIGATION OF APPELLANTS' ALLEGATIONS OF VIOLATIONS OF GRADING AND TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCES One of the points in the appeal is that the applicant illegally graded pads and cut down • trees without required permits from the County. On June 13, 2008, County Grading Inspector and the project planner conducted an inspection of the site. It is staff's understanding that the allegations of violations of grading Rescheduled Hearing on SMD/EBRPD Appeal of County Planning Commission Approval of Habig Minor Subdivision Board of Supervisors 2008 13 of 16 and tree protection ordinances are from actions that may have been taken at least 2 '/2 years ago. Staff did see evidence that blading for access has been done on several of the parcels, and that it involved removal of some trees and disturbance to the roots of other trees, but that it was not clear in all instances when such work had been done. It should be noted that both the grading and tree protection ordinances provide some exceptions to permit requirements in rural areas. • The Grading Ordinance provides that no grading permit is required where grading in an isolated, self-contained area if the County Building Official determines that no danger to private or public property is likely to result from grading operations (Ord. Code § 716-4.208(b)); • Similarly, the Tree Protection Ordinance does not require a tree permit for Rangeland Management (Ord. Code § 816-6.1002(5)).' The applicant indicates that the bladed accesses were present on the property when he acquired title. Based on the recent staff inspection of the property, and a review of the code provisions, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that site conditions constitute a • violation of either the Grading or Tree Protection Ordinances. XII. DISCUSSION ON OTHER ASPECTS OF THE APPEAL The original conditions of approval (including mitigation measures)that staff recommended to the County Planning Commission on April 8, 2008 are attached to this report. As discussed above, in approving the project the County Planning Commission made a number of modifications to the staff recommendation. Following the receipt of this appeal, and in working with the applicant and appellants, staff has seen cause to recommend that the Board modify the County Planning Commission approval. The recommended modifications provide for: • Restoration of conditions that were deleted by the Commission that that are required for a General Plan consistency finding [e.g., COA#34 -fencing to require containment of domestic animals; ref. Conservation Element Measure 8-v (12)] or zoning ordinance requirements[COA#26.B.5- No parking of vehicles within dripline of any preserved tree; (Ord. Code § 816-6.1202(3); COA #28 (Restitution for Damage to Trees that are to be Preserved; Ord. Code § 816-6.1204)]. . 7 The Code provides that normal activities associated with range management and the disposition of wood incidental to rangeland management on agriculturally zoned property(with each parcel containing at least twenty acres),will not require a tree permit. "Rangeland management activities"are defined as including but not limited to the clearing and thinning of trees for purposes of reducing fire risk or enhancement of forage production,and maintaining adequate clearance of range roads and fire trails. Rescheduled Hearing on SMD/EBRPD Appeal of County Planning Commission Approval of Habig Minor Subdivision Board of Supervisors 2008 14 of 16 • Reduction in the number of approved parcels from three, plus a Remainder, to two parcels plus a remainder. • Conveyance of a Conservation Easement to both the County and EBRPD over the whole subdivision including the Remainder, except for specified building envelopes on each parcel. • Provision for design controls over future residences on the two new parcels that would be allowed by this subdivision. XIII. CONCLUSION In the recent meetings involving the applicant, appellants and staff, substantial progress has been made toward resolving the concerns raised in the appeal. The recommended conditions reflect the general terms of concurrence among the parties. The modified project would be consistent with the General Plan and comply with zoning and subdivision ordinance requirements. The approval would also provide for enforceable restrictions on any future residences proposed on the new parcels. 0 Due to the late discussions with the interested parties, the proposed findings and mitigation monitoring and reporting program will be delivered to Board members as soon as they are complete. It should be noted that State law may require an automatic approval of the project as last approved by the Commission if the Board should close the hearing, and ten calendar days elapses without a final decision on the appeal (see below discussion). For this reason, if the Board is inclined to continue this matter, staff would recommend that the Board keep the hearing open. XIV. ALTERNATIVE BOARD ACTIONS Prior to approving this subdivision, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b)requires that the Board consider the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)together with any comments received during the public review process. The Board shall adopt the proposed MND only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it(including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant on the environment and that the MND reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis. However, if the Board should find that there is substantial evidence that the project will result in a significant impact on the environment, then before considering an approval, the • Board may consider two alternative actions: Rescheduled Hearing on SMD/EBRPD Appeal of County Planning Commission Approval of Habig Minor Subdivision Board of Supervisors J , 155 of of 16 A. Prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the project, as proposed by the appellants; or B. If the Board determines that a substantial revision to the proposed MND is required, the Board may instead direct staff to recirculate the proposed MND.$ It should be noted that the State CEQA Guidelines do not require recirculation when mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures, or new information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration. It should also be noted that the Ordinance Code requires that the staff time and material costs of any additional environmental review would be borne by the applicant. XV. STATUTORY TIME LIMITS FOR CONDUCTING HEARING ON THIS APPEAL A. Time Limit Requirements of the Map Act - The Subdivision Map Act provides time limits for the Board of Supervisors' consideration of the appeal that has been filed. • One time limit requires that the Board hold a hearing on the appeal within 30 days after the date of the appeal. [Government Code § 66452.5 (a)(3)] Once the initial hearing is held, staff has found no limit for Board deliberation on the appeal until the Board closes the hearing on the appeal. A second time limit requires that within ten (10) days of the conclusion of the hearing, the Board must render its decision. [Government Code § 66452.5 (b)(2)] Failure of the Board to act upon an appeal with the time limits specified in the law may require that the tentative map shall be deemed to be conditionally approved insofar as it complies with applicable requirements of the Map Act and the County Subdivision Ordinance, and that it shall be the duty of the Clerk of the Board to certify that approval. [Government Code § 66452.5 (c)(2)] However, the law also allows that the time limits may be extended by mutual consent of the subdivider and the County. [Government Code § 66451.1 (a)] 8 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(b)defines"substantial revision"of a negative declaration to mean: • (1) A new,avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance,or (2) The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required. Rescheduled Hearing on SMD/EBRPD Appeal of County Planning Commission Approval of Habig Minor Subdivision Board of Supervisors J' 2008 16 of 16 B. Subdivider Consent to Three Extensions of Time Limits - Following receipt of the appeal from SMD/EBRPD, the subdivider and County staff mutually consented on two occasions to extending the time limit for holding an initial hearing on the appeal. These extensions were intended to allow staff time to prepare this report. The latter agreement extended the date of the initial hearing to this date (June 24, 2008). The last extension of the time limit was mutually agreed to by the applicant, appellants and staff. C. Dissatisfaction of Appellants About Not Being Allowed to Participate in Determining Board Hearing Date-The appellants have expressed dissatisfaction with the two time extensions worked out between the subdivider and County staff. EBRPD has indicated that it is not sure that it will be able to be represented at the June 24 hearing due to other commitments. However, County staff is concerned that failure to comply with the statutory time limit may result in automatic approval of the appeal and thereby deprive the Board of any opportunity to give consideration to the matter. Also, staff has not been able to find any provision in the law that requires consent of the (non-subdivider) appellant for scheduling a Board hearing date on their appeal. • D. Board Should Exercise Caution Prior to Closing the Hearing on Appeal - After completing the hearing, the Board may be inclined to close the hearing, but as indicated above, once that action is taken, the Board must act on the appeal within 10 calendar days (by July 18, 2008), or risk an automatic approval of the project as last approved by the Planning Commission. If the Board is inclined to continue the matter, the Board should keep the hearing open so as to avoid an unintended approval of the project as provided by State law. DELIBERATION ITEM# D.2 JULY 81 2008 RESOLUTIONS i • RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, COUNTY FILE #MS050030 (Bellecci and Associates - Applicant; Habig - Owner) IN THE CLAYTON/MARSH CREEK AREA REFLECTING (1) EDITS TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ADOPTED BY THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION IN ITS APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION ON APRIL 8, 2008, AND (2) ADDITIONAL EDITS THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING BASED ON SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSIONS INVOLVING, THE APPLICANT, APPELLANTS (Save Mt. Diablo and EBRPD), AND COUNTY STAFF FINDINGS A. Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Traffic: The project will generate an estimated twee-two additional AM • and PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements. 2. Drainage and Flood Control: #6 Condition on 5 o o tha4 4he appl' + ! ealleet and V J all stefm waters entering vi � 9�Cet to an-adequate nc-nuc fa4-water- e---- iiia defi blc bed and with Pivisieii 914 of the Or-dinatiee. The par-eel m ..., ..-" be filed until the ealmllee!-and 69 �2ments aiid improvements have bee 4 met. Insofar as the parcels that would be created by this development will be a minimum of 5 acres in area. the County (including the Public Works Department) is satisfied that the additional runoff from this project would be de minimus. In view of the minimal. runoff that would be generated by this project the County grants an exception to the collect and convey requirement for this project. on the condition that there are no known drainage problems on- site: the existing drainage pattern is maintained: and concentrated storm water runoff is not discharged onto adjacent properties (see Condition A�9)_ 3. Water and Wastewater Disposal: The project site is not within a water or • sanitary district service area. Wastewater treatment will be on site using Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) the County approved septic systems and appropriately sized leach fields • pursuant to the County Ranchette Policy for rural areas. Each approved homesite shall be served by a well in accordance with the requirements of the County Health Department/Environmental Health Division. 4. Fire Protection: The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection station is located on Marsh Creek Road, approximately 0.25 miles from the project site. The applicant is required to provide adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a minimum flow pressure of 20 pounds, in addition to providing one hydrant to deliver the required water. 5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element Standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff facility station per 1,000 population. The small population increase associated with this project is not significant. Prior to approval of the Parcel Map, the applicant is required to establish a police service tax district to mitigate the impacts of the development on police services. 6. Parks and Recreation: The proposed project will have a minor cumulative effect on demand for park and recreation facilities, and is subject to payment of park dedication fees in the amount of$7,238.00 per residential parcel to mitigate impacts. • B. Finding for Approval of a Tentative Mai_ 1. Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans required by law. Proiect Finding: The project is consistent with the various elements of the General Plan. The land use designation is Agricultural Lands (AL) 1 duper 5 acres. All of the proposed parcels exceed five acres in area. 2. Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision fulfills construction requirements. Project Finding: Conditions of approval for the project require fulfillment of construction requirements. • 2 RESOLUTION NO. 15-2008 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, COUNTY FILE #MS05- 0030, FILED BY BELLECCI & ASSOCIATES (APPLICANT) AND ROGER & KANDELL HABIG (OWNER) IN THE CLAYTONIMARSH CREEK AREA OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, on August 22, 2005 the Community Development Department received an application (County File #MS050030) request by Bellecci & Associates (Applicant) Roger & Kandell Habig (Owners) to subdivide a 37.99 acres into 3 lots with a 21.79 acre designated remainder. The applicant proposes to remove 54 protected trees; and WHEREAS, after reviewing the background to this site, including a note on the 1993 Parcel Map (File#MS 64-90)that created the subject 38-acre site that stipulates that at time of issuance of a building permit, the development rights for all but a three-acre area is to be grant deeded to the County, before the environmental review of the project had been completed, staff prepared a staff report to the County Planning Commission indicating that this provision may be an obstacle to approval of the current subdivision taking into consideration other General Plan policies with a recommendation that the subdivision be denied; and after providing notice as required by law, staff scheduled the matter for hearing before the Planning Commission on May 23, 2006; but at the request of the applicant, on May 23, 2006, the County Planning Commission rescheduled the hearing to June 27; at the June 27 Commission meeting, a quorum of Commissioners were not present, and therefore the Commission was not able to lawfully conduct a hearing at that time, so the matter was put over to the Commission's July 11, 2006 meeting; at the July 11, 2006 meeting, the County Planning Commission accepted testimony from all persons wishing to testify; at the completion of the hearing, the Commission unanimously voted to determine that the Parcel Map note did not constitute an obstacle for consideration of this current subdivision and directed staff to continue with the review of the project, and to reschedule the matter for hearing upon completion of the environmental review; WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and County CEQA guidelines, a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration determination was posted and noticed as required by law providing a public comment period between February 28 and March 31, 2008; WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing on the proposed subdivision was scheduled before the County Planning Commission on Tuesday April 8, 2008, where all persons interested therein might appear and testify; and WHEREAS, at the April 8, 2008, the County Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; Resolution No.15-2008 County Planning Commission Review of the Habig Minor Subdivision County File#MS050030 - • NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission FINDS that certain mitigation measures in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are either infeasible or otherwise undesirable, and that therefore those measures should be deleted and the modified conditions are determined to be equivalent or more effective than the original measures; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the County Planning Commission FINDS that on the basis of the whole record before it that the Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) as modified by the County Planning Commission,there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, and the proposed MND reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission adopts the modified MND for purposes of satisfying this project's compliance with the review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Commissioners had the following comments on the project: • Commissioner Snyder indicates that he fully understands the rights of homeowners and landowners, but that a full Environmental Impact Report should be prepared for this project due to its sensitive area; and Commissioner Terrell indicated that the visual effects presented in the initial study do not accurately describe the design or color of homes built in this area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission FINDS that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan based on the following findings: A. Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Traffic: The project will generate an estimated three additional AM and PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements. 2. Drainage and Flood Control: Condition #65 requires that the project collect and convey all storm waters entering or originating within the project to an adequate natural water course having definable bed and Res-2 Resolution No.15-2008 County Planning Commission Review of the Habig Minor Subdivision County File#MS050030 - banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys to storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance. The parcel map may not be approved until the collect and convey requirements and improvements have been met. 3. Water and Waste Disposal: The project site is not within a water or sanitary district service area. Wastewater treatment will be on site using the County approved septic systems and appropriately sized leach fields pursuant to the County Rural Residential Policy for rural areas. Each approved homesite shall be served by a well in accordance with the requirements of the County Health Department/Environmental Health Division. 4. Fire Protection: The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection station is located on Marsh Creek Road, approximately 0.25 miles from the project site. The applicant is required to provide adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a minimum flow pressure of 20 pounds, in addition to providing one hydrant to deliver the required water. 5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element Standard is 155 • square feet of Sheriff facility station per 1,000 population. The small population increase associated with this project is not significant. Prior to approval of the Parcel Map, the applicant is required to establish a police service tax district to mitigate the impacts of the development on police services. 6. Parks and Recreation: The proposed project will have a minor cumulative effect on demand for park and recreation facilities, and is subject to payment of park dedication fees in the amount of$7,238.00 per residential parcel to mitigate impacts. B. Finding for Approval of a Tentative Map 1. Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans required by law. Project Finding: The project is consistent with the various elements of the General Plan. The land use designation is Agricultural Lands (AL) maximum I dwelling unit per S acres. All of the proposed parcels exceed five acres in area. • Res-3 Resolution No.15-2008 County Planning Commission Review of the Habig Minor Subdivision County File#MS050030 - • 2. Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision fulfills construction requirements. Project Finding: Conditions of approval for the project require fulfillment of construction requirements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California APPROVES the proposed Vesting Tentative Map for County File#MS05-0030 subject to modification of the conditions recommended by staff. The instructions by the County Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were given by motion of the County Planning Commission on April 8, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners—Clark, Terrell, Battaglia, and Wong. NOES: Commissioners—Snyder. ABSTAIN: Commissioners—None. ABSENT: Commissioners—Gaddis and Murray. HYMAN WONG, Chairman County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California I, Dennis M. Barry, AICP, Secretary of the County Planning Commission, certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on April 8, 2008. ATTEST: CATHERINE KUTSURIS, Secretary County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California • GXurrent Planning\curr-plan\Board\Resolutions\res.ms05003O.6-17-08.doc RMP\RD Res-4 DELIBERATION ITEM# D.2 JULY 81 2008 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General: * This approval is generally based upon the exhibits received by the Community Development Department listed as follows: Approved per plans as generally shown on the Vesting Tentative Map: A. MS050030 — Vesting Tentative Map and Preliminary Grading Plan, 3000 Bragdon Way, prepared by Bellecci & Associates, Inc. dated July 22, 2005, and revised on January 3, 2008 and stamped dated received by the Community Development Department on February 8, 2008. The approval is also based upon the following reports: B. Biological Assessment and Jurisdictional Determination for the 38-Acre Habig Property, Contra Costa County, California, prepared by Sycamore Associates LLC (July 12, 2005). • C. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Ting & Associates (September 19, 2005), D. Geotechnical Peer Review, Darwin Myers & Associates (December 19, 2005). E. Archaeological Field Inspection Report. Holman & Associates (October 25, 2005). F. California Red-Legged Frog, California Tiger Salamander, and Alameda Whipsnake Site Assessment for the 38-Acre Habig Property, Clayton, California, prepared by TOVA Applied Science & Technology (December 12, 2007) G. Arborist Report, prepared by Joseph McNeil, Consulting Arborist(January 8, 2008). Reduction in the Number of Approved Parcels — This project t is approved for a reduction in the number of parcels from three parcels and a remainder to a maximum of two parcels plus the remainder. The resultant parcels shall have an area of at least five (5) acres. and shall be configured to comply with the minimum lot dimensions (area. depth. width) of the • General A(7ricultural zoning (A-2) zoning district subject to final review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to filing a Parcel Map. 3 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) Parcel A on the Vesting Tentative Man shall be eliminated. Theportion of • this parcel lying to the east of Bragdon Way shall be added to the Remainder: the portion lying to the west of Bragdon Way shall be added to Parcel B. Submittal of a Revised VTM - Prior to filing a parcel may, the applicant shall submit three (3) copies of a revised Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The revised VTM shall identify the area of the proposed conservation easements and building envelope required by Condition #14 below. The building envelopes shall be described by a metes-and-bounds description. Indemnification: 2. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Contra Costa County and its agents, officers, and employees any claim, action, or proceeding against the County's or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the County's approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The County will • promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. Prior to filing a Parcel Map the applicant shall provide the County with a letter agreeing to the above indemnification. Compliance Report: 3. At least 45 days prior to filing a final map or issuance of grading permit, which ever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a report on compliance with the conditions of approval with this permit for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The fee for this application is a deposit of x19$500 that is subject to staff time and materials costs. Should staff costs exceed the deposit, additional fees will be required. A. Except for those conditions administered by the Public Works Department, the report shall list each condition followed by a description of what the applicant has provided as evidence of compliance with that condition. The report shall also indicate whether the applicant believes that he has done all the applicant is in a position to do to comply with the applicable condition. • (A copy of the computer file containing the conditions of 4 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) • approval may be available; to try to obtain a copy, contact the project planner at 335-1216.) Hillside Design and Land Use Restrictions:* 4. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit architectural plans, color schemes, and elevations of the thfee—individual residential units for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Xk ar-ehiteetur-a4 plans and speeifieatien shall be ineefper-ated in-+e the-deed-diselesufe for- eaeh ofthe-thfeepar-eels.-The plans and elevations shall demonstrate the following: P-.A. Use earth tone colors in the medium-to-dark range for roofs and walls in order to complement the natural surroundings. For purposes of these guidelines the medium-to-dark range is defined as less than 50% 14!h reflectance. B. Retaining walls shall blend into the color of the surrounding landscape, be less than 6 feet high, parallel to existing contours. Where multiple and parallel retaining • walls are proposed the plans shall also provide for landscape/irrigation improvements (e.g. shrubs. and vines) to soften their appearance. C:_Building pads shall step down the hill and be no mefe th 18 feet Aid-e. C. Reducing Visibility of Residences on Parcels B and C - To reduce the visibility of the proiect residential development of Parcels B and C shall be subject to the following restrictions: 1) The primary residence shall be limited to a maximum floor area of 5000 square feet. 2) Garage floor area shall be limited to a maximum of 800 square feet. 3) The roof shall be designed to blend the structure with the topography; the primary roof ridge shall run parallel with the slope. 4) The hei<(ht of the residence shall not exceed 28 feet with the exception that an additional 7 feet of building height is allowed for that portion of a residence that is • subterranean and within the building; "footprint" of the 5 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) aboveground structure (i.e.. basement) Steep pitched • roofs shall be avoided. Building height is measured from finished grade or natural grade whichever is lower. For pumoses of verifying compliance with this building height requirement, the County may require special documentation from a licensed land survevor including a topographic survey, special house design and grading plans. and post-construction survey of the buildings height elevation following completion of building framing. 5) The residence shall be designed to blend to the topography of the site and the visible under story portions of buildings shall be reduced by limiting the height of the aboveground finished floor (,including elevated decks) to a maximum height of six (6) feet measured from finished arade. 6) The wallplate of any story above the first story on a downslope building elevation shall be recessed at least 10 feet from the story immediately below. 7) Proposed construction plans shall provide only nonreflective windows-that may be visible from Marsh • Creek Road or other vantage points on land held by public entities (e.g., Clayton Ranch. Mt. Diablo State Park), and include documentation that substantiates compliance with this standard. D. No Residential Second Units are allowed on the two new parcels (Parcels B and Q. A Residential Second Unit within the building envelope of the Remainder may be allowed subject to compliance with. the Residential Second Unit Ordinance including a maximum floor area of 1200 square feet If a proposed Residential Second Unit is posed to be attached to an accessory structure, that structure must be a garage and limited to a maximum floor area of 200 square feet D.Exter-ier- wall—eeler-s shall be limited to mated F+1 tones. The , of br-i.b,+ eel 1, it b ',1 11 ✓v yr ViaL.,aiY VViVIJ Jll(.ill l+V A9 piQV� E..Reoff eelefs "hall be limited,1 +-ec�-E�3-tones y "".t ,-glee,.,+mate fiats shall be 1 bit ,1 iV1V Vi1YV 111U1Vi • 6 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) isF.Matefials and eelefs shall 4less gian F . v' The plans for- eaeh Pifer.--`illrrr be based, as well, on the following r .le ' olio t design a "' "g : le , CC: Buildings shall be cut into the slope to reduce the effective visual bulk. The-buildings shall also be stepped up V4 slope rather-thm have single floc f 1, Ltt J1Vr,. luula.l ,..1 "b 144-he undef stere he height F .i t the a hill 1 �. .. .,j 11 illi Vl 1 of NVlI.house Jll all be minAfnized. !.The bilrling shell not a f cz eed 35 eet ; height measured ffem D �� r finished rade ornatural-gnzde,whieheyef is lower-. Steep, „;tehed e f shall be avoided. 'zafge raised-deeks, or-eantileo�-the a hill a r house shall be minimized-. T e.t; ,l planes +1, l l,'71 1 f 1^ it 1. i.t..0 1 x,,V ei liea planes VS di ed • 64441 ret,,;,, 'b wallshe ,a i d sevefal 11 ll will Win'- I be eanatr-ue-ted--m4th appr-ep•-4e--rand:, --� between. MM I (a) Deed Disclosure for Conditions Applicable for Recording Parcel Map 5. Prior to filing a Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit proposed deed disclosures for each parcel for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The disclosures shall provide for the conditions and mitigation measures identified by asterisk (*). These conditions would be applicable for the development of individual parcels. The approved disclosures shall be recorded with the Parcel Map. Copies of the recorded documents shall be provided to the r'ewiily Peyelopment Department of Conservation and Development-Current Planning Section. Archaeology: 6. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional • Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the 7 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. 7. 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. 8. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Contra Costa County has been contacted, per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. Child Care Conditions:* 9. At time of issuance of a residential building permit.Tthe developer • shall pay a fee of $400.00 per lot/unit toward child care facility needs in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors. Grading:* 10. The grading plan shall attempt to balance cut and fill_ en-site, ( to the exten.1 possible no e3cpaft ', of f� rn,'—material. However-, some eiipaFl may be Fe e' ,If the site cannot b'. balance. the applicant shagmav request that fill material be exported from the site or imported to the site subject to an administrative 4eei4enreview and approval by the Zoning Administrator;: no public hearing will be required provided that grading is consistent with gradinja depicted on the approved site plan and the provisions of the Grading Ordinance that would not require public notice [CCC Ord. Code § 716-4.202(e)1. 11. No trees shall be removed prior to approval of the grading/tree preservation plan without the prior approval of the Zoning Administrator except as specifically authorized by this approval. • 8 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) • 12. The developer and applicant shall adhere to the following tree preservation standards required by Section 816-6.1202 of the County Code: A. Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation on a site with trees to be preserved, the applicant shall install fencing at the dripline or other area as determined by an arborist report of all trees adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and the location thereof approved by appropriate County staff. B. No grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching, paving or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline unless indicated on the grading plans approved by the County and addressed in any required report prepared by an arborist. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline, an arborist may be required to be present during grading operations. The arborist shall have the authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. • C. No parking or storing vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials, construction trailers and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the dripline of any tree to be saved. if no tfees afe laeated within 40 feet of the pr-eposed development. 1.11 e eenstfuetion plans shall be nete4-. Landscaping:* 441.3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan to the Zenin AdministDepartment of Conservation and Development for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall illustrate the exclusive use of tree, shrub, and herbaceous species that are native to the area. In addition: ❖ The Landscape plan shall be sufficient to provide screening and erosion control for the hillside. ❖ Landscaping shall conform to the County Water Conservation landscaping program plan. ❖ Landscaping shall conform to the County Water • Conservation Landscaping Ordinance 82-26. MM I (b)-1. 9 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) The following plant species shall be prohibited from use as • landscaping material within theses areas' • Tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) • English in,Hedra helix) • Periwinkle (Vinca major) • Himalavan blackberry (Rebus discolor) • Giant reed (Arundo donax) • Tamarisk (Tamarix sp.)) • Scotch broom (Cvstisus sco arius) • Cape iN.,v (Delairea odorata� • Pampas grass (Cortaderia tubata/C. selloand) 4-514. A e rded o.,,c easement sha4l b gan+ a Gaunty fe1 the 4z appfB'�'imately 3 �CiCI+L�7�ITS�11T-of � pa eel not p e for the-i2sid •,2cial building,-> n crrwlepes. A4 leas Pennit, whieh ever- eemes first, the appheant shall submit a deed the n Zoning dministmtef fef—the p�ese of (` Tl�� + L •,nd spefts-Feufts,rA411be prehbtPd easement areas. In • a areas sh ., v a the Vesting Tenn Map nen pfoposed r.__ u � the-propescElrhouse site and aeeess read. Seenie easement, uvh fields N aur caws � afea without the pf}E3> )pr-eN,a-of the Zoning Adfninistmter. AiiA�.ir�i iR r(b)Vic, Grant Deed of Conservation Easement to the Countv and the East Bav Regional Park. District for the Area of Subdivision and Remainder Except for Area of Building Envelopes Within twenty (20) days of the effective date of this approval and at least twenty (20) days prior to the filing of a parcel map or issuance of a grading permit (whichever comes first) the applicant shall submit a draft Grant Deed of a Conservation Easement (with a copy of the proposed parcel Map) to the Department of Conservation and Development for the review and approval of the Board of Supervisors. • 10 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) • A recorded easement shall be granted to the County and to EBRPD for all of Parcel B, Parcel C and the Remainder Parcel not identified within building envelopes. A draft easement shall be considered by the Board within 80 days from the date of approval of MS 050030. The approved easement shall be executed and recorded concurrently with the recordation of the parcel map. The easement shall provide that concurrence from Contra Costa County is required if the EBRPD wishes to initiate court action related to enforcement. The easement shall reflect the following: • Parcels B and C shall contain a buildingenvelope nvelope of 1 acre for each parcel. A residence (limited to 5.000 square feet with an 800 square foot garage) and accessory buildings may be constructed within the buildingepes. Other buildings and structures such as pools, and tennis and sports courts, shall not be constructed outside the building envelope. No residential second units may be constructed on Parcels B and C. Sewer/leach systems, well sites water • tanks, fences, gates, utilities. driveways and roads are allowed outside the building envelopes. • The Remainder shall contain a building envelope of 1.5 acres. A residence and other structures exist on the Remainder. Any additional buildings including a Residential Second Unit and accessory buildings and other structures including_pools, tennis and sports courts must be constructed within the building envelope. A Residential Second Unit on the Remainder shall not exceed 1.200 sq. ft. with a 200 sq. ft. garage. The existing out building and trailers shall be allowed to remain outside the building envelope with the provision that the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator that the storage or use of the trailers is otherwise consistent with the County Code. Building permits to allow repair or maintenance of these buildings outside the envelope are allowed up to 50% of their value. These buildings may not be expanded or replaced if more than 50% is damaged or is lost. . —The easement shall preclude further subdivision of the Property and preclude lot line adjustments. The easement • shall preclude the removal of protected trees beyond those 11 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) permitted to be removed as part of the Project or for fire • safetv. The easement shall allow a one-acre vineyard on former grassland provided that no additional trees are removed. No right of public access shall be created by the easement. The approved deed instrument shall be appropriately executed notarized. processed and recorded concurrently with the parcel map. Prior to approval of the parcel snap the applicant shall provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator that the deed instrument that has been approved by the Zoning Administrator has been accepted by the governing board of the East Bay_ Re,ional. Park District. Lighting: 4-615. At least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits for any of the individual lots, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator a Lighting Plan. The Lighting Plan shall, at a minimum, provide that low- lying and exterior lights on the buildings be deflected so that lights shine onto the building site and not toward adjacent properties or offsite locations. MM I (c) • Construction Conditions: 4-716. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements. 7A.M. t" 5:00 P.M., o`ifiir`ada +ihr-ougg��-, end shall VV t.J1V111VlGVd on state and . A. All internal engine-driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers that are in good condition; G. Use `1 bnselifie f''e a.l Vclvvllr JJV1J YY 11 VZ\: ver-possible-. D Retain .l' +, 1, -� c�roresrot'1$Ee--e69r-diiia49r—t6--xxrvrrrt8r vczrscruvciv�i aefirivy and to i denti€y—addi�mitigationnal needed. n,r>`�.=��X (a) B. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the • applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of 12 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) • property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and areas of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number, shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be re- issued with each phase of major grading and construction activity. A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed. C. 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. D. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. Pfief to issumee of building , the pfopesed r-eads serving this development shall be eonstnaeted to pr-evide aeeess to eaeb t. This shall include provision for an on-site area in which to park earth moving equipment. E. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to weekdays between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. and prohibited on Federal and State holidays. F. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site. 3G. Construction Period Development Activity Restrictions — • Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the 13 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) following construction noise, dust, litter, and traffic control . requirements: KH. 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, unless there is a written request from the applicant that is submitted to the Department of Conservation and Development to waive some limitation for a good reason, and said request is subject to review and administrative approval of the Deputy Director of Conservation and Development: 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://www.opm.gov/fedhol/2006.asp California Holidays http://www.edd.ca.gov/eddsthol.htm Air Quality:* 417. During construction the project applicant will implement BAAQMD construction dust control measures such as the following: ❖ Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. ❖ Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soils, sand and other materials that can be blown by the wind daily. • 14 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) • ❖ Cover all trucks hauling soils, sand and other loose material or require all material hauling trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. ❖ Pave, apply water 3 times daily, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access road, parking lots and staging areas of construction sites. ❖ Sweep street daily, preferably with water sweepers, if soil is carried onto adjacent streets. ❖ Seed the disturbed areas as quickly as possible and install cover vegetation over the leach fields. MM III (a) Geastfuetion f:elated vehiele aeeess to the site shall be limited to 3018• Haul routes shall be generally limited to those areas of the site which are proposed to be graded to avoid unnecessary scarring of the hillside. Hauling of fliate-W th-to h Hauling Biology:* California Red-legged frog/California Tiger Salamander/Alameda VVUpsnake • 21. The project applicant will conduct a pre-construction survey and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) and project construction monitoring to avoid injury or mortality to individual red-legged frog, tiger salamander, or Alameda whipsnakes during project construction activities. MM IV (a) The following BMP's shall be implemented for the prior to and during construction activities: A. All work crew members shall undergo sensitive-species training prior to their involvement with construction activities. The program would consist of a brief presentation by trained biologists knowledgeable about listed species biology and legislative protection. The biologist shall explain technical and regulatory concerns to contractors and their employees involved with the proposed action. The program shall include the following: a description of the species and their habitat needs; locations of occurrences in the action area; an explanation of the status of each listed species and their protection under the Endangered Species Act; and a list of measures being taken • to reduce impacts to the species during construction and implementation of the proposed action. Training cards 15 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) containing this information shall be distributed to the • above-mentioned people and anyone else entering the project site. B. An exclusion fence around the home construction area shall be installed to prevent sensitive herpetofaunal species from entering the construction area during construction activities. Exclusion fence of a design currently approved by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Fish and Game shall be installed before ground breaking. The fence will be constructed with a flexible plastic material such as Proplex 11 99T or similar material. The material comes in 12 foot wide, 225 ft long rolls. It shall be cut into 4 foot wide rolls. A trench will be cut to 12 inches deep in the soil and the lower 12 inches of the material placed in the trench and backfilled. C. The fence shall be staked with four foot long stakes or "t" posts every 10 feet so that the material is maintained at a height of 3 feet throughout its length. The material shall be fastened to the stakes. Where needed, drainage will be provided by placing small 4" pipes through the material • with a clear Mylar flap on the outer portion of the pipe. A small mesh screen shall also be placed under the flap. Exit funnels, to enable any species that inadvertently remain within or enter the home construction area to leave the impact areas, will be placed every 100 feet on the north, east and south sides of the fence. D. No home construction related work shall be allowed outside the area enclosed by the exclusion fence without a biological monitor being present. No trash storage, debris, or construction materials shall be placed outside of the exclusion fencing. E. Vegetative growth adjacent to the fence shall be controlled to eliminate the potential of"ladders" for animals to crawl over the fencing. The integrity of the fence shall be inspected once a week or after major storm events by the contractor or assigned representative. F. A preconstruction survey shall be conducted by the biological monitor in areas that will be enclosed by the exclusion fence where any potential habitat is present for • sensitive herpetofauna. If any listed species are observed, 16 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) • the all work in the area will cease until the animal(s) have been allowed to disperse outside of the work area. G. Rocky features shall be removed by hand and under the supervision of a biological monitor. If a listed species is uncovered, it shall be allowed to leave the work area unmolested. If it does not leave on its own accord, the exclusion fence will be altered to encircle the area where the species is located and this area shall remain undisturbed until the monitor verifies that the species has vacated the area. No work crew shall touch or attempt to move the animal until a biological monitor is present to confirm whether or not it is a protected species. H. Any potential listed species sightings by workers shall be reported immediately to the biological monitor and the workers will cease work in the area until the monitor provides clearance that the species is either not a protected species or has left the area. I. Any excavations will be backfilled or covered at the end of the work day to prevent trapping sensitive species. • J. During construction, the biological monitor shall conduct regular inspections of the construction area and the exclusion fence to assure that the fencing is maintained adequately and that all construction areas are free of debris and.trash that might attract wildlife. K. A monitoring log shall be maintained on-site to record all activities of the biological monitor and their findings and recommendations. The log will be available for inspection by the County. MM IV (a) Nesting Bi-�7 Nesting 27 The appheant sha4l implement and initiate a pre-eanscraetion sw=o�ey=for ne,,A,ly established of actively usec`l nest stnietafes in trees and implement nest pr-eteeti .o p ,.edur-es if such nests o MA4 r ��.T-�If proposedsite elearin , gzading, 9 —}}o3Sc genefatingg, eenstfuetions were to eeeur- a September- dffeugh T.,r,, a fyno pre astr etien sun,ey f r fiesting birds would be r-equifed. if grading eens uetian • r —�h �2L'�'$l�to��o tzgi�'i-�Arccgiis` breeding��'aS6ir, dr2vECr-,—u 17 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) 1.:,,1 st sh 11 een,d,,,,t str „tion e .to ,d + • V,V1V�lJt JL1U11 LV,1 J n � ,f Creei I status birds 11inesting inwithinthe gading zone-ei-within ees pfoposed for removal. The Vielegist shall VVndue4 the sufwy no mefe t1. 30 days pnof to cron of gfadinb, -r.4eorE9fist-r-uEtiei3--ix� there were-tienesting aetiN,4'j, obseI-3' -ed, sit2-�e�at�6rr, ., a d:ng E) nst.. etion . „l.d n rl L..�J.UUlll�VL GlT H TY /] fiesting etiyity is ebs erl n the tree 41..E nest ..4-...e4u fe shallbe vn n,t/,re/d for I„r.d a „1..,+, 1 d' J11LL11 VL 1L1V1Z11p1L bR a• *Ineubation beha-N er- (e.g—Teb-alaf--pe —e " pea ee" tl,L JJTL ..L11LV n+„ e l .at: fell shaft,a b LJ1 e ,,e ret: flights t,, for-age) b fExt-eme distress and alafm-ea4ls wiem in Eie.- tT f the nen+tree Obsen,ation food .a +L, beak iaws t +1., nest. fello,,,:ngmeasufes shall pr-eteet the nest 1 t' ow *Establishment of ., buffer- n tr t'efi f enefflig �] �L +. U�T,n efanl,e nn • ar-ound -the--tiee in aeeefdanee Y4GD r ryea endatians tmtil ti, r ten,", ha xefqeixged. A no rlistuf-b nre of e .:�d4 nee.de,d to de .,t 1 pr-ateet �a�v�w V,u avv uV1aL Vi. LL „1UL11 11LLULT[ nests-dueanstfuetion sha4l-preteEt--a4l acn'ac-,zcJti� FeFMeSt SOftgbdS-a 5feet Zen--isz-ee ended; for rapt.ers ., 200 feet zone l. e­­­--fided. *The nest tree should be niter-ed of /L 1.1 J.t/11f LV1 L11 U e e week to eenfimi thatthe ye ha-N=e-fiedged and tha4 no eta;nrut;na n.,:rs are present before the b ,fFef is femeN,ed. After- the—bialegist 1,. ,d .7 +1. + 11 1, �,r.R--rraS zreteF}rmiti-cc- � fledged, eenstmet1•en-may=pfeeee withiithe pr-eteeted fie: it is not feasible to •del., of modify fiy Lv ..t , t aetiNities vull ar-ound-the-tfee,the ologist-s „1r ntaEt-the CDD t ,yseA V J a4e1Lt1, e bufoGT-lEt"ions XrIM 147 (b) Sre,.;.,1 States gats 1 �7 / taws- lits ttur-ing the-r'ema ,al of trees4ffvurh a Pf:e i • 18 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) • A. if eenstfuetion a(tihies (i.e., `=role--eleafing cord-racer a. Deluding r-emoval of tfees) Oeetij--dig the nanbr-eeding season of bats (September- 1 - a . B. if st. etion ee tfs duff . the h dseason (Mar—eh 1 •.v„ u. lid, al vl ii.ulll` e0fistFuetton-5pstarus bat��eH{jS�ii -er�W-r+n th-e foaln{jnng eats t( id is t. .,l tat h t . a.- vilii.ivll�.11 t.f to avoid C to ",fading ogee rem.ev l a biologist shall inspeet eaeb group of trees to deteFffiine-ba4 presenee and The bielecrsi shall Lv.d.iiet the assessmenl though a „te eombination 3f inspeetien, sampling, exit Seeunts. afld—aeaus+Te suf vevs. As Pl3�ojmiate, bat exit e e eoui4s shall be a t i .l- to-deter-mine z,a4 aeti `,—. In addition an-aeeustie deleeto - may he also he . e,1 I'- d.t..„.,;,le S h . t' '+ V. IIz f 3reeenScor' sui=veys-irn $ate that feasts mz�rract�'Otc-car potential habitat to uneeeupied the nsii-iet; period, ,•.� i ed to be ,1 h. al st.,r„ h.,ts he • ai-tel "i�.crr i=c-r�rrv�cc� hE3we;,er, InE kiduals of -eeloiiies �were pr-eseiit--`laming 131vv19v3�.6 a d the t,-eefemek'al , .,hly be- 13—ted to-t•esuk in haFm. then shall beekC�Lz icd fr ti st 1! .,t;. .. dti „g ., the t time f th 1.3 iTtfl ti1St.lY yeaf using hrcn:tane-methAcc`s. S ie r methods will be selected in e „ltL4ion between the biol,-gisl .,id the GDP(; F.If thefe-is PoTentia-1 faf adk,ef,-,e efl�eets on bca4 habitat the meastifes de ,elope,a under the dile,t' f the h' t t shall be-implemen4ed-to-fediFee-the-effeel oi=rthe bat eolony to negligible level. MeastkFe, mai, ; elude ; yemcnt of ag site—Eolony-r-o o,tom sta-ll ,t; ,rroz-crtrrie m1r"bat boxes",-or oveAent-of sspeeiefrlana emen-t suffieient ie verse iffi-3ets 4em the loss of a-eolony. Stied measures shall be implefnef ed iB-eanstirtation-between-the-biolrv'-v.ist and the GDF n4A4 11' (e) Nates e n Dl • shall 19 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) County a aYe Plan that Y^ tr a.0 L111 , p1 i1QLi-YA. The � _6 gfound eE)N,eF plants an eaek of the proposed building lots. t-/ 1 J11UxJ of fire defensibwild! d i_ni zLaepee aar- that elitide, at +1 f 11 ng •+ efia- 111 vLi- LKiiK JL.Ktl i11.L., JlroWd emphasize the use of .' watef fife d deer- talefant plants , , th 4, ,;ll blend , ,i+l, t + 1 + + 1aK ♦Y 1 Lit Lill 11UC L,,, ,�A< .,;.d 1.,.•,+:,•. +,•�.o ra �1,,.,,tLr r.4..., „1..+ l:«,.,. ,.t.,...t a t_,. u Y uuLu x� v Klr3 to blend v4t4 the natwal vegetation.s 1 v i v.b r., ufa �lbet 4; Should b preserved as l as i possible f r wildlife habitatb-itat and slope prv+vcti vr. B. The fellowinC„ plants speeies sha4l b 1 ibit d F ,.,.n...,,,Kt.iii",i"i'iKwiiKi :,iuxlx theses areas, ­English4-Fee of heaven �44anAuq alt&sinia) r• *Giant feed �4run&� den -i uxlx VLv v ivviii (V);L., iJ K.) JGpF1R/-"L"VL's) --Gape ivy (Delairea e6fapwa) a . C. The Y Jeet YYlieant shall v LuvL the ) to y potential invasive alJlClllI.LIC1TT.l1 2522. All trees proposed for removal, as indicated on the project's Vesting Tentative Map, would be replaced at a minimum of a 3:1 ratio by the provision of at suitably-sized oaks, as per County guidelines, and other native trees planted around the Project Site in natural locations and plant groupings. MM IV(e)-1 Trees and Tree Preservation* 2623. Trees identified to be retained on each parcel designated on the Vesting Tentative Map will be preserved by suitable construction buffers, fencing, and Best Management Practices. MM IV(e)-2 • 20 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) • A. An undisturbed and unirrigated buffer with a radius of 1.5 times the distance from the trunk to the edge of the dripline of each native tree identified for preservation shall be installed. Construction measures, such as installing temporary construction fencing around the buffer areas of the trees, shall be implemented as outlined in the Contra Costa County Tree Protection Ordinance. B. To prevent injury to those trees proposed for retention and preservation near proposed construction areas, the following protection measures shall be implemented as part of the project: 1. Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, tree protection fencing or other barriers at least (5) feet outside of the dripline of all trees to be preserved on site shall be installed in order to give grading contractors proper visual notification to keep equipment out of the area surrounding these trees. (During grading operations a qualified arborist shall be on site to approve any needed exceptions to these requirements). • 1. Tree fencing shall be a minimum of 48 inches in height. Fence supports shall be steel "T" drive posts with a maximum spacing of 10 feet. The top of the fencing shall be supported by attaching a wire or poly rope between the post supports and attaching it to the fencing. 2. Once the tree fencing has been installed and its location and installation approved, the fencing shall not be taken down or moved without prior written authorization from the project arborist/forester. 3. No grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching, paving or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline except where minor encroachments are required, and as shown on project maps. The project arborist/forester shall be onsite when any work is done within the dripline. The project arborist/forester shall have the authority to require protective measures in the event any major roots are encountered in the dripline encroachment area. Upon completion of grading and construction, an arborist shall prepare a report outlining • further methods for tree protection if any are required. 21 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) All arborist expense shall be borne by the developer and • applicant. if adifig is Proposed to bei-elth pfateeted-tees-onthe site the-apple n ,, 1, Submit least 30 days-pr4er--te-issuanee-evading or filing, of a Pafe i ,1 , . gaiifee=�rcJcr-itrvrplan for the r-ey.ie_= and ., „1 of the 7„ A d � � �.•. .•..• ..,•..... .......... ....��a v.µi vi a.u�, c.viaallb !lurrrrazrJtirn cvi The- plan shall zden4ii�,—all tnee-with a—tcrdA-. eifetffnfefefiee of 10 inches-of mere. 4 Treece-above the of e aeh qualifying tree shall be :.do t•fi d en the plan, ,d whether- the tree ort to b a a ........,..v.. u... ..a.vv i. �riiYv.�vu �cTZ�c. , The plan ie--aeeempanied b?areP "terc-Zrem a qualified--afbefist—carr--the -py-ep^dRevelopme to et tfees-as apprvprrcrtc@ ?�eE6��g�-}.��J- --piv^ce during the . }et-ion and-pest-eeass efiofi s4ages. The r-eeeffHnended--measures--€fethe-ar-be —oe- integufated into or- other-wise attaehed to the pfoposed ,,, ., �Y ^D„1 4. Consistent with Condition 423.A., nNo parking or storing of vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction • materials, construction trailers, and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the dripline of any preserved tree. 5. Weekly site inspections by the project arborist/forester will be provided to insure compliance with the recommendations of the above protection measures. 6. Upon completion of grading and construction, the project arborist/forester shall prepare a report outlining any further tree protection remediation measures, if any, are required. MM IV(e)-2 2724. Except for the trees specifically authorized by this approval and for wastewater and water supply provisions to meet the requirements of this Parcel Map approval. tT-he applicant shall not remove those trees not identified for removal on the project's Vesting Tentative Map or arborist report tree survey without obtaining a Tree Permit from the County and adhering to permit conditions. MM IV (e)-37ree removal must also be consistent with the terms of the approved conservation easement. • 22 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) • Restitution For Trees That Are to Be Preserved 1 282 . 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 construction. Prior to posting the bond or deposit, a licensed arborist shall assess the value of the trees and reasonable compensatory terms in the event that a tree to be preserved is destroyed or otherwise damaged by construction-related activity. The tree-bonding program shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Moneta", Contribution to Allow for Eith.,. On-site or Off-Site Replacement of Protected Trees to be Removed * 2926. To mitigate the loss of a maximum of 54 code-protected trees that are proposed and approved for removalwithin this project, prior to filing a paFeel mR issuance of a grading_permit, or residential building permit the applicant shall provide the following for the loss of existing trees: A. On-Site Tree Replacement Program Option The applicant shall submit the following for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 1. An on-site tree planting program that has been prepared and certified by a licensed landscape architect. The trees can be planted at locations shown on the 37.99 acre site. ❖ The plan shall provide for planting a minimum maximum of. a. 4-4162-4-5--minimum one-gallon trees of indigenous species; b. suitable soil preparation; and c. irrigation for the planting. 2. A labor and materials estimate of the proposed program by a qualified professional. 3. An agreement to maintain the trees for a minimum period of two (2) years following planting and to replace trees that fail • I that exceed more than seventeen trees. The "r-epos 4 s""" be 23 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) subjeet u YveT Feview by a qualified professional FFA by the County, The applicant shall post a suitable security with the County that covers the approved tree planting plan and cost estimate for the term of the approved maintenance agreement. Prior to fereceivin a final inspection on a building permit for a residence on each parcel-nW, the applicant shall provide evidence that the approved tree planting and irrigation plan has been installed for that parcel. B. reigibute-to TfustzF-und fef Eattivaleat -Off Site—T-r e The appliearA shall be required to—Sul"' it-tt menetafy een4r-ibutien to an appr-epfiate-^pablie entity iebcused yr planting of trees public lands thi f 1 d f ---a -- ----� _.-- r»...... .......... ......... .. �,.� .....� �uuiuu yr the site, A4�in five years of the rwerding of the pafeel map-. The e�aent of the vu - the ever-all ts of p ;d Katie ef4wee 15 gallon tfees fef ea >1 tree that is ,•+t1A}}tefor-zefnei al (or-, a total of 171 1 cr r- eme ees). The patentially eligiblereeipiei4s for this • .itfi .tAien shall 1.e@ alii=emia State Park Department, + T2 D 1 Park East of:the r nepos d b • ++ . + r r f J - a' a eAntri that it shall plaee t. V uivu pufpese. The p mt, lriuli-submit materials to the Gammunity evelepmen4 r,epffi.+ + fe the review and approval of the Zoning idmirrr+rurn-a'sfollows: vrs 1. rest-Ripe-t A detailed-evst-estimate planting ,1 initial Enaintenanee ef 171 16-2 niinimwn fifteen gallon trees +-tha4 are indigenees tethvhas been eei4ified (wet -vof ieinity +cars-site-ir1't stamped) by either- a Neensed landseape afe-hiteet or-aieensed ar-ber-rrtTheestimate shall identif�,the eest Of • r a the 4ees and related seil "'y v, • b ,the tfees; and ltkd eR) o for- arra-rt Vwe-Year- period te—assufetheir- tffwiv alth 10 f ttife + e. • 24 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) • t shall lccll—be it 40M the e �}e it arc--Ee�t-- od by a lotto,- {;.orn the applicant uvvvr.i�warvu v� u ra.ticc. public entity as benen-eiai7), fog this it shall be aeeampanied- by--a letter- ffem tha4-fie enter indieating that i! d t. t t1 r f tl ' � .=rs-FiTF�zcrcazv—aEcc�-c—trtc?c�xrr�-t-r�cin- 6@ndi6@f1. 3. Peef Re,,Jew of Cost Estimate PfiE)f to apPFE)Val of the cost esii ,.,to and dote«.,,,;. t' 4 eofnp1'anee with th• eenditien- a peer- review shall be an the or- a-l-ieens er-istfetained-bathe-Ge nz .,1;, n+ shall he-r-espei -sible �L_2w Ll-vvcn..5 the peer StS 4. Evidenee-sf Completed--Geriti4butien- FE41OWifig- approval--o -the—ee t estimate by the Zomig g o . n the appl.eant shall pr -evidenee that-t���Ped • e" ibutienhas been-aeeepted by the sel•eeted-pnblie entity-MM IV(e)-1 Water: =' At least 30 days prior to filing the Parcel Map, the applicant shall provide proof that adequate water facilities can be provided. The applicant shall comply with the Contra Costa County Ordinance pertaining to water conservation. Compliance with the Water Conservation Ordinance shall be designed to encourage low-flow water devices and other interior and exterior water conservation techniques. Rural Residential Development Prior to filing the Parcel Map the applicant must comply with the following: A. Each parcel must have an "on site" producing water well or install a "test well" having a minimum yield of three gallons • per minute with bacterial and chemical quality in compliance with the State standards for a pure, wholesome and potable 25 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) water supply (Title 22, Section 64433). If the chemical • analysis exceeds the State standards for "maximum contaminant levels" for water potability, a statement must be attached and "run with the deed" advising of these levels; Demonstrated documentation of the availability and of well water supplies shall be provided to the County Environmental Health.Division. MM VIII (a)or B. Have verifiable water availability data from adjacent parcels presented by the applicant, or knowledge of the same, known by the Health Services Department concerning water quality and quantity per (a) above; and, have a statement that"attaches and runs with the deed" indicating that a water well shall be installed on the subject parcel complying with the general requirements state above prior to obtaining a Building Inspection Department permit for construction. C. In addition to the above, a hydrogeological evaluation may be required in known or suspected water short areas. This will include seasonal as well as yearly variations. D. The purpose for requesting hydrgeological evaluations is to determine the total projected number of dwelling units that can • be supplied with drinking water from existing aquifers. A primary circumstance that would generally require hydrogeological evaluations is: In those cases where density is increasing in particular drainage basins due to the buildout of previously approved subdivisions using individual wells for water supplies, existing well yields begin to evidence declines due to the increased demand or in water short basins, hydrogeological studies would be appropriate as conditions of approval of subsequent development to provide sufficient yield for proposed uses. Specific reasons will be stated in support of requested hydrogeological evaluations in each case. X30. The land must be suitable for septic tank use according to the County Ordinance Code criteria and Health Services Department Regulation. Percolation tests must be passed on all lots prior to the filling of the Parcel Map. X431._ Prior to issuance of a residential building permit future owners shall provide adequate fencing to contain domestic animals on the residential parcels with the gates to be closeable by a nearby • rancher/farmer when necessary.* 26 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) Cultural Resour-ees.2 historieal arc-naeelobieal materials. A4'_`rtr. A. If aisefete, Ion aced deposits of pfehisterc of histeneal material,,, are eneountefed pfejeC4b aetivities. all wE)AE within 50 feet ofthe-di-se@N-earashall be c the finds and make-r-eEe} dationsF For- thcpufposesE& the fi=r-e'�B,evs-air-eady ee}duEted on the pf�eet site. these r-esE) ees found izul_ioie RK li stiirgrrth (` 1'f D Register, B. if sliC-h di.sefete—Eoi=rccnrrcrrca--arcazccorm`-rcar-Qeposrco--m e identified it r,,., a s tt, + h depOsits, b avoided If sueh deposits cannot 1, avoided. +1, 1 11 1-aled- f6fi heir- signifieanee in aeeor-diafiee with r-th-V is not neeessarv. 3'rgz rr fieant. t," ,eetile points, knives. a-rrd-ehappers) of obsidian,,-enc. ter quaft ite too! k-ino,debris. Canter-rlrrr— iene acr seil (i.e.. hidden se l Often -containing--he,-A affeeted -oek, ash 4 ehafeasal, shellfishr-ef-n3ins.and etiltLux-al materials); and one pestles., hand stones), ,1m717i'SIg-equipment' '-(e.",.. af4 i,ivr L D. Histei-ictal materials carr inelude wood, Stene. eener-et:e. a adobe oOti gs, 1cr is arra-otheF struetufal ,l 1. ' f 11 a bkells E)i--privies:-and and deposits wood, glass, and other- refuse. Pfejeet personnel shall not-celleei-ei=-move-any cultural or- ar-chaeelegieal material. MM V (a) 36. Step wer-k and evaluation of aecidental y of human remains. MM V (b) A Seelien 7050.5 of'the CaliforniaLeah and Safe. Code d_ that in the even! of di y or- + f' 1 lr .,t;ei3 lUOhP f ta a r r thar'ra do a-eeir'e ... @FC shall —th--exeava4ion of distwb diee of tmsrte of any nearbN, afea cease N7suspected to ever-lie aEl ace#it-r�zrrcrnza u.—I +h eoianef {'the eatintv in 1 h the - ,h r„ruu,r a.rrr, azarr-zsc • 27 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MSO5-0030(Habig) diseeN,efed has dt4efffiiaed whethef er-n9t the femains afe • subjeet to the eor-ener-'s authority. B. If-i rsnzrcri� are-eneetintefed. wefk shall. halt A41hiii25 feetva the aua., ..411... the t,t+ull� <,,Vl At the M., _ephpa 8gist- ll be eentaeled­te + th •+ + if +l, t1 afeof Native e�uraurc—rrrc�acr6rr--n rrn, irccrsxcaz—r A.ner-;ean origin, +l,a (' .must ,,etif„ the Native A 411111 L The Native L.,,Kge Ceil . ill---idcrrtif�'—a Native Amer4ean Most Likely escendent to-inspect tthe site and YY ve "'i c.aauucic is and asseeiated gfa-ve goods. A04 NL+b) Geology:* X32. Implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with Regional Water Quality Control Board Erosion and Sediment Control procedures. �=MN71 (a) Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be used to reduce erosion and sedimentation resulting from construction. Measures to be implemented, as appropriate, shall include, but not necessarily • limited to,the following activities: A. Confine grading activities to the May 1 through October 15 period; B. Minimizing the disturbance to steep slopes whenever possible; C. Re-vegetating exposed slope faces before the rainy season; D. Locating straw bale dikes or filter fabric barriers down slope of disturbed areas to act as sediment traps; E. When dewatering the site, remove sediment from the discharge using filtration methods; F. Constructing temporary sedimentation basins as needed; G. Selectively removing, stockpiling, and replacing topsoil as a surface medium for re-vegetation; and H. Provide erosion control plans and institute measures per plans. MM VI (a) 3833. The applicant shall prepare a grading plan subject to review by the project geotechnical engineer. The applicant shall submit the • 28 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) • grading plan to the County for technical review prior to issuance of the grading permit. MM VI(b)-1 3.434. Development en par-eel shall be Eenfined to the—twe-aefe deveiepmei4 site. Prior- e issuanee-of-building pe....its, speeif e site ...,..,L.,rlll.,ll. FJ34111J shall review of -tee , Admitter—Mese shall ineludt­ A. oa ,.f a; g .,a le t... + a a Proposed va i„b i 4u1 VVu LVLT. of U1.141V 4111.rJ Ci114 t(rIiGYPG{-ps Doge, well site, leae-hfield leeatien, and tAilifies shall also :_- 14. Des l .Des ign of heme-sites w•,-1, a minimtunof gr-ading. Resiuenees Erosion control plans shall be provided for all proposed grading if significant grading is needed. MM VI (b)-2 4035. Prior to issuance of building permits, the site-specific geotechnical studies are required to evaluate the specific approach to grading and development. These studies shall be subject to review by the Peer Review Geologist and review and approval of the Zoning • Administrator. The design and construction of the proposed on- site uses shall adhere to the recommendations identified in the geotechnical investigation. The risk can be reduced through adherence to recommendations contained in the geotechnical investigation. These recommendations include (but shall not be limited to) considerations of deeper building foundations or drilled support piers and other engineering designs to control or prevent damages to structures associated with expansive soils. MM VI (c) Geotechnical and Geologic Evaluation and Monitoring 41-36. A A. geotechnical report shall be required for issuance of building permits for individual lots. The intent of this is to have the geotechnical consultant characterize site conditions, provide final grading, drainage and foundation recommendations, and verify that plans comply with the provisions of the final geotechnical reports. The reports shall include subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analysis, and shall be subject to review and approval of the peer review geologist. B. The recommendation of the approved geotechnical report shall • be followed to avoid/ minimize the effects of expansive soils, soil creep and other forms of mass wasting. 29 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) C. During grading operations, all keyways and cut slopes shall be • logged by an engineering geologist. In areas of highly sheared or deeply weathered rock, the applicant's geologist shall provide supplemental recommendations, such as drainage facilities, over-excavation of the slope, and replacement with engineered fill or use of reinforced earth. D. A representative of the project geotechnical engineer will be on- site during foundation work (observing pier drilling and preparation work for all slabs) to verify compliance of construction practices and exposed conditions with the provisions of the approved geotechnical report. E. The Geotechnical Engineer shall issue a Grading Completion Report. It shall include an original geologic map that shows the details of observed features and conditions for cut slopes, along with showing keyways and areas of continuous benching. The geologic mapping should be accompanied by a discussion of the significance of the exposed features and how design was adapted to address exposed conditions. The Grading Completion Report shall also include a map based on field surveys or GPS measurements that show the location and depth of subdrains, as well as adequate ASTM compaction test data. During construction of improvements, evidence of • geotechnical monitoring of foundation laying for buildings and retaining walls, along with other details, shall be provided (e.g., backfilling of utility trenches). Design Guidelines for Grading 4337. Prior to approval of a grading or building permit for development of a residence, submit for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator a revised grading/tree preservation plan. The revised grading shall: A. Be designed on a current topographical survey with 2-foot contours. B. Reflect the proposed house grading. The approach shall minimize site grading by designing improvements that conform closely to site terrain, avoid large padded areas on Parcels A and C, and utilize retaining walls to control the footprint of grading. C. The revised grading plan shall clearly label all retaining walls, note wall heights, and the type, color and finish of walls. • 30 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) • D. Identify all trees with a trunk diameter of 6.5 inches or greater within 20 feet of areas proposed for grading. Reasonable efforts shall be made to minimize the loss of or potential damage to existing trees. The plans shall identify the trunk circumference, approximate canopy area, species, and whether the tree is to be preserved or removed. The plan shall be prepared with the assistance of a licensed arborist. The plan shall provide suitable measures to assure protection of trees during the construction period. E. Earthwork quantities (cut and fill) shall be noted on the revised grading plan. Should the site not bala-REe,-the-appheant-sliall le—details of- he pfopeseaimPeWexpeft. irrElude ixa wrm�tic�n en In n(s) of prepes d fill ifnpoWexpei4 s4 e-, of operation, prepesed—safky measures (flag swc dust EefAr-e!). Any peWe3ipet4 plan 1, 11 >, S b�EEI- to —toand appfeva4 of the PPtiblie Wer-k 43. Prior- le use ef this provide an eft,"ineer-ing • " all ' y b b• rl�.nnrt µnr�;lsln �+.,1,;1;+<, ., ,.l<.� � - 1,<- +1-.e Peer- Geologist 1? rvi. �v �uavui�, L�J1J SV and review r1 1 f the Zoning A d + + YY v al vi Hazards and Hazardous Materials:* Fire Safety During Construction 4438 Prior to and ongoing throughout grading, and/or construction, the project applicant and construction contractor shall ensure that during project construction, all construction vehieles—azau equipment will be fitted with spark arrestors to minimize accidental ignition of dry construction debris and surrounding dry vegetation. MM VII (a)-1 Vegetation Management Plan 4339. Prior to issuance of a grading and/or construction permit, and ongoing throughout the life of the project, the project applicant shall submit a vegetation management plan to the County and County Fire Protection District that includes if deemed appropriate, but is not limited to the following measures: • 31 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) ■ Removal of dead vegetation overhanging roof and chimney • areas ■ Removal of leaves and needles from roofs ■ Planting and Placement of Fire-resistant plants around the house and phasing out flammable vegetation ■ A 30-foot non-vegetated or low-growing vegetated buffer around the building envelope ■ Trimming back vegetation around windows ■ Removal of flammable vegetation on hillside slopes greater than 20% ■ Pruning the lower branches of tall trees ■ Clearing out ground-level brush and debris ■ Stacking woodpiles away from structures A. The selection of plants for project landscaping shall also be compatible with the applied philosophy of "defensible space", a term first coined in the 1980 Fire Safe Guide for Residential Development in California. Defensible space is the area within the perimeter of a parcel or development where basic wildland fire prevention practices and measures are implemented, providing the key point of defense from an approaching wildfire, encroaching • wildlife, or for escaping structure fire. Fuel modification or fuels management plans are effective in defense of wildfires. Such modification shall include a 30-foot-wide defensible border around buildings, which may include appropriately sized fuel modification zones. MM VII(a)-2 14640. All residential buildings shall have fire--resistatClass A composition or tile roofs and exterior materials, and have fire protection sprinklers pursuant to the requirements of the County Fire Protection District, and any other relevant County departments. These include sprinklers for garages and under decks at downslope hillside areas. . MM VII (a)-3 Hydrology and Water Quality* 4-741. The project's drainage system shall be designed to comply with storm drain design requirements of the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works and Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. C''ec--Eppn-micshall E9ricv4zczr zE'y—all--StAzm—vrcctcr ente Ong n&ef 6fig4iating an theppropEfty.Thctivnyeyan e e 32 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) • stef.fn drainage faeilit� he appliearAyzill-eenyey st9rmvv ter-to an K V havingdefinable bed d b 1 r an b adequate Y be iue r stafm water- to aii existing adequate nattffal , aeeefdanee with Division 914 of the Ceum-,' Or-dinaiiee Code. MA 17111 (b) 4842. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an erosion control plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department. The erosion control plan shall provide for the following measures: All grading, excavation and filling shall be conducted during the dry season (April 15 through October 15) only, and all areas of exposed soils shall be replanted to minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October 15, the grading permit shall allow only erosion control work. Any modification to the above schedule shall be subject to review by the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact to less than significant. MM VIII (c) • Traffic: 4-143. Standard construction traffic control procedures will be implemented during project construction. These include: • As needed, warning signs shall be placed at appropriate locations in advance of the construction operation to alert traffic on Marsh Creek Road. • The construction contractor shall place and maintain barriers and warning devices necessary for safety of the general public. • Flagmen shall be provided as necessary to control the flow and circulation of traffic. MM XIV (a) Police Service/Crime Prevention:* 3944. Police Service District to Augment Police Services - -- The following requirements shall be met prior to filing a Parcel Map or issuance of a building permit as specified below: A. 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 33 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) statement shall be used to notify prospective buyers of • parcels which are not occupied by existing legally- established residences at time of filing the tentative map application. The disclosure statement shall advise prospective buyers of affected parcels that prior to issuance of a building permit, they will be required to contribute to the County $1,000.00 for police services mitigation. The fee may be paid to the Contra Costa County Application & Permit Center. B. Prior to issuance of a building permit on any parcel that is not occupied by a legal resident, the applicant shall contribute $1,000.00 to the County for police services mitigation. The fee shall be paid to the Contra Costa County Application & Permit Center. Fire Protection District: -51-45. Prior to the approval of a Parcel Map, the applicant shall provide evidence of compliance with the requirements of Contra Costa Fire Protection District. A. Prior to approval of the Parcel Map is required to demonstrate • that all of the proposed development is located within one and one-half miles of a fire station, or that development within the project that is more than one and one-half miles from a fire station shall be required to provide automatic fire sprinkler systems. IF the project requires fire sprinkler systems then a deed disclosure for each new residential lot shall be recorded with the Final Map. This disclosure shall indicate that the proposed structure has been designed with automatic interior fire-suppression sprinkler system that meets the design standards of the Consolidated Fire Protection District. This provision is required at least in part so as to allow a plan consistency determination associated with the approval of County File# MS050030.* Payment of Any Supplemental Application Fees 6. This application is subject to an initial application fee of $5,813.00 which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to • use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs 34 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) • through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If additional fees are owed, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION MS 05-0030 Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9, and Title 10 of the County Ordinance Code. Any exceptions must be stipulated in these conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the revised Tentative Map received by the Community Development Department on January 11,2008. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE PARCEL MAP: -5-347. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions there from must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the Public Works Department • and are based on the revised Tentative Map received by the Community Development Department on January 11, 2008. 5448. Improvement 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 (On-Site): 549. The applicant shall construct any necessary improvements to ensure that the private road (Bragdon Way) has a minimum traveled way width of 18 feet with a minimum 1-foot wide shoulder on each side within a 25-foot access easement, subject to the review and approval of the Fire District, and as shown on the tentative map. 5€50. Applicant shall construct/improve any driveway to meet rural • driveway standards. 35 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) Access to AdjoiningProperty: • Proof of Access X51. Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department 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. X52. Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, that legal access through all adjacent properties to the subject property is available from Marsh Creek Road. Encroachment Permit X153. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit Center, if necessary, for any work done within the right of way of Marsh Creek Road. Sight Distance: • €154. Applicant shall provide sight distance at the intersection of Marsh Creek Road and Bragdon Way for a through traffic design speed of 55 miles per hour in accordance with Caltrans standards. The applicant shall trim vegetation, as necessary, to provide sight distance at this intersection, and any new signage, landscaping, fencing, retaining walls, or other obstructions proposed at this intersection shall be setback to ensure that the sight line is clear of any obstructions. Parking: 64 55. Parking shall be prohibited on both sides of on-site roadway where the curb-to-curb width is less than 28 feet. "No Parking" signs shall be installed along these portions of the road subject to the review and approval of Public Works. Utilities/Undergrounding: €256. All new utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground. • 36 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) • Maintenance of Facilities: 6-357. Applicant shall record a Statement of Obligation, in the form of a deed notification, to inform all future property owners of their legal obligation to maintain the private roadway and that each parcel/lot in this subdivision that will use the proposed private road will share in its maintenance.* 6458. Applicant shall insure that the private road be privately maintained in perpetuity. A maintenance plan of operation for the private road shall be submitted for Public Works review. The County will not accept these improvements for ownership or maintenance. Drainage Improvements: Collect and Convey 6359. The applicant ma- hall be granted an exception from the collect and convey requirement of the County Ordinance Code due to the large size of the proposed parcels, provided that there are no known drainage problems on-site, the existing drainage pattern is maintained, and concentrated storm water runoff is not discharged • onto adjacent properties. Provision "C.3" of the NPDES Permit 6660. In compliance with the County's Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, it has been determined that the applicant is not required to submit a Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) for this project. New or redeveloped impervious surface area totals less than one acre (43,560 square feet), which was the threshold requirement for submittal of a SWCP when this application was deemed complete. However, this project is required to incorporate storm water quality elements to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). This must include efforts to limit new impervious surface area, limit directly connected impervious areas, provide for self retaining areas and include other Best Management Practices to the MEP. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements: 6-761. Any new drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with specifications outlined in Division 914 and in compliance with design standards of the Public Works • Department. 37 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): • 6862. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay Region or Central Valley Region). Compliance will include developing long-term best management practices (BMP's) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate, where feasible, some or all of the following long term BMP's in accordance with the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program for the site's storm water drainage. - Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. - Stencil advisory warnings on all catch basins. - Slope pavements to direct runoff to landscaped/pervious areas, where feasible. - Distribute public information items regarding the Clean • Water Program to buyers. - Shallow roadside and on-site swales Other alternatives as approved by the Public Works Department. ADVISORY NOTES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT A. NOTIFY OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to ad 90-day period after • the project is approved. 38 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) • The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. B. Comply with the requirements of the County Department of Conservation and Development- Building Inspection Depaft—­Division. C. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department — Environmental Health Division. D. Comply with the requirements of the —Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. E. Comply with the requirements of the California Department of Forestryand Fire Protection. F. Comply with the requirements of the Sheriff:s Department. • G. The applicant shall be required to comply with all 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 II or Central Valley — Region V). H. The project is subject to the development fees in effect under County Ordinance as of May 31, 2006, the date the Vesting tTentative mMap application was accepted as complete by the Community Development Department. These fees are in addition to any other development fees which may be specified in the conditions of approval. The fees include but are not limited to the following: Park Dedication $7,238.00 per residence Child Care $400.00 per residence An estimate of the fee charges for each approved lot may be contacting the Building rnspeetion Department of Conservation and Development — Building Inspection Division at 335-1196. • 39 Conditions of Approval Recommended for Board of Supervisors Adoption County File#MS05-0030(Habig) I. The applicant shall be required to comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee • Ordinance requirements for the Marsh Creek Traffic and ECCRFFA/RTDIM County Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. This fee must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. J. 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. K. 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. L. Applicant shall comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage Area 108 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. This fee must be paid prior to filing the Parcel Map. • G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Board\Board Orders\Habig\ms050030-coa-7-4-08- • 40 DELIBERATION ITEM# D.2 JULY 81 2008 APPEAL Iniurhonallj Left �lan� save WiFeallm • Board of Directors April, 17 2008 c co Malcolm Sproul President —� Application and Permit Center Amara Morrison Community Development Department co > Secretary Contra Costa County =3. 0 Frank Varenchik 651 Pine Street, Second Floor,North Wing Y. sir, Treasurer Martinez, CA 94553 -+ —1 Burt Bassler z Arthur Bonwell Re: Joint Appeal by Save Mount Diablo and East Bay Regional Park Dana Dornsife District, File# MS05-0030, Habig Property CharlaAPN: 078-090-025 John Gallagherlagh Claudia Hein Applicant: Belleci &Associates, Inc. Scott Hein Owner: Roger and Handell Habig Michael Hitchcock Location: 3000 Bra don Way off of Marsh Creek Road David Husted g y o Doug Knauer Allan Prager Dear Rose Marie, David Sargent D d Trotter nWalters Save Mount Diablo (SMD) and East Bay Regional Park District are requesting to tors appeal the April 8, 2008 decision by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission to approve the subdivision of the 37.99 acres located on Bragdon Way into three lots. Staff The appeal fee of$125 is enclosed. Ronald Brown Executive Director SMD believes that the Mitigated Negative Declaration does not adequately assess nor Seth Adams mitigate the impacts this project will have on important resources in the area. As a Director, Land Programs result we feel that an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared for this Julie Seelen project. Development Manager Monica E.Oei SMD is filing this appeal because SMD continues to believe: Finance& Administrative Manager 1) The applicant has illegally graded pads and cut down trees without permits, and no mitigations were proposed for this illegal activity. Mailing Address 1901 Olympic Blvd.,#220 2) The applicant was required to dedicate development rights at the time of Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Tel: (925)947-3535 building permit for their house and failed to do so. They should not be Fax: (925)947-0642 rewarded with additional subdivision. As a result, mitigations for the previous Website subdivision were not carried out and environmental impacts were not i•vww.savemountdiablaorg mitigated; these and other cumulative impacts were not considered. 3) Project analysis fails to consider the sensitivity of the project location in an F rsBonwe!! area characterized by public open space and parks, especially the adjacent Mary L. Borverman Clayton Ranch property owned by the District. Visual analysis did not consider impacts on this open space. 4) The project violates a number of CCC General Plan standards and creates conflicts with other agency Master Plans and policies. 5) Biotic information is contradictory and fails to consider new information about likely • listed species, including ones confirmed on neighboring parcels. 6) Health Services states that this is a water short area and this impact was not resolved. 7) There is a large landslide onsite and slope was not analyzed. 8) The MND mischaracterizes the goals and policies of the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservation Plan and, therefore, does not adequately mitigate for the impacts of the project. 9) Staff recommended denial of the project on General Plan issues beginning in 2006 and that it not even be processed; although the Commission directed staff to proceed with enviromnental analysis, there was no discussion as to why staff would change its recommendation of denial to one of support. Save Mount Diablo does not believe that these inconsistencies have been explained nor supported by adequate analysis or information within the administrative record. 10)The Mitigated Negative Declaration is not adequate under CEQA and mischaracterizes a variety of potentially significant impacts including visual and biological impacts, understates the amount of the parcel that would be affected and fails to consider cumulative impacts. Letters and testimony by SMD and the District were not analyzed prior to the meeting. The Commission struck more than a quarter of staff's Conditions of Approval, without replacement conditions, further exacerbating the lack of mitigation. • Potentially significant impacts on visuals, biotics, public services, etc. were not mitigated to a level of insignificance. From the CEQA Guidelines: 1)If the agency determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial, the Lead Agency shall do one of the following: (A) Prepare an EIR, or (B) Use a previously prepared EIR which the Lead Agency determines would adequately analyze the project at hand, or C)Determine,pursuant to a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process, which of a project's effects were adequately examined by an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Another appropriate process may include,for example, a master EIR, a master environmental assessment, approval of housing and neighborhood commercial facilities in urban areas, approval of residential projects pursuant to a specific plans described in section 15182, approval of residential projects consistent with a community plan, general plan or zoning as described in section 15183, or an environmental document prepared under a State certified regulatory program. The lead agency shall then ascertain which effects, if any, should be analyzed in a later EIR or negative declaration • CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an environmental impact report ("EIR") except in certain limited circumstances. (See, e.g., Pub. Res. Code § 21100 (emphasis added).) For example, a negative declaration may be prepared instead of an EIR when, after preparing an initial study, a lead agency determines that a project"would not have a significant effect on the environment." (Id., § 21080(c).) However, such a determination may be made only if"[t]here is no substantial evidence in light of the • whole record before the lead agency" that such an impact may occur. (Id., § 21080(c)(1) (emphasis added).) A negative declaration is improper, and an EIR is required, whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a"fair argument"that significant impacts may occur. Even if other substantial evidence supports the opposite conclusion, the agency nevertheless must prepare an EIR. (StanislausAudubon v. County ofStanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4`h 144, 150-151; Quail Botanical Gardens v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Ca1.App.4`h 1597.) The "fair argument" standard creates a "low threshold" favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. (Citizens Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754.) As a matter of law, "substantial evidence includes ... expert opinion." (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e)(1); CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(5).) CEQA also requires that mitigation measures be adequate, timely, and resolved by the lead agency. The environmental review must identify mitigation measures for each significant impact. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(A).) The mitigation conditions must be feasible and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2); Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727-728 [270 Ca1.Rptr. 650] This application has not mitigated impacts to a level of insignificance, illegal activity has not • been mitigated, no previously prepared EIR covered this project, and mitigations for the prior subdivision depended on protection of this parcel outside of one building envelope, which was not carried out. Mitigations for the current project are not adequate, timely, and resolved by the lead agency, nor are they feasible and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments. There is contradictory evidence as to impacts. There is a "fair argument" that significant impacts may occur. Even if other substantial evidence supports the opposite conclusion, the agency nevertheless must prepare an EIR. Therefore, we believe that an EIR is required. Please notify SMD at this address, and EBRPD at: Brad Olson, East Bay Regional Park District, 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, P.O. Box 5381, Oakland, CA 94605-0381 as to the hearing date for this appeal. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Seth Adams Director of Land Programs • Ce: Bob Doyle, EBRPD Brad Olson, EBRPD DELIBERATION ITEM# D.2 JULY 81 2008 PREVIOUS STAFF REPORTS { F77, Wq y" _A is b -.. i`�s - l., 4 A`+ ?•-y _ y ,dam;, y- 'a V �y�" � s��,� i a��"� et' '✓, Set' � �{3 �';" * �. '. ' l 1 4;ti•'.�. $��.. i'!.. � �` x ,. 1 b,� � '�i' Ic yY YY,. 'l 1�" � :I wa VOW I _ yr v Yb� 3' -.,* � •'r''�•'' .r i 4� 'ia =�. � r_ v� � � S¢- - �� � '}'g AF -+y 4 ' ��n .. r`:f��`t 1x � •) ���y �� t'+IY,�'�'X`�e T -., y� -� y.•..:, i 1 .•-r :'I€',lr..' s a ;' —�: a � 4�r ,. ye,s.,..n "f. a ;�.'. R4 'q 4 �_ �i _ '��-- - --,"t ,V l ti ��"° & .r+ "}"is• 'Y:� J 'k !I` -f" L, � Vti r?:�R ! �` I �..r ,� •�; .�t•�'.�If: 'j q i.'�''°ts ,�r s "�,;4�'� $ � ,`�..'� A' Y 14 Oil 190 y $yr p!" ° r ,� r E�,'' „'� .yil< +¢< r .��,1 •#'t _?`F a''11r,. _ kgoo A f g - �y��5 k7- Q1, lel L' , . , %N"I.: :-, �,1-1. *� 1' two 1�-< 'R .�b� ` IUPW if 5i All It nA �r. � f r a 9+ti., F P , +,1n, ,�y,f .44 ;z I a ' .tt.:' r, •:: y.: -'. �, w i a ��,- tr - .w I} "ter p v 'sf: 1 Q A t • Agenda Item# Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2008 I. INTRODUCTION Bellecci & Associates, Inc. (Applicant) Roger & Kandell Habig (Owner), County File # MS050030: The applicant requests approval to subdivide 37.99 acres into 3 lots with a 21.79 acre designated remainder. The applicant proposes to remove 54 protected trees. The subject property's address is 3000 Bragdon Way in the Clayton area. (A-4) (ZA:N-20) (CT: 3551.02) (APN: 078-090-025) II. RECEIPT OF RECENT CORRESPONDENCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AND COMMISSION ALTERNATIVES FOR ACTING ON PROJECT • For purposes of satisfying the project's compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),the County conducted an initial study on this project that determined that it might result in several significant effects on the environment. That study also identified measures that would mitigate those impacts to a less than significant level, and the applicant agreed in writing to those measures. Staff then issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project on February 27, 2008, and the public comment period extended to March 31, 2008. After the staff report had been substantially prepared, the County recently received several letters between March 28 and March 31 concerning the proposed environmental review for the project. These include letters from Save Mt. Diablo, East Bay Regional Park District, and the attorney for the applicant (attached). Staff will be reviewing these letters in the period leading up to this hearing, but at the time of issuance of this report is not yet prepared to recommend that the Commission make the required CEQA finding. Consequently, staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the hearing on the project. After completing public testimony, if the Commission is prepared to find that: • A. On the basis of the whole record before the Commission (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial 1 7 evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, and that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the • County's independent judgment and analysis; and B. Find that the project would be consistent with the General Plan including Growth Management Performance Standards; the Commission may: • Adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration as adequate for purposes of compliance with CEQA; • Approve the project subject to the attached recommended conditions (or modifications to those conditions that the Commission deems appropriate); and • Adopt the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: The General Plan designation is Agricultural Lands -AL. B. Zoning: A-2—General Agriculture District. C. CEQA Status: A mitigated negative declaration was posted at the County Clerk's Office on February 27, 2008 and concurrently mailed to the owners • of adjoining properties. The public comment period extended to March 31, 2008. D. Previous Applications: PR05-0002—Pre-application review on subdivision. E. Regulatory Programs: 1. Active Fault Zone: Subject site is not in an active fault zone. 2. Flood Hazard Area: Subject site is in Flood Zone C of minimal flooding, Panel 0350B. 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. ' Note that the numbering of conditions in the Mitigation Monitoring Program needs to be updated to be consistent with • the numbering of conditions of approval. 2 IV. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION • The site is a 37.99 acrearcel located at 3000 Bragdon gdon Way, a connector street to Marsh Creek Road — in the Clayton area of the County. The site is situated on the south-facing slopes to the north of Marsh Creek and Marsh Creek Road, approximately three miles east of the City of Clayton. The site is outside the Urban Limit Line (ULL), which is about three miles west of the project site, congruent with the eastern city limits of Clayton. The subject property consists of steeply sloping clay slopes with little or no exposed bedrock. The parcel ranges in elevation from 640 to 1,200 feet above mean sea levels. Bragdon Way is the main access for several property owners adjacent to the Habig's property. It crosses the western portion of the subject property in a roughly north-south direction providing access off Marsh Creek Road and the Deyoreo property to the north. The Habigs have a private driveway off Bragdon Way that leads off to their residence, which consists of the primary residence, a storage area, several recreational vehicles, and associated outbuildings in the central portion of the study area. According to the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5" topographic quadrangle (Antioch South), a spring lies immediately north of the study area's northern boundary, and a bermed stock pond lies approximately 1,000 linear map-feet north of the study area along the uppermost reaches of Long Canyon, a tributary to Marsh Creek. • Surrounding area consists of private rural residences, ranches and open pastureland. Marsh Creek Road cuts off the southwest corner of the site as it runs in an approximately westerly direction adjacent to Marsh Creek. The Contra Costa County Jail Farm juvenile detention facility and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Sunshine Camp Fire Station are immediately west of the property. The East Bay Regional Park District's Clayton Ranch Landbank is located northwest of the project site. V. PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide 37.99 acres into three parcels with a 21.79 acre designated remainder. The designated remainder contains the primary residence of the property owner. The proposed parcels are oriented on the west and north sides of the property and would access from the private roads from the private, Bragdon Way. The Vesting Tentative Map in compliance with the County's Ranchette Policy identifies a house site and access road for each parcel contained within a two-acre building envelope. The size of each parcel is as follows: Parcel A—6.20 acres; Parcel B - 5.0 acres; Parcel C - 5.0 acres; • Designated Remainder Parcel—21.79 acres. 3 VI. AGENCY COMMENTS A. Health Services Department/ Environmental Health: Memorandum dated • August 3, 2005. Wells have not been drilled on parcels A & C, nor have "will serve" letters from Contra Costa Water District been presented, to establish the availability of approved water supplies for those parcels. Parcel B has an approved supply well (except for bacteriology). Site & soil work had been done by BETA Engineering for onsite wastewater treatment systems. Comments that were made in an e-mail dated 1/31/05 forwarded to the project planner regarding County File #PR050002 remains in effect. B Contra Costa County Fire Protection District: Memorandum dated August 4, 2005 and March 6, 2008 based on revised site plan. See attached. C. California Historical Resources Information System: Memorandum dated August 11, 2005. The proposed project area has the possibility of containing unrecorded archaeological site(s). A study is recommended prior to commencement of project activities. Review for possible historic structures was limited to the Northwest Information Centers documents and should not be considered comprehensive. Since the Office of Historic Preservation has determined that any building or structure 45 years or older maybe of historic value, therefore if the project area contains such properties it is recommended that they be evaluated by an • architectural historian prior to commencement of project activities. The applicant submitted an Archaeological Field Inspection on October 25, 2005 prepared by Holman & Associates that was referenced in the Initial Study. The report stated that no evidence of archaeological resources or Native American Use or habitation was discovered inside the project borders. D. Department of Fish & Game: Memorandum dated August 19, 2005 and April 7, 2006. See attachment. E. East Bay Regional Park District: Memorandum dated August 17, 2005. The Park District has received and received the referral on the subject application. The Park District's Clayton Ranch Landbank is located northwest of this proposed project. There is not a direct impact from this proposal. However, the District's concern is that this is a piecemeal subdivision. The property was the result of past subdivision and now it is being further subdivided. This raises the question as to good and logical subdivision of land. • 4 • Park District requests all future information on this application be sent to them so as follow the project through the planning process and know what the final result is on this proposal. F. Building Inspection Department/Grading Division: Memorandum dated August 19, 2005. No Grading shown at this time. Fire District to review driveway design and location. Grading permits and Geotechnical Investigations maybe needed for future development. Roadway currently in place outside of Right of Way easement. G. Save Mt. Diablo: Memorandum dated February 28, 2006. Letter was received post 30 day comment period. In summary, Save Mt. Diablo concluded that `The Habig parcel is located on one of the County's major ridges and in the Marsh Creek Road scenic corridor. Several rare and threatened species have been confirmed in the area. Development of this site may threaten major public amenities including nearby regional park lands and regional trail connections. Development of the property should be prevented.' See attached. VII. PREVIOUS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Several months into the processing of this application it was discovered by • County staff of a note on the recorded parcel map requiring the applicant to dedicate development rights to the County on all but a 2-acre building site prior to the issuance of a building permit. In 1999, the current owner (Habig) obtained grading and building permits for Parcel A. Grading and building permits were also issued that year for Parcels B; a grading permit was also issued for Parcel C, but no building permit has yet been issued for that parcel. For reasons unknown, the County did not require compliance with the Parcel Map Note before issuing of those permits. Based on this information, staff determined that the additional proposed parcels and building sites (three 2-acre sites) for this project would not comply with the Parcel Map Note restriction that limits the project to a 2-acre building site. Staff informed the applicant of these new concerns, and that as a consequence scheduled this matter before the County Planning Commission on May 23, 2006. The matter was rescheduled several times. On July 11, 2006, the Commission did not agree with staff findings that the project was limited by prior deed restrictions and directed staff to continue the processing of the application. VIII. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT • For the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the County conducted an initial study to determine whether the project 5 could result in a significant effect on the environment. The study determined that the project could result in several significant effects. However, the study also • identified measures for each of those impacts that would reduce those impacts to less than significant levels, and the applicant has agreed to those measures. As a consequence, staff is proposing the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for this project, and posted this proposed finding with the County Clerk and issued legal notice on February 27, 2008. The following is a summary of environmental areas of major concern analyzed in the initial study. A. Aesthetics The subject property is near a designated Scenic Ridgeway on the Scenic Resources Map of the County General Plan. Marsh Creek Road is designated by the County as a Scenic Route. The project site is located near Mt. Diablo State Park. The proposed three residences as with other structures in the area, would be visible from some of the higher areas of the park, as well as from Marsh Creek Road. The Mitigated Negative Declaration included visual simulations of the proposed 3-units that illustrated the changes that would result from the construction of the new residences. Staff selected four viewpoint locations along Marsh Creek Road within reasonable stretches of the winding alignment as Viewpoint A and Viewpoint B. See attached Exhibits A, B, C and D. Without defined design elements of each unit, the • size and massing of the computerized images of the house structures simulate a "worse case" example of a standard 3,000 square foot home stepped down the building pad of each lot. As illustrated at Viewpoint "A", looking east, two of the potential homes may be visible from the road, the third house may be partially visible. At Viewpoint `B", all three houses would be visible from the road. Mitigation Measures are incorporated as conditions of approval requiring specific architectural hillside design standards to be recorded as deed disclosures on each parcel. B. Biological Resources The project site is near the recorded occurrences of three species federally listed as threatened or endangered, as identified in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration, Table IV-2: California red-legged frog (CRLF), California tiger salamander (CTS), and the Alameda whipsnake (AWS. The protocol site assessment for the three species was prepared by TOVA Applied Science & Technology, December 12, 2007. The assessment determined that the project site does not provide suitable habitat for the species. • 6 • California Red-legged Frog According to the conclusions made by TOVA protocol site assessment, there are no suitable breeding habitat for the California red-legged frog (CRLF) due to the absence of wetlands, springs, permanent and semi- permanent natural ponds, streams, stock ponds, irrigation ponds, or siltation ponds. The project site does provide the vegetation cover that is characteristic of CRLF upland dispersal and aestivation habitat, but this is highly unlikely that the site would be used for such uses. For the complete discussion on the CRLF, refer to the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration. California Tiger Salamander According to the findings of TOVA the project site does not have suitable breeding habitat for the California tiger salamander due to the absence of permanent and semi-permanent ponds, streams, stock ponds, irrigation ponds, or siltation ponds. Salamanders depend upon mammal burrows or other type of underground habitat contained in breeding ponds for food, shelter and protection from other elements and predation that are not accessible or adjacent to the project site. For a complete discussion on the CRLF, refer to the attached Mitigation Negative Declaration. • Alameda Whipnake Suitable scrub or chaparral habitat do not exist on the site. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the Alameda Whipsnake would use the Habig site. During TOVA's reconnaissance, it was observed small, isolated patches exist outside the boundaries of the study area. More extensive patches of scrub and or chaparral exist uphill of the study area at higher elevations, but these areas of scrub/chaparral appear to mark the southern most boundaries of this vegetation community along the slopes, below which the study area lies, since no scrub or chaparral habitat was observed downhill between the study area and Marsh Creek. Conclusion Based on the absence of suitable habitat features, there is no breeding habitat for the California Red-legged frog or California tiger salamander on the Habig project site. The absence of suitable aestivation habitat features, and the physical barriers presented by paved roads — Bragdon Way, Marsh Creek Road, the existing structures of the Calfornia Department of Forestry (CDF) facility, and the constrained topography at this location adjacent to Marsh Creek Road would preclude dispersal from known breeding habitat near the intersection of Marsh Creek Road and • Morgan Territory Road to the project site. Habitat for the Alameda 7 whipsnake is absent from the project site. Such habitat would include scrub and chaparral vegetation cover, extensive rocks outcrops, and an • abundant population of whipsnake prey. C. Archaeological Survey A visual inspection of the project site was completed by Holman & Associates in October 2005. The inspection was limited to those spurs of the south trending ridges found off the existing Bragdon Way where it would have been possible to find evidence of cultural resource use (mainly use of exposed bedrock, of which there is none within the proposed project construction areas). The project site is considered too steep to have supported camps or villages, and the site lacks useable surface water sources. No evidence of Native American use and/or habitat was discovered inside the project boundaries. While the project does border areas where there are rich environments that support bedrocks outcrops, which could have been used for artifact-grade stone or used as grinding stations or for rock art repositories. The project site is not a historical resource, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The implementation of the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on a known historical resource. • D. Geological Landslides The project site is not within a State of California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazard Zone (AP Zone) and no known active faults cross the site. The potential for fault rupture is therefore remote. It is reasonable to assume, however, that the proposed residential structures would be subject to at least moderate to sever earthquake during the design life of the project and strong ground shaking should be anticipated. The proposed structures may be subject to seismic damage to the proposed facilities. All structures and improvements are required to confirm to uniform building codes. According to the Safety Element of the County General Plan, Figure 10-4, the project site is in an area rated "lowest damage of susceptibility". The risk of structural damage from ground shaking is regulated by the building code and County Grading Ordinance. The Safety Element of the County General Plan, Figure 10-5, also rates the project site as having "general low" liquefaction potential . • 8 A home site and leach field is proposed for Parcel `B" near an existing • slide area mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey. The project site plans indicate that the proposed structures on Parcel `B"have been setback from the limits of the slide, however, the construction of a residence and leach field has the potential to contribute to soil slumping or sloughing. Therefore, grading and excavation could influence slope stability, erosion, and sedimentation in the vicinity of the slide located north of the proposed residence and leach field on Parcel `B". Best Management Practices (BMP's) have been incorporated as conditions of approval to reduce erosion and sedimentation resulting from construction. Soil Conditions Soil percolation tests are used to evaluate the suitability of soils for wastewater disposal and for sizing wastewater disposal systems. The project applicant has performed percolation testing on the site and results of the testing indicate that the soils are suitable for alternative wastewater treatment such as the use of leaching fields. The wastewater disposal field has been sized to accommodate the disposal capacity of the proposed residential structures. Leachfield size and design is based on County criteria and standard civil engineering practices. IX. ROADS, DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES CONSIDERATIONS • The Public Works Department rev'reviewed the p revised Vesting Tentative Map stamped dated January 11, 2008 and submit the following revised staff report and conditions of approval: Background The applicant proposes to subdivide an approximately 38-acre parcel into three parcels and a remainder parcel. The site is located on the north side of Marsh Creek Road at Bragdon Way in the Clayton area. A pre-application review (PR 05-0002) was previously submitted for this project and our comments dated February 8, 2005 have been incorporated into this staff report and conditions of approval. Traffic and Circulation Bragdon Way is a paved private road providing access to the site from Marsh Creek Road. Bragdon Way meanders through adjacent properties and the applicant shall confirm that the necessary access rights have been obtained and furnish such proof to Public Works, Engineering Services Division. The applicant shall construct any necessary improvements to insure that the • private road (Bragdon Way) is in conformance with private rural road design 9 standards with a minimum traveled way width of 20 feet within a 30-foot access easement. The applicant shall be granted an exception from this requirement • provided the private road (Bragdon Way) has a minimum traveled way width of 18 feet with a minimum 1-foot wide shoulder on each side within a 25-foot access easement, as shown on the tentative map. The exception is appropriate due to existing right of way constraints. Any driveway access serving the proposed parcels shall be constructed/improved to rural driveway standards. Project access roads and driveways are subject to the review of the Fire District. The applicant shall ensure there is adequate sight distance at the intersection of Marsh Creek Road and Bragdon Way for a. through traffic design speed of 55 miles per hour. Drainage The applicant may be granted an exception from the collect and convey requirements of the County Ordinance Code due to the large size of the proposed parcels, provided that there are no known drainage problems on-site, the existing drainage pattern is maintained, and concentrated storm water runoff is not discharged onto adjacent properties. In compliance with the County's Stormwater Management and Discharge Control • Ordinance, it has been determined that the applicant is not required to submit a Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) for this project. New or redeveloped impervious surface area totals less than one acre (43,560 square feet), which was the threshold requirement for submittal of a SWCP. However, this project is required to incorporate storm water quality elements to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). This must include efforts to limit new impervious surface area, limit directly connected impervious areas, provide for self retaining areas and include other Best Management Practices to the MEP. X. STAFF ANALYSES Appropriateness of Use: The project site is within a rural unincorporated part of Clayton. Surrounding land uses consist of residences, ranches and pasturelands. The proposed project involves the subdivision of 37.99 acres into three (3) single family residential parcels, with a 21.79-designated remainder. The designated remainder has an existing primary residence with accessory structures. The proposed project is consistent with the adjoining properties that range in size from as small as 6.+/- acres to as large as 320+/- acres. • 10 Site Plan Design: • The applicant is requesting to subdivide a 37.99 acre parcel with a 21.79 acre designated remainder into 3 single family residential lots. Each lot identifies a two acre building envelope consisting of a house site and access road to each parcel. Future approved house sites will be contained within a two-acre building envelope, incompliance with the County's Ranchette Policy. The sizes of the 3 parcels are Parcel A6.20 acres; Parcel B- 5.0 acres; and Parcel C — 5.0 acres. A number of meetings were held with the County Geologist, Darwin Myers, staff, the applicants and property owners to discuss geological constraints. The applicant revised the site plan on January 3, 2008. On February 29, 2008, Darwin Myers commented on the last revision and CEQA document. The following is an excerpt of his comments: " The data provided by the applicant indicates that the building sites are feasible. However, the consultants have not evaluated any specific approach to development. The approach to development on Parcel A and C should strive to minimize grading by designing residences that step up the hillside (rather than large graded pads). The Parcel B residence should take landslide hazards into account. This could include restricting disturbance of the buffer separating the building site from the landslide, use of an efficient drainage system, and use of drought-tolerant vegetation. The alternative leachfield site on Parcel A has been approved by the County Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division. However, it has not • been evaluated by an engineering geologist. There area risks that the antecedent moist that would result from use of this site for a leachfield would reduce slope stability. A slope failure at this location would present an unacceptable risk to the motoring public utilizing Marsh Creek Road, and it could interfere with vehicle access to Bragdon Way." General Plan/Zoning Compliance: The General Plan designation for the site is Agricultural Lands 1 du/per 5 acres. The property is zoned A-2 General Agriculture 1 du/per 5 acres. The proposed subdivision 3 lot subdivision with a remainder is in compliance with the General Plan and Zoning designation for three additional building sites on five acre parcels. XI. CONCLUSION With the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, the whole of the project does not adversely affect the environment. The goal of the applicant is to achieve good community design in such a fashion that promotes protection of natural topographic features, aesthetic views, and vistas. Each parcel will contain a two acre building envelope consisting of a single family residence and accessory structures. Each residence will be subject to specific design criteria aimed at promoting architectural integrity and aesthetic quality in harmony with the natural surroundings. All three residences will have individual driveways off Bragdon • 11 Way. Overall the project is in compliance with the goals and policies of the General Plan and consistent with zoning. . • GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\ms050030-3.26.08st.rpt..doc • • 12 • Agenda Item#4 Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JULY 11, 2006— 7:00 P.M. Rescheduled Hearing I. INTRODUCTION BELLECCI &ASSOCIATES, INC. (Applicant) ROGER &HANDELL HABIG (Owner), County File#MS05-0030: The applicant requests approval to subdivide 37.99 acres (consisting of Parcel "A" of Minor Subdivision File#MS 64-90) into three (3)parcels,with a 21.79-acre designated remainder. The subject property is located at#3000 Bragdon Way(200 feet north of the intersection with Marsh Creek Road) in the Clayton area. (A-2) (CT: 3551.02) (APN: 078-090-025) II. BACKGROUND This matter was initially scheduled for hearing by the County Planning • Commission on May 23, 2006. At that time, staff had not completed the environmental review that is required before any approval of the project may be considered. Staff also had recommended that the Commission deny the application due to a conflict with a note on the 1993 Parcel Map that created the subject site, and due to inconsistency with the Urban Limit Line policies of the General Plan (proposed annexation into and service from Contra Costa Water District). The 1993 Parcel Map included a restriction that limits development on the site. However, at the request of the applicant's legal counsel, and due to a schedule conflict, the Commission rescheduled the hearing on this matter to June 27. On June 27, a quorum of the Planning Commission was not present (there was a strike by the Service Employees International Union Local), and this matter and other matters on the June 27 agenda were rescheduled to this date. III. REQUEST TO RESCHEDULE HEARING BY SAVE MT DIABLO A private organization, Save Mt. Diablo (SMD), has expressed concern about this project. In a letter dated June 29, 2006, a representative of that group indicates that he would like to participate in the Commission's hearing but is unable to • attend the hearing on July 11, and requests that the matter be rescheduled to July I 2 25, or later date. The letter indicates that he had delayed his vacation so as to be able to attend the Commission's June 27 hearing. • W. RESPONSE OF APPLICANT TO REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE Staff has contacted the applicant's representative, Patricia Curtin, to see if the applicants (and their clients) would consent to reschedule the hearing to a later date. The applicants indicate that they are facing a timing concern affecting the financing of the project, and cannot wait for a Commission hearing on July 24. Furthermore, the representative of the applicant indicated that she would not be available for the next three scheduled Commission hearings (July 25th, August 8th or 22th) due to a schedule conflict. She also indicated that she had discussed these scheduling problems with the representative for Save Mt. Diablo. The applicant has indicated that she would like to testify on the Parcel Map restrictions that have been raised by staff and to have the Commission act on that aspect of the project at the July 11 hearing. V. DISCUSSION When the County receives a request to continue a hearing that is reasonable, it is customary of the County to continue the hearing to a later date, but allow for the acceptance of testimony of individuals who prefer to testify at the subject hearing • before the matter is continued. The representative of SMD had intended to participate in the June 27 Commission hearing, but that was not possible due to a lack of a quorum. The request by SMD to continue the hearing seems reasonable in light of a previous continuance requested by and granted to the applicant. Following the August 22 hearing, the next Commission hearing is scheduled for September 12, 2006. It should be noted that approval of this application would not be lawful until there is compliance with the review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Furthermore, notwithstanding the staff recommendation to deny the application, even if the Commission were to find merit in the project, staff has not prepared any recommended conditions for the Commission to consider on which it might base an approval of the project. VI. RECOMMENDATION Accept any public testimony, then continue the hearing to September 12, 2006, or other date that the Commission determines to be appropriate. • GAcurrent planningkurr p1an\habigs\ms05-0030-Erpt t. • Agenda Item# Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2006— 7:00 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION BELLECCI &ASSOCIATES INC. (Applicant) ROGER &HANDELL HABIG (Owner), County File#MS050030: The applicant requests approval to subdivide 37.99 acres (consisting of Parcel "A"of Minor Subdivision File#MS 64-90) into three(3)parcels, with a 21.79-acre designated remainder. The subject property is located at#3000 Bragdon Way(200 feet north of the intersection with Marsh Creek Road) in the Clayton area. (A-2) (CT: 3551.02) (APN: 078-090-025) II. SUMMARY OF REVIEW The 1993 parcel map that created this parcel, and nearby parcels to the north and east, included a condition that states that prior to issuance of a permit, the • applicant/owner shall select a building site and deed development rights to the County for all but three acres of each parcel. For purposes of processing this application, staff has determined that: • This condition on the recorded Parcel Map is enforceable; and • The project proposing three additional building sites is not consistent with compliance with this condition. Compliance with the restriction could be eliminated by the filing and County approval of an additional tentative map and parcel map to remove the existing condition. To date, the applicant has challenged the staff interpretation of the enforceability of this condition, and does not agree that approval of an additional subdivision application (to modify the 1993 Parcel Map to remove the condition) is required. However, even if the applicant were to file an additional application to try to get the County's approval,the Applicant has provided no compelling reason why the County should approve an amended map to remove this condition. It is not evident how any benefit to the County from an approval of this project outweighs the furtherance of General Plan open space protection goals and policies that is • served by compliance with the Parcel Map Note condition. `f III. RECOMMENDATION • Due to the project's inconsistency with the General Plan goals and policies protecting hillsides, open space and the Marsh Creek Road scenic corridor, adopt a motion to disapprove this project. IV. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Area Description—The site is located on south-facing slopes to the north of Marsh Creek and Marsh Creek Road, approximately three miles east of the City of Clayton. The surrounding area is a mixture of rural residential development, grazing, and public lands for various purposes. Parcel sizes in the area range from 5 to 160 acres in area; most of the smaller parcels tend to be concentrated along the valley floors. Many of the larger parcels are subject to Land Conservation (Williamson Act) Contracts that commit those properties to exclusive agricultural uses for a period of at least 9— 10 years into the future, and require the owners of the property to file a Notice of Nonrenewal to lead to a release of the restrictions of the contract. The Contra Costa County Jail Farm juvenile detention facility and the • California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Sunshine Camp Fire Station are immediately west of the property. To the northwest of the site is the Clayton Ranch Landbank of the East Bay Regional Park District. The site and several other rural residential parcels gain their access to Marsh Creek Road from an 18-foot wide, dead-end, and privately- maintained road, Bragdon Way. B. Site Description- The subject 38-acre property consists of steeply,sloping clay slopes with little or no exposed bedrock. The site ranges in elevation from 640 to 1,200 feet above mean sea levels. The slope on the site varies,but some portions of the site have slopes approaching 2:1 (horizontal:vertical; 50%) gradient. Most of the site has slopes exceeding a 4:1 gradient (26%+). The Habigs have a private driveway off Bragdon Way that leads off to their residence, which consists of the primary residence, a storage area, several recreational vehicles, and associated outbuildings in the central portion of the study area. According to the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5" topographic quadrangle (Antioch South), a spring lies immediately north of the study area's northern boundary. • 2 C. General Plan Designation and Location Relative to Urban Limit Line - • The General Plan designates the site Agricultural Lands (5-acre minimum parcel size. This land use designation includes most of the privately owned rural lands in the County, excluding private lands that are composed of prime soils or lands that are located in or near the Delta. Most of these lands are in hilly portions of the County and are used for grazing livestock, or dry grain farming. The purpose of the Agricultural Lands designation is to preserve and protect lands capable of generally used for the production of food, fiber, and plant materials. The title is intended to be descriptive of the predominant land-extensive agricultural uses that take place intended to be descriptive of the predominant land- extensive agricultural uses that take place in these areas. The uses that are allowed in the Agricultural Lands designation include all land-dependent and non-land dependent agricultural production and related activities. The designation provides that the following standards shall apply to all uses allowedin.the Agricultural Lands designation: Any subdivision of lands shall include conditions of approval which conform with the requirements of the "Ranchette Policy (aka Rural Residential Development), which is outlined in the "Agricultural Resources" section of the Conservation Element • (Chapter 8 of the General Plan). Urban Limit Line—The site is located outside of the Urban Limit Line (ULL). The ULL is located approximately three miles to the west of the site and is congruent there with the eastern City limits of Clayton. Marsh Creek Road Scenic Route and Corridor—The Transportation and Circulation Element designates Marsh Creek Road a Scenic Route. By definition, the scenic route includes the road right-of-way and the adjoining "scenic corridor" consisting of much of the adjacent area that can be seen from the road. The Scenic Route policies provide that it is within this area that development controls, dedication, and the purchase of easements or lands in fee simple will be required. Further, controls should be applied to retain and enhance scenic qualities, restrict unsightly use of land, control height of structures, and provide site design and architectural guidance along the entire scenic corridor. D. Zoning-A-2—General Agricultural District. This district allows for all types of agricultural production activities, and one dwelling. It also allows for parcels with a minimum area of five acres. A proposed amendment to the Residential Second Unit Ordinance is currently being considered to allow residential second units on agriculturally zoned property where the units meet the ordinance criteria. If adopted, that ordinance amendment • would permit a residential second unit (in tandem with a primary 3 'i residence) on each parcel. The ordinance limits the size of a residential • second unit. E. Subdivision that Created the Subject Site and Follow-on Development Activi — The subject property and adjoining parcels to the north and east are the product of a minor subdivision application that the County processed for Robert J. Costa and Associates, and Bradford Land and Cattle Company between 1990 and 1993, County File#MS 64-90. a. 1990 County Planning Commission Approval of Vesting Tentative Map - The County Planning Commission heard the application on the earlier subdivision proposal in September 1990. At that time, the General Plan designated the site General Open Space. The Marsh Creek Scenic Route and Corridor policies were similar to what they are today. To address concerns regarding retention of the agricultural character of the area, the Planning Commission included the following in its conditions of approval: '(2. The applicant/owner shall provide for an Agricultural Conservation Easement to Contra Costa County on all of the 160 acres of the project site. The 160 acre remainder is not included. Building site areas shall be permitted and not exceed three acres. Leach field sites approved by the • Health Department shall be identified in each parcel. Building site areas shall be permitted and not exceed three acres. Leach field sites approved by the Health Department shall be identified in each parcel. This easement shall not prevent. the erection of agricultural related buildings or structures anywhere on the site, subject to the related setbacks. Easement shall be shown on the Parcel Map, and shall indicate a 3-acre building site is permitted, as well as referenced in deed description. 3. Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit plans including tentative building envelopes all within the 3-acre envelope as stipulated in Condition of Approval#2, a grading plan, and an erosion control plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Future modification of the building envelope must be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. The maximum grade for the proposed private road shall be identified and shall not exceed 20 percent. " • 4 Attached is a copy of the complete subdivision permit. There were • no appeals of the County Planning Commission approval, consequently, the decision on the tentative map became final.' b. Processing of Parcel Mn—Based on the tentative map approval, a parcel map was prepared in 1991. However, in recommending approval of the parcel map, staff did not require an agricultural easement on each of the four parcels as required by COA#2. Instead, staff allowed the substitution of a note on the face of the parcel map as "substantial compliance with the tentative map approval." A memorandum dated April 1, 1992 (attached) from the Community Development Department states it had no objection to placing the note on the title sheet"to fulfill the requirement of Conditions#2 and#3..." The memo further states that the requirement to deed development rights and restrict building sites"will no longer be applied to new proposals at the direction of the Board and is to be replaced by the Board's `Ranchette' policy."Z The Parcel Map Note states: Prior to obtaining a grading permit or a building permit, the applicant/owner shall select a building site and deed • development rights to Contra Costa County for all but(3) acre [sic] of each parcel excluding the remainder parcel. This agreement shall not prevent the erection of agricultural related buildings or structures anywhere on the site subject to zoning related setbacks. When the pending General Plan amendment has been adopted, the County will consider relinquishing the development rights. The Parcel Map was subsequently approved by the Board of Supervisors and recorded in 1993. Attached are the set of documents constituting the Parcel Map. The Habig property is Parcel "A"of that map. Following initial approval,the applicant filed for a modification to the tentative map approval to allow the proposed private road to be built prior to issuance of building permits rather than at time of approval of the parcel map. On January 8, 1991 the Planning Commission approved that request. Z The"Ranchette"policy,concerning the subdivision of lands within the Agricultural Residential and Open Space General Plan categories,was adopted by resolution of the Board(Resolution No.83/407)on March 15, 1983, and was applicable to Minor Subdivison 64-90. The policy generally discouraged ranchettes in prime agricultural areas where active cultivation was taking place and imposed a number of conditions • regarding water availability, septic tank use,access,flood control and other matters. The subject site is not a prime agricultural area. The 1983 policy did not include requirements to relinquish development rights to the County. The policy was subsequently added to the Conservation Element of the General Plan in 1991. 5 c. Subsequent Development of Site and Other Parcels within Subdivision • —In 1999, the current owner(Habig) obtained grading and building permits for Parcel A. Grading and building permits were also issued that year for Parcels B; a grading permit was also issued for Parcel C, but no building permit has yet been issued for that parcel. For reasons unknown, the County did not require compliance with the Parcel Map Note before issuing any of those permits. In 1999, the owner of Parcel D (Michaud) obtained a building permit, prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner provided staff with a grant deed to convey development rights over the majority of that site, but the deed has not as yet been presented to the Board of Supervisors for acceptance or been recorded to staff's knowledge. F. County Processing of Similar Proposals to Subdivide Other Properties Created by Minor Subdivision 64-90 1. Tentative Map Approval of Remainder Property (MS 27-93• Bradford Financial)—On December 30, 1993, Bradford Financial filed to subdivide the 151-acre Remainder property of MS 64-90 into four parcels(20+ acres) and a 60-acre Remainder. The County Planning Commission heard the application on December 13, 1994. After completing the hearing,the Commission unanimously approved the • project subject to conditions. Save Mount Diablo appealed that approval,but subsequently withdrew that appeal allowing the Commission approval of the tentative map to become final. The approval of the tentative map allowed for an initial three-year period for filing a parcel map to December 23, 1996. By provision of State law, the period for filing the parcel map was automatically extended an additional 12 months to December 23, 1997. However, the record indicates that the subdivider apparently failed to make a timely filing on the tentative map approval; that the period for exercising this approval has expired. At this time, any proposed subdivision of this site would require the approval of a new tentative map application. Prior to approval of a subdivision or issuance of any other permit, an applicant would also be required to apply for and obtain a Certificate of Compliance from the County.3 Further, Bradford Financial subsequently conveyed the property. The current owners are John and Eloise Pound. 2. Gregory Subdivision proposal of Parcel C—In 2003, the owner (Gregory) of another 40-acre parcel created from MS 64-90, Parcel "C", applied to the County for a tentative map approval to subdivide that property into four 5-acre parcels and a remainder, File#MS03- • 3 Government Code Sections 66424.6 and 66499.35. 6 003 1. Unlike the present application, the Gregory site did not contain • an existing residence. The proposal did not include provision for the deeding of development rights for the entire site except for a three-acre building site. During the review of the application, staff expressed concern with the proposed subdivision. One of the key concerns with the project was its inconsistency with the Parcel Map Note on the 1993 Parcel Map. The proposed development would result in a total of five building sites (including the proposed remainder), not limited to one as required by the Parcel Map Note. Staff told the applicant that it would be difficult for staff to recommend that the County support the project in view of this conflict, and related policies pertaining to protection of open space. Staff also indicated that the conflict with the Parcel Map Note restriction would have to be addressed in the required environmental review for the project. With staff's urging, the applicant withdrew the subdivision application on November 1, 2005,prior to completion of the environmental review for the project or scheduling it for hearing before the Planning Commission. However, in so doing, the applicant (Mr. Gregory) indicated that he may still wish to pursue a subdivision of his site at a • later date. V. PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide Parcel "A" of MS 64-90 consisting of 38-acres into three parcels with a 21.79 acre designated remainder. The designated remainder contains an existing residence. The proposed parcels are sited on the west and north sides of the property, and would gain access from the existing private road. The Tentative Map identifies a house, leach field, and well site for each proposed parcel, and indicates in its notes that "House sites are shown in approximate locations. Future approved house sites will be contained within a 2 acre area as dictated by the County Ranchette Policy." The size of each parcel is as follows: Parcel A—6.20 acres; Parcel B - 5.0 acres; Parcel C - 5.0 acres; Designated Remainder Parcel—21.79 acres. • 7 The application was filed with the County on July 22, 2005. For purposes of compliance with the processing requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act, the County deemed the application complete (by,default) on August 23, 2006. Earlier Preapplication Review Meeting—A few months before the Habigs filed the current tentative map application, they filed for a preapplication review with the Department for a similar proposal. That submittal led to a meeting with staff where General Plan factors, zoning regulations, subdivision improvement and environmental review requirements of the County were discussed. VI. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT There are several actions and findings that must be made before the County may consider approval of this project. A. Compliance with CEQA-The County must comply with the review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Minimally, staff must complete an initial study to determine if there is any substantial evidence that the project would result in a significant effect on the environment. • If that study were to determine that no significant effects would • result from the project, staff could propose adoption of a Negative Declaration. That proposed determination would have to issued to all CEQA "responsible or trustee agencies" for this project (e.g., California Dept. of Fish & Game); owners of adjacent properties and other interested parties. There would be a minimum 30-day public comment period before the Commission could consider adoption of the Negative Declaration. The Commission would also need to consider the proposed Negative Declaration with any public comments received during the public review process before considering any approval of the project. • If that study identified one or more significant impacts, but also identified measures that would reduce those impacts to a less than significant level, and the applicant agreed to those measures, then staff could propose adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The process for adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration mirrors the process for a Negative Declaration. • If that study determined that the project resulted in one or more significant impacts and no measures to mitigate them to a less than significant level, then an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would have to be prepared. An EIR would closely study possible • environmental impacts of the project and try to identify measures 8 that would mitigate those impacts or alternatives to the project that • would mitigate those impacts. The EIR is subject to public review and comment, and must be found adequate prior to consideration of approval of the project. An EIR is normally prepared by a private consultant under the direction of staff. By ordinance, the cost of an EIR is borne exclusively by the applicant and is paid before the consultant contracts with the County for the work. B. County Finding that Project is Consistent with the General Plan— State and County subdivision law prohibit the County from approving a tentative map unless it finds the proposed subdivision together with its provision for improvement and design to be consistent with the General Plan. C. Compliance with Applicable Zoning Regulations—The subdivision must comply with applicable zoning regulations including the standards of the A-2 ordinance. D. Compliance with Other Applicable Development Controls—The subdivision must comply with other development controls that apply to the property. • VII. DISCOVERY OF PARCEL MAP NOTE RESTRICTION AND DISCUSSIONS WITH APPLICANT The Applicant had not brought the Parcel Map Note development restriction to the attention of the Project Planner at the time the tentative map application was filed. It was not until several months into the processing of the tentative map that the Project Planner learned of the development restriction in the 1993 Parcel Map Note that applied to this site from another planner. (The Project Planner also was not aware, until recently, of the processing of the Gregory minor subdivision application on the adjacent property.) Based on this information, staff determined that the additional proposed parcels and building sites (three 2-acre sites) for this project would not comply with the Parcel Map Note restriction that limits the project to a 3-acre building site. Further,before the County could allow such a subdivision, • An additional subdivision application would have to be filed, approved by the County, and completed to modify the 1993 Parcel Map so as to not include this requirement. No such application to eliminate the existing Parcel Map Note has been filed to date; and • An application to eliminate the Parcel Map Note would have to be • included in the environmental review for the subject property. That 9 1 review would need to consider the potential environmental effects of • eliminating the restriction on the other parcels of MS 64-90. Staff informed the applicant of these new concerns, and that as a consequence staff was not going to be able to support the project, and to instead schedule the matter for an early hearing before the County Planning Commission so that the Commission could determine whether there is any merit in continuing to process the application. VIII. OTHER PERTINENT GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES In addition to the General Plan policies described above, other General Plan goals and policies are relevant to the review of this application. They include the policies identified in Attachment "A". IX. DISCUSSION A. Reference to Relinquishment of Development Rights—The Parcel Map Note indicates that "when the pending General Plan amendment has been adopted, the County will consider relinquishing the development rights. " It is not clear what was intended by this language. In 1992, when staff endorsed its use, the County had completed the adoption of a major update of the General Plan the previous year. There was no other General Plan • review affecting this site in 1992. Staff surmises that the subdivision review had begun prior to the 1991 General Plan update, and that notwithstanding the timing of the memo,was intended as a reference to that earlier review. However, no development rights within the subdivision have been legally conveyed to the County within the subdivision to date. Only the Board of Supervisors is authorized to quitclaim development rights held by the County. B. Applicant's Challenge of Staff Position on "Enforceability" of Parcel Map Note—The applicant has not accepted staff s interpretation that the Parcel Map Note is legally enforceable. In a letter dated January 27, 2006, the legal counsel for the applicant claims that: • The County waived or relinquished its ability to require development rights; and • The Parcel Map Note is unenforceable. C. Staff Assessment After Reviewing Legal Opinion from Applicant—After reviewing the opinion from the applicant's legal counsel, staff has concluded that: • 10 • • The Parcel Map Note is a valid exercise of the County's police power under the California Constitution; • The available evidence does not support the Applicant's contention that the issuance of a building permit waived the Parcel Map Note; • The Parcel Map Note may be enforced upon application of future building permits and considered in the processing of the Tentative Map and associated environmental reviews; and • Notwithstanding the enforceability of the Parcel Map Note, the County may require compliance with the condition before issuance of further building permits. D. Process to Remove Parcel Map Not —Government Code Section 66469 of the Map Act provides that a parcel map that has been recorded may be amended with a certificate of correction or amending map for purposes that are specified in that statute. However, removal of the subject Parcel Map Note does not meet any of the specified purposes in this statute. Consequently, it appears that the only method to remove the Parcel Map Note would be by filing new tentative and parcel maps that do not include this particular condition, and having both maps approved in sequence by the County. Further, submittal of these applications by the Habigs alone would not be sufficient. The tentative and parcel map submittals would • need to be applied for by the owners of the other three parcels, plus the owner of the remainder.4 E. Tentative Map Note on Domestic Water Supply to Parcel A—The tentative map indicates that water will be provided by wells. However, the map also indicates that the water to Parcel A will be provided by "domestic water supply." It is not clear what is meant by this reference. The site is located outside of the Urban Limit Line,but the service area of the Contra Costa Water District adjoins the west side of the site. There appears to have been some discussion with the Health Services Department about connection to the Water District. General Plan policy and zoning regulation provide that to the extent legally permitted, the County is to advise the Local Agency Formation Commission to respect the Urban Limit Line when considering requests for annexations of land to a service district. F. Concerns with Proposal The applicant has the right to pursue the proposed subdivision. However, in addition to the existing tentative map application, an additional tentative map application would have to be filed that is also supported by the • a If the Habigs were to show that it is not possible to get the owners of other subdivision properties to participate in an application to amend the subdivision map,then they could review the matter with staff. 11 owners of other properties within the:Parcel Map for MS 64-90 to allow • for its concurrent review with this application. The County would have to conduct an environmental review that satisfied CEQA for both applications. However, regardless of what an environmental review might indicate, based on the available evidence, staff does not believe it could support these applications for the following reasons: • The introduction of smaller agricultural parcels and greater residential density would not be consistent with the General Plan policies aimed at promoting the economic viability of the County's agricultural economy; allowing development on geologically unstable areas; restricting development on hillsides and protection of open space. • The additional development from this project may result in development that would detract from views from Marsh Creek Road, a designated scenic route. • The approval of this subdivision may encourage subdivision of other properties created by the 1993 Parcel Map; that additional development may result in similar adverse effects to the viability of agricultural operations in the area and detract from the views of the area as seen from Marsh Creek Road and other vantage points. . • The Applicant has not provided staff with a compelling reason as to why the existing development restriction in the Parcel Map Note should not be enforced. To try to minimize unnecessary fee charges to this project, staff has discontinued the processing of this application to bring the matter to the Planning Commission so that the Commission could hear testimony from the applicant and other interested parties to determine if the project may have any merit. One consequence of this action is that staff has not yet completed the CEQA review for the-proj ect. However, any benefits that may accrue to the County from approval of this project are outweighed by furtherance of General Plan open space protection goals and policies that is served by compliance with the Parcel Map Note. Accordingly, the project should be denied. X. POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE COMMISSION ACTION The Department has received comments from various public agencies and Save Mount Diablo. Save Mount Diablo identifies a range of environmental concerns with the project, and has also expressed concern about the project's compliance • with the Parcel Map Note. 12 • Several public agencies have expressed concerns with the proposed development, most of which were not specifically related to the Parcel Map Note. Among the public entities expressing concern with the project are: California Department of Fish & Game East Bay Regional Park District County Planning Geologist (Darwin Myers Associates) Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division Copies of their correspondence are contained in the Staff Report Addendum. Notwithstanding the staff concerns with the project, if the Planning Commission determines that the project may have merit and the applicant is willing to file an additional application for concurrent processing of a new tentative map for File #MS 64-90 and approval and recording of an amended Parcel Map, then staff would recommend that the Commission: • Continue the hearing on this project to an indefinite date to allow for processing of the new application, and compliance of the whole of the project with the review requirements of CEQA; and • • Reschedule and re-notice the matter for a future hearing of the Planning Commission and issue a new public notice on the project after the foregoing matters have been addressed. • 13 ADDENDUM • Agency and Group Comments on MS 64-90 (Habig) A. Health Services Department/Environmental Health: Memorandum dated August 3, 2005. Wells have not been drilled on parcels A & C, nor have "will serve" letters from Contra Costa Water District been presented, to establish the availability of approved water supplies for those parcels. Parcel B has an approved supply well (except for bacteriology). Site &soil work has been done by BETA Engineering for on-site wastewater treatment systems. Therefore, e-mail dated 1/31/05 to project planner regarding PR050002. remains in effect. (The 1/31/2005 E-mail from HSD indicates that the it is not satisfied that two of the proposed parcels have a satisfactory water supply: Parcels A and C. The E-mail recommends that the project not be allowed until the applicant provides either a"will-serve" letter from the Contra Costa Water District or demonstrates (well)water supplies on each parcel meet the County's standards. CDD Staff Comment— The General Plan Rural Residential Development policy (8-v)specifies how the water supply requirements are to be met for any approval of this subdivision. The policy provides that prior to approval of a • Parcel Map, the applicant must either: • Each parcel must have an "on-site"producing water well or install a "test well"having a minimum yield of three gallons per minute with bacterial and chemical quality in compliance with the State standards for a pure, wholesome and potable water supply; or • Have verifiable water availability data from adjacent parcels presented by the applicant, or knowledge of the same, known by the Health Services Department concerning quality and quantity per (above standards); • In addition, a hydrogeological evaluation may be required in known or water short areas. This will include seasonal as well as yearly variations. The policy allows an exception to these and other Rural Residential Development policy criteria to be considered by the Planning Commission upon a showing, in writing, of unique or unusual circumstances relative to the subject property. Timin,e of Demonstration of Water Supply Availability- This policy does not require a developer to demonstrate the availability of water sooner than the parcel map stage. Were the Commission to consider approval of this tentative • map, staff would recommend that the Commission condition its approval on 14 • compliance with the water supply demonstration requirements of this policy prior to approval of a parcel map. Potential Connection to Contra Costa Water District- The Tentative Map indicates that water is to be provided by wells on each proposed parcel. The Applicant has not requested any exception to the Rural Residential Development criteria such as allowing water supply to be provided by Contra Costa Water District. The service area of the Contra Costa Water District abuts the west side of this site. However, annexation of this site into the District would not be consistent with the Urban Limit Line General Plan policies and zoning regulations. Thus, if the applicant were to modify the project to propose that water supplies be met by connection to Contra Costa Water District, there may be an additional reason to find the project inconsistent with the General Plan. B. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District: Memorandum dated August 4, 2005. See attached. C. California Historical Resources Information System: Memorandum dated August 11,2005. The proposed project area has the possibility of containing unrecorded archaeological site(s). A study is recommended prior to • commencement of project activities. Review for possible historic structures was limited to the Northwest Information Centers documents and should not be considered comprehensive. Since the Office of Historic Preservation has determined that any building or structure 45 years or older maybe of historic value, therefore if the project area contains such properties it is recommended that they be evaluated by an architectural historian prior to commencement of project activities. Sta Response—The applicant provided staff with an archaeological reconnaissance report that identified no significant archaeological resources on the subject site. D. California Department of Fish & Game: Memorandum dated August 19, 2005 and April 7, 2006. The CDFG has requested a complete assessment of flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area, with particular emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, and locally unique species and sensitive habitats. The agency has reviewed a biological assessment and jurisdictional determination for the Habig project, and determined that the site provides suitable habitat for several protected species, and is recommending • consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and CDFG for any project on this site. 15 E. East Bay Regional Park District: Memorandum dated August 17, 2005. The • Park District has received and received the referral on the subject application. The Park District's Clayton Ranch Landbank is located north west of this proposed project. There is not a direct impact from this proposal. However, the District's concern is that this is a piecemeal subdivision. The property was the result of past subdivision and now it is being further subdivided. This raises the question as to good and logical subdivision of land. The Park District requests all future information on this application be sent to them so as follow the project through the planning process and know what the final result is on this proposal. F. Building Inspection Dgpartment/Grading Division: Memorandum dated August 19, 2005. No Grading shown at this time. Fire District to review driveway design and location. Grading permits and Geotechnical Investigations maybe needed for future development. Roadway currently in place outside of Right of Way easement. G. Save Mt. Diablo: Letter dated February 28, 2006 opposing the project which it feels conflicts with the Parcel Map Note development restriction. Before considering any approval, the group recommends that the County prepare and • adopt an EIR that studies various potential environmental impacts it feels may result from the project. H. Public Works Department Background The applicant proposes to subdivide an approximately 38-acre parcel into three parcels and a remainder parcel. The site is located on the north side of Marsh Creek Road at Bragdon Way in the Clayton area. A preapplication review (PR 05-0002) was previously submitted for this project and our comments dated February 8, 2005 have been incorporated into this staff report and conditions of approval. Traffic and Circulation Bragdon Way is a paved private road providing access to the site from Marsh Creek Road. Bragdon Way meanders through adjacent properties and the applicant shall confirm that the necessary access rights have been obtained and furnish such proof to Public Works, Engineering Services Division. The applicant shall construct any necessary improvements to insure that the • private road(Bragdon Way) is in conformance with private road design 16 standards with a minimum traveled way width of 20 feet within a 30-foot • access easement. The applicant shall be granted an exception from this requirement provided the private road (Bragdon Way)has a minimum traveled way width of 18 feet with a minimum 1-foot wide shoulder on each side within a 25- foot access easement, as shown on the tentative map. The exception is appropriate due to existing right of way constraints. Any driveway access serving the proposed parcels shall be constructed/improved to rural driveway standards. Project access roads and driveways are subject to the review of the Fire District. The applicant shall insure there is adequate sight distance at the intersection of Marsh Creek Road and Bragdon Way for a through traffic design speed of 55 miles per hour. Drainage The applicant may be granted an exception from the collect and convey requirements of the County Ordinance Code due to the large size of the proposed parcels, provided that there are no known drainage problems on- site, the existing drainage pattern is maintained, and concentrated storm water runoff is not discharged onto adjacent properties. • In compliance with the County's Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, it has been determined that the applicant is not required to submit a Stormwater Control Plan(SWCP) for this project. New or redeveloped impervious surface area totals less than one acre(43,560 square feet), which is threshold requirement for submittal of a SWCP. However, this project is required to incorporate storm water quality elements to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). This must include efforts to limit new impervious surface area, limit directly connected impervious areas,provide for self retaining areas and include other Best Management Practices to the MEP. I. Archaeological Concerns In response the comments received from the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), the applicant submitted an Archaeological Field Inspection Report prepared by Holman &Associates dated October 25, 2005. Field Inspection A visual inspection of the project area was completed by Mr. Holman during the second week of October-2005. The visual inspection was limited to those spurs of the south trenching ridges which were found off of the existing paved • roadway into the property where it might have been possible to find evidence of 17 resource exploitation(mainly use of exposed bedrock, of which there is none); the remainder of the property is simply too steep to have supported aboriginal • camp or village locations, and the property lacks any usable surface water sources. Less than 5% of the total property was inspected visually for indications of Native American use or habitation. Findings/Recommendations In summary,no evidence of Native American use and/or habitation was discovered inside the project borders. While the property does border a resource rich environment which supported Native Americans in the past, it is devoid of any resources which would have warranted climbing up to the ridge found north of it: the area is lacking in bedrock outcrops which could have been exploited for artifact grade stone and/or used as grinding stations or for rock art repositories, and the existing scatter of oak trees (probably similar to the numbers found in prehistoric times) would not have justified the climb.' Future splitting of the lot and construction of additional structures and/or grading of roadways and installations of leach fields will have no effect on cultural resources. This report does not recommend that mechanical subsurface presence/absence testing be done, and does not recommend that an archaeologist be retained to monitor any future construction related earthmoving activities. • J. Biological Concerns Biological Assessment and Jurisdictional Determination Report The applicant submitted as part of the application submittal package a Biological Assessment and Jurisdictional Determination for the 38+/- acre parcel prepared by Sycamore Associates LLC, dated July 12, 2005. The survey was intended as an initial evaluation of on-site habitat types, an assessment of the potential for occurrence of special-status plant and wildlife species, and a preliminary jurisdictional determination. Summary In summary, Sycamore Associates report determined that no special-status plant species were detected during the reconnaissance-level survey. Sycamore's assessment of regional botanical distributions and on-site habitats, 11 special- status plant species have the potential to occur on site although none were detected. Based on Sycamore's assessment and the site reconnaissance, further special-status plant surveys are not needed. Sycamore's report also determined that no special-status animal species were detected during the reconnaissance-level survey. According to Sycamore there • 18 • are known occurrences in the vicinity of the study area of California red-legged frog, federally-listed Threatened and a California Species of Special Concern, California tiger salamander, federally-listed Threatened and a California Species of Special Concern, and Alameda whipsnake, federally-and stated-listed Threatened. However, Sycamore reports that the study area has a very low potential to provide movement and/or migration opportunities for these species. Peer Review of Biological Assessment A 30 day comment letter was received from the California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) requesting that a complete biological assessment be prepared by the applicant with particular emphasis upon flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project site and identifying rare, threatened and endangered species with particular attention to Alameda whipsnake, California tiger salamander and red-legged frog. At this time, CDFG had not reviewed the Sycamore Report. Staff requested the County's Biological Consultant firm, Monk&Associates (M&A) to prepare a peer review of Sycamore's report in reference to the letter received from CDFG. The peer review was to determine whether or not Sycamore's report properly identified all the concerns outlined in CDGF's 30 day comments. A response to M&A peer review from Sycamore was received by the Community Development Department on December 1, 2005. For the Commission's review, staff has included this letter as an • attachment. M &A's review discussed the actions necessary to resolve threatened and endangered species issues related to the proposed subdivision and development proj ect. 1. California Red-Legged Fromm Data has confirmed that the California red-legged frog will travel between known breeding sites. South of the Habig's property is Marsh Creek known to support this frog. In addition the pond 1,000 feet north and the spring immediately adjacent to this site is likely to provide habitat for this frog. In order to determine if the project would or would not impact the California red- legged frog, and for the County to prepare a defensible California Environmental Quality Act document, a California red-legged frog "Site Assessment"must be prepared pursuant to the guidelines prescribed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) in the August 2005 Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California red-legged frog. 2. California Tiger Salamander- M&A concurs with Sycamore's finding that the California tiger salamander has potential to occur within the project site. There are known sightings of the California tiger salamander within 1.0 mile of the project site. Therefore,M&A • concludes that in order to address a potential impact, the applicant 19 must prepare a California tiger salamander Site Assessment following • the guidelines prescribed by CDF and USFWS. 3. Alameda Whipsnake: On October 19, 2005, the USFWS released the critical habitat designations for the Alameda whipsnake. The project site is included within Critical Habitat Unit 4. According to CDFG's Natural Diversity Database, one Alameda whipsnake sighting has been recorded within one mile of the project site in oak and foothill pine woodland. In order to determine if the project could affect the Alameda whipsnake, M&A suggests that the applicant hire a federal and state permitted biologist to conduct an Alameda whipsnake habitat assessment of the project site. As another option, the applicant could assume that the Alameda whipsnake uses the site and mitigate by contributing an amount consistent with that identified in the Draft East Contra Costa Habitat Conservation Program(HCP) for coastal scrub/chaparral habitat. 4. Special-Status Plants: The project site provides suitable habitat for special-status plant species known from oak woodland and grassland habitats in the County. The Sycamore Report based on a June site visit to the property was not sufficient to determine the presence or absence of special-status plants. Additional surveys must be conducted during the spring by a qualified biologists according to CDFG's special-status plant survey guidelines. On April 10, 2006, the Community Development Department received a second • letter from the California Department of Fish & Game (DFG). This letter confirms their review of the Sycamore's Biological Assessment and Jurisdictional Determination. Consultation with the USFWS and DFG be required for any on site development. Based on landscape position and on-site conditions, DFG recommends that a formal red legged-frog site assessment and protocol level surveys for California tiger salamander and Alameda whipsnake are appropriate for this site. In addition, mitigation for direct take of trees that support nesting raptors should be provided regardless of the time of year the nest site is destroyed. K. Geological Constraints The applicant submitted along with the application a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Ting &Associates dated September 19, 2005. A peer review was prepared by the County's Geologist, Darwin Myers on December 19, 2005. 1. Required Information—Tentative Map According to Mr. Myers's peer review, the tentative map is not readable and must include all geological hazards associated with the property. The • geotechnical report references a landslide on Parcel B, however, the slide is 20 1' • not shown clearly on the tentative map. Further, he indicates that there is insufficient data to provide a CEQA review of the project. 2. Ting Geotechnical Report The geotechnical report concludes, from a geotechnical perspective, that the project is feasible. The report provides criteria for site preparation and general construction requirements. According to Mr. Myers, the Ting report made every effort to evaluate subsurface conditions based on borehole an laboratory data, however, there was no geological data. Mr. Myers determined that the construction of a residence and a leachfield is not feasible on Parcel B. He suggested that three lots could possibly work with the reconfiguration of the subdivision. A revised subdivision should show all building sites safely setback from the massive slide area previously mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey, accompanied by a detailed engineering geologic report. 3. Driveway and Building Site Mr. Myers recommends that the applicant show conceptual grading for driveways and building sites, and that the engineering geologist evaluate • these plans and provide criteria for the height and steepness of all proposed graded slopes. D:\personal\habig\rns05-0030-d.rpt • 21 Attachment "A" • Listingof Pertinent General ral Plan Policies and Goals Proposed Habig Minor Subdivision Clayton/Marsh Creek area County File #MS05-0030 Among the General Plan Policies and Goals that pertain to the review of the above captioned minor subdivision application are the following: Land Use Element 3-G To discourage development on vacant rural lands outside of planned urban areas which is not related to agriculture,mineral extraction, wind energy or other appropriate rural uses; discourage subdivision down to the minimum parcel size of rural lands that are within, or accessible only through, geologically unstable areas; and to protect open hillsides and significant ridgelines. 3-M Protect and promote the economic viability of agricultural land. • 3-10 The extension of urban services into agricultural areas outside the Urban Limit Line, especially growth-inducing infrastructure, shall be generally discouraged.' 3-11 Preservation and buffering of agricultural land should be encouraged as it is critical to maintaining a healthy and competitive agricultural economy and assuring a balance of land uses. Preservation and conservation of open space, wetlands, parks, hillsides and ridgelines should be encouraged as it is curcial to preserve the continued availability of unique habitats for wildlife and plants, to protect unique scenery and provide a wide range of recreational opportunities for County residents. 3-t Enforce the restrictions on open hillsides and significant ridgelines in the Open Space Element and protect hillsides with a grade of 26 percent or greater through implementing zoning and other appropriate measures and actions. 3-v To the extent legally permitted, advise LAFCO to (a)respect and support the County's 65/35 Preservation Standard, Urban Limit Line and growth management standards when considering requests for incorporation or annexation to cities or service districts, (b) apply the stricter of the growth management standards of either the County, the incorporating city or the annexing city of service district, • Relevant if the Applicant modifies the Tentative Map to amend the water supply from wells to the Contra Costa Water District,whose service area abuts the west side of the site. Attachment A Pertinent General Policies Minor Subdivision File#MS05-0030(Habig) when considering requests for incorporation or annexations of land to cities or service districts, .... 0 Transportation and Circulation Element 5-R To identify, preserve and enhance scenic rouges :in the County. 5-35 Scenic corridors shall be maintained with the intent of protecting attractive natural qualities adjacent to various roads throughout the county. 5-37 Scenic views observable from scenic;routes shall be conserved, enhanced, and protected to the extent possible. Conservation Element 8-G To encourage and enhance agriculture, and to maintain and promote a healthy and competitive agricultural economy. 8-29 Large continuous areas of the County should be encouraged to remain in agricultural production, as long as economically viable. 8-32 Agriculture shall be protected to assure a balance in land use. The policies of Measure C— 1990 shall be enforced. 8-36 Agriculture shall be protected from nuisance complaints from non-agricultural land uses. 8-v Rural Residential Development Implementation Measure (see attached copy from General Plan text) 8-w Within the major resource conservation areas, consider approval of development that is only directly related to agricultural production, recreation, water-related recreation, or the utilization of mineral, soil, water, and animal resources; or agricultural/residential uses of similar character, Open Space Element 9-A To preserve and protect the ecological, scenic and cultural/historic, and recreational resource land of the County. 9-1 Permanent open space shall be provided within the County for a variety of open space uses. 9-8 Development project environmental review will consider the effect of the project on the County's open space resources, whenever the project proposes to convert A-2 Attachment A Pertinent General Policies Minor Subdivision File#MS05-0030(Habig) • substantial amounts of land from an open space designation to an urban development designation. 9-14 ... Slopes of 26 percent or more should generally be protected and are generally not desirable for conventional cut-and-fill pad development. Development on open hillsides and significant ridgelines shall be restricted. 9-b Carefully study and review any development projects which would have the potential to degrade the scenic qualities of major significant ridges in the County.... Safety Element 10-24 .... Development on very steep open hillsides and significant ridgelines throughout the County shall be restricted, and hillsides with a grade of 26 percent or greater shall be protected through implementing zoning measures and other appropriate actions. 10-25 Subdivision of rural lands outside of planned urban areas down to the allowed minimum parcel size shall be discouraged, if the parcels are within, or only accessible through, geologically unstable areas. • 10-28 Generally, residential density shall be considered unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading or other land disturbance. 10-29 Significant very steep hillsides shall be considered unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading or other land disturbance. Att. Agricultural Resource Implementation Measure 8-v(Rural Residential Development policy, excerpted from the General Plan Conservation Element) D:\personal\habig\gp pol.lst • A-3 • I�e��ii� ��K • • PARCEL MAP SLSWO" MS 54-90 V T WEST V2 OF z f O MOUNT MABLO B 1 EAST) AW AND MBVWV� CONTRA COSTA COUNTY C.AtIFORfi11R DK ASSOCIATES 1444D M4RtA LAW-SURE ?DO K'M-Wjf MEEK. CA 9.459 1991 Fhb TLS rD TOMP, A ''� Llf? 9_R D k; Pi7q W T, �' iT R 1 p Al SI£CT A IXIC. y G 31 TE Nip D[ED ACK UM pARCEI_ �0'NTRATll AMY FOUR ALL BUT (3� AGREEWNf SHS GjR per_ IMS A�� acs OR EL snmT� �� FtE a �a�T"R� • uj � Ht� R F&'AaA f� TSE DCao� °a' ' �G �:.5Wt4IGFC REPORT srmcmENT rr-tSNWM STUDY- D11RD ND1�� � 19MAAMnRLU BY ENGEa, N� rKr . F19— rHESE QTS , SLE "a. O BY CS, a STdDY OF £ AVtitl,�gi.F t o9 RFMw I TY r�tC�P1�E��i D{PM.`� S;CZERiX OF THE _Fwo Q y E $ CERTli_1CAT RATE 01F OX&TY OF 1 TRA ODSTA � Ste. 4 PHiI BATDFe TSE B+DAi A� o� o� °� �Y r Y ST�TL TMT THE F '1R A off^,T l ENT, CF C-'��K By LAW T� cU4 M LM T� 9 NK L ENT, SVVY�RS�GW tEOF MMS, AS PFDVJXD tV HEO ow THE a fE;tJJPQN � THAT SAM flOF AsSE]D AND YUPER 5 Dip • ADD?rcD At ��LWWON ASOWG� TDE" SM /am, OR [SETS {�PUHIC V� F �1'f� �Y 1Nl�T AL APMUyn By 7W Booft LL �� u F��� B Y LAW'AX 7D SHA 4 c �D�t SATT�'m Nei 'tNAT CD W OUM Or SUFE y� 0r COG TIE 1I[fHtt At.1p 1,41 E 8 GU1 CotaYiY * Morgan Miller Blair 1616 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD,SUITE 200 WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94596-4137 A LAW CORPORATION 925.937. 925.943.1106 FAx www.mmblaw.com PATRICIA E.CURTIN (925)979-3353 pcurtin@mmblaw.com January 27, 2006 Rose Marie Pietras Senior Planner Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, 2nd Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Parcel Map No. 64-90 Owners: Habig Our File No. 10230-001 Dear Rose Marie: • We have been retained by Kandell Habig, owner of Parcel "A" shown on Parcel Map No. 64-90 ("Parcel Map") (attached as Exhibit A). As you know, our client submitted an application for a subdivision of Parcel A into four lots ("proposed subdivision"). The County is questioning whether the proposed subdivision can be processed because the Parcel Map contains a "note" specifying that a deed restriction may be required before issuance of a grading or building permit which would in effect limit one residential unit on Parcel A. Grading and building permits were issued several years ago for Parcel A and the County never required a dedication of development rights. The County either waived or relinquished their ability to obtain development rights and cannot now enforce this note as explained in more detail below. I met with Bob Drake on December 20, 2005 to discuss this issue. I stated that I would put in writing our client's position which is the purpose of this letter. I would be more than willing to discuss this issue with County Counsel if Planning Staff doesn't agree with our position. 1. Factual Background In 1991, the County approved Minor Subdivision No. 64-90 with conditions (attached as Exhibit B). Condition No. 2 required that the applicant/owner provide an agricultural conservation easement on 168 acres of the project site (this includes Parcel A and three other parcels) and that building site areas would be permitted not to exceed three acres. The • agricultural easement was to be shown on the Parcel Map and in a deed restriction. MMB:10230-001:599890.1 r e. Rose Marie Pietras January 27, 2006 Page 2 • On June 22, 1993 the Parcel Map was approved by the Board of Supervisors. The Parcel Map did not show the agricultural easement. The Parcel Map simply included the following note on its face page: Prior to obtaining a grading permit or building permit, the applicant/owner shall select a building site and deed development rights to Contra Costa County for all but (3) acre of each parcel excluding the remainder parcel. This agreement shall not prevent the erection of agricultural related buildings or structures anywhere on the site subject to zoning related setbacks. When the pending general plan amendment has been adopted, the County will consider relinquishing the development rights. In late 1990, our clients purchased Parcel A and obtained grading and building permits from the County to erect their residence. The County did not inform our client of the possible deed restriction requirement and there is no deed restriction recorded against Parcel A. The first our client heard of this note was in mid-2005 after they filed their request for the proposed subdivision. 2. Legal Analysis • a. The County Waived or Relinquished its Ability to Require Development Rights Before a county can approve a parcel map, it must determine that the parcel map is substantially the same as the tentative map. Gov't Code Sect. 66450(a)(2). As evidenced by the handwritten notations on the conditions of approval, the requirements in Condition No.2 were "satisfied" by placing the note on the Parcel Map. This note satisfied Condition No. 2 which was affirmed by the Board of Supervisors when it approved the Parcel Map. When our clients applied for and received grading and building permits, they were not informed of the note. As a result, our clients were never directed to deed development rights to the County. By not enforcing the note (assuming the County had the legal ability to do so), the County either waived or relinquished its ability to obtain the development rights. The note states that the County will consider relinquishing the development rights if in fact the pending general plan amendment is adopted. We believe the referenced general plan amendment was adopted (we believe this was the amendment to reflect Measure C which resulted in the "General Plan 1990-2005"). It is logical to assume the County elected not to require our client to provide an agricultural easement since the general plan amendment was adopted. • MMB:10230-001:599890.1 Rose Marie Pietras January 27, 2006 • Page 3 Our position that the County relinquished its ability to obtain the development rights is supported by the memorandum to J.M. Walford from Harvey Bragdon dated April 1, 1992 (attached as Exhibit C). This memo states that the "...requirement to deed development rights and restrict building sites will no longer be applied to new proposals at the direction of the Board and is to be replaced by the Board's "Ranchette" policy." The Ranchette policy is contained in the General Plan and may be applied to the proposed subdivision. Assuming the County did not consciously make a decision on the enforcement of this note, but simply overlooked it, the County cannot now require our client to comply. As specified in the note, it could only be enforced at the time grading and/or building permits were obtained. This time has long since lapsed. b. The Note on the Parcel Map is Unenforceable In order for an interest in real property to be created (like the agricultural easement/development rights), the interest needs to be created and recorded. If there is a note on a map or a condition of approval that requires an easement to be provided, this easement cannot be created as a matter of law merely because it is referenced on a parcel map or in a condition. The easement has to be created, accepted and recorded before it can be effectuated, which did • not occur in the present situation. (See, Mikels v. Rager (1991) 232 Cal. App.3d 334.) In Mikels, there was a notation and condition of approval on a parcel map that required certain roads to be dedicated. This dedication never occurred because it was never accepted by the county and no documents or private easements were created by separate instrument. As a result, the court determined that the notation and condition on the map was not effectuated and did not, as a matter of law, create an easement. The County could have obtained an agricultural easement from the applicant of the Parcel Map. For example, the County clearly could have required the applicant to create and record an agricultural easement before it approved the Parcel Map but it did not do so. Or, the County could have required the applicant to clearly designate the easement areas on the Parcel Map thereby allowing the County to `'accept" the dedication but it did not do so. Moreover, the Parcel Map does not identify the "acceptance" of the dedication which is required by the County Code. Section 94-4.210. Also, the "easement" was not created as required in Section 94.4.214 of the County Code. The note is simply a note; it has no legal enforcement power. • MMB:10230-001:599890.1 Rose Marie Pietras January 27, 2006 Page 4 • We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue with you in more detail if you think necessary. Itis clear that the note on the Parcel Map is not legally enforceable. Even if it is, the requirements therein were either waived by the County when it issued the permits or the County specifically relinquished its ability to obtain the development rights when it did not require our client to deed the development rights before issuing the permits. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please resume your efforts in processing the proposed subdivision. As always if you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, N ILLER BLAIR PATRICIA E. CURTIN PEC:klm Enclsoures cc: Robert Drake Principal Planner(w/encls.) • Charles Capp, Bellecci & Associates (w/encls.) Kandell Habig (w/encls.) • MMB:10230-001:599890.1 C yVC/ 01 �t q z a EtFd� K II G LL 280 651161H,a �� g „b g� w �d w b B@ oujMuj co w o W p�O¢m � a - W (�to OM NZD�Q g= Ox O Wwz tL ad< ° em g g.•� b � � a �.� W �� d ofRim ls@" zz o g�g � s e �� � x ` 0k �tl W 4 � b Q 0� � w z rn 0 I ui N 0 � z < lia F • 9� i t W C J g G �g e :orb ?eaa a ,EbF � �I c" ��•Sl,,` � F� ��� Pv{ � RItORY RO. lip !!,Y:!, `�0fgly_ b �1�d o � NON I Li E6686 ° b g g � e J j �� ba eSW� b MIN m@ g g ffR o lift • ° H Q " E Exb 6t A � F e9[ co 7 CL r m F- ��WCJA� FF8 aCS��a 4J U'cgo=� a N Wcwo ZZ C)O� m 3 g m LC F gx ocjgo;s< nen i I <Li�a Q ¢w , em m wpm= mga aN �Zt-8 3 vi p W m ~ 2 0 1 LL Opp 4: o�aC�� `.fig 4r-y 3 _ 18^9'4 QeLl I a �ott�J� y OQO i P = QKJ O 3 - W2 <L)O 8 = ot�`5a� ¢ oUi M, Z °•' N 17 lq6 _�►�.O JNC a1 N O cP QSyTU� Q Lu \ G z iKz ' LLJ Or` n S G 9 b4 n z s," 41 4o m a �o u�yg d a.` yLj _ V y DDD V / = D Yj zm � �•4y //' F-s0 $�g 2Cl 8ry Q'� p gi<., Z m N W J>� �.`-0� < 8 u 5331.46' � N 0S a5'S8N' 2664.14' 1333.67' LD UD Z % + Q G L.7 W Q L) w U 5 w aN � B W\ m « e U) Cts. �/w Q- Lr) u Z m P.m?N e �W Z N W ��/� a - / o U) °i U U `< h � 76•W = N 02.471'56'W Z " N CI 312.71'w Om 13:.4.29' abn L, ��� ; n ,!� a - m•7 �+ m- N do ���� w 11F� L-d GVI L1J W = S aLi bm '(L U w = �," _ - 4 Q -J' 5? SII 6N /� Q..4:- m ��d.3 �IYt §m UO /<rv�oU 2671.61' 1���1335.91' N OPS4}T6 w��2��0'' iwurA.F Zp _ -- N 00'54'16• W 1291.94' n' N OT 41'56 W 4007.42' in ASSUMEDIn6 COR.-0.SSUmei O O 0 SECT.Cm COR. _ Q FO 1,4 ED �SOUTN,,,IER I pl - J SECTIONS 20/z7 By c6`fRA C'3STA *04 U- FO Q .J U COUNTY(19 LSIA 491 AL-A A5.`.UUED 'moi FEC, CORNER F THIS SURVEY. I U 03 CLr-ON RANCH JNVFFrORS o 7D59 OR 249 -O U rz TZ 9 I • (N 0'41'37' W 524.461(3 _ N 01'49'10' W 524.46' COLL c i C/)� h 4; LLJ :n W U U LL C) ��: _ g �^ ®dry �: � g ! W �o�g = OOW r�Us1 a;S �'rs �a tSb��ZSuia3, o q= (/) Jz o ZCD OZLLQ=" M^{j& f o� mea Z_ry plapuScrOKoi �$QN� O�Q514; ZZ � Y 4a KC��zaZry �Vq4 d r'�c� 3t adWat ¢ �..4llircom� QmWi I �gI', �4 uj 0 , II 03ria w w_ N 8 �o g S2 "`°bg C 0�5 ry U o ®�� ¢ ;O fe FHUyr y O?'j �Q�'1 ¢¢_ 4 In N O n m 4j a I o au O 0 we n� �n82� � ry W fib' o �nrFj in �^'^ a OS S�iei ��<b(ae �o -W2BS4.26')t0 \en O _ (H tT14'SB'W 2850.66') 10 (N,4 45p'25 'N 2834 t2 o S QJ N 00'30'47- W 2550.82' O OU)0)� • as o°a Q I � o s re a♦ N osa5•s8• W SSYt.4B'(T) m a) 2664.14 LD 2 V .1cc C7 � ��effi Z O o ^ [L N oo= u a Lr) o 73 a Li �e Z !T acv ui Z a �{�y�nl ly. �N.�vn�TTn n ♦ @O (W47u Z3 i7 lKf a n o y O Q adJ � m•21 2 Nva g _ o ID '' �_•.�:° "_�- b ��e Q_ m mt� C ✓ z � UJ 3�ZH m0,u z�Nry N 02'41'56 W 2671.61' O�v�� • [,�� 6 N 0741'SC W 4007.42' (T) /Vo b?j 0(,� Pvcl Z91 _ Dos m LLI Ld _JQoda�o - o- LD Z m�� g << g� � N um o�ZOoo Q� ¢LU E Z aN �Z 0 o� uLL1 Z rn LLl 05 O � D m IL 02'47'56' W CY) O 3¢g m 1334.29' I O Z mS' o €Ll- F-U � ti o`J V3 z m �zi;iEs \ b" 3W< / 8} IT) m ^ �a �w \ co E2 6 w •¢W �$Nz'ii"' E��'��i?5���'���2SZs .�•r�Aro// .,t o 1L_L� ('J H. L,i, Je r ul 010 J ;� ry• / yy'v7 / 74,5 C1 1N 6 �l 1335.Bt' 20.70� W n n 2220.66' 430D4• n U W 4007.4 Z'(T) LLLLLL1�111 z���i(���00g��d 'N O7'41'S6 W 2671.61' mOT NN^� CU'RON R/V,tGR INVESTORS Q _rvn r�no�mm�= 7059 OR 249 • CC)o o � Lj Li v/ ALV ¢ 1" �`"• 0 OW¢W ¢ d43 S a_ a a I—JZZw �=U zW 1 d� �amv < 17 (n LLIO O �T� 1 p Q�rQ Q m W O� # ;G �a� o^� B� II N°meq O W „alp nW¢N� LL OtWP_ 0. H �O O z^�d N�7� zzu � NNZ- � ZOZZO Z(Z�SO� � ' I c» <yyryJJ#zOmpmp O� �d YmOW ¢€Y8 N��< ;°N��YF ZFmWU I Q WI) L u<�Nn�wTT �WFO 1���� ���n NQOJ pJ2� �=UF �tO �sas] In OO IZ� W {ZJ�Nm PN�m Z ME Vm<NNnN �V1 S� zMO Zm m �i .1iiEawo��� - o$- �� 33 s yyJJUuU'F°N nNPO£ U1y��o ;;ly I N nYN Nm- W (NJ�InJ¢a�nnn '� WUf0O0 U+ OYN 1=/�P VI ryW W I1�Y•r� Z«W' GJm�FS io I.L� ^n p N N < W m 'J �- R J r Er J n L L J 6 2' im a H 02.47.56' = N 02'47'se' W zl 1. 572.07'(EASE. TIE) 1372.71 7t0_93m 7 y`r3 .p 1 I S. Rw all f O \ ' W —L n • N ^� Y c o = LLl O / rC 11 1 1 7 \•n`G¢J P OQ � bN N ° � .~.. O }n Sgm` n9d ow z pLn U7 b //h� �tl i`b� oS� O81'1 1 1 1 �1Wu.N�l �N -p •$Od Ory Yj L7� z :O^ 1 1 1 I u 1 N /� HS^ G¢J GAJ UJ Q �Qf O Iv / n oN- 1 1 GCJ H82 1 1 1 bb 4�/ / ♦ 1 1 1 � 7} i 1 N G¢J W ° Fg. /oA -Q FSG rgQ1 E 1� I I 1 1 1 'r'1pN +Op{ cc N W* I11 �� / OG T' �mNN QQ Q GE •,%// -gn YgiBm 2� /^r o� z�Ym� ry/ /; Ingi rc� Z Q zLli / Q_ N W Z C m G¢J • 2671.61 4007.A7' I < N 02'41'S6' W �y7pN RANCH INVIFIORS �P u 7059 OR 219 gu u P U U�. r r n NNS-nn♦ • J/tTc[ Z9 T 7� �<S�on nlnn 8 b of s aa�a S mmmuVOW 1 E n� �o O , ry Lu CL cIJ o¢ Q'Cr Z .mnlr:o�mn�1 , � W � � L� � e�-nagnn �[1ZIL w V)LL Fj Gz P w'n' OZ3 Np q&yp�S gY'DxO 'T' nN' D wV1D<Sio¢ OW W � ��� a ¢ oozocp• fnZO uSn H bgovoglovpnton ��n�ZZN W2 N�m (nES om- Q HggrN�_9NanNn auma�U O? J oY S W .n z W a P� I � rm.0 <Cpto H g< 0- m ncz;,co k':^,•.«N:ff$ •" t•' I I •10 CL N I 1333.87 CD N 0JY5'S� W 533L48' � O 1333.67'(1 ' 466.37 9 j �\ !. coLLJ =^ m \�\ rl- \D9.%,�. p W 4 pN O FID Q 1I �\ Nbp SJZp NF� Y3��dd518 ���jhg W IJ Z a !!nn 4.O n \n nog Hn^'v � ` 156a CL 0 yy LJ cl wW� �OFJ<J m z g I �.I 3�S onwn P.lp !n 1. p Q� �Y2o+ POW WZ WU ;I i �HN _�.�� ��On NNq'1 pJ2= I mHm M'1v. 41, �� n W H; 8 uj JI, L N�„•n Nen / �Cp~Y z O PN N 02'47'56'W «•� m nI' m� z ai t 1312.7t' m I N 02'47'S6� W I � � ttOJB' t,•� 572.07' (nE) 607.70'(nE) 1334.29'(17 t I Rv N m ¢\ t N J OZ'4T56' W a w w F _W R) PARCEL B Z v W 38.28 ACRES +/- Q m Sir SHEET 5 n O / _ = in / z w 1,73 I/VCJ Z791 • �<a. CD „gym < 19i n r_ Z cQ� 3W 3axm���ur� dtle� k IL GAF- (aj]Z�� rBo pgN o I o 8 0p�o I ^ ,� QD � G cc VN N�O�< gg;` <J < p�o _G zap tt� 22N22s ;w =L Lo QmCL❑ ~ '¢< �c tlS�Icg�e_orvnRil`X „N,^m m «�0a zoo oozooaNe �Nm o' m $&� ,o z zzl do 5m� 4HS W ^4 Z aai.7m l�I. 0LL mgw_' -N n.vlcn mac N� O z^�m (] z - v' J r S Hr FT1 010 V U< �� PARCEL D _ J v, z" 36.91 ACRES ^ N 1.1.. N N 02'47'56' W c � 7.: u n � L_ ��3 y� „ a ) 'N n J — T) n �= a z uV' 0 s a� d O o 0 • LLI o m r- LLl r w o - w LL�m zn dz� hI F1I II'no'•of h i a� Q C. wl \\ p + \ / \ — W o w J w V Nw Pon QQw O �,.� F = Yam Po, n I Ia��od N4W� < I I o g'+ Qgm w r` ¢,z e 11 ^o rOb el==Jm�oVl �a CS 111 z G4¢� nml�GnN m n� rn oZ>� o a`,� a�� �• ry � = 2„u�ln < \\� Yom— / °� ;�• v lJ / N 0054.18” W G C 1212.e0' ,1 11 g9<' IZ (N 1'77.39-W 129241') = IC,z N 0054'16' W 1291.94' O 1 0 �' zp1 I F .Q J 1/16 COR.-SEC. CAR. Qlf;.' D J Q u < 6° y7 LL- coH 2650-66'1 0 (H 8S4.4t 6.ZW326]4.40 n N� q yy/ A fie< n� to ti�1 N JJJ.u./ / o ^ a� o�J i.L N t_ 2=r- N 00'30'47' w 2as0.57' zk' 7 � W �Z LL co �Q�Q S � a .0 91- FZ LZ� W °go < $N 8gQaaa Uy so O?Z-1�Y s o2 o-bS\8Z y� 88g+ia= 0 �2. T'W$� 0�s z''¢�¢ Q^ cl � ¢�_� oU7� Z I _ fi= �(� a Lu •NOS "� N Z u <�m� (� i I o�lbfRp ) 6xSut 00 6j gym= ^ n a; o mza rU� m; o z � N$c ` m� ai Cl) co in OR u' oWrn isz� �a��ffi =Li D! aCS bz o Q Zn�m 7�da_' �nHn �s0 a • (n m _ pQ Z ZZmm � N DS�S'SSW 5331.4x' N Q t3J3.67('n N 03'45'58 1v" � y8� mgm ��� �. :• Ng_ �Sm Ngo m39n LO p ^O- !n P^ mol W CC 1 G 0 � � Yra Q¢J I QCJ I W .� B �I N ¢�nwN G¢J / /' , !I/„ ^ �i•^ �I � 2 W-^'m //' / 7'P • I nI NG 6 1-d 1 1 CT) < •�• /pL o .� tj L)�i / ♦N N v , N n H Z 1 1 1 0••n N G¢� m^ r = » y>N m z L) J I✓ U� Q n N¢ Y n D CL ; s6 3 m Gn z Z N OZ'4756'W � "r�•d'g _ �z J r r 5��r r T PARCEL A 7' n '108 W J"'.BH AURES I/- i- s t NET I • CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED PERMIT REVISED FEBRUARY 1 1991 APPLICANT: Andrew Palffy APPLICATION NO. MS 64-90 1911 San Miguel Drive #203 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 078-090-004 OWNER: Bradford Land & Cattle ZONING DISTRICT: A_2 345 Lorton Avenue #304 EFFECTIVE DATE: 21 January 1991 Burlingame, CA 94010 APPROVAL DATE: 8 January 1991 • This matter not having been appealed within the time prescribed by law, the minor subdivision is hereby granted, subject to the attached conditions shown as Exhibit "A". HARVEY E. BRAGDON, Director Community Development Department By: Karl L. I 'andry, Deputy Director PLEASE NOTE THE APPROVAL DATE as no further notification will be sent by this office. unless otherwise provided, you have 36 months from the approval date to file the PARCEL MAP. n**OY-10� PAM k � • EXHIBIT "A" ' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 64-90 1 . The request to subdivide the 320-acre parcel is approved for four (4) parcels with a remainder subject to the Vesting Tentative Map dated received by the Community Development Department on May 15, 1990. 2. The applicant/owner shall provide for an Agricultural Conservation Easement to Contra Costa County on all of the 160 acres of the project site. The 160 acre remainder is not included. Building site areas shall be permitted and not exceed 3 acres. Leach field sites approved by the Health Department shall be identified in each parcel. This easement shall not prevent the erection of agricultural related buildings or structures anywhere on the site, subject to the related setbacks. Easement shall be shown on the Parcel Map, and shall indicate that a 3-acre building site is permitted, as well as referenced in deed description. 3. Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit plans including tentative building envelopes all within the 3-acre envelope as stipulated in Condition of Approval #2, a grading plan, and an erosion control plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Future modification of the building envelope must be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. The maximum grade for the proposed private road shall be identified and shall not exceed 20 percent. 4. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of building permits, development plans for each • building site shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. Homes and other large structures shall be designed and placed to minimize the visual impact on adjoining properties and Marsh Creek Road. 5. The erection of structures, to include (but not limited to) buildings, obscure fences, swimming pools, tennis courts, and sports courts, is prohibited in scenic areas. 6. The following statement shall be recorded at the County Recorder's Office for each parcel to notify future owners of the parcels that they own property in an agricultural area: "This document shall serve as notification that you have purchased land in an agricultural area where you may regularly find farm equipment using local roads; farm equipment causing dust; crop dusting and spraying occurring regularly; burning associated with agricultural activities; noise associated with farm equipment and aerial crop dusting and certain animals and flies may exist on surrounding properties. This statement is, again, notification that this is part of the agricultural way of life in East Contra Costa County and you should be fully aware of this Y at the time of purchase." [Mum•nd PM--I by DNair,? LLC.,b tt prcpM"t Npinp Mea MIMry hntnm.Co"ynpnl 2003,NI Mph^-"p d. t Order No, 60100-D EXHIBIT "ONE;" ParCDI One: + Parcol A an shown on the Parcel Mop MS 64-00, filed June 29, 1993,In Book 162 of Parcol Maps, Papa 27, Contra Coate County Rocorda, Rosurving from Parcul One: An oaaomont for roadway and utility purposes, appurtenant to Parcols 8, C and 0 of Parcol Map MS, filed Juno 29, 1993,in Book 162 of Parcol Maps, Pogo 27, Centro CDntn-County Records,shown as'25' Wide Access Eaaemom', as shown on sold Map. aarcel Two. .an oaaomant for roadway and utility purposes, appurtonant to Parcol Ono above, over a portion of Porcul A as shown on the Pnrcaf Map MS 5.90, filed October 18, 1991, in Book 156 of Parcol Mups. Pago 5, Contra Costa County Records, doncribod an follows: tCommoncing of the Northwust cornor of said Parcol "A" thonco from said point of commoncomont along the North lino of said Parcol "A" South 900 55' 35" East 192.14 foot to rho true point of boginninp; thence, from snid true point of beginning continuing along said North line SoUth 89" a5' 35" East 25.00 foot to the beginning of o non-tan0ant curve concavo to rho west, having n radius of 108,50 fust, to which a point of beginning a radial lino boars South 89" 31' 58" East, thonco nlong the arc of said curve 72.22 foot through a central angle of 380 00' 21"; thnncu South 360 35' 24" Wast 79.97 feat to the boginning of a curvo concave to tho Northwest having a radius of 71.50 foot; thonco along the arc of said curvo 23.26 font through n control angle of 230 27' 38"; thonco Sou;h 620 04' 03" Wast 37.76 foot to a point on rho West lino of said Parcol "A'saitf point being the beginning c n non-tongont curvo concave to rho Southwast, having u radius of 0030.00 foot to which print of boginning a radial linu boorc North 620 11' 11" East; thonco along cold Wont lino alono 'tha arc of sold curve 12.50 foot through a control angle of 000 07' OB"; thonco continuing along said Wost line North 270 6E' 57 Wont 1::.50;thonco North 620 04' 03" East 37.76 fool to rho boginnino of a curvD concave to tits North West, having o rudius o! 4:5.50 foot,; rhonco along the arc of said curva 19.04 foot through a central angle of 230 27' . 33"; thence North 380 36' 25" East 79.97 fuut to the boginning of o curvo concave to tho %Host, hovinp a radius of 83,50 fuut; thence along the aro of said curvo 58.41 foot through a central angle 380 01' 11 B" to the true point of boginninp. Ptrcal Throo: An onsomont, not to be oxclualvu, as an oppurtonsnce tc Porcola A, B, C. D and Rornoinder, an shown on the Map MS 64-DO,filed Juno 28, 1993,In Book 162 of Parcol Maps, Pago 27, Contra Coate County Accords,for n roadway for vohieloe of all kinds, podontrions and animals and for water, Don, oil and obwor pipe firma, and for tolophona, tulavislon norvices, oloctric li0ht and power linos, over, under and upon tho property dor cribod no follows: A portion of Parca( A of Parcel Map MS 6-90, filed October 15, 1991, In Book 155 of Pureal Mugu, Page 5, Contra COM-County Rucorda, described cis follows: Co.rnmoncinp at the Northwast corner of said Parcol A (IS 6 POA 5);tfhanco from sold point of cornmoncomont along thu Northerly boundary a'1 said Porcul A South 800 55' 35"East, 78.48 foot to the point of boginnlnp;'thonco from cold point of booinnin0 leaving.said Northerly boundary South 25 0 42'04"W00% 13.02 foot tc a cprvo concave,Northwoste►ly with o'rodius 38.50 fact; thence Southwdetsrly 24.64 lost along tho arc of said curve through a control angle of 380 30'-59"; thonco South 620 13' 03" Wont 21,172 foot to o curvo concave Northerly with a radius of 15.00 foot;thonco Wastorly 23.62 foot along the arc of said curvo through o contraf angle of 890 60'58' to a point oh thu Wostorly boundary of said Parcul A; �Er an 01362 Do[u mems predose py DeliT(a6 LLC vw l5 proprwury Map,;j ens welMry WK1T.Capyrgrn 2003,al rpl+a nonwi I I F. Ordar No. 801 Do • 17 tAunco olona acid Wastarly boundary South 27° 56' 57" East BE.00 foot to the baginning of F-► , anon-tangont curvn concavo Easterly with a radius of 15.00 foot from which point a radial llii�no bears South 620 04'03' West; thonco leaving Cold Wostorly boundary, Northofly 23.00Ca al3�t Eaat�20 B8ho rfout etal a curvo co cavo Northwontta iy wiof th a rrao 0 d}ua of 3 50 foot;ha a North B20 thori oI Ln — orthoantarly 40,47 foci mono the arc of snid curve throuoh a central angla of 360 3o' Bo"; thonco North 250 43' 04' Cast 26.01 fust to n point on tho Northerly boundary of avid Parcol A; thunco ulonp said Northnrly boundary North 090 55' 35" wast 27.73 font to tho point of buoinnmo. A2snssor's Purcal No: 076-090.026 rr�ent�ona�ty P�c�n� Contra Costa County Fire Protection District NTy F Fire Chief KEITH RICHTER January 30, 2008 Rodger & Kandy Habig 3000 Bragdon Way Ca Clayton, CA 94517 c-, Subject: MS05-00030 3000 Bragdon Way, Clayton c CCCFPD Project No.: 104562 G.) Dear Mr. and Mrs. Habig: VIA We have reviewed your letter, dated 1/09/08, expressing your concerns with the requirement to provide Bragdon Way with a 20-foot wide paved surface through the proposed subdivision. After further consideration, the Fire District will accept the 18-foot wide paved roadway with shoulder as indicated on the tentative map dated 7/10/07. • All remaining conditions as indicated in the planningletter, dated / 8 17/07, still apply. Prior to any proposed development within this subdivision, the developer shall submit three sets of plans to the Fire District prior to obtaining a building permit. If you have any it leCtinnq regarding this mafter nlemca Cnnfnrt fhic office at 825.941.3300. Sincerely, Ted Leach Fire Prevention Technician TL/mm C: Ms. Rosemarie Pietras Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 • File 104562—3000 Bragdon Way Clayton.ltr 2010 Geary Road• Pleasant Hill,California 94523-4619•Telephone(925)941-3300•Fax(925) 941-3309 East County •Telephone(925)757-1303 • Fax(925)941-3329 West County •Telephone(510)374-7070 www.cccfpd.org • Intentionally Blank • • OcARA Cosmo V �p1ii T01/ �; r.f 1 (�0Q I :. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District • �lip1G4, ll. 'S 017 ,11; 2 2 A1 5 I �� J s Fire Chief KEITH RICHTER August 17, 2007 E _`.� T ;r g LGr� Ms. Rosemarie Pietras Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4 l Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: MS05-00030 3000 Bragdon Way, Clayton CCCFPD Project No.: 104562-PL Dear Ms. Pietras: We have reviewed the tentative map application to subdivide 37.99 acres into three lots and a remainder at the subject location. This project is governed by codes, regulations, and ordinances administered by this Fire District and the State Fire Marshal's Office. If this project is approved by your office, the following shall be included as part of the conditions of approval in accordance with the Health and Safety Code, the 2001 California Fire Code (CFC), 2001 • California Building Code (CBC), and other applicable regulations (i.e., Public Resource Code (PRC), Local and County Ordinances, and Community General Plans, etc.): 1. Provide emergency apparatus access roadways with all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20-feet unobstructed width, and not less than 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance. Driveways shall be a minimum of 16-feet clear width to within 150 feet of travel distance to all portiportions of the exter' r walls of evc,y building. Access roadways shall I lot exceed 16% ons vi ui �.nt ivi vvai grade, shall have a minimum outside turning radius of 35 feet, and an inside turning radius of feet, and must be capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus, i.e., 22 tons. (902.2) CFC, 22500.1 CVC Note: Access as shown on tentative map, dated 07/10/07, does not comply with these requirements. Access does not meet the minirnum required width of 20 feet. 2. The project as proposed shall require the installation of an approved Fire District turnaround. Dead-end emergency apparatus access roadways, driveways, and cul-de-sacs in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of Fire District apparatus. Fire District turnarounds shall not exceed 8% grade, shall have a minimum outside turning radius of 35 feet, an inside turning radius of 15 feet, and must be capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus, i.e., 22 tons. Fire District turnarounds shall not be obstructed in any manner without Fire District approval. See "Fire District Access and Water Supply Requirements"for approved designs. (902.2.2.4) CFC • 3. The developer shall provide one hydrant of the East Bay type. Hydrant location will be determined by this office. (903.4.2) CFC 2010 Geary Road•Pleasant Hill, California 94523-4619•Telephone(925)941-3300•Fax(925)941-3309 East County •Telephone(925)757-1303 • Fax(925)941.3329 West County •Telephone(510)374-7070 www.cccfpd.org 3000 Bragdon Way, Clayton -2- August 17, 2007 • 4. Emergency apparatus access roadways and hydrant shall be installed, in service, and inspected by the Fire District prior to construction or combustible storage on site. (8704.1) CFC Note: Gravel roads are not considered all-weather roadways for emergency apparatus access. A minimum of the first lift of asphalt concrete paving (with curb and gutter if proposed) shall be installed as the minimum subbase material and capable of supporting the designated gross vehicle weight specified above. 5. The developer shall submit three copies of site improvement plans indicating all existing or proposed utilities, turnaround and turnout areas, and fire apparatus access roadways for review and approval prior to construction. (902.2.2.1) CFC Note: This submittal shall be used to locate the above-required hydrant. 6. Development on any parcel in this subdivision shall be subject to review and approval by the Fire District to ensure compliance with minimum requirements related to fire and life safety. Submit three sets of plans to the Fire District prior to obtaining a building permit. 7. All proposed homes within this subdivision shall be protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system complying with the 2002 edition of NFPA 13D. Submit three sets of plans to this office for review and approval prior to installation. (1003.1) CFC, Contra Costa County General Plan If the proposed homes cannot be supplied by a municipal water source, well water service • shall be capable of supplying the minimum fire sprinkler demand for each proposed dwelling, including an additional five GPM for domestic use. (1003.1) CFC, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Rural Residential Water Supply Requirements If the well is incapable of providing the minimum fire sprinkler demand, plus five GPM for domestic use, a minimum 5000-gallon reserve water supply tank is required per dwelling of up to 5,000 square feet(8,000 gallons per dwelling if more than 5,000 square feet). Contact the Fire District for rural water supply requirements. The developer shall submit three sets of fire sprinkler plans, hydraulic calculations, pump specifications, and well specifications stamped and signed by the licensed installing contractor to the Fire District for review and approval prior to their installation. Should a water supply tank be required, also submit three sets of the following: tank specifications and plans, tank location site plans, and fire pump specifications. Plan review fees will be assessed at that time. Documentation shall clearly show the well and/or tank is/are capable of supplying the above requirements. 8. Premises identification shall be provided. Such numbers shall contrast with their background and be a minimum of four inches high with %-inch stroke or larger as required to be readily visible from the street. (901.4.4) CFC 9. Homeowners shall maintain an effective firebreak by removing and clearing away flammable vegetation and combustible growth from areas within 30 feet of buildings or structures. (Appendix II-A, Section 16.1) CFC, (1276.01) PRC • 3000 Bragdon Way, Clayton -3- August 17, 2007 • 10. All undeveloped areas, when left in their natural state, shall meet the Fire District's Exterior Hazard Abatement Standards. (Contra Costa County Ordinance 2002-32, Article 14, Section 1401.1) 11. Submit plans to: Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 2010 Geary Road Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 12. To schedule field inspections and tests call 925.941.3323 prior to 3 p.m. a minimum of two working days in advance. The above-referenced CCCFPD Project Number shall be required in all correspondence or communication with the Fire District. Our preliminary review comments shall not be construed to encompass the complete project. Additional plans and specifications may be required after further review. Projects beginning construction more than one year from approval may be subject to additional requirements. Submit to the Fire District a copy of the conditions of approval as set forth on the subject project. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office at 925.941.3300. • Sincerely, Ted Leach Fire Prevention Technician TL/cmj c: Roger & Kandell Habig 3000 Brandon Way Clayton, CA 94517 Bellecci & Associates 2290 Diamond Boulevard Concord, CA 94520 Attachments: Rural Residential Water Supply Requirements Fire District Access and Water Supply Requirements File: 104562—3000 Bragdon Way Clayton.ltr • nit conalIDim K. • �J East B. • 2950 PERALTA OAKS COURT P.O.BOX 5381 OAKLAND CALIFORNIA 94605-0381 T 510 635 0135 F.510 569 4319 TDD.510 633 0460 WWW EBPARKS.ORG August 15,2007 Ms.Rosemarie Pietras Contra Costa County _, Community Development Department ;^ 651 Pine Street -' -4 Martinez, CA 94553-0095 - _ 1> ZZ RE: Clayton Ranch Landbank MS05-00030 0 Dear Rosemarie: The Park District has received and reviewed the referral on the subject application. The Park District's Clayton Ranch Landbank is located north west of this proposed project. There is not a direct impact from this proposal. However,the District's concern is that this is a piecemeal subdivision. The property was the result of • a past subdivision and now it is being further subdivided. This raises the question as to good and logical subdivision of land. Along with the further fragmentation of the area,there is fragmentation of the wildlife habitat. It is known that several special-status plant and animal species occur on the adjacent East Bay Regional Park District's Clayton Ranch land bank property. There is good habitat for them on the property, and it can be assumed it would carry over to this subject property. The neighboring District property contains a population of Alameda whipsnake a State-and federally-threaten species which is known to make use of the high quality chaparral and adjacent habitats that occur in the area. Raptor species, including prairie falcons and golden eagles forage in this area. Finally,several special-status plant species have been identified on the neighboring District property, including the Mt.Diablo sunflower, Mt. Diablo manzanita and serpentine bedstraw. Any of these species could inhabit or use this subject property as a wildlife corridor. This should be considered when evaluating this proposal. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposed application. Please continue to send the Park District information on this application so that we can follow it through the planning process and know what the final result is on this proposal. Very truly yours, • Linda J. P. Chavez Senior Planner Board of Directors John Sutter Ayn Wieskamp Ted Radke Doug Siden Beverly Lane Carol Severin Nancy Skinner Pat O'Brien President Vice-President Treasurer Secretary Ward 6 Ward 3 Ward I General Manager Ward 2 Ward 5 Ward 7 Ward 4 EAST BAY REGIONAL P A R K D I S T R I C T ale r} BOARD OF DIREC 8 05 AUG � PM 12' Sky Beverly Lane • President August 17,2005 Ward 6 Carol Severin Vice-President Ward 3 Ms. Rosemarie Pietras John Sutter Treasurer Contra Costa County Ward Community Development Department Ayn Wieskamp secretary 651 Pine Street Ward 5 Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Ted Radke Ward 7 Doug Siden Ward 4 RE: Clayton Ranch Landbank Jean Siri MS05-00030 Ward 1 Pat O'Brien Dear Rosemarie: General Manager The Park District has received and reviewed the referral on the subject application. The Park District's Clayton Ranch Landbank is located north west of this proposed project. There is not a direct impact from this proposal. However,the District's concern is that this is a piecemeal subdivision. The property was • the result of past subdivision and now it is being further subdivided. This raises the question as to good and logical subdivision of land. Thank you for the opportunity to review and carmnent on this proposed application. Please continue to send the Park District infonnation on this application so that we can follow it through the planning process and know what the final result is on this proposal. Very truly yours, Linda J.P. Chavez Senior Planner a a 2950 Peralta Oaks Court P.O. Box 5381 Oakland, CA 94605-0381 ` TEL 510 635-0135 Fnx 510 569-4319 TDD 510 633-0460 www.ebparks.org JSLI U .. G eve I o IJ n"1 e n( Community "elopmenl Director n�\Department Costa �...• cceli Count,/ j, U- ;It�r,� �� l�os1�. Ly U JUL I County Administration Building 8 2007 651 Pine Street • L �: 4th Floor, North Wing la 4'% 2; j `''• REV' Martinez, California 94553-0095 Phone: (92;)335-1210Li✓�°' ti . ...'I Date: \ `t '� CUIIN� AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST We request your comments regarding the attached a lication currently under review. DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as folio AAs: l�Building Inspection HSD, Environmental Health, Concord- Project Planner"' —HSD, Hazardous Materials P/W - Flood Control (Full Size) County File t P/W Engineering Svcs(Full Size) Number:_ \Sod Date Forwarded P/W Traffic (Reduced) Prior To: P/W Special Districts (Reduced) f I Comprehensive Planning We have found the following special programs Redevelopment Agency apply to this application: Historical Resources Information System r CA Native Amer. Her. Comm. Redevelopment Area CA Fish & Game, Region �_ US Fish & Wildlife Service Active Fault Zone Fire District (- Ps t3L-k gKCL� _ • Sanitary District - 1 Flood Hazard Area, Panel# Water District City ti 4ti�, 4 60 dBA Noise Control _ School District Sheriff'Office - Admin. & Comm. Svcs. CA EPA Hazardous Waste Site — Alamo Improvement Association — El Sobrante Pia. & Zoning Committee Traffic Zone _ MAC WHAT "I - Dep.Director, rCllllLlllLLatiVLlS C—EQA Exempt I CAC R-7A Alamo Categorical Exemption Section Community Organizations X SA, 7cFa(� Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance. Please send copies of your response to the Applicant & Owner. No comments on this application. Our Comments are attached Comments:(oMpLy W1121 WN AA coSI-A _�a� ,'rz,L V?5gx;4t Signature �— n QR/#J)C1,J .tAsrs; £- h� - F,nl✓iG�NN�.v.m • 7 MKA'J T- Agency s:current planning/templates/forms/asenc}'comment request Date Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m 5,."U- P.rrI Office is closed the 1 si. 3rd �, 5th Fridavf: o1 each month + Uontr Dennis M. Barry, AICP Development Community Development Director DepartmentCosta Coin . . . Ly County Administration Building sE L / • 651 Pine Street AUG —2 200 4th Floor, North Wing k Martinez. California 94553-0095 - - --• C�ww�1_ :•.5 I Phone: (923)335-1210 '> entiN �� Date: AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST We request your comments regarding the attached ap2beatioD currently under review. DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as 9'1c; l�Building Inspection HSD, Environmental Health, Concord Project Planner , V= a HSD, Hazardous MaterialsP/W - Flood Control (Full Size) County File P/VV Engineering Svcs(Full Size) Number:_ 0, --� 0 Date Forwarded _P/W Traffic (Reduced) Prior To:�Y�I (I �� _ P/W Special Districts `/� (Reduced) I t Comprehensive Planning We have found the following _ Redevelopment Agency b special programs -- apply to this application: Historical Resources Information System CA Native Amer. Her. Comm. CA Fish & Game, Region_3 Redevelopment Area US Fish & Wildlife Service Fire District_. 1-=SG�; t >\ Active Fault Zone — Sanitary District C, Flood Hazard Area, Panel# _ Water District City School District J `_ 60 dBA Noise Control Sheriff Office - Admin. & Comm.Svcs. ACA EPA Hazardous Waste Site Alamo Improvement Association El Sobrante Plg. & Zoning Committee MAC Traffic Zone r�nrT n !+ L V11 - Lep. Director, Com-.—.u—l.a tIVLJ "TrlA CAC R-7A A.lamo Exempt Categorical Exemption Section Community Organizations �C)2 Pi's X SN/q- t-'V. Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance. Please send copies of Your response to the Applicant & Owner. — No comments on this application. Our Comments are attached Comments: I.0 rt �ISdr '✓ rZli ; c% slgrP 1•r �'.Z.• ',� ti' i 2./�l. A CGG���IIIYc- I� �✓ i gene} S:currenl pianninJt mplates/fornu/agency comment request Date Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1st. 3rd & 5th Frida4,s. of each month CALIFORNIA "'`�'<��='•"+'� • ;, ALAMEDA MARIN SAN MATED Northwest Information Center HISTORICAL 'tiv COLUSA MENDOCINO :,.4S4N:T CLARA CONTRA COSTA MONTEREY 1:SAd1T ¢F��f; Sonoma State University RESOURCES ;;; ; ':, LAKE NAPA SOLANO 1303 Maurice Avenue ' SAN BENITO ROhnert Park,California 94928-3609 • "�'"1v r: SONOMA INFORMATIONO SAN FRANCIS YOLO � � Tel:707.664.0880• Fax:707.664.0890 SYSTEM �' J . 'j'j E-mail:leigh.jordan®sonoma.edu July 30,2007 File No.: 07-0095 Rosemarie Pietras,Project Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street 4d'Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553 re: MS05-00030/APN 078-090-025 at 3000 Bragdon Way, Clayton/Charile Capp of Bellecci&Associates,Inc. Dear Ms.Pietras: Records at this office were reviewed to determine if this project could adversely affect cultural resources. Please note that use of the term cultural resources includes both archaeological sites and historical buildin s and/or structures. The review for possible historic-era building/structures, however,was limited to references--nil in our office and should not be considered comprehensive Previous Studies: XX This office has no record of any previous cultural resource studies for the proposed project area. Archaeological and Native American Resources Recommendations: • XX The proposed project area has the possibility of containing unrecorded archaeological site(s). A study is recommended prior to commencement of project activities. XX We recommend you contact the local Native American tribe(s)regarding traditional, cultural,and religious values.For a complete listing of tribes in the vicinity of the project,please contactthe Native American Heritage Commission at 916/653-4082. Built Environment Recommendations: XX Since the Office of Historic Preservation has determined that any building or structure 45 years or older maybe of historical value, if the project area contains such properties,it is recommended that prior to commencement of project activities,a qualified architectural historian familiar with Contra Costa history conduct a formal CEQA evaluation. If archaeological resources are encountered during the project,work in the immediate vicinity of the finds should be halted until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the situation. If you have any questions please give us a call(707)6640880. Sin erely, t7- Jillil E. Guldenbrein Researcher cc: Bellecci&Associates, Inc. c/o Charlie Capp 2290 Diamond Boulevard Concord,CA 94520 • Intentionally Blank • • K �s--5 1 �,� r ��I //Sy 'i �r ye i' w�. tsic``g�Fy`•r'rs� 3 %a p -r, save n7womWell Board of Directors t;? Malcolm Sproul On President June 29,2006 C r Arthur Bonwell � Allan Prager Don Snyder, Chairman w Vice Presidents Contra Costa County Planning Commission 7-- David David Trotter County Administration Building w Secretary 651 Pine St., North Wing Frank Varenchik Martinez, CA 94553 Treasurer an Burt Bassler Re: MS05-00030, Roger& Kandell Habig, applicant Bellecci &Associates Don de Fremery Dana Dornsife Dear Chairman Snyder, Charla Gabert Claudia Hein Save Mount Diablo has an interest in the Habig subdivision. I delayed my vacation so Scott Hein .Michael Hitchcock that I could attend the PlanningCommission's public,hearing scheduled for Tuesday, David Husted June 27, 2006. Because of the strike by Service Empoyees International Union Local John Mercurio 535 and other county employees,the item was continued to July 11,during my vacation. lmara Morrison *avid Ogden I would appreciate it if the commission would continue the item until I avid Sargent PP ireturn,on July 25 Sharon Walters or preferably after that date since that will be my first day back at work. Directors Staff I've contacted the Habig's representative, Pat Curtin,with the same request. Ronald Brown Executive Director I'd appreciate a response in either case. Seth Adams Director,Land Programs Jennifer Annan House Sincerely, Director, Admin &Finance Julie SeelenEve Specialal Events & Volunteer Coordinator Seth Adams Mailing Address Director of Land Programs 1901 Olympic Blvd.,#220 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Tel: (925)947-3535 Cc: Donnie Snyder, IBEW Local 302, 1875 Arnold Drive,Martinez,CA 94553 Fax: (925)947-0642 Dennis Barry, Director, CCC Community Development Dept. iibebsire Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director, CCC Community Development Dept. Ms. Rose Marie Pietras, Project Planner tru�tanvernormtdinblo.org Pat Curtin, Morgan, Miller& Blair orders hur Bomvel! fai-v L. Botrerfnorr Serh Adams,Save A9ounr Diabio,commerrs,.4150 5-00030,Roger&-Kandell Habig,appllcanf Bellecei&.Associ7fes I Of I Intentionally Blank • • - State of Ca liforr The Resources Agency ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor t; DEPARTMENT OFFISH AND GAME http://www.dfq.ca.go POST OFFICE BOX 47 YOUNTVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94599 • (707)944-5500 05 �f, April 7, 2006 5 Rose Pietras Contra Costa Community Development Department 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Ms. Pietras: Habig Property Tentative Map — County File #MS05-00030 Contra Costa County The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has reviewed the biological assessment and jurisdictional determination for the Habig Property located at 300 Bragdon Way, off Marsh Creek Road, Clayton. Based on the information provided DFG has determined the • site provides suitable habitat for California red legged frog, California tiger salamander (CTS), and Alameda whipsnake as well as a number of other species of concern. Consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and DFG should be required for any proposed project on this site. Based on landscape position and on-site conditions, DFG recommends that a formal red legged frog site assessment and protocol level surveys for CTS and Alameda whipsnake are appropriate for this site. In addition, mitigation for direct take of trees that support nesting raptors should be provided regardless of the time of year the nest site is destroyed. If you have questions, please contact Janice Gan, Environmental Scientist, at (209) 835-6910; or Scott Wilson, Habitat Conservation Supervisor, at (707) 944-5584. Sincerely, Robert W. Floerke Regional Manager Central Coast Region • cc: See next page ConserviW Caf fornia's Wildffe Since 1870 Rose Pietras April 6, 2006 Page 2 cc: Ryan Olah Sheila Larsen U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way, W2605 Sacramento, CA 95825 • �. sQ ve - • Founders: Arthur Bonwell February 28, 2006 Mary L.Bowerman Re:MS05-00030, Roger& Kandell Habig, applicant Bellecci & Associates Board of Directors Malcolm Sproul To: Ms. Rose Marie Pietras, Project Planner President Arthur Bonwell Introduction Allan Prager Save Mount Diablo's mission is to preserve Mount Diablo's peaks and surrounding foothills Vice Presidents through land acquisition and preservation strategies to:protect the mountain's natural David beauty, integrity, and biological diversity; enhance our area's quality of life; and provide a roller recreational opportunities consistent with protection of natural resources. We acquire land directly, respond to land use proposals, educate the public, and restore habitat. Founded in Frank Varenchik 1971, Save Mount Diablo has been instrumental in increasing open space on and around the Treasurer mountain from 6,788 acres to more than 89,000 acres. SMD includes more than 6,000 Akiiassler Supporters. WDde Fremery omsife SMD considered this application in depth prior to our examination of the project file and Scott Hein,Ph.D previous subdivision conditions. We believe that the variety of significant issues and Michael Hitchcock impacts related to this project require additional CEQA analysis, and our letter includes John Mercurio David Ogden detailed comments should a project move forward. David Sargent Sharon Walters However, subsequent investigation of the record convinces us that this application Directoii should be denied: Staff Ronald Brown Save Mount Diablo is OPPOSED to this subdivision 2POication. The proposal would Executive Director violate the Conditions of Approval of the previols subdivision MS 64-90 b which the Seth Adams parcel was created. In short the owner was required to deed all development rights Director of beyond a (3) acre buildtn� stte to Contra Costa County prior to the construction of the Land Programs extstinQ house but failed to do so Jennifer House In MS-64-90 a 320 acre parcel was subdivided into 4 parcels with a remainder. The Habig Director,Admin&Finance property is one of the four parcels. The project was approved by the County Planning Julie Seelen Commission on Sept. 25, 1990, then on Jan. 8, 1991, effective Jan. 21, 1991, Condition of Special Events approval 12.B (regarding installation of a private roadway)was modified The following & Volunteer Coordinator conditions regarding placing a conservation easement over the four parcels remained SAfD Afailing Address unchanged. 1901 Olympic Blvd.,#220 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Conditions of Approval.MS 64-90 Sept 25 1990 &Jan 21 1991 Tei '025)947-3535 2. The a-p l,eant,'ovvnershall F &947_0642 tP ' provide for an Agricultural Conservation Easement to Contra Costa County on all of the 160 acres of the project site. The 160 acre remainder is not Website: www.savemounidiablo.org Seth Adams,Sove/.fount Diablo.comments.MS05-00030,Roger&Kandell fiabig,applicant Bellecci&Associctet 1 of 12 included. Building site areas shall be permitted and not exceed 3 acres. Leach field sites aDDroved by the Health Department shall be identified on each parcel. This easement shall not prevent the erection of agricultural related buildings or structures anyti+there on the site, subject to the related setback. Easement shall be shown on the parcel map, and shall indicate that a 3-acre building site is permitted, as �• well as referenced in deed description. " "3.Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit plans including tentative building envelopes all within the 3-acre envelope as stipulated in Condition of Approval#2, a grading plan, and an erosion control plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Future modification of the building envelope must be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. The maximum grade for the proposed private road shall be identified and shall not exceed 20 percent." Condition 4 states that: "...Homes and large structures shall be designed and placed to minimize the visual impact on adjoining properties and Marsh Creek Road and "5. The erection of of structures, to include (but not limited to) buildings, obscure fences, swimming pools, tennis courts, and sports courts, is prohibited in scenic areas. " The file copy of the Conditions for MS-64-90 have a handwritten note that conditions 2 &3 shall be applied with building permits. Finally,the approved and recorded parcel map for MS 64-90, Sheet 1 of 8 on its face includes an additional "NOTE. PRIOR TO OBTAINING A GRADING PERMIT OR BUILDING PERMIT, THE APPLICANT109NER SHALL SELECT A BUILDING SITE AND DEED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTYFOR ALL BUT(3)ACRE{sic) OF EACH PARCEL EXCLUDING THE REMAINDER PARCEL. THIS AGREEMENT SHALL NOT PREVENT THE ERECTION OF AGRICULTURAL RELATED BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES ANYWHERE ON THE SITE, SUBJECT • TO ZONING RELATED SETBACKS:" Beyond the violation with the approved conditions of approval of the previous subdivision, further subdivision of the Habig parcel would affect nearby and neighboring properties including public parks and open space. Property Description The Habig parcel is located on a steep slope facing southwest. The property's habitats appear to include grassland, oak savannah and chaparral. The property apparently has at least one existing structure, a single-family residence near the top of the slope on the property. It is located across from a Contra Costa County's Jail Farm. Mr. Habig's property in question is 37.99 acres of land. The proposed action is for this land to be divided into 3 lots and a remainder.There is some evidence of disturbance,possibly off road vehicles on the low area at the north end of the property. SMD visited the property with the project planner on November 30;there is also evidence of substantial and illegal grading and tree cutting. Property Location (Doughnut Hole) The parcel is located near Mount Diablo State Park, Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve to the north, and the hilly slopes of East Bay Regional Park District's Claygon Ranch property adjacent on the northwest comer. Chaparral Springs, a large property maintained as open space by Save Mount Diablo, is one parcel to the west. Habig is located along the Marsh Creek scenic corridor that runs through the hills on the • northern and eastern side of Mount Diablo. The property location is exceptionally important in the sense that the protected parkland and easements in the area form a circular area of preserved open space encompassing a Seth Adams,Save Mount Diablo,comments,bfS05-00030,Roger&Kondell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 2 of 12 " doughnut hole"of private land zoned for agricultural use. The development of the Habig property:,,ust be looked at in the context of the existing pattern of development in the region. The rural character of the area may be changed by the cumulative addition of ranchettes on the Habig property and other similar • parcels. Not only does the application increase the number of houses in the area where the Habig parcel is located, it may be a step toward altering the rural character of the Marsh Creek doughnut hole and preventing future acquisitions for open space. There have been concerns have been voiced by some residents of the area about Mr. Habig's development and the alteration of the Ivlarsh Creek are entail. as scenic character it would Comments The only materials the applicant has provided are a map with a several marked roads and proposed zoning for the subdivision of the property, and the proposed building sites and leach fields. There were no background materials,no environmental analysis, no visual treatments,no analysis of any kind to suggest whether these sites are on slopes of 26% or greater,have environmental constraints,no well or percolation tests to suggest whether well and leach field locations sites are feasible. As in most cases, the evaluation of this project would be greatly improved if the applicant provided more detailed blueprints for the project, including biotic,visual, geological and tree reports, among other information—but does not change the fact that the applicant should not be rewarded for failing to carry out the conditions of approval which created the parcel. Constraints on Habig's Property and Potential Impacts Aesthetics Scenic Vistas:• The project could have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas because it is located adjacent at a confer and above a regional park property and within the viewshed of both this regional facility and of Mt.Diablo State Park. g park A November 30`s visit to the property by the owners& applicants, and Save Mount Diablo shed light on several problems. The first is that based on the projected size of the structures, each of the three parcel sites were visible from Marsh Creek Road with attendant significant impacts. Sites A and C sit on hillsides that are visible for some time when traveling upon Marsh Creek Road. The proposed parcel for house site B is located at a lower elevation along the property, without any attempt to place the house behind trees or a slope.The buildings constructed on this property will be easily visible and dramatically alters the existing landscape and views of the property. Scenic Resources: The project could substantially damage scenic resources such as heritage trees and oak woodland, given that some construction would take place in this woodland. The impact is compounded by the possible presence of heritage trees on the property. Local Scenic Route: The Contra Costa County General Plan defines a scenic route as,"a road, street, or freeway, which traverses a scenic corridor of relatively high visual or cultural value. It consists of both the scenic corridor and the public-right-of-way." The General Plan defines the scenic corridor element of a scenic route as"consisting of much of the adjacent area that can be seen from the road (see General Plan, Figure 5-4). In this case, construction of proposed units and accessory development would be visible from Marsh Creek Road and could adversely impact the visual character of the scenic route. Visual studies should consider this impact. • Substantial Light or Glare: The location of potential units on a western slope may create a significant amount of light and glare(directed towards)Marsh Creek Road and park resources. This impact should be analyzed. Seth Adams,Save Mount Diablo,comments,MS05-00030,Roger&Kandell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 3 of 12 Threatened species: The Habig property is located within (or near) federally designated critical habitat for the Alameda whip snake, Califomia red-legged frog, and the California Tiger Salamander, among other species which may be found onsite or nearby. • Several ponds exist near the property and the Habig property drains into Marsh creek. Both the ponds and the creek contain habitat for the Califomia red legged frog. California rlf have been found to range as far as 10,500 feet from aquatic habitats, well within range of the Habig tract(Bulger et al. 2003). The California Tiger Salamander, a separate federally threatened species inhabits grasslands, riparian areas and ponds (possibly migrates between the two during mating season) in close proximity to the Habig property. The effects of development on the species should be evaluated before the development is considered. Sycamore and Associates have indicated the potential for the Habig property to serve as a migratory corridor for several species, including the salamander and the rlf. In its evaluation and report, Sycamore didn't contact Save Mount Diablo or the East Bay Regional Park District. Both of these organizations own land adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Habig parcel they were surveying an could have provided information about more recent biotic studies on adjacent lands. There are confirmed records of Tiger Salamander and Alameda Whip snake on both of these properties, and confirmed sightings of Red Legged Frog on the Clayton Ranch property, The Habig Property is also located in close proximity to confirmed sightings of the San Joaquin Kit Fox, in Black Diamond Mines and along Marsh Creek Road, as well as other points to the east such as Cowell Ranch State Park,Round Valley regional Preserve and Los Vaqueros. Among a long list of rare species found in this area,biotic analysis should pay special attention to San Joaquin Kit Fox. Potential Biologic Impacts: • Habitat Modifications: There is potential for the new construction to have an adverse impact on sensitive species in the area. The property lies in areas that are adjacent or near confirmed records for the Federally Protected Califomia Red-Legged Frog, Tiger Salamander, Alameda Whip snake, various nesting birds, and San Joaquin Kit Fox. A. California Red Legged Frog: The California Red Legged Frog is known to occur locally. It has been identified at several nearby locations.The species is known to migrate to terrestrial upland habitats, especially during mating season where it migrates between riparian areas and ponds. The frog is know to use ground squirrel burrows for aestivation during the summer moths. In their preliminary analysis Sycamore indicated that they had found no evidence for ground squirrel burrows on the property, leading to their conclusion that the Habig parcel's main value to the species was as a migratory corridor between the riparian area of Marsh Creek and ponds to the north and east of the property. On our visit to the property on November 301i, Save Mount Diablo observed numerous ground squirrels on the property near proposed housing site C. We believe that there is evidence of ground squirrel burrows for red frogs and other species, and.believe that Sycamore's preliminary finding is incorrect. The Habig parcel is located between Marsh Creek and several potential breeding ponds. There are a variety of mitigations that should be considered during analysis, were development to proceed: i. Project developed should limit construction to the non-rainy season(April 15-NIovember 1) so that the frogs will be less active. • ii. Given the high potential for Red-legged Frogs to occur onsite, Federal Consultation with the USFWF under either section 7 or Section 10 of the Federal Endangered Species Act should occur, and "take" Seth Adams,Save Motmt Diablo,comments,MS05-00030,Roger&Kandell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 4 of 12 authorization under the FESA should be obtained prior to recording the parcel map or issuar;cc ^f a grading permit. • iii. Any construction related to the project should avoid riparian, aquatic, or drainage areas by at least 300 feet. iv. A pre-construction survey should be conducted according to USFWS protocols by a qualified biologist within two weeks and 48 hours prior to the onset of construction activities to ensure no California red- legged frogs are within the proposed development'area. v. If no California red-legged frogs are found within the proposed development area, buried exclusion silt fencing should be placed around all project construction areas to keep California red-legged frogs from potentially moving onto the site. Construction fencing should be placed around the riparian area if deemed necessary by the biologist. The biologist should routinely inspect the site throughout the course of construction to ensure that construction fencing is intact and sensitive habitats are avoided. The biological monitor should provide an anticipated schedule to the County defining the frequency of the necessary site inspection visits. vi.If California red-legged frogs are found during any survey, CDFG and USFWS should be contacted and a permitted biologist should cant'out relocation measures, if deemed necessary by the biologist and agencies. vii.If California red-legged frogs are found during the pre-construction survey,a permittedbiologist should also be present at the start of construction to inspect the integrity of the exclusion fencing and relocate California red-legged frogs out of the project area if necessary. viii. Mitigation lands,providing similar or better habitat for California red-legged frog at a replacement • ratio required by the appropriate resource agencies(CDFG or USF0,should be preserved in perpetuity by a conservation easement or similar mechanism. This mitigation measure,detailed in a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, should be required prior to issuance of final grading permits.The identified mitigation lands, detailed mitigation monitoring plans, and the conservation easement or similar preservation mechanism should be approved by the County before construction commences. The conservation easement will be recorded within 12 months of commencement of grading. ix. Copies of all state and federal regulatory permits should be present on site during project construction and available for inspection at all times. B.Alameda Whip snake: The primary habitat of Alameda Whip Snake is chaparral in combination with rock outcroppings. The species has also been known to travel over 500 feet into adjacent including grassland, oak savanna, and occasionally oak-bay woodland(Swaim, 1994). Chaparral community exists on a hillside near the Habig property.The Alameda Whip Snake is listed as a Federally Threatened Species.Biotic analysis of the Habig Parcel should consider significant impacts on and mitigations for the species. i.Any project-related construction activity should avoid scrub and chaparral habitat and the area within 500 feet of scrub and chaparral habitat on site to the extent feasible as determined by the County. ii.A pre-construction survey should be conducted according to USFWS protocols by a qualified biologist within two weeks and 48 hours prior to the onset of construction activities to ensure no Alameda whip snakes are within the project area. iii.If no Alameda whip snakes are found within the proposed area for development,buried exclusion silt • fencing should be placed around 0 project construction areas to keep Alameda whip snake from moving onto the site. The biologist should routinely inspect the site throughout the course of construction to ensure that buried exclusion silt fencing is intact and sensitive habitats are avoided.The biological Seth Adams,Save Mount Diablo,comments,ms05-00030,Roger&Kandell Habig.applicant Bellecci&Associates 5 of 12 monitor should provide an anticipated schedule to the County defining the frequency of the necessary site inspection visits. iv. If Alameda whip snakes are found during the any surveys, CDFG and USFWS should be contacted • and a permitted biologist will carry out relocation measures, if deemed necessary by the biologist. v.In addition to regular inspections, a permitted biologist should also be present at the start of construction, which includes grading, to inspect the integrity of the exclusion fencing and relocate Alameda whip snake out of the project area if necessary. If avoidance ofscrub and chaparral habitat and the area within 500feet of that habitat is infeasible as detel-mined by the County, additional mitigation measures should be required as outlined below. vi. Mitigation lands,providing similar or better habitat for.Alameda whip snake at a replacement ratio required by the appropriate resource agencies (CDFG or USFW), should be preserved in perpetuity by a conservation easement or similar mechanism. This mitigation measure, detailed in a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan,should be required prior to issuance of final grading permits.The identified mitigation lands, detailed mitigation monitoring plans, the conservation easement, or similar preservation mechanism, should be approved by the County before construction commences. The conservation easement should be recorded within 12 months of commencement of grading. vii. Copies of all state and federal regulatory permits should be present on site during project construction and available for inspection at all times. C. California Tiger Salamander The habitat of the California Tiger Salamander primarily inhabits oak woodland and grassland typical of the inner central California Coast Range. They require pools or ponds of still water in order to breed. In addition,they require adjacent areas, where dry burrows,usually created by small mammals,provide shelter. The area surrounding the Habig parcel may contain salamander habitat. There is a pool and a • spring located in close proximity to the parcel boundary. The pools of water surrounded by upland habitat, including the Habig parcel, are ideal for Salamanders. It was mentioned above that Save Mount Diablo observed ground squirrels on the property. This raises the likelihood that the parcels contain burrows that the Salamander uses in the summer.Additional studies may be necessary to correct the results of Sycamore's preliminary analysis. i. Any project developed should limit construction to the non-rainy season(April 15-November 1) so that the Salamanders should be less active. ii. Given the potential for California Tiger Salamanders to occur onsite,Federal Consultation with the USFWF under either section 7 or Section 10 of the Federal Endangered Species Act should occur, and "take"authorization under the FESA should be obtained prior to recording the parcel map or issuance of a grading permit. iii-Any construction related to the project should avoid riparian, aquatic, or drainage areas by at least 300 feet. iv.A pre-construction survey should be conducted according to USFWS protocols by a qualified biologist within two weeks and 48 hours prior to the onset of construction activities to ensure no California Tiger Salamanders are within the proposed development area. v. If no California Tiger Salamanders are found within the proposed development area,buried exclusion silt fencing should be placed around all project construction areas to keep California Tiger Salamanders from potentially moving onto the site. Construction fencing should be placed around the riparian area if deemed necessary by the biologist. The biologist should routinely inspect the site throughout the course of construction to ensure that construction fencing is intact and sensitive habitats are avoided.The • biological monitor should provide an anticipated schedule to the County defining the frequency of the necessary site inspection visits. Seth Adams.Save Mmmr Diablo,comments.MS05-00030.Roger&Kondell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 6 of 12 vi. If California Tiger Salamanders are found during anv survey, CDFG and USFWS should be contacted and a permitted biologist should cavy out relocation measures, if deemed necessary by the biologist and agencies. • vii. If California Tiger Salamanders are found during the pre-construction survey, a permitted biologist should also be present at the start of construction to inspect the integrity of the exclusion fencing and relocate California Tiger Salamanders out of the project area if necessary. vii. Mitigation lands,providing similar or better habitat for California Tiger Salamanders at a replacement ratio required by the appropriate resource agencies(CDFG or USFW);should be preserved in perpetuity by a conservation easement or similar mechanism.This mitigation measure,detailed in a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, should be required prior to issuance of final grading permits.The identified mitigation lands, detailed mitigation monitoring plans, and the conservation easement or similar preservation mechanism should be approved by the County before construction commences. The conservation easement will be recorded within 12 months of commencement of grading. viii. Copies of all state and federal regulatory permits should be present on site during project construction and available for inspection at all times. D.Potentially Nesting Birds Several birds were observed on site and suitable nesting habitat is present within trees, grasslands, and scrub vegetation on proposed Parcels l and 2. Any removal of trees or shrubs, or construction activities in the vicinity of active bird nests, could result in nest abandonment,nest failure, or premature fledging. Destruction or disturbance of active nests would be in violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG) Code. The MBTA is enforced by both the USFWS and CDFG. Therefore, the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts to • nesting birds. Mitigation: Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potentially significant impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant impact level. L If project construction occurs between December 1 and August 31, a nesting bird survey of areas to be disturbed (the construction zone) should be performed by a qualified ornithologist within 30 days prior to initiation of disturbance activities on proposed Parcel 1. H.All trees with active nests will be flagged and a non-disturbance buffer zone should be established around the nesting tree in coordination with CDFG.The ornithologist should determine the size of the buffer zone based upon on the species involved, site conditions, and type of work proposed. iii.Active nests should be monitored by a qualified ornithologist to determine when the young have fledged and are feeding on their own. CDFG will be consulted for clearance before construction activities resume and is consistent with CDFG regulations. iv. Surveys for ground nesting birds should also be conducted prior to project related ground disturbance. Surveys should be conducted by walking narrow transects through the grassland within 30 days prior to the commencement of project related activities by a qualified.ornithologist. v. If a nest is found, a non-disturbance buffer zone should be established around the nest in coordination with CDFG. The ornithologist should determine the size of the buffer zone based upon on the species involved, site conditions,and type of work proposed. • A.Active nests should be monitored by a qualified ornithologist to determine when the young have fledged and are feeding on their own. CDFG should be consulted for clearance before construction activities resume and is consistent with CDFG regulations. Seth Adams,Save Mount Diablo,comments,MS05-00030.Roger&Kandell Habi_applicant Bellecci&Associates 7 Of 12 E. San Joaquin Kit Fox The Kit Fox is a Federally Listed Species that ranges from Kern county in the south and reach its • northernmost range along the east Contra Costa County Hills and Delta. The Kit Fox habitat primarily includes grassland, but it frequently utilizes Oak woodland and Oak savanna in its range. The Kit Fox population, especially in the northern part of its range has become fragmented by housing and development of its habitat. i. Given the potential for San Joaquin Kit Fox to occur onsite, Federal Consultation with the USFWF under either section 7 or Section 10 of the Federal Endangered Species Act should occur, and "take" authorization under the FESA should be obtained prior to recording the parcel map or issuance of a grading permit. ii.A pre-construction survey should be conducted according to USFWS protocols by a qualified biologist within two weeks and 48 hours prior to the onset of construction activities to ensure no San Joaquin Kit Fox are within the proposed development area. iii. If no San Joaquin Kit Fox are found within the proposed development area,buried exclusion silt fencing should be placed around all project construction areas to keep San Joaquin Kit Fox from potentially moving onto the site. Construction fencing should be placed around the riparian area if deemed necessary by the biologist.The biologist should routinely inspect the site throughout the course of construction to ensure that construction fencing is intact and sensitive habitats are avoided. The biological monitor should provide an anticipated schedule to the County defining the frequency of the necessary site inspection visits. iv.If San Joaquin Kit Fox are found during any survey, CDFG and USFWS should be contacted and a permitted biologist should carry out relocation measures,if deemed necessary by the biologist and agencies. v..Mitigation lands,providing similar or better habitat for San Joaquin Kit Fox at a replacement ratio is required by the appropriate resource agencies (CDFG or USFW), should be preserved in perpetuity by a conservation easement or similar mechanism. This mitigation measure, detailed in a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, should be required prior to issuance of final grading permits.The identified mitigation lands, detailed mitigation monitoring plans, and the conservation easement or similar preservation mechanism should be approved by the County before construction commences. The conservation easement will be recorded within 12 months of commencement of grading. vi. Copies of all state and federal regulatory permits should be present on site during project construction and available for inspection at all times. F. Migratory Wildlife Corridors: Due to the location of new construction between the riparian habitat along Marsh Creek and ponds above the parcel,there is risk that the migration of several species including the Federally threatened California Red Legged Frog and California Tiger Salamander.This more likely to occur in the rainy season (November 1-April 15) The ponds located above the property act as breeding sites and nursery grounds for several species. The range both species have been reported to range away,from their riparian or water habitat is well within the range of the Habig parcel. G. Tree Protection Policy: Two of the potential three housing sites appear to be located within the oak woodland on the parcel. This • conflicts with the County's tree preservation policies.The location of heritage trees, as well as trees defined as having a trunk diameter of 6.5 inches or greater must be taken into consideration during Seth Adams,Save Mount Diablo,comments.MSo5-00030,Ro.ger&Kandell Habig,caplicant Bellecci&Associates 8 of 12 analysis and mitigated. The applicant may need to take greater measures to avoid or replace any heritage trees that are removed or destroyed during the course of construction. . On November-1 Save Mount Diablo, the owners and applicant, and representatives from Sycamore and Associates walked the property to evaluate its condition and layout. The first and third house site that we visited were set back in groves of oaks. The hillside where this house was located has an open view to the north peak of Mount Diablo obstructed by the oaks. There is cause for concern that potential owners at the proposed house site C will remove the'grove in order to obtain an unobstructed view of the mountain. Existing trees have already been removed from sites A and C without permits and before arborists report could be performed. The possibility that heritage trees were among those illegally taken is a possibility. If a house is allowed on any of the three proposed parcels there may need to be a prohibition on the further removal of trees on any owner of the subdivided parcel.In addition any potential construction on the habitat will need to include, but not limited to, these provisions: i. Oak woodland habitat, "Protected Trees"should be avoided to the greatest extent possible, as determined by the County. Oak woodlands avoided on-site should be permanently preserved, through a conservation easement or other similar mechanism approved by the County. The conservation easement should be approved by the County prior to grading and should be recorded within 12 months of commencement of grading. ii.A tree preservation plan should be prepared by a qualified arborist to control possible damage by development or construction activities to the trees to be preserved. Protected Trees"as determined by the County Code cannot be avoided, then an oak woodland and tree replacement plan should be prepared to • ensure that they are replaced according to the standards outlined below. iii.Replacement of impacted woodlands or trees should occur at a planting ratio of 3:1.In addition, existing woodlands should be preserved at a 5:1 ratio as compensation for impacted woodland area as deemed necessary by the County. This should be accomplished on site to the extent practicable, as determined by the County. iv.Planting and preservation should occur in a suitable area either within the project site or off site that is permanently preserved, through a conservation easement or other similar mechanism approved by the County.The conservation easement should be approved by the County prior to grading and should be recorded within 12 months of commencement of grading. H. Geology 1)Erosion: The proposed construction developments may cause significant erosion downslope and into the Marsh creek drainage. There is a danger that the soils removed for construction may wash into the Marsh Creek area with potential adverse affects on its riparian habitat and species. 2 Slope: The slope on the property is greater than 26%in many areas, including sites now proposed as houses.The angle and nature of the slopes on the property increase the risk of landslides on the property, especially in the event of heavy rains. The slope of proposed house site A is particularly worrying. It is located on a steep,north-facing slope overlooking Bragdon Way. The house site parcel B is located on flat land and territory,has the problem of being located on land which is visibly creeping forward. This could affect the stability of the foundations of • J. Environmental Hazards: 1)Wild land Fires: There may be some danger that there will be a heightened fire danger due to the construction of the new homes on theproperty. The area around the property, especially in the sununer Seih Adams.Save Mount Diablo,commence,MS05-00030,Roger&Kandell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 9 Of 12 could be quite dangerous. The grassland and oak woodland may be at risk for a conflagration. What fire management activities are being considered and what additional_ impacts would they engender; for example,will water tanks be located on the property with additional visual or biotic impacts? K. Water and HydroloQy Issues • 1)Storm Water Drainage: increased storm water drainage and related impacts should be considered. 2) Water Tanks and Accessory structures: The proposed sites reliance on local well water may necessitate the construction of water tanks. It is important to know where on the parcel this tank(s) will be located.Their location has the potential to impact the parcel's habitat;erosion,run off, and the scenic view shed.The tanks could be visible from the Marsh Creek Scenic Rural route or park properties with related impacts; mitigations could be necessary. Please detail what other structures are contemplated and what their impacts would be. L. Land Use 1) East Contra Costa Habitat Conservation Plan: Conflicts should be considered between the proposal and the HCP/NCCP currently being considered for adoption. For example, Habig falls within the Plan's medium priority zone for acquisition, evidence of its importance for wildlife. 2) Regional Park policies -Save Mount Diablo and the Regional Park District have worked for many years to bring about a wildlife and recreational corridor connection between Mount Diablo State Park and Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve_ SMD and EBRPD both own property(Chaparral Springs and Clayton Ranch respectively) that lie in close proximity to the Habig parcel and its proposed subdivision. The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect these two properties. M.Noise 1) Excessive Noise Levels: The construction of the additional three homes on the property may contribute to the noise generated by the property and may conflict with the public's peaceful enjoyment of • the neighboring park property.Analysis should consider the extent of noise,which will be generated. 2)Generation of Ground borne Noise Level: The location of a Contra Costa County Jail Farm across Marsh Creek Road may create problems for the proposed units. The jail farm features a shooting range on its premises, including significant ground borne noise and vibrations generated by the range. Analysis should consider the extent of this impact. 3)Increase in Ambient Noise:There may be a permanent increase in the ambient noise in the area. The three units proposed for construction would in all likelihood permanently raise the ambient noise level. Due to the rural environment surrounding the Habig Property, the construction of three new homes has the potential to produce a permanent increase in noise level. 4)Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise: The construction of the three new homes in the area has the potential to increase ambient noise in the area well beyond what would be expected without the construction project.The excess noise coming off the hill during the project may be detrimental to the quality of life for the other residents surrounding the Habig parcel. N.Traffic and Transportation: 1)Design Features: A potential problem exists due to the increased construction due to the fact that the additional traffic at the intersection &curve of Bragdon Way and Marsh Creek Road may exacerbate a dangerous situation. Marsh Creek Road's observed speeds are quite high and making rums, especially left hand, can be quite dangerous.The increased traffic may increase the risk of accident along the road. What are these impacts and how will they be mitigated? • O.Utilities and Service Systems: Seth Adams,Save Mount Diablo,comments,A,1S0.i-00030,Roger&Kandell Hobig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 10 of 12 1) «'aste Water: The plan for the development's water waste disposal is that each new housing site will be served by a leach field to handle the access water waste generated by the new residences. It is necessary to ensure that the wastewater remains subsurface. if the leach fields cannot hold the waste there • may need to be new plans for alternative waste disposal measures such as septic tanks. Further, what are the impacts of leach fields and watewaster on the hydrology of the area, including its impacts on Marsh Creek and rare species? P. CEQA Issues related to the Proyerty We believe that there are issues concerning the Habig Parcel that relate to the California Environmental Quality Act. There are enough significant questions raised about the property that we believe a negative declaration would be improper at this time. CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an environmental impact report ("EIR") except in certain limited circumstances. (See, e.g., Pub. Res. Code § 21100 (emphasis added).) For example, a negative declaration may be prepared instead of an EIR when, after preparing an initial study, a lead agency determines that a project"would not have a significant effect on the environment." (1d., § 21080(c).) However, such a determination may be made only if "[t]here is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency" that such an impact may occur. (1d., § 21080(c)(1) (emphasis added).) A negative declaration is improper, and an EIR is required, whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a"fair argument"that significant impacts may occur. Even if other substantial evidence supports the opposite conclusion, the agency nevertheless must prepare an EIR. (Stanislaus Audubon v. County of Stanislaus(1995)33 Cal.App.4" 144, 150-151; Quail Botanical Gardens v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4" 1597.) The"fair argument"standard creates a"low • threshold"favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. (Citizens Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990)222 Ca1.App.3d 748, 754.) As a matter of law,"substantial evidence includes ... expert opinion." (Pub. Res. Code§21080(e)(1); CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(5).) The mitigations enacted or agreed to in any resolution for the property must conform to CEQA standards: CEQA also requires that mitigation measures be adequate, timely,and resolved by the lead agency. The environmental review must identify mitigation measures for each significant impact. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(A).) The mitigation conditions must be feasible and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2); Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford(1990)221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727-728 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650] Q. Findings of Significance: 1) Loss of Quality and the Environment: There is potential to impact several Federally protected species.The housing project is in close proximity to habitat of Tiger Salamanders,Red Legged Frogs, and Alameda Whip snake. When evaluating this project it will be necessary for information to be provided that evaluates the impact on these species in relation to the project. 2) Cumulative Impact: There is potentia] for the cumulative impact of this project to become quite important.Marsh Creek Road and its rural setting are largely free of development.The expansion of further housing in the area begins to alter the character of the region. The remainder of the housing development is also cause for concern, that it may be further developed in the future. Possible mitigating • features to the property include a conservation easement that would limit the construction. Above all there may be some concern that the project is assisting continuing expansion into the Marsh Creek Scenic Route Area. Seth Adams,Save Mount Diablo,comments.MS05-00030•P.oger&Kandell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 11 of 12 R. Zoning/Grading The Habig parcel is located outside the County's Urban Limit Line,within the A-2 zoning district. The land use designation for the surrounding areas include agricultural land preserves both in the .42 zone and • in the adjacent A4 zone.The area is rural in character without the presence of large-scale housing developments. conservation easements with the owner(or the applicant). If agreed upon it may be best to for the easement to limit the expansion and further subdivision of the property in order to preserve much/most of the property in its existing state. This would mitigate the damage/danger to the habitat of the aforementioned federally protected species and prevent any unnecessary development of a rural zoning district. The Habig property is located on a steep slope, and there may be cause for concern here. Any development may be located within a potential landslide area. In addition,in order to build on a slope excessive grading may be required. Any development on the property would be visible from large areas of the east slope of Mount Diablo's North Peak and the foothills of the State Park. Non-permitted Grading: On the November 30`h tour of the parcel conducted by the owners and applicant, Save Mount Diablo, and Sycamore and Associates, evidence of unpertnitted grading was found. At two of the three house sites,parcels A and C, the ground cover of grass or oak had been removed.In addition for house sites A and C, driveways had been graded to the house site. This grading was done recently, as no satellite photos of the property show any evidence of grading at the sites. In both instances there was evidence that the grading had cut tree lines, which could lead to the eventual death of those trees. There is no evidence that this grading was permitted or authorized by the county, which is of a concern to SMD. The mount of grading is well over the threshold for which a grading permit is required. Development Grant or Easement • There is documentation to show that when the county allowed for the subdivision of 160 acres, which included the Habig's parcel, a conservation easement was required to be placed over the property. The county was to retain development rights to the whole of the property not covered in Mr. Habig's 3-acre building envelope.The construction of agricultural buildings is permitted, with some restrictions. Conclusion The Habig parcel is located on one of the County's major ridges and in the Marsh Creek Road scenic corridor.There are confirmed locations for several rare and endangered species in the vicinity, and development may threaten major public amenities including nearby regional park lands and regional trail connections. Given its elevation and visibility to surrounding parkland, and biological resources and agency plans to connect Mt. Diablo State Park to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, development of the property should be prevented as was contemplated and required in the previous subdivision. As a result, Save Mount Diablo is opposed to this application. Should development be contemplated however,significant additional biotic,visual and CEQA analysis should be undertaken. Please inform us of action on this file or any public hearing dates. Thank you. Sincerely, Seth Adams • Director of Land Programs Seth Adams,Save Mount Diablo,comments,MS05-00030,Roger&Kandell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 12 of 12 V • �L Li •.1 2 .. in Y `V ik- CM ,UJ co to CJ F U co r x b rA 3 U b + �! O 4 p 1 r + E41`11 i,ff ' V O ❑ O ryry b. ',rylir'�l L Il�lprir�:'i ,'fr fl Il i rl �ry�fli¢ i il' I'f Qr rrZ ti t. tl•.`11 tir�ti r r.dkl!: s ..y . .—y 1111N,01011' h t rl t�t,f v CO •��r �............................ `�lij)}li�' � Ill 11 lr , �1 ,I� M W rte, (d ,��1 CD ' �1lla�I f f l..J �1 'flG'hwsnb I O Jam+ .r 4 }. Lh c 1 I>n yV 1�.�ry'11uy111 6'Sri t�m'y'y I 1,5v} »,) - IK�''u,p1 I t!wf� 'l�A sir c ,tr y4� n,:t I f1a I �, F imbl�IJ�•p .C�l,���g5t"r�l���l�lt r� U ® 3 F,'I 'ks�'L1i J,��x li d'�, . Wkbf 1� I1 Fdfll('�ylhr [l�'i cn p �(l�tU'atls-yn ro ;`k W�93 4I 1 �Ir�� kF I To //�C/� F !!�11,71 flf �'!'i 4}I,1ti Y n1 la 1Vgr� a (t 41 , wh Ilru P tilf�i k �11 1i k 'H �1 I Ifiitilr�G^I:I91 qp Ilq �(+ I I ud�I� itp .���I 111�a I Ik 1 r1�Y I�,ff q Tiff II��I. yv r ro N ;fpt iJiJ - 51 N � Gtw t "ll 1 II� "t I,tl!...h........ ' •� �'- ' I' � II tie Gfrs-d .�. Ii-1 ,lit a b �Pyyp, til ,, ,i i r au ,r t{i qI,L r Q II 5 to I llll tl ir �r'� tolf F5 N �:. J k N FIS �y.4 dk't i [.✓@frl '+q ni �I . r— 1 Ve h JFl J 1! HLCI p 4F�!,�fll• �-1�y 1 d'F��i.�i 1AE `�y{p �tltr�t�Fi[lIy' id�r 1/� k� y L• h 3 3 'K fRIA4i.� 1 11rSm_I�4yL�� �f'b�511'3' u@�'l ll'v�I kL'S��url' I�' qd'f I , III y k€' d �-" ;� II _ rf k 6xr`�L�"F�.�S�e�Pm,.F'p 'x1�,�q"•k�•st�151.��,�A,k�'Inyiy�t�.9 t° t� •H w w�j I, PJB'� ,Ira, r"'�-1�c� �4 ye"�s,+E�G4� Ix'�v} p�q��y4`�tk�` k�, y���+'�'���-!' I k 1�.0 i� i'In+F �M Q�.1 4i�i�4 YL LI (1IFflB�ra pJ�Yh'r It kl tl L W } I ' E 4•'4 t r ; f a r rr!@y§�'4xr�I'fr rr ui t �'avht'{�f�l �@ N@ , t�jfl. A t l 0 11 r 5I a fl rm�Pu s � ,tea a, Io�r ql uu 11 Cjt _lrszp` .5SVKU T � F ^\ I �•r ._� d y E_ L d v _ �M Intentionally Blank • • l.}yI, y. {tU - rY 14' • ` JF.q{ k g W. ,yrFF- � Y.L _ YYa a .rexc:de �' 3r•'�""'4 ni'a:� '4 r y`��i Y-Y .C''+�y � _ � � �r, tnin'.'if,S�y-s�''}r �' '5�,,�kSC� YI"y. r1r�• ,S, 1a .R 1.��+A�`'�id�'1Y r<,c` �a+{ef��' � '� rt r�"4J rr rr "�`-8 s'ee+�e''`�4 �+ � Iln.'.� ��7 �r.y. rr* .I:,;y.T��'a�y��� Ir�i•'l�t�,2•�,,,p c+' f.�:� ._tpJ'. t �SM `�shw„}'z7 a ,� s r; r i,• � :�J '' t�s,g '+' r - .iC . k'�k g �,r�t � �,yArrti',?i+. . p� � x r� i h,.�"�• 3-y� =t +�-fits q � -. t a r wl fir,�,N,•�a1..'y �.r 4 F f�.1�°�F�cr,Y.F �1. 'p+dMo�! ,. � ar}�yy ,'� 1^' 'IOW ry`L' +��*' m a-4 z 'Y Jyr• 't 1 tw {r!r (,ira "'lir��.�� 1 �e. ry� �l i�v2 +�i l � � '+• d ;F.j NS''i,'y� d q, +u a��-7°.Se��g. � �i��>•n< ,`s+ D.� 1r1}�rvlrt��,.y� �:s�t � :�� t �i ff_ ,t�,'�,,��j s ��f,,;�+[ "'.K''�S'f'.. , ,s e4� e ° - 9 Y^fi f.�,� ,,�,�� � .�Z.-� 1 +l ,�'yh.+. -r •+. .��.�}is ,, r n'{+N i° _ � 7 ��2 + •iCf 7 R ) .P '3, " '+ R�)y.� '` iu� tt r5tn�' `�",,1F .�j ,�T'1r•tsk�,{�+,ty1�'�1 �r. � ��y+. VWAARi',• {4 , .W"�'f n r 4 ���M"� �'1. �1� .F x �.7�� ��p •�a .. 4 � �i a5 r + r C y{ti�.•� d � er n:�'r�ya"x 34'k �, �°!��7f��I.r L�rr t',- + ,,,iis. "'+ i a'yam{r Y� J•r�;y^ .� x I +�a r • r I L.a�.•IFf-+�, •L, �r�'.;'D°Sillt i'kry,�r''�,,.e s..,� +� '�';?�r �art��,;��'', ,•'�' n ''��.+9��' �tr'�s 9 ,,,k 1y�'h WRO yr '*F< &. ! a�Y•'+:. :'Mx J '�''ys. eti F+ � r-'�,�� � ,,• -s fr�"Iv'FP4 ( ��' �� b+ �} "^� _t a '•'Rm -: ,:F xa —�° ifil: 1"i J,+ A ,N 1q�r. i d / ) !li l l i. i I '] ” �. 4 1 } I'c .�y +7�. ,py.9J � iM" -•,�"' f '� + 7.n L) i L r I I.i; ��4 ��t T� .)'Y.. S+1Y' Fl. I--2�r� w� I, ,�iRKg fpY�:.. ~ T'fq',Tr(.'ih A Yr6�. .;' '' A F•'p� Fr y5 }. '' + �",'� kr y .eu • :�dt r .. w r ..5. 'fd 1? � � ne, ���! �µ s��t �. � C yam. � L��fr7�.?�u"yA6 '•"�L4F 1.. �i_ .,f„�',�trcd.'�! .,.�, ! ' ,,Z,p. ���'r. ',J����J 1 ..�";i'Y�F`�.E." s-`..-{�.. °�'.lr.'y .ti ' +'�'� k�5pi< 's;�rr"J� ,�t�� vi� °1 d�S?t&��1' F>t : -��w,'"1.•F�'�'�.'e�. � f I '� ,'+� VY'� r pR T �,' , ��a 3� � .!1• , r:7 ,;��'�� a4�;jv-} 1 g.. .. r'� ;;, '�.,(� ° r }. �.: ..Yr �x p, i:. ° -.�'?�. V�r�Txs'*'f 1�.l 3 t ���'�w'S w�+•'2'J' 1„"� �'':raE. eh���>' � i:j��r1'J�I�$7 f �a�I��� ✓,i,� ;i5„ „y .�d-'wir -.��',y, � G� `I � .�,ry,�, ,.g I .9>t��f f �r t �` ,t ���� .g.�s.�"r, ��,s ""t-gym. .�ti_ �'r .• �, ) a �' r s dyt -'w � �'�ry.� h7 7•'tm°�,'A'�. r rTr+, }'�ftii I '7 '} < {�}° 1 'tSd�5l-�'�'" °� � '�+ '�''ti ,rte ,a r r .Z`f, x .F+� { r _ � d .y ""4.� ��'•,.' +r 3 �: Vii#I { ..y 1 r. � n �y.t r?}f`s F ..'•'r43 s er err rY ��& rh 'rYP _W zr �a �,,,Y d' g.fi'h•�'1i��''r4r i�'��ti� y � S"L°rT r .! - � 'a'F'r^�.+c'#Y�� �' l � "'Y}*�'-��L^!o- ) w��y '&�; °'' "r _k �; s.L.' � 3e•r'°' 1[' -Y ���.-:. r.. n '..r�' � je�"•f,i��2�:.� '�-'.° � .n �' :,3. r r"}4�� ,yt, � - �pa�~�'.. ,q „�65+ s s +�' o- J�_ 'c.• �20D6 Neweq'r� ,� �� ��� *. r.,. � ��AA" �- ei"�f 4 �` t —3����"'i Tom'' '�Ss.+a: v�st.•�,- ��x � _ r '4i!' ����'�.2��� _ 1x.. --�,.� ��((.�7 ;<a tivi+' 'wy�aSr:G ! rtf} �" ,i ✓J.1£ h p� � t� SI �I�i µr: wit ¢• t WWW xyy.' R Sf i I� MZ�!4r ....... 3{f x• •tr 11x`L•'�i . "gid. ,y 1�. rs tdl..,tb �,�°�` t 7ei`es °!, .e' >�� '"' "L "-+�w'4r ""�'"^*++wwe a'�:iy 5 .+� 'X`r-s t '�, r. I .r•. .t -. `+. vt "»t ,Ei Li 1, d. `' a•4"! 'Int "S,:>,. L� _,,,., �tz F'�.r ' f�a ..,�•• S�Titi ^r��! `}y `fid'' �"4`.;.,yK`" ) �;�,e ��`"��e.. 7•y,�,„wi,Yv. � r�.y,����,,,,,, � �i i �,�'Maxv'+�c^�"'�t7. r° r s r9 � -N •r,...vt �, � F trTtl.� �,�,� 9'�tt� �� -'se. .. s 4.�.T"� �rl. Zae. f�ia.-r,q, .••nt �„nY .,. .r x tl�r � 4s^ert'v �' 'taeN% d! .•,�'b4;a •4+4t,*`i. I �I?'f tY �„. 'f"r.l I +v kr`' '�.i".uw _"'.. - Yi „5-" ^> E .. ..I ^e '"' 1f bx `a-+..I 'vk'� x s•¢i K, x «—.,� i 1G,r',WI,�' A'i t t�t� "'kms m�� `" �i";`�� !� { I e t �.�.xu•.• ,i."' '-•�+ra� �t i� ,".a�.+�w';^r5+;'•;s"z�s hi¢e,5l�sa tf t A ,:.u�Rt!� 'tl J.({ e r tK ii..y��,••���EI�m��,htkr s�i�!°4'��k FS y"•x._,moi °may.. ;t �i Fr+i♦ v ;. � �a°'.'.q�°IT�'V`"�: t ,stp'Et« r- ,s x'!" ua�"`+ry `.�.; "' �"w = r '� � �- �'�'t�ir.• -�� a _ I ^., 1 a ^; >r }w�W"#t'+�F�rT""v'�"iu+'^^'y �yi-�N.r t, "+"^N'w •k N- ♦ dS k" 'V I ""' f�.� f'f { "+"\a..�, ,. s♦ �,t 1"4.'y,�y' s t'4pl'�!: 1 .'t- ¢I '+}nwr 'i t I tT°lir F t x C I. �+ X s. -a,,w'/ �"• .' -.,�y .+m �i u.a It r,r wudS ''`^"vr p sr t� ri` - ,.r'" .4� o "rc. ,�,:"R B •h. _ ! s�- � 4. .,r, r.^ia+r„o-z a,To--if s� t 4, '� i� ��"'�, ��� y i•4++,t"��«„yL� t�.a;. 'e"+ �'.r,a � s..i.`,.tw- .y,..M" iy�F 7 Y•+.lar�V.ae..g- , "w.x'� � r. •�'!ra yfllh s. w. „� .+'��� rr �� ?...� ��M "�� ° u t �f° . 4u..'I'{,Vk.a.�r ;J�'w^*�A ' ay' a m ItI WrdMw'7"w.. t ! x •`Y IVNyl� M w' e .us'"Ei ... I r alr � r www•. t1 ..u•Fro ary..�....mw`„c"ly� a !�r dm c at,r r. x r +s., .mat y t t i., �� '",.,�„.....,Nw 1 ' F".:°*r _ In vl�'' I «y 4Yr jtiCw E� as "' !t- �� +'`° ,w,,�t"°'4!,..., ^,,ei� ^•�,�rr� �u�v.� 1�i�� '� � } y'. '�1 ��.�f:i�' r C",.uY i< t ie ker.kIlx °v'S'9! t �S"' 'm 'xe' ro•°r4V�e'�' e m t7fi� � ..." a - I '2,.. .Mi+ca y�' k � wig s 7 �n.l.t<r,A„Leti'tihn w� •waf 1� �"xt`'�r^'fC�_ m ,:J•���� ,M ,, ! '� ,d^ry,Lw ���wA'r� ,�}`Ss Mil •w'tir ^.w H � �� ltr>v1Sfu�%1I 5`' 'Pq•'�I c. -r��Y�� „yt '_..'m�S'_ `j•,+ _ . '•^'xl• vt s I � `"!r* 4 ri� �"� 4 "`" r '" z�,...«ne.�q ��� ,✓ Ate t j`F�y; t `` i.��y^. ",�,i�x ��. '"'''°"^.�C'F+ �r I�,�p�r,�ljYNc�r uL="I.tF"t^^�!I..y,,.,, -•ti �' � as...r... !r ebr� ppyy_�^�Y'9 6 t1�r i{&:, .y.. °�, +.„ u-•ox+L,Y?w.v'` y�yt •n'agy tF 1't ''may �i M��q i.�. '.,,v'•+-.www. t awiM��i^'=�i+,, w• "^..wc rti. k+",.! .p..A ��� w 4���rf�;aH � i "YY•L•"'?'I`!'t� M7 .,- �•"`��,�""� rNy�"•�J.1 Fa�''a�` m.w����N..XE�v A x:. '�Wi"""• � � f�.�wN f•+www r ,, 'S� y,.,,rr��,,rria°'�r4 tYorwa�.I,,,,,,,,.a.Vaw+'� .w,a��,,,•ffk�`d �".,...• •�vLrn !�� x' Ln""� ^'' t--a�llai t,`"' .1+m. 'ar r'. ' '.„,,,w" 6Ta qq,, ,,,, ^M K"""s" fel�+'�^"�"'a't$•�tEt.d„ Viµ" M� �. el+de ..r1r.ta �' "w I .. 777 '�3c'"-JAR '? �,!� OfJlt��E 4K a •.p.r,"� 'xtt'� its r,Ld d.'�°'� ��y(?I '�� �lnuwll,,,°„X'r ��„ w^Wt>», � ... _ 1�4eaxteerxw,�,Rta'.i°i.{�.Y fwi+ ^ yyua" y`�;� �,rY 7'V e^.Y•' ,` °••r.. ,1 L I ..L' -�M,su �i:' Ji«".��w'�•xt 'b !�stt( adf"{.an.:,"n°b.!.•r° }'+'=r1�`�...C"ry.'-�:t�c'.O�.t A .�°�.•fi ,,�kere� �tt�e,t,sr,��F:r�t`F'F�+,i�. EI b P'�Lst I�vza.'�1^7„'� tir�.I y�.°w!y, ll., ti.nrtr, teaw?y`.„wtk. Ql,FF� "i! ago” E t,1st'w fs,�er'tr".3N.n-fSa:li,Wm ic Frl K-rx.v!.'t-•:'.. xr u 5 �.wr +n°!� u "�`• �ww`aa �L ,_d"t��"" rka��aFrAi 7 Ind r�t c�3a�'' .0 ^��,�v� N r••� � .. y�,�y.�t ,Y �}g P^h�•7'kM„ tti•W t4 �"'�,I• �r r a'I;��r�1'd�F��x'/.., �„�.r ,.I.,. -r^ I>YYlrr rAY!". _ d -fit,�.{�mx F c?sr"��4 " Fq m':y; i 1 a f€ d•���' I r, a.. ,t�T '�r"'"���Y� r'� °,",+xxk""` 1xc �:"` r-•71 � sa' ac ;;}2a,..a..r ti e�r,'�,y��,''t;+,,,,� LR.^4¢r !y-A �; Y+1.s y t 1 �^' rz,. •.-�. r � x e'>��,t 7 r, > '3t 1��yy,, � °`'�' ki:a�'i ro 1`"'"•( a•��i tl."��.-ra''�wsr:. �'� �t .L .�'•. �� T� ..+Ru�,•� `s;'7`t�i'�}r Y...Y���,��� ^h.''.-��`;,w,i o„ 7F��X��"�,����ya"� fi���, ., s�I���4�w�Jsi"�'Y��x° �. �1!� �''� 3,.-� •d'�'a'r"'���'F cr'-� x '�,*S+r� ^= dx r-' 6.aa��l.�p.�.-i.'9. r�� ''•- ���i. r�•�L�,ke'�e.�jy,w ,� v t. _ i s ��,r���•c�� � +'n�,>.�.,,--r d#' �,� ,+ti ar""� ,t7*'.�`"�a"9"G „�.��'" h '� teles"c.�qF.a. s, � +--.. � 3_. ..� 4;,� 4P��� iptn�e&� IgpatGtob ,-, •�„—",���.•'' ',� ,,q, . '��� � I :,.,"'�_..;k •`5r � -u„�-��+ lmaae•O,20A&R_ODR£est6S .x �-�_�- � �'. �r �" e.�u xPv-� 'i:y_ r.�M�n _�'. .:..�s�:•' '"- �-. �. _ '-r�� 'S@M1b�OHI..:� -�`' 'tea,�� 'r.;�"_ �:� ?a�,,� `,�•�' S :k. '4al' -�.�,,, ,.� `,.-ur.u. , �y�y.. ,t sx'- S«.:: •er- •i ,�� 'F u ---- .11 „_ =-�swvw�,n;.'- •!` 1,.�, , t r�"a , °t'",+15.."'t,�;,{yr�t:.3t �.. "'! �s ar 1 �:. _ c_ p � -:+.� `'0 �. m ;f „ e.•"".t"-" r f:,;.11, ~ �33n'�c;� Y 1R4i t-,ie ; "' -•¢; R�,",, "" "-' •• ->u.,, -dt^+5 r ^, �Fuwl't�-' ++Y . '"'o-^`: aI r1�f �`� 1,�- ^e.^- tir " ,•� sri i'W NEW d•+r.+l�»vatt� .�I�. rti9 ,..�r" !� � r'1�w�Q '�Il�c�'�� ��,�,j.,,.1-t N�� / iM )� '�ky..1 'c`I''' '.:. v 1 '"• ",l 16�v. ,,.- �..<u,• a� +b' ,.��fipr � I --ry >.`+>�'� 4"��- ,. ,..+11�-• :. - "�""y�� � �V �":n!'C "R ; i ✓M "�Tb' .,y+lp f E,,,'fro'Lasi�, Iw '"',sr�"rrrr^'�Y` '."`. Mo-M., SP "'+.w >reK'�'.t�kl'rC s w ! e fib a.. '+ MUM<�-�M1 'i'•::i dY�r. "'R."'li J^Naa F�t" 1.u."'Ir+�7C'^'�H'", a> ro d- 7a�: . lYlz rsw'Vi it 7I�x.11.u'.,�fG^��C4 tf 3' "F `."'t"♦ "✓.w 1<L -0{�a xu).ur�F�w+4...r iv"�$ !'� �S.' `:a5� 'rtes . �'�Ni t'"� : ,�,: �.pd B n•w f '^,..M K" i"`. n h� Klv r 5...er-ar'x,t-�s ' 7i`vw+.-tee. + .a,. 'T: ;,r �".� { ��� �'��'�'�'• :;�v'r;f�wN> t.l._.W Vr• A 7 d 'tit^?i,"I�`4.. N f �i I "w.�'�.��,w-taa'^ _.... rr`r..•.a'� .,� �lir .1-f ,v�� z.�-,-<� �F` :a^-� Y. y'� ..r,.,...i tic �..e f l t.' :.. i ' � :. _: —7�"wrC�r. •r-,i�•'�r.:�y, ""� y�...4, ;l..n � ,,w,-E'•s,-li.>. .'h! kw•ra � '"1 a� to i �I � .1NIf '1i��11vvrr ySS ��C � � � til K.. y •.� � �,f. �f. It t �,. I �,. wjY (°�' y�G i MLM1r 'I I'���: .1� Z � '..;{p-. .. ""Y ,�'��TiYi]�'t'1��y✓? � Ytl w - �.. ' + c {� k.+ 'w.C•i^ .q y..ip�,ll..: �Yf I' �+ 3 ,n •+ '.��' re.r= --I tj sup. �����+-,�'�-ry- z:- � ..�•�� 4� � 7y..y ,� ��2 --� riN'�L . H r t r ,:ec, ol t N c _Allmi ge@Z00}6>MCA"Ea — w—!UM— wT. .,179 l AN 1w"Ri FP -R�Rla ;o wffil� MEN. me p 'R,5 -lvllvlia- 11,ON MY — gg -06- t�-s -AIN np Pu, pe PIN vg,�z. v, ZE, ag 4',x- :`glli tFhf�� ap P4 �tid•ra'r��4wyr.'�it-.'�'Ni�1+r_i1rrr$5f 7�a.hve a��4�ri.T!h'u�r;1'): �n1�tt3a'7r.,i1k�+'�,`2i&,+c.Y_:,'xx't"'..,'t:,..7�C��f„zr°y{.���1�rr,ey;r�tr.fyJ7�i�Ts.i!.y1I�4'{,q.�43�wS,iai :rR '-�'ia'.a,'s-eIow:^+x,v rs'�°,t..rt'@..�n'e1lF,�v xcip'�""�r J•iM iFro.f'.'"e....',+�,�l,�@""d�'t'r`.aC,t.•a�i"'r`L:y�r.�,�/mq'S�ra�.d r f rk'�R4Yt'' gm ,ew " ,110ii t. 5'24, a Vvk- W—g- —pw P-1 BMW Rs� =71; ,P-',g -a ggg 7-1 1 rR-R- XXA ggg MENNEN V3 y f ` yFOAM; vi 1.-i,_ IN ,x's .. 'S. �va.r.ar � rr.�w `� ti-c 'k"-.a" �trP "'��y�.•,,`� di�' ' .,�_,&;,, ��.,."`. �„� -„�F�^�,f7'r .a-3'r'"k` v.e-__,�•..,r „�.. 2 q� r.,���- i� �c s+T✓fy,.,��.,aSy"�� i a ��'c�,t�' 1��,�'�"�'�r�'_�3-��`-�. "`ie'1�'"s�r�l�, �,.. �� -e, :: +��.a. "!'Riff-•.^�' s.. ��"t�>+z'•�,.����^.�t"`ti '��"°,.�`�`�-�x,'wt�'"� �'i w'� 1 1 1 r E4`alr` i a•�n `� �T �-•i`r iia ';`.�,"''! .. +.,.rk .T a `".fie. -f �•a,`..,�.. ,.•�`�.�"%'v` �s z-i .,3 T���_�,yMt•'� � tk ..1 � s. - ;r�rs t� axs-L:'••H.'F� a _ h x.'1.y -[a..�•x'`•.ti`].�xL. �.xa i`.tir.e-,��PrE. t'R r sxr�'a3.���e..b>.�'�r-c q� ir`. n �t kOf� >r '� e Pis c� e cw.r t�arS ria ZS'dy ,r�z.. -�-.�.1.;.. .F `rk3,y. �,L�� p.e��+.+^•�,� 4,�-.q� �'�"�.r._ a ,cy .-3�^,¢ r�"d`t ��, _.;' �"'" { '. yet \�.� }, 7'•;�"'F x�3�L..-i�r �s-,.'t`��'xx{..rte� �-c �e—�'Lr'c`Y '�y� y� •�ss�`^S. 's�,�y� � ,r �a��. e s� �+, y. tae �•Py.�-+�pns�l �' �+x�y a.e�e, {{��- �}y rc�$� ..r.�.� i'u�3• � r •.�° -a Cr "b Y""_' 'Yl r t�'t y a.,F,`Y.k„ T.s s 'F ,,,� ����-�,�„ 3 � ,�+�§�� •w!�r •�yc�'�r�',�"' � sy�� .,-��.�.-SR• r gn --5s,tra-.,r 'F,•tZka _- :. �l.•.,• .re^"'r'-a_,a ^�s y-- �� M . •.•n�•`y3'. .+aet ,.,,- +. _a¢.F' a'a1F�'tr,' '��^r""'.�'r'C�'� tr..;) -L f., t x '�T ! '•,.a, z '�r# x"e'a,-r—asE >• rye - ;M .-„y� Yr7 ° r�•'>; M£�iy d'a� va e `+' v a A ,� � �. .a, sz, 'S>a\'�.'� t `d�. � �` S�7 t.'t•�Wm" �, - f,tgva r :�+. S. .r ,s H•'a- >•r3'rS�. �km1- �'� r 1h � R`.i! �.1 N F "C L`y3'�' 4.'i Y�{''•�y ,'3"�' S*T 'r„ i a,�.,` x T�.at* a ty. �.. K ♦.it�rv� Tit R i ea .�„'a' "' 'rc s,t 5, t� '}n' , Sh3tr,�y, gg - ag a t y -;d ! `us '� r jS'it1'C a -aa it1T TMT � �rar3 .�l•v��ycT.„i`'��. +. � :< \ k v`v i ,�� Tt i � !.T ,s a.s t ^„+u1. ' i alxwr� � '�}'` at'��•S ,y �. �TwaA� l \1. (�1 i t.d �y�T l 4 C•n T�kT�{ F'4!3,�34�•Fk d"' A�r,y,` , f� t° >(R+ <�ty$ �,�.'. FL( C'' 4C 41 `u ^kI, e E ,� a ,a x e x t y,,:-:�.,+,.cre'>_..1"'hvr'it'• `3 a .Sa c kF a.)��'v -"�'v'T;TuS`.^ v R "�'tr ?,.i ,v:.. .=6�::� GZA� R ... ) �n�t h � � �`� ytV.t � 7.i 4. I i �'a iL._}.,e'1 �\ �CrI k�` 3i�1\ ��� a'`� 't•'rFxC).r W, t w � jM Yr2 � i �5 1'<'" �a'. .r'Y'x'-�s1�•'t4"� i "°d="�"" . fix , - "s, e! 1 \�yN�7Lt Yi'�uw�'^e .. F�•jt,.��""i at..at��'�.at ��T�Tri1`F q\ �� � �§\yS. '4.�.. �.Fi �i�"t TiYm t uk` ,��.�+`•'"� .a,F i�. t,• `t'' it •. .w a'�.;1i' ''�il^..n• '.� �"'t,r� e ,g * •=,T i >~. r ysyt.,sCe'', s ' 1 irk 3t ♦ ���....-- rx a`ux ,\S<,. ts, "mit-a ae '�G° d1 , 5.j tL. ,e +ei.'�`fN•.w 3 yyt3r- .r.ao,tt`f.'l; s h �f .' vSi �,. }4,, y '..rCS.'i�•r�'r,,,�,r;$.btkFa,,'' ,�le"4����yy.�++, kk'anoa., E'Y tom` k, ^ ,+LF'ul'ipr�t" "^ ..` S OF NET�r36 .aY 'c"'i s 'i � _{ �ti =1tsT A �rw l '?a"'Y`w �. k..n.e��a �'� �`� 23 ++���uny^e �-�ye.•a:.+, �• � �1 �Na% s si ;xN �yayckyr t`�xa\�Thea. 1�}�.-7 'C��V�"',.�:.w`�n�� "`Sn�:i�`k,F� 'r ��e`9+rr^.W a.�',': i�q>(nirva�L'�`T'�t�1'A3�}'a5 '°• `'1• S�p��e h'• rYtiat�e �` ��.SxiB��'t�T"�"'�", � ,p tY art ��'�'�;i t xhr,h.y„h iA a .> "t Q % .,c�SY-�'e''�v'a.y;�} .t��}f ��M�•1a�-�l�r.' '°7'q"�t i���`7°T'�'�k^a r.`w+ �r�a'. ��y .. "`.� � �� F ?r4�" ��^ta..•,�Y��:,,�T�. : �,,a�`• i a �` ,;� ,r�°,"5`'���\�ZW'T\� ��"��" ^'"�L!`Xi`n4�1+ .i, i�' �a S tic ✓e �i .a�vl��`"al s�� t ' .��` ����Y��f�� `c��.,: ''9z 6J � yM`^-��+1..Aa��xr� �,R� t h�"t l e.arp:.\ �a iM�ali7�.�: �t '7a 4 3 Cbv w b.5, e� r� batt y �4� 1"r`�A'� s Th.� �"tee, rt`ir! w-a•K,,,.A�n 3 ,�e Lz -,u ris +., �E �� ����" '�' +� `��� "r y'4`�����j>': �A,4�xJ.+�+'•�}a xkI`a�,yi �^,: }�a� �ai �. �[`T�r Tt �>zi `r *4�r•.:°ra4�C.Y.,, +�' „�ha� �`� .�s s :� � ��`, \t�.3`�".4 Tl�a e�u� t.\„�Ta�, ,<J ua�y,.��.,t.� • � � a'' k •)tt\ # v. >••::yF?!iT `i.?f l `ceAW+w..x YP ,,E"°•4 !i N 1 S ` t 1U1 �Nn i '•�i �y`�Y 'e'a`�^�` �' c �` t II ila`y'F*'� T t ><a ke,y..,tiir„S'� �wq� H a„f i l <.. 4 f ak t,c�i a -+ V t •`h f k S^,\ T� �. i cixa "i o-ye.M '\i.4 G• },` ahF �71w ✓tiw'� 1. i`t`a� .0 'i �`', t.F) ;�T� 4.1S .\y,•y'Ftti '.:'r YF ). &k 2 eAe a b;^�T-yyi S 5}+«��' :\ a ltl .w 41.cy h aYr' T t ) 3?kt ra �Ak +':. tx3.rxvett• Aaa`'.K. ..t: xa.> F a`l^x a e aY �^ th �" i T "S,•,+f»e ..: .. �.�� �����•4h i . I �F'" tb F sxTevft,,s'..L x . 1:F `,,¢¢t;; �.'rl t Sl`t r#-3 �'x `c+• a 4u>11'h�.�'S "t.a -'f' ti ar AA,,�`��ng,� �"g3�a, R '7, .>.^ r�a� x. � t�T r.yry,�Y��r � �i s,f ax�^T4"f`+ems w k�c t � hJ �..W 1 :.d.n t r ,I•. ,��v\�. :.CMC '.{MryYni:> '�SY+,�'d E B k`� rry„`1�.. 'i!'F" °' ry,3`i<.ti �� ck�:s^",�k r•�.i T 'F'ti fad a ,.,a,.,. a *`4.ti� ^e`r"tsT�i'',ASasr�fN♦ix kiv`+i• Ati� 5(T't�TS,��f`gil x t''tuJS < fy"��'{1UIIA ► t st lM1-.aye `its t7e��+ `' "`��':F.,•� �s 3r 1,: r> � � , i"•�'� t 1._Aa,F '\C✓�lti\i«$�.; ('!' ; I ”! 1y'._4a St -'.< etaK ._ trr� •r':t R:V (".i+ a s'itvtY .: .t'7ia �� y�fr?rF`iic��q'3� II� t«V �� t„r ,^•t^`E�1 "1� tyr�Y 5 r r >3 :: �. { , a, ':� " \,n }'�E '"L R,�r�r Q1�' �t .`�,.¢ 'h� f^t•"{'S� i� �i rr, .,�f . 41 -m e ri� l v .. v � �,ve i �@ Sw :. t✓' �x� t >. �� re_. � S a � �+r-' r .. �•^KF �`+x,t re w \ v + r NSr � �� t e a J P Y. tm�Y tr ^,. S y ew.•h+: xr }i'r '� yiCyir�k� eaa" �ey„ci � w+Yrt 4 ±Sv� 'y�„,� st s, T k w, `tk'Lx't?'yi •<' c efi;. :E.y "a !.f'i .•e. r'i "i.3:.C.>F ?s -e..T' 4!•. Y �h R }rs,. W`�� `, a V-•,�L"d a..;�� `i'„1. S t, a .rx r i�' t 1. q � y ,t ar t a : "L x o c 1. .� sr `•i 's i�; a_ +,� sFi r a c '� �twya t: �E"-a` C,h1 �' },r sa .s u +'r'a P”fir ?�`� '. c F .x"xw Pc .`-� ti• r �s'.'�r c ¢4�,;.�.•)' - �x �'9 "r-�`� _ ax z { -,F,yx " ;� �"" <r Pik ayM MR— ez '"'�`STr-+""F te • ��`. -fit'` ,'.r � - .,''� � _ .�+�•�y�,��.�' - qt -A� _ .+ • t_ rpg yam. �`-�".ei�.'y`��R..,._ � � _ _ �i� y: <t 44:_3- "•"^�:.� '-c. 1s., � rc +�`�< �'�-t',��a'czS P•",kj�-�•+�-sf -ems�C r '�T 6 mp �,.. x-o aJ ., ,� �,,,stib" ".c•' '+�2 ..,�f. 'is, ' �nr��x.`!'`-c "r y� yF' ur RI I �,'gq', g'. x r {"' 'V. iw-- ---'�? �Mg ` 3S`''+�*;kc, x �C�v «,��. \� y.�-d '��� >� .�y.�+�� �.3f''Y "` �" :yy"a. � l -:,a.`1 tiro�Ci.�~'• �C` t�" a•.mit z 1 t ttk'sp+It !"•�'� Yt r; t t ft, .,,,r'7 a f Lr�•' fT 1 int s .1�,a�y_-'r y��„�,.er`7+.p"1y,L�"!=T�,m S i tF vtl 2tt1 l{41�'tj� 1\k�J�t1� 'Ar . "sf tI'gf� ,' } y . r7.a r Rt a^ rst ) z4 z �•.r c,,,, Y ex al'�v�a�YZS,r+S.��y.° .�`.'vY.•� � v>r rwroat � rk w S@� f z-v c ttl "\S � cal �?t.'�`iy'Ifi'r4 +{�'r'.I�'�7� tl `y Yt?•k r .1, " i r d�?'��SS,�� � y;tib aW� 1 � ^��y. „�.r�l� ��`l, ,F i •,� 'YL�n41.y"�: 7icr." �„s*"`+�}yy��'� t^cia� �.'� s ti`ti .i 1�` y1v'' � � � f'�tJ?tj `X�"i '�"+• .$,, L aP'eiW.,rn��,,,. l.. \ ,p'4� tea' �f¢�. t/ ia�r'``a• J"""�t '�a7 w� 4` 1����}s _s, .y a\3' l \ i i`y`, 'tic,,.,\?•h i;4�t'�iyLw?.,3�'[c:t;cK�,y`'"„, a..K�i a;,�ea "`t; W .-te,a uT'i`'�''" tk'`s�•.:. d ��v3,��, n"" 'b y �3t_� �i ..*t :dw:_ e\\�.,r .'t! �e K *Zt u• t"y tR 6v"�.�."^ �7'rLax�e`+,t1°) y� y s}.°`rtJ�'1> A,V,,bw,., i14 :"s1 �v�!r �;5 , �'}'n�` ,n �'u�ya' '\yek"* a `�iTL-j�il'R.W �ilitl `Mni ,4'WPdia�Y� 5y"1..'� 3T\\ ziSMy��'4 H�.S y,'.3f� t.j ..z •3 '� t c Y n�°:� w l i`\' ,, y't•� s,L \ i r },y< vSri .r` t'+" zy,,�?'r ti 4 2. `Nit r a ' 4 `l,it c°� rT�e '3.. k .l�Sl{ "`*a• 'rit ky:�1r T .Va"ty�a�,, ti• � 1. <9W.,,y,�t�n�j .'C� X`in .e t lj`�S*LcC°',) "tpY. !\ `s Z''* ai'p'�'a '"hn ':^� S, .h•.:� } i:Tc� Y 1�a "�r,`.tiv t +a' S.. �,y`? +c'•: 1 a 9L °..rva2. a�,.:>.4 t�`'"�,�• r- '�-�p°� `sro"° 'u�lr`kW'K '�'' e���#-'�-�,�ze,'+o rife, s��Y'�t�rt "e,,"�k�.xg�w�..r-.':�'�'r ti•C,.��'"a'.,T:' •4'� ¢C ` zzr�"'' ° �v��.i�y\i.Aa�•i°v'`r°� .;L`��Qh.,�rcrie>�k�Lxp�"id'l•\ " k�iq�� \ `t,. tin\n \ a Y t \�,. \ ` W`'z°lrrw 4�yt r��t t Y P• n .�.,� + m•� •�t4. t )*� ,• vn c vr�' �t b,t 3 v k vv .��, ��� .� ` � �r. Wl­ fS. a r t \�,. i.+\ \ �, v v �z?y t � "dr� � ':t r•>� \ � t�\ �x a� k \ L i Nr �� \ 4 Ew. rMp\ � sc'4w ���yjr-��e�� 'ip� S4T,�1 C��� 49tq p'' - ,i b•i �uM ^" � \ `�n m` tic •,�.. � �+ \cwor�� ���. va\;fir/ y �,m l \1 e Y \� r t{,7 Cc r,, "' a._•.��a��;<�' \ + � \sem i '\ �S E. .: ,.�� 'a , .`�4"S�a�n,�?.. i � j�c*�` t e i�:r 3 i\v.:w�!\ � �\ - i\\ �• x r: i I � o �,` , � �� �� �r SyMTI->�...•tr 4,; d,. ::i..w��.nq-,�-s-r-�..n_�r. --M -'�'�'-.` ',^a+F''�: '.sxt � r� _ ..s.� •��e�iY^ -o`-� -t'"�"'+ +�k�,.•�'>ra���}-qtr,—'� w.�,,.�,:'a �a 01:ag4°n g:•. - z�'•`• \,,s''c `'r+`' t-Ci'4- QTc z..� ' y ti�C. "'' r- - - .�,�_.� -`.�,.. ""'� t'e'a'S:.'�•�M^�.".. '� _s",: aj5�a ;.a �...t„_ - �.�• �,.'t` .:.•,+• :kms z. �.T -�-•s.:.,1�e��,_ �w-�e�� -�a�� -.-'> �'. �z�++-=�a �.-~��yz++s�3n .1... a _ "4�-5•,� � ��'�& .a,..w.. . - - �'- -:=tea:�--.Cs.��-•..c�,s=-_�•'��:i:.,_ i r 5 k��� >,rl ` �w r �-s,y`�r':c�a:t6�.x�� ��"� �� �,c,. .s+ •.: -r�E:+��.., s !. r .z. +k�• a .1'i7� R., 3 St a v ^,ts.s° .,` G�".n�f�e.E a ,Y'w x e3 ^,�' h'�.^. ac ,� 3 '�,. °4"A�. •k "' y, d, : q S13y f a 'h 'S� � �����'!� 4M ,y �++'.� ; ''`y #� � .e rt.^•�;""a.�'' .�. � r 3^@- xY yra •E'- q �`�t.,, ls�.. ! �.-wm r �`i �ec�^L�-e• ryy,.r'.-n ''.��a+vu.., � �' , -'�Vt�iv�.sx N�y •��4,a�W�y�t'\vM�df y ka4 � a @.`��.s�.,� a� � �.� 11'�� ls`^�ia A ..:^m`� w1�3 .d. c� S � "_>_t•tN' 3., ti � riz\ '*'�.s ,yei ! �rw v Y rF`�k' F •.. lnT�'h x*L•c�xr<ii`N4� �.. - �" a�-cw-S'yy .•.�ti .k ' _ s�� �'°.�+,�",,'"� .a-y ` ��'...'naa.,.v\ .e+�x�'�'L�`�c. bHh��`A+u FAY Z����� 4 k.:. �"�-+��� -v.�s -"`k•\4�int o.�'�\.4e�ti •�•- M c � v. x aA i��",� �`C dr'''y � .�.. -C i+c•ry\1 � �' ti•� ��w��?!.Sr ., �y 1-� ',as :�t rSr".`i_N- �,\ � i� � 3� '.tw \ '"""� � !''• ,v Ca's. b.'h t S,y �i '•-a A.F 2<r; �� �.°"L�v PY. x� �t=e C e �_ �.i� a�"• ,^ xl:. O .. «lk\^'�` y` '_; ♦ ``\ E � �jL^'1 � l f�i`t+ ., i"k. .Rti:'�.y � Y .i }y4» s `L ' '° "'k �pr; 4 s �� r %�L 9 T v\ \ v :r 3 •ee". k wry+. x°:w4`"C � w '� '. yvlA Y"xF'�xenv, ""tS `elv.5^G+ °<� ,�� \v ° i-'� v�` sy,r •sr i t,,,: w, '�'>r&' try tt" r �"�"Lw3-z a kyr liv„S �t . . .ce•. v �..� .re '-+e,, Lr• t ''z- y ` � '` �`'T .i 3 F ,a�i \.v `i v ' " 11x„• �sL'yyq " z'#'?q`r 7 �x s Y R tia ' xlti E\wxti Fi a rte^ 1 I`4•a5.ro e r y4 t SvR�LY `'v°v*Lx .+ X^ h�� •L�. r`- '1 `'s I a 4 'P` ':•' � t � {SS''� tip., � �4'� sa-... �, �rw^ _ ° tee. � S>•+':� } ��-� �..�v�"�'�� '•�� �.5��as. �,r,,, r �"� '(r- _ _ �• k � C-.$r.J�� .mow �� _-•-�•-S','S`.: ^£.F� r`4. t-.-rpt`---v-• �T���� - "'Yp:+-x.-.-ak �'ti<F++r ,lssr ?fir-. - . On � �+'�'f v ryr.' ^` ,� � ��`�_ " ��k-.. . �.✓�""� ��'4�'���..^"`>ry. J�'�y''����F��" ���y`�� 1 a f sEMS '• 4 sT4{� �fti sew s { : Mr ROME —i-.c Pia.� ''�',,.. ? %"'����r,'�t3"�""��,�„ �"p'"�s5���s�� rd�-'r'r-✓� � IT gg 6-g CMS +"�,.�'.rz�d,�.y�'�/,���,:���� �' � y.�F� `Y,a � t:" S�7��,r•s�r�-y t_J l x ' ti "i t-_y '•{,r r of L si+Y7 .x I _ � f+:!r 4� r"b•&'-r�i .� tswrs!g 'T`Yt ,r � �� -}•"� fir 'urs - ,. Z ..'�K�f y GL`r fi�r� .�{[ ���1 y�yYme NEs,�,j pt{,M 's' r t � 1� �� � „x.°, • 1 PA yyty{ :t.: ���1� in 3tlV �r�4>R ! :£ f;Tr la �f `3 • €�. [+Y, - as,,( ✓LFf'.J :r,+r ?%N':y k r VA Af''t }•. r r y7RJy,r b .:��":H .� y �Y4J��.r�f!�S� tt�� 1p �i�,ESt n �$•_ l t&�`�.x 4�,rg/'-�.f�X�' r� \ ,tomt.����'.q }�`+L- t 3t���y�'"L'p•N r 4 (��yy�J��.'- Y �t r•�.'�✓J+i'N"�WX x r'sr�(ss�� s :I•.0ST.y�]`- t �!l�tA'Y'✓��� �Vf y r4 u1 aAF` 'r + f"`ti,�,rY .t�9' cs t`C' /s`x:s ;. �, .. �'��`+ir�✓"�'� ItM '') '� r �� ^. ,s14r a i "fr tS�'i1` • �� cis �✓x+° � � % '�'7j`� 1 }� t1`f`.b gY ie r>�Fx� N�4,°' ry���r f r M `� y �� a � s/;`rf a • yN 4, r I � �~" �,r15, � ! 1 'sf,wssMA�'rv° r{ r irr { JJ �4�_ .•x Fir � ya#K r. MR, 'Py, h > to ,<.✓ e /� _ f,P a h rx. i - / '"�*7r+J ' a i.....} r c.^ �. ar +knP'f 1 +A�,�isua 'f' rk�rri��.�g}//#�,y ce 6yfr x "OR 3`r r f�'� i'"15 v Ft - �,{� a,,,�.f s a^E�i�'t<�7c �� fr Yah � r .4 `� s, ` 'a!r £� w f d � Pr �.✓s t �! a/'x v \ � t < _� r l'��BrfG'�fs� _ � `w y,�� / t jr)d .Y �. 4 ., � i z s"rL.r 4y` • �� r.� �'. s"`� �ri E )sw ,, ,. 'x`n �t`ry`✓�, ! + �t.,^s�«,,,wr Y g �. � r a _ v� . Y 7k -i✓'�'V:r r g ' a /.: Y qbw f°.k !` YY tf '� r< .ter .,a,t #`'r✓" sr-", '� a..4 y r F ' +-".�,r ' r kC < yc 'v.k e4.it r 7,y %%rs' .! '.�Y✓. ir�esa.b z .vs.�. 1 l.4: �fw�' / r xy � s� *f: �Y��. s�<ra`: u r✓ r �ti � • '`- x "4•` tr tne,r+k" 3 y r' ZL rl 1 y 7! 51'g Y ✓� d �R !�' 'Y` t -t �� I '�'`✓'`�b(�sl'_3 E 1t`v k��� �� �y � l �r 1s Y ry � 7 f "k ��y,7x�� G r �La '�"+• \ _��1 .�:� r�'�urn.�'''tF.��' ,ry,.• „Mp�i� � 4�(dt. `�v}�? j e .-1 �Y si, t '`�'<'�: •,,�,r v th'��., *^ -.3�'`� ` � ��f .may.- tis -at`�-` • �¢t3 'r^_�'a�''�. _ ss'' ,,, sa.� ti��'s� � - � .,.a.�,i—' �e�'� s ���`-•t�� ,c o-'• "`"�'�,aj` .s � .s Yep d-- ,� �n YA1^�.. - : -�E.�-��`� v-�''= • .f f�`"�� �+��^ar".�—>��w•► ,�y43i�i �7z. t• ' ' - i.. t..� ���, �'" � a� i r � '� :���. �`?---sem �,3f �..sF"�•e.�� a. -,� ��r���ys�C,�,.fi•� � L- � ���• r^s�+�X�i - �*.r..t "` �-'7.s- v .:�- s.� �r�y#"'r�, ��..A,t� �.4Y `�Y' Sc'rS�3'" - � �a•Yy. y . .a204 "�'�'- K 3�1�F.tjf.'+f4 fic`S�, ? - .F ��,5-pA ''�'rf'sa./.�,r •yr. _. .4+.. -3'a+.,€ �a. � �'•��'+ .x+ o r cir4'`^zt�?'ar u3."y.�- _s.r` '''"` ,t -r �s .1�;;�`� r. y'9 k 's� 'P S•'f Wl{,T�.j �'F �G 4,Ea"h t �q. 'r 1 �. S,�R(� �e"�S'� U� �.� �T° .. �i! ``�'eF,-� 4 ��v .Tiy.y -�' s •+" .vi s sy[ c-�4 ,�„y !�� 4 �# r' s �,+ x i .as�,'�r y�;-r- � �� 4r,� �" e f�t- k'4 EFe-s�'f'�5.. .tar���.`' m �;,�, �ae �h 'snrS�_.,'T! Fk• .. a ''�s c �-'. :aY�-�..•^.r�'.r."�sre�'�"'ttr ��e �, � .,, � ,�.Y�',3�'. �""t_L4 Y �r�+- 4'� <� a ...�A� -'�SF.cy - a^'�. •>.r `� �' s„�� R c a tr'+rw _�; i esr•t ..�j��''a.pa.T' s• .s�s`"1;" ��'�' -F.o .,� �.�-..�� "M'r�- ,�' � �` � ,�lrz�i ��r< �x'� - - ��" :�r��'h � ��s���'/"?ftt-a� '" r,,.� `if�yp�,•yre� � W�a€Jrrr�, -^�'S'i���,��� tl'z�t'ia�iry P `.... ���.3'�Txt:7 k. a.fle,, .� � r5 t� ,s` � t •rel'' �a°x u � r f u J� .c y fi ���+:sr` � wA- `�.... r �`'��'��1r'�" [�„r�f ww s" I ,r _�.:.�'�����+<7� r��z.��.. ' p -Ms:+"a�,. N.l`.Y'i r✓t� ':,�,iFr .rd dri ,ps �>9 sry�•.�; �' a f�i .1 iO�d e a ! .: " wa �,,. 'Ir °,. 't.'' �-: F� 'Tj' w�7�i�` '��.us ac�' j"�./"''.K +,�,5,.•.,,-. ,Y - �A tir .'"''s:esr.-W:` .r` �nx 4�rvx�'" xr r��'� >< - s�jr � r� ril � -sr 3 rr"'„ir ,F� .?, ..� �"`�+., r .y^:". j�i r vim' s...''�.e✓ 'gra aF. �r9^"f" '�a. Y ,;�,�'r,� a•rf��l^fi":. �� T,r�ri�r� .. .^�.a �s .f� '�f[,yyu��.u,,�• �wrf x 's�, .rn� �-SCK ��ss:.�,,�rf 4 rsea� { r� es•'.g': r•J"l�ursu 5�.. ,N�l } � "F .�" ry`�,�. �y, ��r,�yrt.i--f, : ��.. ! xt :7 rrF`i4c•Er��•ms,� >t� ff.'7 ^{ �6 � { >r,� rc i°�': #'x �Z:. N.xE.,JS3''�""!4. daiF -:r �'r yyt ys,Z r;',� �E4yl�&,'�t �,'R C n�3 Y „�� e �� � ZF F� � riur• .:'7-y C r y.. ,.s't`�'�'�'�rP ''E' .. s`Q�.,���sd,Y�'"'rS,•:, �/.r.y;5� �a /{✓mss, r iLf �aY'rt�wEYz� �. r P�} �Y 91 F7 ✓xf'+.yJaS {9 '?E' "''� L•z t ��`r�.`ar t r '$, ,-�'�>fir&��, �x f J y� Cf^; ra�v�f�.✓.$�jJ�1.�`rrt s'�jj rE�}pn s'<'�' �v ke.rr e ✓�S ^�.v rr€e r w F ,,y� �k 1` ,r ;� ��.�r�y�,x , yep-/n r�a•� ray '�' �.'��''vr' �' 3 LA�. smr���. ,,,, -�"' s��n < y y r N'Asx . .e., Y �� ✓� /rhr� rr y<��a�.�rn'.y�G�.°1�sP 6,� 1 ir✓ j la x s, �'r �F• '� 'T>ax x'yy, k a'�'"r� c�,�,'. �.r„'� ! �,' E.�`r f � r.fir`�r :/,/� mr n, sr.e ',� y:% di�y�•h°t"£ 4lF.r` . � v .✓?�er r ,� � i f ':S � rawy�, c r ✓ - rr r r i a ,a�° r ,F� �� .� �'its�" :� ,. {e..ir ��''JJ5 L•t � .: �Q �t '4i` y ! {s�s f °JC f(r�js��r.�l�s�' - �"_ �'^y 1 �"v� �f�'5�,A.{ �i/r 5 ,�'�.• ds4"�*r�.6� q.dy '{ �PG��Ca' ;.''A�• " '�i 'W`� �+�" �L�f �C.,.:7.. Ar ��• fit, �.ur� ) 'lt., .•( �'�.•,�"vr tt�K .-�' x�'�. �+„ d #,p ij, S {.ra �� �, ✓ '4"r Yl" � � t : �r ti•" raj! F/r l t jt/ i 7 y�.. t �/4s n`_ fsy'''r�. yrf� F�, fir qr<,. d L,"z r7^ $� �, 4 j ,z X pt?1? ..dl'z � a r(': s•��'`r �t�rr%s seJ�S ty Jw.�, /� -��{y ,r� f ySS�,� .. c i.• � r.I".•! �x r,j s'r... Yi's} 7.. s„ ,�'� ,�rr t 1�! A, .. .� - s <a °'s+r l:� z .��N"4 u�` .a w F .� r✓,ter, }e ✓ � �y�`ry7;p' �Z`i{N +r r. .� '+!iZ�i d ` 'f✓'X.f�yyi rs..�p ., � �i. �t� f?W �w} M t rrt'�aa✓t y�{:d s � 1 r a ti"�'«y a Hr re Fir ¢v C1Y a r F rP� ; z hAy 4 ua aa. e M,� "' S ¢, mgr �~v Tva ,r'•� ; 7 t' z.�} 'yr 5 �.r � r r ,:�� x �,ar � a rr�✓yit '�' � ,r`J hlf `rc sy f t '}' � z. „�7 fxl . ♦.6 s r� - v:.,.y..u.ir ya as-..-r+-. is �p x_ '�'"i °rok .a s, r✓r�i.�w csd x�ro a er f.� i;, Y F/✓/n'y 4,. R� Y''{"r .a 1°vr� ✓ K' � Tti '""� � dr. 9 Ys't'Si'!'r t5..' hl' ' 7��t rs,rte a r^€e v �'�J�•r .x�s x `� t� P NJ � r- � Rim' arta cy�� r ri�r•'��! r,f :��r ''S".^Set.�'�JrvyFi 1:� �rl `ys�x 's'r '. � f 4 �ar`��'`'x¢,Fw• .s x�,`.. Y,. ✓k icHy x��+K'.u?F vx- �: q',r,'.i�,. �� s '%E. ,:'�• w+. i. /✓r'm..�. �.t `" a�'�,r�t � S°„'9r F r� Y€•v '°'a'a+. _�` .n1��r!�`�Ty x w :?' s't Li �ar �- :�� �'fil �9.gg, r t'^'''�'f i`�a f}•�rr,Y' `�" :3'��r� i'N �+3" u a r � a = mi°•erg rz".rx x r%' rrr e �" ��,�11�'"`�r y jTtl+' : `, �u� d �, .�' t r `�""� p G`r�'./1 r y1"� <w•a c'?� '�' 7e. ��� I r �`"�"�s•"� , g tG3'� ,.. ,s,._ �t;,�.a ,='RvrA,,,��!' �•s w w,.T�'x�.'may v„r , •E. �'� �,,.3 -t,A r�'rr`•✓.,, 3;`�3t� .. a�r ysgsr er mr'<' -���• � �>Ecr - �"r e4 4E �-� 5'�az3'�YL�•' «n{`.,-1 Y. . 6 d. ..G� '1L=",�"!F 3a���,� [,�` t {§ F^�+C Y�. 6� `^�{� fi� r��" 8'— ��.w F�r�x�-?.:✓.,�tir��,mk's`3 '�g`e "�� ''i.''�tr°`T'�` ����"'1'F;�6 �t� «:d .+.1 � k''r�'�"F " .� _. e � r.Ex"�,• .�„,Lyr< �•• � :, � .�.�cMY, Os "' ✓ +x:rY ,,� x 4 x e'-sa r as �e `sw �'� r Z'� �.�e-' e �� -�'�"`' ��,,,. �d� .'t2F `��sa� � �i�-�.y� "PS"'` 3��,•r�'�•'� ��� �s"" `y� � z a� �.���"_„�� $��r * ",�r _ ��•at5e � •. Y,� .�.r�, „ > ..,..rF Orr, saa : y,.,.,�.s�r.E � '�` �.•` '. ..,a,�a'.s•�'� �'C �����!�L f �%„s o s• �. �.� r' �•� € �: r a'�- f: .,� T.. � �,�.� "x ;�•r ty�fi'� � �dt*..� "sem e€` �t� .may, �6g �' r � y;,�_ �:x�.�yr�.r �` 3 � Test's � -".�' :>s � +i:: _ � .3�•� '�' ��';.tY:,.�`.� €,�. �� � • _ s' si���,�,� .� r +j ty _ Y Y Y�!i^�-�J�� Lw,i iSB"�T +i (y ' S'1t•�L'•AM1.t {G` 61a -.. �' "'�: :'_' •J-3s:. �`etf},!�Ra'�3 �s re-'r`-z_J -..3.. •,.waw .3 �;�. T`t`r.,� t" wAr �`Qe: l—jUl ILI C� —"'11Z 'Vi. rIdIFYI Al' P' Development Community Development Gtrector Costa Department County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street AUG —2 2005 th F1 00 r, N 0 rth Win g ;<< : _ Martinez, California 94553-0095 Phone: (925)335-1210 ... Date: Were quest AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST Your comments rperpr,4;,,,,the attached a plicatioD currently under review. DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows: Building Inspection F HSD, Environmental Health, Concord Project Planner'(.l HSD, Hazardous Materials P/W - Flood Control (Fun S:,,e) County Fil,- 4— PIW - Engineering Svcs (Full Size) Number: Date Forwarded rn —PM' Traffic (Reduced) Prior To: —PAN Special Districts (Reduced) — Comprehensive Planning el We have found the followino,special programs — Redevelopment Agency apply to this application: 7Y— Historical Resources Information System CA Native Amer. Her. Comm. IL� Redevelopment Area CA Fish & Game, Region US Fish & Wildlife Service Fire District Active Fault Zone • _ SaiaitaQ, District Flood Hazard Area, Panel-# Water District City School District 60 dBA Noise Control Sberiff Office - Admin. & Comm. Svcs. —CA EPA Hazardous Waste Site — Alamo Improvement Association — El Sobrante Pla. & Zoning Committee MAC — Traffic Zone DOLT- Dep. Director, "A A—"An UL-"'c a t-A o ns CEQA Exempt CAC R-7A Alamo L ommun, Categorical Exemption Section t), Orgaiaizations P, Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance. Please send copies of your response to the Applicant & Owner. — No comments on this application. 4— Our Comments are attached Comments: eL, e. lanatur A2eEICN. f rj L; S:Current P12nnir.-,t rnD:2teS!FC-rr&aeency Comment request Date Office Hours Mond-2%,, - ;:.riday: 8:0(j a.m.- 5:0r r.,.m 0Z ffice is ciose��' t�— '� :— ::r:- L 5-th Frita%fs 01 Sect: mo-11 • Intentionally Blank • • EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT • p BOARD OF DIRECTORS 05 AUG 18 PM 12. 38 Beverly Lane President Ward 6 August 17, 2005 Carol Severin Vice-President Ward 3 John Sutter Ms. Rosemarie Pietras Treasurer Contra Costa County AW and 2Wieskamp Community Development Department secretary 651 Pine Street Ward 5 Ted Radke Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Ward, Doug Sider; Ward 4 Jean Siri RE: Clayton Ranch Landbank Ward, MS05-00030 Pat O'Brien General Manager Dear Rosemarie: The Park District has received and reviewed the referral on the subject application. The Park District's Clayton Ranch Landbank is located north west of this proposed project. There is not a direct impact from this proposal. However,the District's concern is that this is a piecemeal subdivision. The property was • the result of past subdivision and now it is being further subdivided. This raises the question as to good and logical subdivision of land. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposed application. Please continue to send the Park District information on this application so that we can follow it through the planning process and know what the final result is on this proposal. Very truly yours, Linda J. P. Chavez Senior Planner s 2950 Peraiia Ua,,.S Cour-, P.O. Box 5381 Oamana. vM 9i6U5-0361 e: 510 635-0135 r:. 510 569-4319 rDD 510 633-0460 www.eboarks.oru - • • Intentionally Blank • --'" — State of California- _Resources Agency _ SOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor �` DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME http://www.dfq ca aov J POST OFFICE BOX 47 YOUNTVILLE. CALIFORNIA 94599 (707)944-5500 05 �;ul, 17 Eiji !� 13 August 16, 2005 Rosemarie Pietras County of Contra Costa County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Ms. Pietras: Tentative Map 3000 Bragdon Way, Clayton MS05-00030 Department of Fish and Game (DFG) personnel have reviewed the subject project, and we have the following comments. A complete assessment of the flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area, with particular emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, and locally • unique species and sensitive habitats, should be provided. Rare, threatened and endangered species to be addressed should include all those which meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definition (see CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380). The assessment should identify any rare plants and rare natural communities, following DFG's Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Natural Communities (revised May 8, 2000). We are particularly concerned about potential impacts to the Alameda whipsnake and its habitat as well as the California tiger salamander and red-legged frog. The Guidelines are available at www.dfq.ca.gov/whdab/pdfs/guideplt.pdf The potential for Alameda whipsnake presence should be evaluated. Occupied habitat is present in the vicinity. Please be advised that a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit must be obtained if the project has the potential to result in take of species of plants or animals listed under CESA, either during construction or over the life of the project. Issuance of a CESA Permit is subject to CEQA documentation; therefore, the CEQA document must specify impacts, mitigation measures, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program.. If the project will impact CESA listed species, early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to the project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA Permit. DFG considers the project area to be within the range of the three species identified above and recommends that mitigation for the proposed subdivision be • required to offset these impacts. These impacts can be mitigated by preserving habitat Conserving Caf fornix 6- `1VifdlC e Since 1870 Rosemarie Pietras August 16, 2005 Page 2 on or offsite or contributing an amount consistent with that identified in the Draft East Contra Costa HCP/NCCP for natural grasslands for habitat preservation under the HCP/NCCP. For any activity that will divert or obstruct,the natural flow, or change the bed, channel, or bank (which may include associated riparian resources) of a river or stream, or use material from a streambed, DFG may require a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA), pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code, with the applicant. Issuance of SARs is subject to CEQA. DFG, as a responsible agency under CEQA, will consider the CEQA document for the project. The CEQA document should fully identify the potential impacts to the stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments for completion of the agreement. To obtain information about the SAA notification process, please access our website at www.dfq.ca.gov/1600; or to request a notification package, contact the Streambed Alteration Program at (707) 944-5520. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Janice Gan, Environmental Scientist, at (209) 835-6910; or Mr. Carl Wilcox, Habitat Conservation Manager, at (707) 944-5525. Sincerely, Robef . Floerke Regional Manager Central Coast Region • CALIFORNIA „Li„VEDA MARIN SAN MATED HISTORICAL ? COLUSA MENDOCINO SANTA CLARA Northwest Information Center =_ CONTRA COSTA MONTEREY SANTA CRUZ Sonoma State University RESOURCES `'"' NAPA 1303 Maurice Avenue LAKE SOLANO ,, SAN BENITO SONOMA Rohnert Park, CallfOmla 94928-3609 INFORMATION SAN FRANCISCO YOLO Tel:707.664.0880• Fax:707.664.0890 SYSTEM ::?"��f�=�``"='�'• E-mail:nwicasonoma.edu August 11,2005 File No.: 05-CC-9 Rosemarie Pietras, Project Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. 4`h Floor, North Wing 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-0095 re: MS05-0003,3000 Brangdon Way,Bellecci&Associates, Inc.,Charlie Capp Dear Ms. Pietras: Records at this office were reviewed to determine ifthis project could adversely affect historical resources. The review for possible historic structures,however,was limited to references currently in our office. Please note that use of the term historical resources_includes both archaeological sites and historic structures The proposed project area contains or is adjacent to the archaeological site(s) ( ). A study is recommended prior to commencement of project activities. XX The proposed project area has the possibility of containing unrecorded archaeological site(s). A study is recommended prior to commencement of project activities. The proposed project area has a low possibility of containing unrecorded archaeological site(s). Therefore, no further • study for archaeological resources is recommended. Study# identified one or more historical resources. It is recommended that a qualified archaeologist assess the status of the site and provide project specific recommendations. Study# identified no historical resources. Further study for historical resources is not recommended. XX Review for possible historic structures was limited to the Northwest Information Centers documents and should not be considered comprehensive. Since the Office of Historic Preservation has determined that any building or structure 45 years or older maybe of historic value,therefore if the project area contains such properties it is recommended that they be evaluated by an architectural historian prior to commencement of project activities. -We recommend you contact the local Native American tribe(s)regarding traditional,cultural,and religious values. For a complete listing of tribes in the vicinity of the project,please contact the Native American Heritage Commission at 916/6534082. Comments: If archaeological resources are encountered during the project,work in the immediate vicinity of the finds should be halted until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the situation. If you have any questions please give us a call(707)664-0880. Sincerely, Leigh Jordan • Coordinator cc: Charlie Capp, Bellecci,&Associates, Inc., 2290 Diamond Blvd., Concord, CA 94598 • • Intentionally Blank • CONTRA COSTA EN r RONMENTAL HEALTH D1VISIC.. f 21;0 DIAMOND BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 CONTRA COSTA CONCORD, CA 94520 (925) 646-5225 HEALTH SERVICES FAX (925)646-5168 • www.cocoeh.org FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET DATE: TO: koS FROM: �,,�+-- FA.X#: # OF PAGES: _ 2 _(INCLUDING COVERSTIEE'I) RE: Lf�'--PRI ORI I Y El ROUTINE Ll FOR RE VIEW • COMMENTS: '06 r l424 1 LL II ' t 0s eP1S ! K s If you have any problElms with receipt of transmittal, please call (92.') 616-3- 40 6-3v p Gfiv1 J � A", PV F7,14 I' -Fr • • Intentionally Blank • • Sherman Quinlan To: abhat®cd.cccounty_us 01/31/2005 04:33 PM cc' Subject: PR 05-0002,APN 078-090-025 Aruna, It was good to get to talk with you today! That does not happen very often, (Usually, voice mail, etc.). Anyway, I still have concerns for water supplies for proposed parcels A and C of this MS. As mentioned earlier,the owner must furnish a"will serve" letter for each parcel from Contra Costa Water District, or construct acceptable wells on each parcel, to demonstrate that water supplies are available to any potential new owners. I have spiken to Mrs. Habig, providing the same information. Please withhold approval of this MS until these issues have been resolved. ThanKs for your help. Sherman • i • Q W rp o y 2O CD LL Z .�• N H u Q < a N < v a • N ' ml I ,,.. ��� -' \�•i>c..._-.-� W < 2 O a' W N N xO .<i ai U .2.ro _O awz -2: Up N * Zi J M W NVQ . 1,��/��\!- ;•�\ �'`�\�.������ l\\\ , �E•^���-_�� i '��'l•3 2�1•�.".. /� U '11 LU CD • 7-:1J_ ' ILI uj vNp'�` c 00 4, t •-= W 1 w> \� ilk( <u (c'> l� a 02 zz • Wit.!/, :-� %' :r�/;.�� �i �G,� -_ • t3/� � • • DELIBERATION ITEM# D.2 JULY 81 2008 JUNE 13, 2008- SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS �►��rhona,(lu �la,� � U • PHOTOS FROM JUNE 134 2008 SITE INSPECTION BY COUNTY STAFF CONCERNING ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF GRADING AND TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCES lo+qtDnojt j �an� • ,. -,�. : ' .,, ;::' .. •� <� !:y=•fir, ,� ,� _ +� i-. F _ -• (, �"s mss./ • t ._ � ,rte - `,vS�. r Y :r.., �!''+ �.. y i - - Yh(,�� - -.�',.sa„-•_ i�t��tY�' ��±moi: y ��,. .�. -. � �S �.:r '� ,�, •+ l r 3�Pr`fit 14 .4 .alk •� � Y.�` ,',�',: ` r 4 wr rY i i' r y 4 S w 3 r • {i 14 . .r.,4 r,�,F ,,��jj'' � � to ' `4 I A r M"� t j. T♦'�4'�,�.L _�f. ��"; •T`J t Via' -r ,. r,�„ � ,. yl' `\.. ,.�'�`,'�` ` r rF" vp t • r 3k n'.W Y• - • 4. t� N r� 111 14 ]f jAt • DELIBERATION ITEM# D.2 JULY 81 2008 CEQA DOCUMENTS j"�W�bno-1 bl 0j)V, `y r -t u n qtyp1}�^ Dennis M.Barry,AICP Development Contra a Community Development Director Costa Department• �OUrlt yCounty Administration Building 651 Pine Street Fourth Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-1229 Phone: (925) 335-1210 ° February 28 20 STA COUN'� 08 NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION County File #MS050030 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: The applicant requests approval to subdivide a 37.99-acre parcel into three(3)parcels with a 21.79- acre designated remainder. The sizes of the three parcels are: Parcel A- 6.20 acres; Parcel B- 5.0- acres: and Parcel'C-5.0-acres. The property contains a total of 257 trees,of which the applicant is proposing the removal of 54 trees. The site is outside the Urban Limit Line(ULL),which is located • approximately three miles west of the project site, congruent with the eastern city limits of Clayton. The project site is located at 3000 Bragdon Way,a connector street to Marsh Creek Road within an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County near Clayton, CA. The site is situated on the south- facing slopes to the north of Marsh Creek and Marsh Creek Road,approximately three miles east of the City of Clayton. The proposed development will not result in any significant impacts. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all documents referenced in the Mitigated Negative Declaration may be reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department, and 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.,Monday March 31,2008. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address: Rose Marie Pietras -- ----- _ Community Development Department L Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street,North Wing,4th Floor FIG 2 7 2008 • Martinez, CA 94553 0 S.L.WEIR, COUNTY CLERK LCQINTR ,STUNTY BY ` DEPUTY l It is anticipated that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at a meeting of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday April 8,2008 at 7 P.M. The hearing is • anticipated to be held at the McBrien Administration Building,Room 107,Pine and Escobar Streets, Martinez. It is expected that the County Planning Commission will also conduct a hearing on the application at that same meeting. Rose Marie Pietras Senior Planner cc: County Clerk's Office (2 copies) • 02!26/2908 28;26 4256722364 HA&IG CONSTRUCTION PAGE 02 • February 27,2008 Community Develnpment L)qm tment 651 Pine Street 4 Floor 11V Martinez.California Attention: ROScawie Pietras WC,as the owner of Iand subject to County File No.MS050030(Habig,throe lot resubdivision). age to the miti�on meaSures set fortb in the initial study. Signed, • Roger Habig Kandell Habig • Inier�wna� �� ����` • l•d t: �'t �' ' y�, -y� .. �`- .1b �`��, 'Y 'q" fid, li�P *.prn�, t Y d4 � �, M 5��'1��•ia. +1 � y {� r �•�>'�i a t- 1 '� t.'� �t'"+� �h. e..7�"-:. `� r �`a L a •ea.. 'k ^�;�' �p.�� �.� a h 5 r. e •r r,� *� vis �� 4 y s: `_qy ,•�P`R: •y-.ef li ��y� „� �.�. f"� I .:J;. ;� - Y .h,.F.� ! S�.' � � jp ��Y��L L. .�.' t'`d��.. 1 �Yra�Ji �y � �5a t s�3-' ,�<+. _y�•. p„-�y ,�y, -' �, �_ '+y>r � tib •� �y '' ori ,�:� �Y �,�•q �i" II, ill F+ d,. � � �. rid pF( 1t ••'d, f i � j�sR•c.£�A .. - t V ■� z'Pt 4Ci 1:. r 'r aim "y �A 1 • � '• 11' � n�F,���lo�1a,�1� �1a,�1� • • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. Project Title: Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision, County File#MS050030 (Habig) 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,(925)335-1216 4. Project Location: The project site is located at 3000 Bragdon Way, a connector street to Marsh Creek Road within an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County near Clayton, CA. The site is situated on the south-facing slopes to the north of Marsh Creek and Marsh Creek Road, approximately three miles east of the City of Clayton. The site is outside the Urban Limit Line(ULL),which is located approximately three miles west of the project site, congruent with the eastern city limits of Clayton. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Bellecci&Associates Address: 2290 Diamond Blvd.,Suite 100 Concord, CA 94520 6. General Plan Designations: Agricultural Lands(AL) • 7. Zoning: Agricultural(A-2) 8. Description of the Project: The proposed project involves the subdivision of 37.99 acres into three (3) parcels, with a 21.79-acre designated remainder. The designated remainder contains an existing residence. The proposed parcels are oriented on the west and north sides of the property, and would access from private roads from the private, Bragdon Way. The Vesting Tentative Map identifies a house, ]each field, well site, and access road for each parcel. Future approved house sites will be contained within a two-acre building envelope, in compliance with the County's Ranchette Policy. The sizes of the 3 parcels are: Parcel A — 6.20 acres; Parcel B — 5.0 acres; and Parcel C—5.0 acres. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is within a rural unincorporated part of Clayton. Surrounding land uses includes private residences, ranches and pastureland. The Contra Costa County Jail Farm juvenile detention facility and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Sunshine Camp Fire station are west of the property. The East Bay Regional Park District's Clayton Ranch Landbank is located northwest of the project site. 10. Other public agencies whose approval San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board is required: Contra Costa County • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 2 • 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. _X_Aesthetics _Agricultural Resources _X_Air Quality X_Biological Resources X_Cultural Resources _X_Geology/Soils X Hazards&Hazardous X Hydrology/Water Quality _Land Use/Planning Materials Mineral Resources X_Noise _Population/Housing _Public Services _Recreation _X_Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems _Mandatory Findings of Significance • • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 3 • DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 9 Y) On the basis of this Initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED X NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact"or"potentially significant unless mitigated"impact on the environment, but at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and(2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL 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 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. Prepared by: February 27,2008 Booker Holton,Ph.D. Date Approved by: Rose Marie Pietras Date Contra Costa County Community Development Department • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 4 • EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL Il"ACTS CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The Environmental Checklist covers specific issues by topic(i.e., Aesthetics,Agricultural resources,etc.)and is taken from Appendix G of the 1999 California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Guideline Revisions. The four categories of potential impact include: 1)Potentially Significant Impact;2)Potentially significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated;3)Less than Significant Impact; and 4)No Impact. One of the four boxes is checked for each issue. SOURCES In the process of preparing the Checklist and conducting the evaluation,the following references(available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street 5th Floor-North Wing, Martinez)were consulted: 1. Vesting Tentative Map and Preliminary Grading Plan,3000 Bragdon Way,prepared by Bellecci& Associates,Inc. (revised October 25,2007&January 3,2008) 2. Contra Costa Country General Plan 2005-2020(January 2005) 3. Contra Costa County Code 4. Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD),CEQA Guidelines—Assessing Air Quality • Impacts of Projects and Plans(December 1999) 5. Arborist Report,prepared by Joseph McNeil,Consulting Arborist(January 2008) 6. Biological Assessment and Jurisdictional Determination for the 38-Acre Habig Property, Contra Costa County,California,prepared by Sycamore Associates LLC(July 12,2005). 7. California Red-Legged Frog, California Tiger Salamander, and Alameda Whipsnake Site Assessment for the 38-Acre Habig Property,Clayton, California,prepared by TOVA Applied Science&Technology December 12,2007) 8. Supplemental Biological Survey Report: Special Status Plant Species,38-Acre Habig Property, Clayton, California,prepared by TOVA Applied Science&Technology(December 12,2007) 9. Archaeological Field Inspection Report.Holman &Associates(October 25,2005) 10. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation.Ting&Associates(September 19,2005),as peer reviewed by Darwin Myers(December 19,2005) • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 5 r , • Potentially Less Than Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Inco orated • AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ vista? El b) Substantially damage scenic resources, Q including,but not limited to,trees,rock El El outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual E E El or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, El ❑ which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? DISCUSSION • a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The Project is located near areas designated as a Scenic Ridgeway on the County General Plan's Scenic Resources map. Marsh Creek Road is designated by the County as a Scenic Route, but not designated as a Scenic Highway or Byway by the State of California.A scenic route is defined as "a road, street, or freeway that traverses a corridor of relatively high visual or cultural value." A scenic corridor is described as "usually much wider than the road right-of-way and extends to the contiguous areas beyond it, "consisting of much of the adjacent area that can be seen from the road.According to the Transportation and Circulation Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan(Section 5.9 Scenic Routes), "controls should be applied to retain and enhance scenic qualities, restrict unsightly use of land, control heights of structures,and provide site design and architectural guidance along the entire scenic corridor." The Project Site is located near Mt.Diablo State Park.As with other structures in the area, for example isolated residences,the Contra Costa County Jail Farm, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Sunshine Camp Fire Station, and ranches,the proposed three single-family residences would be visible from some of the higher areas of the park, as well as from Marsh Creek Road. The Scenic Routes goal in the general plan is "to identify, preserve and enhance scenic routes in the County." The following related policies may be relevant: • Policy 5-34: Scenic corridors shall be maintained with the intent of protecting attractive natural qualities adjacent to various roads throughout the county. • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 6 • Policy 5-36: Scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be conserved, enhanced, and protected to the extent possible. The aesthetic quality of an area is determined through the vane and contrasts of the area's visu • h' al features,the character of those features, and the scope and scale of the scene. The aesthetic quality of an area depends on the relationships between its features and their importance in the overall view. Evaluating scenic resources requires a method that objectively characterizes visual features,assesses their quality in relation to the visual character of the surrounding area, and identifies their importance to the individuals viewing them. This process is derived from established Federal procedures for visual assessment and is commonly used for a variety of project types. Both natural and created features in a landscape contribute to its perceived visual quality. Landscape characteristics influencing visual quality include geologic,hydrologic,botanical, wildlife,recreation, and urban features. Several sets of criteria have been developed for defining and evaluating visual quality. A commonly used set of criteria includes the concepts of vividness, intactness, and unity. None of these is itself equivalent to visual quality; all three must be high to indicate high quality. These terms are defined as follows(Federal Highway Administration 1983): • "Vividness" is the visual power or memorability of landscape components as they combine in striking and distinctive visual patterns. • "Intactness" is the visual integrity of the natural and human-built landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements. • "Unity" is the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape considered as • a whole. The analysis of the proposed 3-unit project uses a qualitative descriptive method for characterizing and evaluating the visual resources that could be affected by the project. The quality of views of area from offsite locations is based on the relative degree of vividness, intactness, and unity apparent in views and also on viewer sensitivity.Viewer sensitivity is a function of several factors, including the following: • visibility of the landscape, • proximity of viewers to the visual resources, • frequency and duration of views, • number of viewers, • types of individuals and groups of viewers, and • viewers'expectations. The sensitivity of a view of the landscape is also determined by the extent of the public's concern for a particular view.Areas of high visual sensitivity are highly visible to the general public. For example, scenic routes and recreation areas are considered more visually sensitive than more urbanized locations. Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision • MS050030 Initial Study 7 r � A determination finding that a potential visual impact has significance would be based on a • change in visual character as determined by the obstruction of a public view,creation of an aesthetically offensive public view, or adverse changes to objects having aesthetic significance.A view's distance from landscape elements plays an important role in the determination of an area's visual quality.Landscape elements are considered higher or lower in visual importance based on their position relative to the viewer. Generally, the closer a resource is to the viewer,the more dominant, and therefore visually important, it is to the viewer. Visual simulations have been prepared of the proposed 3-units to illustrate the changes that would result from construction of the new residences. The first figure is a map that illustrates the viewpoint locations along Marsh Creek Road(Viewpoint"A"and Viewpoint`B")that the visual simulations address. These computer simulations are shownin the four figures following the map of viewpoint locations. The viewpoint locations were selected in consideration of the scenic route designation of Marsh Creek Road and are representative of the viewpoints all along the road within reasonable stretches of the winding alignment. The design elements of each of the 3-units proposed have not been defined. As such,the size and massing of the computerized images of the house structures simulate a"worse-case"condition of a standard 3,000 square foot home stepped down the building pad of each lot. As illustrated at Viewpoint"A", looking east,two of the potential homes may be visible from the road,the third house may be partially visible. At Viewpoint`B", all three houses would be visible from the road. Impact I (a): The three residential units proposed for the project site would introduce new sources of visual intrusion into the existing scenic vista. The scaled computer simulations suggest that the three proposed residences would not block • views from Marsh Creek Road. The isolated massing of each structure is expected to allow visibility of the hill and trees along the hillside. In addition,the structures when viewed from Marsh Creek Road would be only briefly seen by motorist or bicyclist using the road and views from this road would not be strongly affected by the project. These views are moderate to low vividness and have high overall degree of intactness and unity, consisting mainly of oak covered hillsides within a general area of isolated building structures located all along Marsh Creek Road. This effect would be slightly adverse and would remain subordinate to the character of the existing hillside viewshed,however, since the 3-proposed houses have not been designed, there could be potentially significant adverse effects on the viewshed depending on the architectural design of the structures. The following mitigation measures would reduce the significance of this potential impact. Mitization Measure I(a):A minimum of thirty (30) days prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit architectural plans, color schemes, and elevations of the three individual residential units for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Such architectural plans and specification shall be incorporated into the deed disclosure for each of the three parcels. • Subdivision Proposed 3-Lot v' p i �sion MS050030 Initial Study 8 1�2�ho�1ally P)lanK 414 � 74" L< � t : �« �4" �*�� , F . SL I y , f r }+ + �- ., , Vat e :5r • � �' '' •k� ,y�F y; ty:- �� .rte n, f•` Q a At • +!s 1 s f O fi : ! w f 0 • O J �1 V i W t� s 4 i I i .tl, ii ki � F'� av5 b A h 3 rn R Wfk & 1. ,.. aPM AXe, tit + CD CN si I I �SY a-IY 4 1 �«�la Q O �' � �� ter � (� • W Fy • 7. l a 3 S � • 1 • 51 j 51 t .lFS i. �1�#.. • � J�,� i •. t ! 4 k�Y � s F M.tit - �y F g fe i d yet �S lxi • i � �im ia� ^fC�t. " r • F 1 t '1•' �Y 1(- L y . 2 fit^. • 4 s d 1 Y1 � • • �4 r • �I d Es 1 • q�Jf� .n • P f�,�T�p ( iE x� •• f •F 47 YV R �V 1{I a aT �� mt Pi u c: ( 21ki'? f�'Y • • ��i�� � 'N d'• 4 J • r., r.:. • �f Y,� rfr ,• e a3� YE r t; ✓ .4 .• r 'tle rt a �1pF 7 t S 1A! 1 b 5 ,t L i pi +t.� rk r4 _ .lrratA ff f.^ Fr '- t,�f�ratn t i p�- • r � � t `�}Qr�Y��nall� �J�� • • The plans and elevations shall demonstrate the following: • Exterior wall colors shall be limited to muted earth tones. The use of bright colors shall be avoided ■ Roof colors shall be limited to muted earth tones. Highly reflective materials shall be prohibited • Materials and colors shall reflect less than 25%of incident rays. • Retaining walls shall blend into the color of the surrounding landscape, be less than 6 feet high,parallel to existing contours. ■ Building pads shall step down the hill and be no more than 18 feet wide The plans for each parcel will he based, as well, on the following design guidelines: • Buildings shall be cut into the slope to reduce the effective visual bulk The buildings shall also be stepped up the slope rather than have a single floor height. • The under-storey height or foundations on the downhill side of each house shall be minimized ■ The building shall not exceed 35 feet in height measured from finished grade or • natural grade, whichever is lower. Steep,pitched roofs shall be avoided • Large raised decks or cantilevers on the downhill side of a house shall be minimized ■ Large vertical planes on the downhill side of a house will be discouraged ■ Tall retaining walls will be avoided and several smaller walls will be constructed with appropriate landscaping in between. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The nearest state scenic highway to the Project Site is State Highway 4, which is roughly 12 miles from the Project Site. The Project Site would not be visible from State Route 4 or any other officially designated scenic highway near the area. The project would be visible from Marsh Creek Road, a Scenic Route that is eligible for designation as a Scenic Highway. The proposed project would not involve or damage rock outcroppings or historic buildings, but some existing trees would be removed to construct the three home sites,access roads, and leach fields. Trees currently screen the existing Habig residence from off-site views; however, approximately 54 trees of the 257 trees located within 50-feet of the proposed alignment of the access roads and proposed limits of the house sites could be selectively removed from the area to construct the three new residential structures and access roadways. There are approximately 6 of • the 54 trees that could be removed are dead or dying. Another 16 trees could be preserved by site Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 14 design, resulting in approximately 32-37 trees that would be removed. The size distribution of the trees that could be removed as follows: • 10- 9- 8- 7- 6- 5- 4- 3- 2. 0-9-s-7-6-5-4-3.2. 5.7" 8-10" 11-13" 14.16" 17.19" 20-22" Number of Trees to be Removed by Size Class (Inches Diameter) • Fifty-seven percent of the trees removed would be less than 13 inches diameter and would be removed as isolated trees to accommodate the construction of the access roads,retaining walls and house structures. The majority of the screening trees would not be removed. Many of these trees are in the diameter range of 20—52 inches. With appropriate site design the remaining trees would be retained and continue to screen any potential views of the proposed houses from Marsh Creek Road and offsite locations. All trees indicated for removal on the Vesting Tentative Map would be required to be replaced as per Mitigation Measure IV (e)-1. During project construction, if trees not indicated on the VTM as trees planned for removal, and subsequent construction requires such trees to be removed,the applicant would need to apply for a Tree Permit from the County. c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Impact I(b): The low density distribution of the three proposed residences would introduce new "man-made"elements into the general landscape. The proposed three new residences would be designed to comply with County building height regulations. The new residences will not obstruct any "view corridors", but would be visible from portions of Marsh Creek Road and higher elevation offsite locations,farther away on Mt. Diablo. The project site and the area's visual quality is principally rural in character, evidenced by • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 15 scattered, houses and ranches, and other structures, such as the Contra Costa County Jail Fane, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Sunshine Camp Fire Station. • As discussed in Item(a) above,thero'ect would have visual P J quality characteristics of moderate to low vividness and have high overall degree of intactness and unity, still consisting mainly of oak covered hillsides within a general area of isolated building structures located all along Marsh Creek Road. The low density distribution of the three proposed residences would introduce new "man-made" elements into the general landscape but would not substantially degrade the visual quality if Mitigation Measure I(a) is implemented, in addition to the following mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure I(b)-1: Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval. The plan shall illustrate the exclusive use tree, shrub, and herbaceous species that are native to the area. In addition: • The Landscape plan shall be sufficient to provide screening and erosion control for the hillside. ■ Landscaping shall conform to the County Water Conservation landscaping program plan. ■ Landscaping shall conform to the County Water Conservation Landscaping Ordinance 82-26. Mitigation Measure I(b)-2: A recorded scenic easement shall be granted to the County for the approximately 3-4-acre portions of each parcel not proposed for the residential • building envelopes. The erection of structures, including but not limited to buildings, solid fences,swimming pools, tennis courts, and sports courts, will be prohibited in scenic easement areas. In addition: ■ Scenic easements shall be dedicated to the Countyfor those areas shown on the Vesting Tentative Map not proposed for the proposed house site and access road Scenic easement shall allow permitted leach fields and well sites., ■ The easement instrument shall provide that no grading, other development activity or removal of trees may occur in that area without the prior written approval of the Zoning Administrator. d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Impact I(c): The proposed project would introduce outdoor lighting from residential structures and access roadways that would be new sources of light and glare. Nighttime lighting associated with the three individual residences and the access roads would add new sources of light that currently does not exist in the area. Given the isolated, low density distribution of the three home sites, however,the project's contribution, although potentially noticeable, would not be substantial. However, since the existing nighttime light and glare is sparsely distributed around the hillside,and perceived clustering of lights would be considered relatively significant without some controls. The project would need to comply with County Code requirements regarding outdoor and decorative lig ting, and screening provisions • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 16 Mitization Measure I(c):At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a building permit for any of the individual lots, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator a Lighting Plan. The Lighting Plan shall,at a minimum,provide • that low-lying and exterior lights on the buildings be deflected so that lights shine onto the building site and not toward adjacent properties or offsite locations. The County Development Standards provide guidance on the type of lighting that would be appropriate for standard residential developments. All outdoor lighting shall be directed downward and screened away from adjacent properties and streets. Implementation of these development standards will reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision • MS050030 Initial Study 17 • Potentially Less Than Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incur rated • AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland, or ❑ Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland), El as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to a non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural El El ❑ use, or a Williamson Act contract? 10 c) Involve other changes in the existing ❑ environment, which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? DISCUSSION • a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? The site is not associated with any agricultural uses;the proposed use will not impact agricultural resources. The entire 38 acre parcel is currently developed with one single- family residence and accessory structures. Although the site is categorized on the county Farmland Map as-grazing land, the project site is not currently associated with agricultural uses. As such, the proposed use will not impact agricultural resources. According to the Soil Survey of Contra Costa County,the soil series on the site is Los Gatos. This soil type does not meet the criteria for Prime Farmlands or Farmlands of Statewide Importance, as listed by the State of Californial and the U.S.Department of Agriculture. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? Project land is not currently within a Williamson Act Contract. C) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses? • I California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Soil Candidate Listing for Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance—Contra Costa County.updated July 19,2004. Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 18 See Item(a) above. The project would not take crop or grazing lands out of production, or affect agricultural land use activities. • Potenfialy Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated • AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the El El Q applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ Q D substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net E increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial Q pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a • substantial number of people? Q DISCUSSION a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The Bay Area 1991 Clean Air Plan (updated in 1997)was developed, as required by the California Clean Air Act,to reduce population exposure to unhealthful levels of ozone through tighter industry controls, cleaner cars and trucks,cleaner fuels, and increased commute transportation alternatives. The update of the Plan contains additional control strategies that will reduce ozone precursors. Construction of three new houses would not significantly increase the amount of car or truck traffic in the area,would not develop new polluting industries and businesses, or would not contribute to the concentration or quantity of volatile pollutants on the Bay Area. Therefore,the project is not in conflict with or would not obstruct implementation of the Ozone Maintenance Plan, Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan or the Bay Area 1991 Clean Air Plan. b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 19 The San Francisco Bay Air Basin is currently designated as an "attainment"area for carbon • monoxide(CO), sulfur dioxide(SO2), nitrogen dioxide(NO2), and is designated as"non- attainment-unclassified"for federal ozone(03) and particulate matter(PM-10). Under the state standards,the region also has "attainment" status for CO, SO2, and NO2, but is"non-attainment" for the state PM-10 (particulate material) standard. For fine-particulate matter(PM-2.5),the bay area is also "non-attainment-unclassified Construction activities(earth excavation) would result in exhaust emissions and particulate matter in the form of dust. Consistent with CEQA,the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)requires all phases of a project to be evaluated for potential impacts, including impacts associated with construction activity(grading, exhaust from construction equipment, and any required demolition) and with the operation of the completed project(related to vehicle exhaust or stationary sources such as from industrial sources). BAAQMD regards emissions of PM-10 and other pollutants from construction activity to be less than significant if dust and particulate control measures are implemented,instead of requiring quantitative analysis of construction activity to determine significance. Impact M (a): Grading for proposed building pads, leach field installation,and access roads would have short-term air quality effects, primarily due to the generation of particulate matter(PM-10) and (PM-2.5). Diesel construction vehicles and equipment,the disturbance of soils through excavation and grading, construction vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces and the tracking of soils onto paved roads normally generate PM-10. • Mitigation Measure III(a): During construction the project applicant will implement BAAOMD 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 trucks 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. S. Sweep street daily,preferably with water sweepers, if soil is carried onto adjacent streets. 6. Seed the disturbed areas as quickly as possible and install cover vegetation over the leach fields. c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? See(a) and(b)above. • Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 1999, "Bay Area Attainment Status," (obtained at BAAQMD Webster: www.baagmd.gov). Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 20 d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? • The BAAQMD defines exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants and risk of accidental releases of acutely hazardous materials (AHMs) as potential adverse environmental impacts. Examples of sensitive receptors include schools, hospitals, and residential areas with children, and convalescent facilities.The nearest residential areas with children are the isolated residential homes at some distance north of the project area. There is no anticipated storage of AHMs on the site. Thus no additional air quality impacts to sensitive receptors are expected. e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The BAAQMD defines public exposure to offensive odors as a potentially significant impact. Potential odor impacts are based on a list of specific types of facilities, such as wastewater treatment plants,landfills, refineries, etc. Improperly maintained wastewater treatment facilities such as the proposed leach fields could result in some occasional objectionable odors. Another example would be the case of a failed leach field. If such were the case, standard Best Management Practices routinely used to manage and repair failed systems would minimize the emission of odors. In addition,there would not be a substantial number of people potentially exposed to objectionable odors due to the sparse distributed of the low density housing, isolated from adjoining residences. • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision • MS050030 Initial Study 21 • Potentially Less Than Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation Inco orated • BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or throughQ El D habitat modifications, on any species identified as a El candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or Q other sensitive natural community identified in local or El regional plans,policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool, coastal,etc.)through direct removal,filling,hydrological • interruption,or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any nativeQ resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with El established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting Q El resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 1) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation El El Plan or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? DISCUSSION Three plant communities dominate the study area: blue oak woodland,non-native annual grassland and ruderal (introduced, weed covered)habitat. • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision ision MS050030 Initial Study 22 Blue Oak Woodland The blue oak woodland community is dominated by blue oak(Quercus douglasii) and includes • other species of oak trees as associated plants in the vegetation cover. Blue oak woodland is well developed on generally south-and east facing slopes. On north-and west-facing slopes,coast-live oak(Quercus agrifolia), interior live oak(Quercus wiskizenii var.frutescens) and valley oak (Quercus lobata)become more numerous. Canopy cover is not continuous, and the understory is generally similar to the surrounding grasslands. Other tree species commonly associated with blue oak woodland and observed in the study area include individual, isolated specimens of California buckeye (Aesculus californica) and a few shrubs. The scattered, sparsely distributed shrub layer is poorly developed but the herbaceous layer is continuous. Shrubs in the study area include redberry(Rhamnus illicifolia), blue elderberry(Sambucus mexicana), and spreading snowberry(Symphoricarpos mollis). Characteristic herbaceous plants detected on site include most of the species found within the grasslands.Native species such as miner's lettuce(Claytonia pe7 foliata), Durango root(Datisca glomerata), clarkia(Clarkia purpurea ssp. quadrivulnera), wooly mule-ears(Wyethia heleniodes), and wooly sunflower(Eriophyllum lanatum) are also present, among others. Non-Native Annual Grassland Non-native annual grasses and weedy annual and perennial forbs,primarily of Mediterranean origin dominate this vegetation cover type. Scattered native wildflower species,and widely scattered clumps of native grass species representing remnants of the original vegetation also occur on the site.Non-native annual grassland intergrades with blue oak woodland.All disturbed habitats are dominated by non-native species. Characteristic non-native annual grasses commonly found on site include wild oats (Avena spp.), • brome grasses(Bromus spp.),wild barley(Hordeum spp.),hedgehog dogtail (Cynosurus echinatus),Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiorum), and fescue(Vulpia spp.). Purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra) and creeping wildrye(Leymus triticoides)were found in a few locations. Common non-native forbs include Italian thistle(Carduus pycnocephalus),tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum), crane's-bill(Geranium dissecum), bur-clover(Medicago polymorpha), black mustard, and filaree, among others. Ruderal Habitat Ruderal, or weedy habitat occurs on areas of the property where the native vegetation has been completely removed by grading, cultivation, or other surface disturbances. Several areas on site have been disturbed by previous grading,paving and construction activities. The native vegetation on these lands has been completely removed and in some instances replaced by ruderal, non-native and native plant species and ornamental trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants. Native wildflower seed mix has been broadcast near the main road and the existing residence, and many of the seeds have germinated, grown, and flowered. Weedy species commonly encountered include tumble mustard,black mustard(Brassica nigra), brome grasses, Italian thistle,wild oats, and filaree, among others. Species generally associated with ruderal disturbed areas arc similar to those found in non-native annual grassland habitat, as described above. • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 23 a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat • modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Nineteen special-status plant species are known to occur in the general vicinity of the Habig Project Area(Table IV-1). The majority of these species are not expected to occur on the site due to the absence of suitable habitat. The development of the project site would not result in adverse impacts to the habitat of endangered, rare or threatened species pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Section 14332(c), because: • Absence of Suitable Habitat: Chaparral, coastal scrub, vernal pool, wetland,alkali sink or alkali soil habitats do not occur in the project study area or within the hydrological or topographic influence of the project site. • Surveys Indicate No Special-Status Plants on the Site: No special-status plants were observed during surveys conducted in June 2005,May and July 2007. Based on the surveys the project would not adversely affect special-status plants. • Based on observed flowering of target special status plant species identified in the nearby Mitchell Canyon reference location, if special status species occurred on the project site, they would have been readily observable in the oak-woodland and grassland vegetation cover during the appropriate flowering period. • TABLE IV-1 Potentially Occurrin Special-Status Plant Species near the Habig Project Area Species Status Habitat Requirements Scientific NamelCommon Name Federal/State/CNPS Amsinckia grandfFloral Large-flowered FE/SE/List 1 B Woodland,valley and foothill fiddleneck rassland Amsinckia lunaris/Bent-flowered -/--/List 1 B Coastal bluff scrub,valley and fiddleneck foothill grassland,cismontane woodland. Arctostaphylos auriculata/Mt.Diablo -/--/List 1 B Chaparral vegetation in canyons manzanita and on slopes,on sandstone Arctosptospahylos Manzanffa ssp.laevigata/ -/--/List 1 B Chaparral Contra Costa manzanita Atriplex depressa/Brittlescale -/--/List 18 Chenopod scrub,meadows, la as,grassland,vernal pools Atriplex joaquiniana/San Joaquin -/--/List 1 B Chenopod scrub,alkali s earscale meadows,alkali grassland Blepharizonia plumose ssp.plumose/Big -/-/List 1 B Valley and foothill grassland tarplant Calochortus pulchellus/Mount Diablo —/--/List 1 B Chaparral,cismontane fairy-lantern woodland,riparian woodland, valle and foothill rassland Cafifomica macrophyllal Round-leaved -/--/List 1 B Cismontane woodland,valley filaree and rassland,claysoils Delphinium califomicum spp.interiusl -/--/List 1 B Chaparral Hospital Canyon larkspur • Erio onum truncatum/Mt.Diablo -/--/List 1B Cha arral,coastal scrub,valley Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 24 TABLE IV-1 Potentially Occurring S ecial-Status Plant Species near the Habig Project Area Species Status Habitat Requirements • Scientific Name/Common Name Federal/State/CNPS buckwheat and foothill grassland Helianthella castanea/Diablo helianthella -/-/List 1 B Thin,rocky soil,grassy hillsides, foothill woodland,chaparral. Hesperofinon brewedl Brewers dwarf flax -/--/List 1 B Serpentine soils,chaparral and oak woodland. Madia radiata/Showy madia -/-/List 1 B Cismontane woodland,valley and foothill grassland Malacothamnus hallfi/Hall's bush mallow -I-/List 1 B Chaparral and coastal scrub Monardella antonina ssp.antonina/San --/--/List 3 Chaparral,cismontane woodland Antonio Hills monardella Senicio aphanactis/Rayless ragwort -/--/list 2 Chaparral,drying alkaline flats, cismontane woodland,coastal scrub Viburnum ellipticum/Oval-leaved -/-Lst 2 1 Chaparral,lower montane vibumum I coniferous forest. Status: FE Federal Endangered SE State Endangered SR State Rare 1 B CNPS List 1 B,eligible for state listing,CEQA Review 2 CNPS List 2,eligible for state listing,not rare outside of California,CEQA Review 3 Review list,more information needed,recommended for CEQA Review California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) records indicate that thirty-five (35) • special-status wildlife species could occur in the general region of the project site (Table N-2). Table IV-2 Special-Status Animal Species Recorded to Occur near the Habig Project Area Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence on Site Species State/Federal Accipiter cooperii SSC Open woodlands,nests mainly in Low:Suitable nesting habitat present on site. Cooper's hawk(nesting riparian growths of deciduous trees only) but also in live oak trees. Accipiterstriatus SSC Ponderosa pine,black oak, Very Low:Suitable nesting habitat is not Sharp-shinned hawk riparian deciduous trees. Prefers present on site. (nesting only) riparian area and nest is usually within 275 feet of water. Ambystome califomiense SSC/FE Seasonal water bodies,vernal Very Low:Suitable dispersal and aestivation California tiger salamander pools,and stock ponds,absent of habitat is not present on the site. No suitable fish,in grassland or woodland breeding habitat. habitats. Anniella pulchra pulchra SSC/FSC Loose soil with high sand content Not Expected:No suitable habitat present. Silvery legless lizard Antrozous pallidus SSC High moisture content sandy or Low:Suitable roosting habitat present on site. Pallid bat loose loamy soils under sparsely distributed vegetation. Aquila chrysaetos/Golden SSC Woodlands and grassiand nest in Low:Marginal suitable nesting habitat present; eagle(nesting and cliff-walls or large trees in open suitable foraging habitat present on site. wintering) areas. Asio flammous SSC Swamps and bottom lands, Not Expected:Suitable nesting habitat not • Short-eared owl(nesting meadows,irri ated alfalfa fields. present on site. Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 25 Table IV-2 Special Status Animal Species Recorded to Occur near the Habig Project Area • Status Species State/Federal Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence on Site only) Tule parches or tall grasses needed for nesting. Athene cunicularia SSC/FSC Grasslands and scrublands. Not Expected:Marginal suitable habitat Burrowing owl Dependent on mammal burrows or prese nt. ground squirrel dens. Baeolophus inornatus Species of Local I Nests in tree cavities within oak Low:Suitable nesting habitat present on site. Oak titmouse(nesting) Concern woodland Bassariscus astufus SSC/FSC/CFP Chaparral, rocky hillsides and Very Low:Study area lies within one half mile Ring-tailed cat riparian habitat.Denning in rocky of Marsh Creek riparian corridor; nesting habitat outcrops,boulders and hollow such as downed logs,hollow trees present on trees. the site but preferred vegetation cover is absent. Branchinecta longiantenna FE Seasonal wetlands and vernal Not Expected—No suitable habitat Longhorn fairy shrimp pools;depressions in sandstone and clay/grass bottomed pools in shallow swales Branchinecta lynchi FT Seasonal wetlands and vernal Not Expected—No suitable habitat Vernal pool fairy shrimp pools;depressions in sandstone and claylgrass bottomed pools in shallow swales Buteo regalis 5SC/FSC Open grassland,sage brush flats, Low:Suitable foraging habitat present on site Ferruginous hawk desert scrub,and low foothills. but ground squirrel prey-base is not abundant. (wintering) Forages in winter over grasslands. Cardualis lawrencei FSC Nests in open oak or other Low:Suitable nesting habitat present on site, Lawrence's goldfinch woodland and chaparral near but not near surface waters. (nestingonl water. • Chaeture vauxi SSC/FSC Nests in large hollow trees and Not Expected: Suitable coniferous forest Vaux's swift(nesting only) snags,often in flocks,within nesting habitat is not present on site. redwood,Douglas fir,and other coniferous forests. Clemmys marmorata SSC/FSC Associated with permanent water— Not Expected:No suitable habitat present on Western pond turtle marshes,rivers,streams and site. irrigation ditches with aquatic vegetation. Corynorhinus townsendii SSC/FSC Roosts in the open,hanging from Not Expected:Suitable roosting habitat is towsendii walls and ceilings in caves absent on site. Townsend's western big- eared bat Desmocerus californicus FT Central Valley species associated Not Expected—Scattered elderberry host dimorphus with blue elderberry trees/shrubs in plants are present on site but species not Valley elderberry longhorn riparian or blue-oak woodlands, known to occur within the Clayton or eight beetle surroundinq topographic quadrangles. Dipodomys heermanni FSC Open grassy hilltops and open Not Expected:Species presumed extinct; berkeleyensis spaces in chaparral and blue- specimens last recorded from summit of Mt. Berkeley kangaroo rat oak/gray pine woodlands Diablo in 1936,approximately 4.5 miles west of the project study area. Elanus leucurus CFP Grassland,marsh with trees,large Low:Suitable nesting habitat present on site. White-tailed kite shrubs for nestin Eremophi/a alpetris actica SSC Nests in short grass prairie, Low:Suitable nesting and foraging habitat California horned lark mountain meadows,coastal plains, present on site. Tand fallow fields. He/minthoglypta nickliniana FSC Rock piles within open hillsides in Low:Suitable habitat present on site;one bridgesii tall grasses and weeds occurrence reported approximately a mile and a Bridges'Coast Range• shoulderband snail half west of the study area(east slope of Mt. Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision Diablo). M S 050030 Initial Study 26 Table IV-2 Special-Status Animal Species Recorded to Occur near the Ha ig Project Area • Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence on Site Species State/Federal _ Lanius ludovicianus SSC/FSC Woodlands, riparian woodlands, Very Low:Suitable nesting habitat not present Loggerhead shrike juniper scrub.Dense shrubs and on site. brush for nestin . Masticophis lateralis CT/FT Shrub-hardwood habitats on Very Low: No suitable scrub or chaparral euryxanthus south-facing slopes and ravines habitat or rock outcroppings present on site. Alameda whipsnake within a shrub,oak,grassland Coastal scrub or chaparral habitat was mosaic observed north and east of the study area, outside the boundaries of the project site in small,isolated patches. Melanerpes lewis FSC Nest in dead tree cavities in open Low:Suitable nesting and foraging habitat Lewis'woodpecker(nesting) forest and woodlands with open present on site,without the brushy understory. canopy and brushy habitat. Myotis ciliolabrum FSC Wooded and brushy uplands near Very Low:Suitable roosting habitat present on Small-footed myotis bat water,caves,mines,crevices,and site. buildings in open forests and woodlands. Myotis evotis FSC Brush,woodlands and forest Low:Suitable,non coniferous roosting habitat Long-eared myotis bat habitats.Prefers coniferous present on site. woodlands and forests.Roosts in caves,buildings,crevices,and under bark and tree snags. Myotis volans FSC Woodland and forest habitats Very Low:Suitable day and nursery roosting Long-legged myotis bat above 4,000 feet.Trees are habitat present on site,but site elevation is important for day roosts. Caves below 4,000 feet. and mines for night roosts.Nursery colonies under bark or in hollow • trees,but also rock crevices or buildings. Myotis yumanensis FSC Open forests and woodlands with Not Expected: Suitable roosting habitat is Yuma myotis bat sources of surface water over absent. The site does not contain surface which to feed. Roosts in caves, water suitable for foraging. mines,buildings or rock crevices. Nyctinompos macrotis SSC Low-lying and areas with high cliffs Very Low:Suitable roosting habitat is absent. Mexican Bi free-tailed bat or rocky outcrops for roosting Picoides nuttallh Species of Local Oak forests and woodland near Low:Suitable nesting habitat present on site. Nuttall's woodpecker Concern riparian habitat.Nests in snags and tree hollows. Prynosoma coronatum SSC/FSC Lowlands along sandy washes Not Expected:No suitable habitat present on frontale with scattered low shrubs.Patches site. California homed lizard of loose soil for burial with native ants and other insects for food. Rana aurora draytonii SSC/FT Lowlands and foothills in or near Very Low: Suitable dispersal and aestivation California red-legged frog permanent sources of water with habitat is not present on the site. No suitable dense,shrubby or emergent breeding habitat. riparian vegetation Taxidea taxus SSC Digs burrows in dry open stages of Low:Marginally suitable habitat present within American badger shrub,forest,and herbaceous study area. vegetation. Needs friable soils and a prey base of burrowing rodents. Vulpes macrotis mutica ST/FE Grasslands on loose textured, Not Expected: Study area is outside of the San Joaquin kit fox friable soil,with ground squirrel known range of species':suitable core habitat" burrows and"potential kit fox movement routes"have been designated north of and northeast of the study area,and occurrences have been • reported approximately 4.5 miles north of the Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 27 Table IV-2 Special-Status Animal Species Recorded to Occur near the Habig Project Area • Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence on Site Species State/Federal project site. Status: FE =Federally Endangered FT =Federally Threatened FSC=Federal Species of Concern CE =State of California Endangered CT =State of California Threatened SSC=State of California Species of Special Concern CFP=California fully protected The project site is near the recorded occurrences of three species federally listed as threatened or endangered, as identified in Table N-2: California red-legged frog(CRLF), California tiger salamander(CTS), and the Alameda whipsnake(AWS). The protocol site assessment2for the three species determined that the project site does not provide suitable habitat for the species, as summarized below: California Red-legged Frog There is no suitable breeding habitat for the California• red-legged frog(CRLF)such as permanent ponds or streams on the project site.The project site does provide the vegetation cover that is characteristic of CRLF upland dispersal and aestivation habitat, but this is highly unlikely that the site would be used for such uses. A case could be made that the project site could provide dispersal habitat for CRLF breeding in suitable pond, stream or wetland areas near the project site. CRLF is recorded to occur throughout the Marsh Creek riparian corridor and nearby stock ponds and drainage ponds. According to the U. S. Geological Survey 7.5"topographic quadrangle(Antioch South), a spring lies immediately north of the study area's northern boundary, and a bermed stock pond (referred to on the topographic map as a"reservoir") lies approximately 1,000 linear map-feet north of the study area's northern boundary, along the uppermost reaches of Long Canyon, a tributary to Marsh Creek. Surveys in August and November of 2007, indicated that the spring was totally dry, as was the bermed stock pond/reservoir. According to the project landowner, the stock pond/reservoir has been dry for a number of years. The"reservoir"drains to the watershed of Long Canyon,on the backside of the foothill slopes upon which the project study area Iies.An existing paved road(the upper extension of Bragdon Way) on the west end of the reservoir provides a potential barrier to potential amphibian dispersal down to the project area. The down slope extension of Bragdon Way, as it winds down to the project site, provides additional barrier to potential CRLF dispersal. In addition, the area around the reservoir,paved access road, and other areas south of the • 2 California Red-legged Frog, California Tiger Salamander, Alameda Whipsnake Site Assessment- 38 acre Habig Property,Clayton,California,Prepared by TOVA Applied Science&Technology,December 12.2007. Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 28 reservoir lack the fossorial mammal burrows (ground squirrel and vole, etc.)available as potential CRLF aestivation sites. • The closest CRLF breeding and dispersal habitat to the project site is along the north and south sides of Marsh Creek Road. Marsh Creek Road provides a dispersal barrier for frogs potentially breeding in Marsh Creek on the south side of the road. Drainage ponds on the north side of the road provide dispersal along a northern tributary to Marsh Creek, passing through a culvert under Marsh Creek Road to the south side of the road.Physical barriers to dispersal eastward toward the project site includes a ranch,with build structures, paved areas, and dry pasture; and the paved area of the CDF station located at the toe of the hill adjacent to Marsh Creek Road, forming a physical constriction of oak woodland habitat. Because of the absence of wetlands, springs, permanent and semi-permanent natural ponds, streams, stock ponds, irrigation ponds, or siltation ponds on the project site,there is no suitable breeding habitat for California red-legged frog on the site.There are existing barriers to dispersal of CRLF from off-site potential breeding habitats. Such barriers include Marsh Creek Road, existing land uses and physical constraints along Marsh Creek Road, and the paved Bragdon Way.The"spring" identified off-site is dry and would not provide suitable breeding habitat for the frog. In addition,the lack of fossorial mammal burrows around the off-site"reservoir" located well north of the project site reduces the potential use of the area as aestivation habitat for CRLF. In addition,there are no fossorial mammal burrows within the areas proposed for home development, access road or leach field construction. Based on the lack of suitable breeding habitat,the absence of suitable aestivation habitat and the barriers to CRLF dispersal, it is highly unlikely that the Habig property project site provides suitable habitat for the CRLF. California Tiger Salamander • Suitable breeding habitat for the California tiger salamander(CTS) such as standing bodies of fresh water(including natural and manmade)ponds,vernal pools, and other ephemeral or permanent water bodies that typically support inundation during winter rains and hold water for a minimum of 12 weeks in a year of average rainfall does not occur on the project site. The project site is upland habitat, but is not adjacent and accessible to and from breeding ponds that contain small mammal burrows or other underground habitat that the salamanders depend upon for food, shelter, and protection from the elements and predation. The project site within the area of proposed land disturbance lacks the array of ground squirrel,vole or other fossorial mammal burrows, adjacent to a pond, or ephemeral or permanent water bodies. There are, however, active ground squirrel burrows scattered sporadically outside the proposed development and land disturbance areas, including adjacent grasslands, along roads and fence lines, and within and along the dry gullies. As with the assessment of California red-legged frog habitat, a case could also be made that the project site could provide dispersal habitat for CTS breeding in suitable pond, stream or wetland areas near the project site. CTS are recorded to occur throughout the Marsh Creek riparian corridor and nearby stock ponds and drainage ponds. Our surveys in August and November indicated that the spring identified by the USGS topographic quadrangle,north of the project site, was totally dry, as was the bermed stock pond/reservoir located approximately 1,000 linear map- feet north of the study area. The "reservoir" drains to the watershed of Long Canyon, on the backside of the foothill slopes upon which the project study area lies, and as indicated in the discussion under the California red-legged frog,the "reservoir"has been dry for a number of • years. Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 29 An existing paved road(the upper extension of Bragdon Way)on the west end of the reservoir • provides a potential barrier to potential amphibian dispersal down to the project area. The down slope extension of Bragdon Way, as it winds down to the project site,provides additional barrier to potential CTF dispersal. In addition, the area around the reservoir, paved access road, and other areas south of the reservoir lack the fossorial mammal burrows(ground squirrel and vole, etc.)available as potential CTF aestivation sites. The closest CTF breeding and dispersal habitat to the project site is along the north and south sides of Marsh Creek Road. The pond system also provides breeding and dispersal habitat for California red-legged frog. Marsh Creek Road provides a dispersal barrier for CTS as well as CRLF potentially breeding in Marsh Creek on the south side of the road. The drainage ponds on the north side of the road provide dispersal along a northern tributary to Marsh Creek, passing through a culvert under Marsh Creek Road to the south side of the road.Physical barriers to dispersal eastward toward the project site includes a ranch, with build structures,paved areas, and dry pasture; and the paved area of the CDF station appressed to the toe of the hill adjacent to Marsh Creek Road, forming a physical constriction of oak woodland habitat. The movement of tiger salamanders from the Marsh Creek ponds to the Habig project site would be hindered by the CDF buildings and other structures. Because of the absence of permanent or semi-permanent ponds, streams, stock ponds, irrigation ponds, or siltation ponds on the project site, there is no suitable breeding habitat for California tiger salamander(CTS). There are existing barriers to dispersal of CTS from off-site known or P otential breeding habitats. Such barriers include Marsh Creek Road, existing land uses and physical constraints along Marsh Creek Road, and the paved Bragdon Way. The"spring" identified off site is dry and would not provide suitable breeding habitat for the slamander. In • addition, the lack of fossorial mammal burrows around the off-site"reservoir"located well north of the project site reduces the potential use of the area as aestivation habitat for CTS. Based on the lack of suitable breeding habitat,the absence of suitable aestivation habitat and the barriers to CTS dispersal, it is highly unlikely that the Habig property project site provides suitable habitat for the CTS. Alameda Whispnake There is no suitable scrub or chaparral habitat that exists on site and it is highly unlikely that the Alameda whipsnake would use the Habig site.Although the study area does not support coastal scrub or chaparral habitat on site, such habitat was observed during the site reconnaissance outside the boundaries of the study area in small,isolated patches.More extensive patches of scrub and/or chaparral exist uphill of the study area at higher elevations, but these areas of scrub/chaparral appear to mark the southernmost boundaries of this vegetation community along the slopes, below which the study area lies, since no scrub or chaparral habitat was observed downhill between the study area and Marsh Creek. Based on the absence of suitable habitat features,there is no breeding habitat for the California red-legged frogs or California tiger salamander on the Habig project site. The absence of suitable aestivation habitat features, and the physical barriers presented by paved roads-Bragdon Way, Marsh Creek Road, the existing structures of the California Department of Forestry(CDF) facility, and the constrained topography at this location adjacent to Marsh Creek Road would preclude dispersal from known breeding habitat near the intersection of Marsh Creek Road and Morgan Territory Road to the project site. Habitat for the Alameda whipsnake is absent from the • project site. Such habitat would include scrub or chaparral vegetation cover, extensive rock Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 30 outcrops, and an abundant population of whipsnake prey. It is highly unlikely that California red- legged frog, California tiger salamander, or Alameda whipsnake would occur on the project site. These would not be jeopardized by project development as proposed. • Impact IV(a): Site grading and other construction disturbance in grassland or grassland- oak habitat may result in the mortality to individual red-legged frogs,tiger salamanders,or whipsnakes if these were to enter the project site during construction activities proposed for Parcel B and the Parcel A leach field. The project is not expected to result in "take" of any of these species, or their habitat,however, given the sensitivity of the surrounding areas and the known distribution of these species near the project site, a precautionary measure is prudent to insure that CRLF,CTS, and AWS are not adversely affected by project construction. Mitigation Measure N(a): The project applicant will conduct a pre-construction survey and implement Best Management Practices(BMPs) and project construction monitoring to avoid injury or mortality to individual red-legged frog, tiger salamander, or Alameda whipsnakes during project construction activities. The following BMP's shall be implemented for the prior to and during construction activities: • All work crew members shall undergo sensitive-species training prior to their involvement with construction activities. The program would consist of a brief presentation by trained biologists knowledgeable about listed species biology and legislative protection. The biologist shall explain technical and regulatory concerns to contractors and their employees involved with the proposed action. The program shall include the following: a description • of the species and their habitat needs; locations of occurrences in the action area; an explanation of the status of each listed species and their protection under the Endangered Species Act; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to the species during construction and implementation of the proposed action. Training cards containing this information shall be distributed to the above-mentioned people and anyone else entering the project site. • An exclusion fence around the construction area shall be installed to prevent sensitive herpetofaunal species from entering the construction area during construction activities. Exclusion fence of a design currently approved by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Fish and Game shall be installed before ground breaking. The fence will be constructed with a flexible plastic material such as Proplex 1199Tm or similar material. The material comes in 12 foot wide,225 ft long rolls. It shall be cut into 4 foot wide rolls. A trench will be cut to 12 inches deep in the soil and the lower 12 inches of the material placed in the trench and backfilled. The fence shall be staked with four foot long stakes or"t" posts every 10 feet so that the material is maintained at a height of 3 feet throughout its length. The material shall be fastened to the stakes. Where needed, drainage will be provided by placing small 4" pipes through the material with a clear Mylar flap on the outer portion of the pipe. A small mesh screen shall also be placed under the flap.Exit funnels, to enable any species that inadvertently remain within or enter the construction area to leave the impact areas, will be placed every 100 feet on the north, east and south sides of the fence. Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision • MS050030 Initial Study 31 No construction related work shall be allowed outside the area enclosed by the exclusion fence without a biological monitor being present.No trash storage, debris, or construction • materials shall be placed outside of the exclusion fencing. Vegetative growth adjacent to the fence shall be controlled to eliminate the potential of "ladders" for animals to crawl over the fencing. The integrity of the fence shall be inspected once a week or after major storm events. • A preconstruction survey shall be conducted by the biological monitor in areas that will be enclosed by the exclusion fence where any potential habitat is present for sensitive herpetofauna. If any listed species are observed, the all work in the area will cease until the animal(s) have been allowed to disperse outside of the work area. • Rocky features shall be removed by hand and under the supervision of a biological monitor. If a listed species is uncovered, it shall be allowed to leave the work area unmolested. If it does not leave on its own accord, the exclusion fence will be altered to encircle the area where the species is located and this area shall remain undisturbed until the monitor verifies that the species has vacated the area.No work crew shall touch or attempt to move the animal until a biological monitor is present to confirm whether or not it is a protected species. • Any potential listed species sightings by workers shall be reported immediately to the biological monitor and the workers will cease work in the area until the monitor provides clearance that the species is either not a protected species or has left the area. • Any excavations will be backfilled or covered at the end of the work day to prevent • trapping sensitive species. • During construction,the biological monitor shall conduct regular inspections of the construction area and the exclusion fence to assure that the fencing is maintained adequately and that all construction areas are free of debris and trash that might attract wildlife. • A monitoring log shall be maintained on-site to record all activities of the biological monitor and their findings and recommendations. The log will be available for inspection by the County. Other Species Nesting Birds.None of the sensitive bird species identified in Table IV-2 or their nest were observed on the project site. No other nesting birds potentially protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act were observed. However, birds could initiate nesting in trees prior to tree removal and site construction. Some of the trees proposed for removal or, in the case of native trees proposed for retention and preservation, may occur near areas planned for grading or construction. Direct impacts to nests as a result of tree removal or excessive human activity near nests in trees planned for preservation, may result in impaired reproduction success of sensitive bird species. Impact W (b): The proposed project would result in the removal of some existing trees to construct the three home sites,access roads, and leach fields. Tree-nesting birds and bat species could be adversely affected if trees proposed for removal provided nesting or • roosting habitat for these species. Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study j7 Tree removal or site grading and construction disturbance adjacent to trees may result in the • direct removal of a nest structure or disturbance to reproductive behavior of sensitive bird species, such as migratory birds or raptors, if active nest structures or active nesting activity occurs in such trees. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would avoid impacting such established nests if these structures occur in trees on the Project Site. Mitigation Measure Mb): The Project Applicant will implement and initiate a pre- construction survey for newly established or actively used nest structures in trees and implement nest protective procedures if such nests occur. If proposed site clearing, grading, or noise-generating constructions were to occur during the period September through January, no pre-construction survey for nesting birds would be required. If grading or construction occurs during the February through August breeding season,however,a biologist should conduct a pre-construction survey to determine if special- status birds are nesting in or near trees within the grading zone or within trees proposed for removal. The biologist should conduct the survey no more than 30 days prior to initiation of grading, site preparation, or construction. If there were no nesting activity observed, site preparation, grading or construction could proceed. If a nesting activity is observed in the tree, the nest structure should be monitored for bird egg-incubation, including: ■ Incubation behavior(e.g., regular periods of"disappearance" into the same location followed by short, secretive flights to forage) • ■ Extreme distress and alarm calls when in close vicinity of the nest tree. ■ Observation of food carried in the beak or claws to the nest. If the biologist observes incubation behavior,incorporating the following measures should protect the nest location: ■ Establishment of a buffer using orange construction fencing around the tree in accordance with CDFG recommendations until the young have fledged. A no- disturbance zone of a width needed to adequately protect nests during construction shall protect all active nests. For most songbirds, a 50-foot zone is recommended; for raptors, a 200-foot zone is recommended. ■ The nest tree should be monitored a minimum of once per week to confirm that the young have fledged and that no new nesting pairs are present before the buffer is removed.After the biologist has determined that all young have fledged, construction may proceed within the protected zone. If it is not feasible to delay or modify construction activities around the tree,the biologist should contact the CDFG to discuss alternative buffer options Special-Status Bats.No evidence of bat roosting activity was observed on the project site during the field surveys. There is, however,the remote possibility that new roosts could be established • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 33 prior to the removal of trees. An adverse impact to special-status bats could occur if trees • scheduled for removal were occupied in the future,prior to building demolition or tree removal. Impact IV(c): Removal of trees could result in direct mortality of special status bats. In addition, construction noise and human disturbance could cause roost abandonment and death of young. Removal of large trees could permanently remove roosting habitat or disturb individual bats. Some of these bat species could possibly use crevices in exfoliating bark and/or hollow cores in trees. Mitigation Measure IV(c): The project applicant will avoid disturbance to the potential roosts of special-status bats during the removal of trees throus h a Pre- Construction Special Status Bat Species Survey. If construction activities (i.e., ground clearing and grading, including removal of trees) occur during the nonbreeding season of bats(September 1 through February 28),no preconstruction survey and no other mitigation is required. If construction occurs during the breeding season(March 1 through August 31),the applicant would perform a pre-construction special status bat species survey with the following components to avoid impacts to special-status bats: I. Prior to grading or tree removal, a biologist shall inspect each group of trees to determine bat presence and use. The biologist shall conduct the assessment through . appropriate combination of inspection, sampling, exit counts,and acoustic surveys. As appropriate, bat exit or emergence counts shall be made at dusk to determine bat activity. In addition, an acoustic detector may be also be used to determine such activity. 2. If preconstruction surveys indicate that roosts are inactive or potential habitat is unoccupied during the constriction period, no further mitigation is required. Trees that have been determined to be unoccupied by special-status bats may be removed. 3. If, however, individuals or colonies were present during proposed tree removal, and the tree removal can reasonably be expected to result in harm,then bats shall be excluded from their roost locations during the appropriate time of the year using humane methods. Such methods will be selected in consultation between the biologist and the CDFG. 4. If there is potential for adverse effects on bat habitat,then measures developed under the direction of the biologist shall be implemented to reduce the effect on the bat colony to a negligible level. Measures may include improvement of off-site colony roosts, installation of artificial "bat boxes", or improvement of species management sufficient to offset impacts from the loss of a colony. Such measures shall be implemented in consultation between the biologist and the CDFG. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, • or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 3 The Habig property contains no streams or creeks, or other riparian habitat.The only blue-line features mapped by the U. S. Geological Survey in the immediate area on adjacent parcels north • of the Habig property include a stock pond and a spring. The location of the"spring" is dry and the stock pond is located a higher elevation and within a different watershed as the Habig property. Several dry gulches exist on the property.All of these features are located at higher topographic elevation in the watershed and carry occasional sheet runoff only. The deepest of these dry gulches drains runoff to the rear of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Station to the west of the Habig Property.However, the runoff is of insufficient quantity and the watershed is too small in area to support an incised channel with two-year flow marks. Sensitive natural communities are those that are considered rare in the region, support special-status plant or wildlife species, or receive regulatory protection (i.e., §404 of the Clean Water Act and/or the § 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code). In addition,the CNDDB has designated a number of communities as rare;these communities are given the highest inventory priority(Holland 1986, CDFG 2003). The Habig property supports stands of four species of oaks.However,these are part of the more widespread blue oak woodland plant community that is not listed by Holland(1986)as having high inventory priority. The California Department of Fish and Game lists blue oak valley oak- coast live oak woodland as a rare plant community (CDFG 2003) but the Habig property actually supports a fourth oak species, interior live oak,that co-occurs with the other three oaks.Although blue oak woodland is not rare in the region it may support special-status plant or wildlife species in some locations. • c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands,as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal wetland, etc.),through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption or other means? e. There are no wetlands on the project site. Under the Clean Water Act Section 404 and regulations administered by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(Corps), a wetland is defined as being an area that is" ...inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions."By the Corps defmition,three defining conditions or criterion must be present to define an area as a wetland—hydrology, soil, and hydrophytic vegetation. Such habitat conditions do not occur on the site. The vegetation cover of the dry gulches and dry"spring"consists of non-hydrophytic grasses and herbaceous plants. Soil data pits indicate the absence of hydric soil conditions.The project, therefore,would not have substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to, marsh,vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study .35 Wildlife movement corridors link together areas of suitable wildlife habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain changes in vegetation, or by areas of human disturbance or urban • development. Topography and other natural factors in combination with urbanization have fragmented or separated large open-space areas. The project site is within a rural unincorporated part of Clayton. Surrounding land uses includes private residences, ranches and pastureland. The Contra Costa County Jail Farm juvenile detention facility and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Sunshine Camp Fire station are west of the property. East Bay Regional Park lands are located upslope of the project site at a higher elevation. Expected wildlife movement would be from this higher elevation area down to the Marsh Creek Area, along the Marsh Creek corridor,and perhaps the dry gulches. The Habig property is proposed for a minor subdivision into three approximately five-acre lots and the 23-acre designated remainder where an existing residence exists. This action is not expected to contribute to significant habitat fragmentation or impede wildlife movement. However,the introduction of non-native landscaping on the five-acre lots could reduce the habitat value of the vegetation cover in these areas. Impact IV(d): The introduction of non-native landscaping on the five-acre lots could reduce the habitat value of the vegetation cover in these areas. Invasive plants pose an increasing threat to native vegetation. These plants---often from Asia or Europe—are capable of rapidly taking over native areas. In general,native wildlife species are not adapted to use these exotic species for food or shelter. Because of this, the invasion by exotic species can severely degrade the value of wildlife habitat. Often in residential developments, these plants are frequently incorporated into landscaping plans. As part of the landscaping,the project would be required to replace the trees removed during project construction. Such trees are • required to be native trees but the selection of landscaping plants, in general, should also be compatible with the applied philosophy of"defensible space", a term first coined in the 1980 Fire Safe Guide for Residential Development in California. Defensible space is the area within the perimeter of a parcel or development where basic wildland fire prevention practices and measures are implemented,providing the key point of defense from an approaching wildfire, an encroaching wildlife, or an escaping structure fire. Fuel modification or fuels management plans are effective in defense of wildfires and the selection of plants for use in the riparian buffer should respond to the requirement that such plants be natives and relatively fire-resistant. Mitigation Measure ITS(d): Thirty (30) days prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval to Contra Costa County a Landscape Plan that incorporates the planting of native tree and ground coverplants on each of the proposed building lots. The Landscape Plan shall also incorporate specific standards of fire defensibility in wildland interface areas that include, at a minimum, the following criteria: • Domestic landscaping should emphasize the use of native, water-conserving, fire resistant, and deer tolerant plants that will blend with the natural vegetation. • Avoid planting trees and shrubs in straight lines should be clustered informally to blend with the natural vegetation. • Existing natural vegetation should be preserved as much as possible for wildlife • habitat and slope protection. Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 36 The following plants species shall be prohibited from use as landscaping material within theses areas: • • Tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) • English ivy(Nedra helix) • Periwinkle(Vinca major) • Himalayan blackberry(Rubus discolor) • Giant reed(Arundo donax) • Tamarisk(Tamarix sp.) • Scotch broom (Cystisus scoparius) • Cape ivy(Delairea odorata) • Pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata/C. selloana) The project applicant shall contact the California Exotic Pest Plant Council(CalEPPC)to identify other potential invasive plants prior to completing landscaping plans for the proposed residential units. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Contra Costa County Tree Preservation Ordinance Sections 816-6.1208 regulates the removal of trees. Chapter 816-6 of the Ordinance mandates that a project proponent receive a permit from the Community Development department prior to grading,trenching, or filling any area within the dripline of a tree greater than 6.5 inches diameter, as measured at 4.5 feet above grade (diameter-at-breast height or DBH). This standard also applies to removal or destruction of • qualifying trees. All trees indicated for removal on the Vesting Tentative Map (VTM)would be required to be replaced. All other trees identified on the VTM as trees to remain would require protection. During project construction, if trees not indicated on the VTM as trees planned for or protection are subsequently removed,the applicant would need to apply for a tree removal permit from the County. Impact IV(e): Approximately 32-37 trees of 257 trees located within 50-feet of the proposed alignment of the access roads and proposed limits of the house sites could be selectively removed from the project site to construct the three new residential structures,access roadways, leach fields and well site. Mitigation Measure IV(e)-1:All trees proposed for removal, as indicated on the project's Vesting Tentative Map, would be replaced at a minimum of a 3:1 ratio by the provision of at suitably-sized oaks, as per County guidelines, and other native trees planted around the Project Site in natural locations and plant groupings. Trees proposed for removal will be replaced at a ratio of at least 3:1 by the provision of 110 new oaks and other native trees planted around the building sites. All other native trees will be preserved as guided by the following mitigation measure. Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision • MS050030 Initial Study 37 Mitigation Measure TV(e)-2: Trees identified to be retained on each parcel designated on the Vesting Tentative Map will be preserved by suitable • construction buffers,fencing, and Best Management Practices. An undisturbed and unirrigated buffer with a radius of 1.5 times the distance from the trunk to the edge of the dripline of each native tree identified for preservation shall be installed. Construction measures, such as installing temporary construction fencing around the buffer areas of the trees, shall be implemented as outlined in the Contra Costa County Tree Protection Ordinance. To prevent injury to those trees proposed for retention and preservation near proposed construction areas, the following protection measures shall be implemented as part of the project: • Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction,paving or change in ground elevation, tree protection fencing will be installed at or near the dripline of the trees to be preserved. • Tree fencing shall be a minimum of 48 inches in height.Fence supports shall be steel "T" drive posts with a maximum spacing of 10 feet. The top of the fencing shall be supported by attaching a wire or poly rope between the post supports and attaching it to the fencing. • Once the tree fencing has been installed and its location and installation approved, the fencing shall not be taken down or moved without prior written authorization from the project arborist/forester. • • No grading, compaction, stockpiling,trenching,paving or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline except where minor encroachments are required, and as shown on project maps. The project arborist/forester shall be onsite when any work is done within the dripline. The project arborist/forester shall have the authority to require protective measures in the event any major roots are encountered in the dripline encroachment area. • No parking or storing of vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials, construction trailers, and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the dripline of any preserved tree. • Weekly site inspections by the project arborist/forester will be provided to insure compliance with the recommendations of the above protection measures. • Upon completion of grading and construction, the project arborist/forester shall prepare a report outlining any further tree protection pr remediation measures, if any, are required. Mitigation Measure IV(e)-3: The applicant will not remove those trees not identified for removal on the project's Vesting Tentative Map without obtaining a Tree Permit from the Count)7 and adhering to permit conditions. • Proposed 3-Lot of Subdwision MS050030 Initial Study 38 f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, • Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? The project site is within the Inventory Area of the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP.The HCP/NCCP covers 173,680 acres, and proposes coverage for 28 species. Grazed annual grasslands are the most common land cover in the undeveloped portions of the planning area. Other natural communities present include oak woodland, oak savannah, chaparral/scrub,riparian scrub and woodland, and permanent and seasonal wetlands.Listed species being addressed in planning include San Joaquin kit fox, California red-legged frog,Alameda whipsnake, and other species.. The project area is outside of, but near the"Suitable Core Habitat"of the San Joaquin kit fox, Alameda whipsnake, and California red-legged frog. The project site is within an area defined by the HCP as a"medium"acquisition area. (Sub zone 4c).The HCP proposes that land acquisition within this zone focuses on the upstream portions of Marsh Creek and the Upper Marsh Creek Subbasin, focusing on the protection of riparian woodland/scrub along Marsh Creek and other areas suitable for riparian woodland/scrub restoration. These areas contain known breeding habitat for western burrowing owl, California tiger salamander, and California red-legged frog, as well as potential foraging habitat for golden eagle. Two of the conservation goals of the HCP/NCCP are: (1)to preserve major habitat connections linking existing and future protected private and public lands and(2)manage habitats to enhance populations of covered species and maintain ecosystem processes. Specific habitat goals detailed in the HCP/NCCP include protection objectives and conservation measures for wetlands, • grasslands, oak woodland, chaparral/scrub, streams and riparian woodlands. The Project Site contains no wetlands, chaparral/scrub, streams or riparian woodlands,but based on the presence of grasslands and oak woodland,the following table assesses the potential project conflict with the habitat biological goals of the HCP. TABLE IV-2 Assessment of Project Conflicts with the Goals of the East Contra Costa Count HCP/NCCP HCP Habitat HCP Biological Goals Project Conflict with HCP Goals Grassland Goal 10:Preserve sufficient habitat in the The project site does not contain dominant,native inventory area to maintain viable populations grassland,and the annual grassland is extremely of grassland-dependent covered species disturbed. The proposed development within each of the three project parcels would result in retention of over 53-60 percent of the exiting vegetation cover. The project would incorporate a landscape plan that would be focused on the exclusive use of native plant species. There are no special-status,grassland-dependent species on the project site. The project would not conflict with the HCP goal. Goal 11:Enhance grassland to promote The project Landscape Plan will incorporate the planting native biological diversity and habitat of native tree and ground cover plants on each of the heterogeneity proposed building lots. The Landscape Plan would prohibit the use of non-native,potentially invasive plants.The project would not conflict with the HCP goal. Goal 12:Increase availability of burrows There are no burrows of fossorial animals within the • within grassland for San Joaquin kit fox, areas proposed for project development. The project Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 39 TABLE IV-2 Assessment of Project Conflicts with the Goals of the East Contra Costa County HCPINCCP • HCP Habitat HCP Biolo ical Goals Project Conflict with HCP Goals California tiger salamander,California red would not impact the availability of burrows and legged frog,and western burrowing owl. therefore would not conflict with this HCP goal. Goal 13:Preserve the most importantThe project is not located within the core habitat for the movement routes and core habitat for San San Joaquin kit fox,identified in the HCP as annual Joaquin kit fox. grassland in Deer, Horse and Lone Tree Valleys,and between Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and Cowell Ranch State Park,the boundary of Alameda Country and Contra Costa County, Byron Airport and the Los Vaqueros Watershed,and other areas of alkali grassland.The project would not conflict with this HCP goal. Goal 14:Maintain or increase population size There are no observed hibernacula or maternity roosts and distribution of Townsend's western big- of the Townsend's western big-eared bat on the project eared bat in the Preserve System. site. The site does not contain mines,caves,or abandoned buildings,nevertheless,prior to project construction,the project would avoid impacts to any bat species,including the Townsend's western big-eared bat,by conducting a pre-construction survey prior to the removal of trees and implementing protection measures. The project would not conflict with this HCP goal. Goal 15:Maintain or increase populq en eagle nesting habitat such as large trees in and distribution of golden eagles in areas,occur on the project site but no eagle nests inventory area. been observed. As a precautionary mitigation ure,apre-construction survey for raptor and otheral-status species nests would be conducted prior to the removal of trees. Appropriate impact avoidance and species protection measures would be implemented is a nest or nesting behavior were to be observed. The project would not conflict with this HCP goal. TGoal 16:Maintain or increase population size No western burrowing owls,mammal burrows,or d distribution of western burrowing owl. ground squirrel dens were observed on the project site. The project would not conflict with this HCP goal. Goal 17:Protect in the Preserve System at Grassland-dependent special-status plants do not occur least 11 unprotected occurrences of on the project site.. The project would not conflict with grassland-dependent covered plants. this HCP goal. Goal 18:Enhance populations of grassland- Grassland-dependent special-status plants do not occur dependent covered plants. on the project site.. The project would not conflict with this HCP goal. Goal 19:Preserve oak woodland and oak The project would result in the removal of individual Oak Woodland savanna in the inventory area. trees(approximately 30 small trees),not a clear-cutting or removal of oak woodland habitat. The oak-woodland habitat would be preserved and the individual trees would be replaced with native oak trees at a ratio of 3 trees replaced for each tree removed.The project would not conflict with this HCP goal. Goal 20:Maintain the current canopy The project would result in the removal of individual coverage of oaks and other native overstory trees(approximately 30 small trees),not a clear-cutting • trees with oak woodland and oak savanna or removal of oak woodland habitat. The oak-woodland Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 40 TABLE IV-2 Assessment of Project Conflicts with the Goals of the East Contra Costa County HCPINCCP • HCP Habitat HCP Biological Goals Project Conflict with HCP Goals land-cover types. habitat would be preserved and the individual trees would be replaced with native oak trees at a ratio of 3 trees replaced for each tree removed.The project would not conflict with this HCP goal. Goal 21:Enhance oak woodland and oak The project would result in the removal of individual savanna to promote biological diversity and trees(approximately 30 small trees),not a clear-cutting habitat heterogeneity. or removal of oak woodland habitat. The oak-woodland habitat would be preserved and the individual trees would be replaced with native oak trees at a ratio of 3 trees replaced for each tree removed.The project would not conflict with this HCP goal. Goal 22:Restore oak savanna to compensate The project would result in the removal of individual for its loss from covered activities. trees(approximately 30 small trees),not a clear-cutting or removal of oak woodland habitat. The oak-woodland habitat would be preserved and the individual trees would be replaced with native oak trees at a ratio of 3 trees replaced for each tree removed.The project would not conflict with this HCP goal. Goal 23:Protect populations of showy madia The showy madia does not occur on the project site. within oak woodland and grassland. The project would not conflict with this HCP goal. The proposed project would not adversely affect the conservation goals identified the • HCP/NCCP.The important Marsh Creek riparian corridor and associated wetlands and ponds known to support breeding and aestivation habitat for the California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander would not be affected by the proposed project. The project parcels are setback from the creek,the closest parcel development area is approximately 800-1,000 feet northeast of Marsh Creek. The proposed project would not adversely affect potential acquisition of preserve lands or potential riparian woodland restoration within the Marsh Creek corridor. The density of the proposed project,three home sites within a two acre building envelope, each within a 4.2 to 5-acre parcel, would allow for approximately 2.2 to 3 acres of existing land to remain undeveloped on each parcel. A project mitigation calling for a recorded scenic easement granted to the Country for the portions of each parcel not proposed for the residential building envelopes would prohibit the erection of structures, including but not limited to buildings, fences, swimming pools,tennis courts, and sports courts.In addition easement instrument shall provide that no grading, other development activity or removal of trees would occur in that area. Such a provision would reduce the potential effect of a"development spill over"and provide a buffer for potential habitat preserve actions west of the Habig Property. The individual home sites have been planned to hug the existing Bragdon Way, minimizing the area footprint of the proposed three new homes and their access roads. In addition, County Development Standards provide guidance on the type of lighting that would be appropriate for standard residential developments.All outdoor lighting shall be directed downward and screened away from adjacent properties, offsite areas, including the sensitive Marsh Creek corridor. As mitigated,the proposed project requires the development of a Vegetation Management Plan to is reduce the fuel load around each proposed new home, creating"defensible space"to minimize Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 41 the occurrence of a wildland fire in adjacent areas. Such fuel management in the wildland/urban interface is consistent with the specific HCP goals to manage potential wildfires near identified • preserve areas: "Where appropriate, reducing the fuel load of the preserve so that the risk to biological resources of catastrophic wildfire is at an acceptable level and the risk to adjacent urban areas is minimized (meeting all state and local requirements). The methods and intensity of fuel management will vary depending on the location of the preserve relative to human populations and structures; emergency vehicle access; and the sensitivity of resources in the preserve to fuel load reduction techniques (e.g., fuel breaks, prescribed fire, mowing). Because fuel load reduction in chaparral habitats may be problematic (i.e., high-quality chaparral habitat is frequently characterized by periodic wildfire), it may be necessary to establish buffers in which to implement fuel load reduction". The proposed project's fuel management, includes, but is not limited to the following measures: ■ Removal of dead vegetation overhanging roof and chimney areas ■ Removal of leaves and needles from roofs ■ Planting and Placement of Fire-resistant plants around the house and phasing out flammable vegetation ■ A 30-foot non-vegetated or low-growing vegetated buffer around the building envelope ■ Trimming back vegetation around windows • Removal of flammable vegetation on hillside slopes greater than 20% ■ Pruning the lower branches of tall trees ■ Clearing out ground-level brush and debris ■ Stacking woodpiles away from structures The project would not adversely affect the essential breeding and aestivation habitat for the California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, or any other special-status species. The proposed project, with mitigation measures,would not result in impacts to individual species or land areas addressed in the Plan,therefore,the Project would not be in conflict with the East Contra Costa County HCP or NCCP provisions to protect biological resources. • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision ision MS050030 Initial Study 42 Potentially Less Than Less Than • ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated • CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the El El Q significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the Q significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique F-1 Q paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those Q interred outside of formal cemeteries? DISCUSSION a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical • resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines 15064.5? A visual inspection of the project site was completed by Holman &Associates in October 2005. The inspection was limited to those spurs of the south trending ridges found off the existing Bragdon Way where it would have been possible to find evidence of cultural resource use (mainly use of exposed bedrock, of which there is none within the proposed project construction areas). The project site is considered too steep to have supported aboriginal camps or villages, and the site lacks useable surface water sources. In summary,no evidence of Native American use and/or habitat was discovered inside the project boundaries. While the project does border areas where there are rich environments that support Native Americans in the past,the project site is devoid of such resources. The project site lacks bedrock outcrops, which could have been used for artifact-grade stone or used as grinding stations or for rock art repositories. The project site is not a historical resource, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The implementation of the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on a known historical resource, as defined by CEQA. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? See discussion of Item (a) above. • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 43 c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? • Impact V(a):During construction activities involving vmb excavation and earth movement,such activities may uncover previously unseen or unobserved prehistoric or historical materials. If cultural resources were to be encountered during construction,the following mitigation measures would be sufficient to reduce the identified impacts of future construction on cultural resources to a less-than-significant level Mitigation Measure V(a):Stop work and evaluation of accidental discovery of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials. If discrete, concentrated deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are In encountered during project activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to evaluate the finds and make recommendations. For the purposes of accidental discovery, discrete deposits are differentiated from the widely scattered and disturbed deposit evaluated as part of the field surveys already conducted on the project site,those resources found ineligible for listing in the California Register. If such discrete, concentrated archaeological deposits are identified, it is recommended that such deposits be avoided by project activities. If such deposits cannot be avoided, they shall be evaluated for their significance in accordance with the California Register of Historical Resources. If the resources are not significant, further protection is not • necessary. Prehistoric materials can include flaked-stone tools (e.g. projectile points,knives,and choppers)or obsidian, chert, or quartzite tool making debris; culturally darkened soil (i.e.,midden soil often containing heat affected rock, ash and charcoal, shellfish remains, and cultural materials); and stone milling equipment(e.g.,mortars,pestles, hand stones). Historical materials can include wood, stone, concrete, or adobe footings, walls and other structural remains; debris-filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, glass, ceramics, and other refuse.Project personnel shall not collect or move any cultural or archaeological material. d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Impact V(b): During construction activities involving excavation and earth movement,such activities may uncover previously unseen or unobserved human remains. Because no known human remains are located on or around the Project Site, and because the Project consists of replacement of an existing single-family house and multiple accessory structures with a new single-family residence and accessory structures,no impacts to human remains are expected. However, as with historical or archaeological • resources that could be a significant cultural resource,there is the low, but distinct, Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 44 possibility that buried remains could be discovered during grading and earth work for the proposed project. If human remains were discovered, and if these represent burials of . historical or archaeological importance, the impact of project construction could be significant if the integrity of the cultural resource were compromised Mitigation Measure V(b): Stop work and evaluation of accidental discovery of human remains. Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery,there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner's authority. If human remains are encountered,work shall halt within 25 feet of the find and the County Coroner notified immediately.At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the situation. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendent to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. • • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 45 • Potentially Less Than Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated • 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: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the Q most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map El issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? El El 0 iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? El ❑ 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 El on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Q El El Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? DISCUSSION a) Would the project 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 Zone Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? 3. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 46 4. Landslides? The project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area, a geographic area that is considered one • of the most seismically active regions in the United States. Significant earthquakes have occurred in the San Francisco Bay Area and are believed to be associated with earth crust movements along a system of sub-parallel fault zones that generally trend in a northwesterly direction. The project site is not within a State of California Alquist-Priola Earthquake Hazard Zone(AP Zone) and no known active faults cross the site. The potential for fault rupture is therefore remote. It is reasonable to assume,however, that the proposed residential structures would be subject to at least one moderate to severe earthquake during the design life of the project and strong ground shaking should be anticipated. The proposed structures may be subject to seismic ground shaking from earthquakes on nearby faults that could potentially result in structural damage to the proposed facilities. All structures and improvements are required to conform to uniform building codes;therefore, direct impact to structures is considered to be less than significant. According to the Safety Element of the County General Plan, Figure 10-4, the project site is in an area rated"lowest damage susceptibility". The risk of structural damage from ground shaking is regulated by the building codes and County Grading Ordinance. The Safety Element of the County General Plan, Figure 10-5, also rates the project site as having"generally low" liquefaction potential. The geotechnical and geologic reports issued by the applicant's consultants evaluated potential geologic hazards. The liquefaction potential was found to be nil, and the limits of landslide deposits on the Minor Subdivision Map are the result of a comprehensive investigation. Impact VI a : Grading and excavation could influence slope stability, erosion,and • sedimentation in the vicinity of slide located north of proposed residence and leach field on Parcel "B". A home site and leach field is proposed for Parcel `B"near an existing slide area mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey and confirmed by the applicant's engineering geologist,based on subsurface exploration. The project site plans indicate that the proposed structures on Parcel `B" have been set back from the limits of the slide, however, the construction of the construction of a residence and leach field has the potential to contribute to soil slumping or sloughing. Mitigation Measure VI(a): Implement Best Management Practices(BMPs) consistent with Regional Water Quality Control Board Erosion and Sediment Control procedures. Best Management Practices(BMPs)will be used to reduce erosion and sedimentation resulting from construction. Measures to be implemented, as appropriate, would include, but not necessarily limited to,the following activities: a. Confine grading activities to the May 1 through October 15 period; b. Minimizing the disturbance to steep slopes whenever possible; c. Re-vegetating exposed slope faces before the rainy season; d. Locating straw bale dikes or filter fabric barriers down slope of disturbed areas to act as sediment traps; e. When dewatering the site, remove sediment from the discharge using filtration methods; f. Constructing temporary sedimentation basins as needed; • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 47 g. Selectively removing, stockpiling, and replacing topsoil as a surface medium for • re-vegetation; and h. Provide erosion control plans and institute measures per plans. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Impact VI (b): The project proposes cuts and fills to provide drainable grades for the site, building pads,driveways and leach fields. For driveways in areas of steep terrain, use of retaining walls is proposed to minimize loss of trees and minimize the footprint of grading. Nevertheless,grading activities could result in soil erosion due to the steepness of slopes and erodability of base soils. Mitigation Measure VI(b)-l: The Project Applicant shall prepare a grading plan subject to review by the project geotechnical engineer. The applicant shall submit the grading plan to the Countyfor technical review prior to issuance of the grading permit. Preliminary grading plans have been completed by the applicant, for driveways but not for building sites. A grading plan is required to support the application to the County for a grading permit. The grading permit will be subject to County conditions of approval to ensure there will be no substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, and the Project will include erosion control planting where required by Article 716-8.8 of the County Code. Mitigation Measure VI(b)-2:Development on parcels shall be confined to the two-acre development site.Prior to issuance of building permits, specific site development plans shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. These shall • include: ■ Proposed grading for and location of structures, driveways, drainage, well site, leach field location, and utilities. ■ Design of home sites with a minimum of grading. Residences should closely conform with the terrain. • Erosion control plans shall be provided for all proposed grading if significant grading is needed c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? According to the Safety Element of the County General Plan, Figure 10-4,the project site is in an area rated"lowest damage susceptibility". The risk of structural damage from ground shaking is regulated by the building codes and County Grading Ordinance. The Safety Element of the County General Plan, Figure 10-5, also rates the project site as having"generally low" liquefaction potential. The Building Code requires the use of seismic parameters that allow the structural engineering analysis for buildings based on soil profile types. Compliance with building and grading regulations are anticipated to keep risks within generally accepted Iimits. • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 48 d) Would the project 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? • The Los Gatos soil on the project site is considered to be"moderately"expansive and "moderately"corrosive.Due to their expansion potential,the shallow depth, clay materials on the project site could shrink and swell as a result of moisture changes between the winter rainy season and the summer dry season. Impact VI(c): Changes in soil volume could cause heaving and cracking of slab-on-grade foundations, pavement areas, and structures on shallow foundations. Mitization Measure VI(C):Prior to building permits, the site-specific geotechnical studies are required to evaluate the specific approach to grading and development. These studies shall be subject to review by the Peer Review Geologist and review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The design and construction of the proposed on-site uses shall adhere to the recommendations identified in the geotechnical investigation. The risk can be reduced through adherence to recommendations contained in the geotechnical investigation. These recommendations include(but shall not be limited to) considerations of deeper building foundations or drilled support piers and other engineering designs to control or prevent damages to structures associated with expansive soils. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? • Soil percolation tests are used to evaluate the suitability of soils for wastewater disposal and for sizing wastewater disposal systems. The project applicant has performed percolation testing on the site and results of the testing indicate that the soils are suitable for alternative wastewater treatment such as the use of leaching fields. The wastewater disposal field has been sized to accommodate the disposal capacity of the proposed residential structures. Leach field size and design is based on County criteria and standard civil engineering practices. Note that the applicant has nominated a replacement leachfield site on Parcel A. This would only be used if the primary site failed. However,before the replacement site could be utilized a geotechnical study would be required, and that study would be subject to review and approval by the County Peer Review Geologist. The scope of that study shall be based in part on input from the Peer Review Geologist. • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 49 • potentially Less Than Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation Inco rated HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous El R1 materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions El 11 E3 involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely El hazardous materials,substances, or waste within one-quarter El mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code El 11 Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant • hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing El El or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation E3 13 El plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury Q El death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? DISCUSSION a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use or disposal of hazardous materials? • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 50 Hazardous conditions resulting from site grading, excavation, and construction of the proposed new residences, associated structures, and supporting infrastructure would be related to potential • for an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including,but not limited to oil, pesticides, or chemicals) in the event of an accident or upset conditions.The accident or upset conditions could be an explosion,a fire, an accident at or adjacent to the project site, or damage from an earthquake. Once built,the residential structures and associated structures would not involve the excessive use of any hazardous materials. However, during construction, some hazardous materials may be used. Material common to construction, such as fuels and petroleum products, or herbicides are usually in such small quantities that they would pose no significant hazard or risk to the public or the environment.The use, clean up, and disposal of potentially hazardous material will be managed according to standard procedures to protect air quality,water quality, and the environment as per state laws. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? The Project proposes no storage tanks,no odors indicative of hazardous material or petroleum products,no pools of potentially hazardous liquids, no stained soil pr pavement, and no drums containing chemicals or hazardous materials on the project site. In addition, based on the existing land uses, it is unlikely that there would be soil or groundwater pollutants associated with the use of the Habig property. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? • The project is outside a'A mile radius of the nearest school.The continued residential uses proposed for the project site would not emit hazardous emissions or result in the storage or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code 65962.5 and, as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? A review of regulatory databases maintained by Contra Costa County, the State of California, and federal agencies found no documentation of hazardous materials violations or discharge on the property. The project site has no Recognized Environmental Concerns(RECs). e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The project is located further than two miles from the nearest public or public use airport, and from the nearest private airstrip. The Project would not create an aircraft safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 initial Study 51 • f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The project is located further than two miles from the nearest public or public use airport, and from the nearest private airstrip. The Project would not create an aircraft safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. g) Would the project impair implementation of physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The Project is a single-family subdivision. The project site would be serviced by the same emergency access points as the existing residence and the surrounding residences. The individual home sites would be accessed by the existing Bragdon Way Lane via the private access roads connected to Bragdon Way. In the event of an emergency, emergency personnel and equipment would enter and exit the Project site from the same entry and exit points as the existing houses on Bragdon Way. The project,therefore, would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Impact VII(a). '1('he proximity of the surrounding wildlands adjacent to the project could affect the fire safety of the residents and structures of the development and nearby areas. • The project site is adjacent to large areas of wildland,Mt.Diablo State Park,East Bay Regional Parks District, and ranches.According to the County's Map of Fire Hazard Areas(General Plan, Figure 10-10),the project site is within a moderate fire hazard area in a State Responsibility Area. In the Mediterranean type climate of the region,the characteristics of the environment combine to create a potential dangerous fire hazard for people who live on the edges of wildlands. The desired view, provided by hillside building sites and large lots in a woodland setting establishes the framework of a fire hazard in an environment where fire is a natural and recurrent force. Mi tivation Measure VII(a)-1• Fire Safety During Construction. Prior to and ongoing throughout grading, and/or construction, the project applicant and construction contractor shall ensure that during project construction, all construction vehicles and equipment will be fitted with spark arrestors to minimize accidental ignition of dry construction debris and surrounding dry vegetation. Mitication Measure VII(a)-2: Vegetation Management Plan. Prior to issuance of a grading and/or construction permit, and ongoing throughout the life of the project: The project applicant shall submit a vegetation management plan to the County and County Fire Protection District that includes if deemed appropriate, but is not Iimited to the following measures: ■ Removal of dead vegetation overhanging roof and chimney areas • Removal of leaves and needles from roofs • • Planting and Placement of Fire-resistant plants around the house and phasing out flammable vegetation Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 52 ■ A 30-foot non-vegetated or low-growing vegetated buffer around the building envelope • ■ Trimming back vegetation around windows ■ Removal of flammable vegetation on hillside slopes greater than 20% ■ Pruning the lower branches of tall trees ■ Clearing out ground-level brush and debris ■ Stacking woodpiles away from structures The selection of plants for project landscaping shall also be compatible with the applied philosophy of"defensible space", a term first coined in the 1980 Fire Safe Guide for Residential Development in California. Defensible space is the area within the perimeter of a parcel or development where basic wildland fire prevention practices and measures are implemented, providing the key point of defense from an approaching wildfire,encroaching wildlife,or for escaping structure fire. Fuel modification or fuels management plans are effective in defense of wildfires. Such modification shall include a 30-foot-wide defensible border around buildings, which may include appropriately sized fuel modification zones. Mitization Measure VII W-3: All residential buildings shall have fire resistant roofs and exterior materials, and have fire protection sprinklers pursuant to the requirements of the County Fire Protection District, and any other relevant County departments. These include sprinklers for garages and under decks at downslope hillside areas. . • • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 53 • Potentially Less Than Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated • HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? El El [� b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere Q substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be El a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, El El or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner,which would result in flooding on-or off-site? • e) Create or contribute runoff water,which would exceed the capacity El El of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? El ❑ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,which would impede or redirect flood flows? 13 El El i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or El 21 death involving flooding, including flooding of as a result of the El failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ P • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision bdwision MS050030 Initial Study 54 DISCUSSION • a) Would the protect violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? State and Federal Standards and Waste Discharge Requirements.In the San Francisco Bay Region, the Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB) includes permit requirements for stormwater runoff under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. The RWQCB regulates stormwater runoff from construction activities under the NPDES permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The Contra Costa County Clean Water Program administers the stormwater program for a project after it is constructed. The RWQCB administers the NPDES stormwater-permitting program in the Bay Area. Under current regulations, construction activities of 1 acre or more are subject to the permitting requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Runoff Associated with Construction Activity(General Construction Permit). Since the Proposed Project would involve more than 1 acre of construction activities, it would be subject to these regulations. The project applicant must submit a Notice of Intent(NOD to the SWRCB to be covered by the General Construction Permit prior to the beginning of construction. The General Construction Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). The project applicant will prepare a Stormwater Control Plan that specifies Best Management Practices(BMPs)to be implemented before, during and after project construction to control • surface discharge and pollutants. Contra Costa County Standards and Waste Discharge Requirements Contra Costa County has jurisdiction over discharge of storm-water runoff as well as drainage facilities within the boundaries of the project site. The Contra Costa County Clean Water Program is the local entity responsible for implementing compliance with the federal Clean Water Act to control stormwater pollution. The Program is comprised of Contra Costa County, 17 incorporated cities, and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The Program complies with the Joint Municipal NPDES permits issued by the San Francisco Bay and Central Valley RWQCBs. The permits mandate that participating municipalities implement their approved Stormwater Management Plan. The program includes the implementation of BMPs that include construction controls (such as model grading ordinances), legal and regulatory approaches(such as stormwater ordinances),public education and industrial outreach(to encourage reduction of pollutants at various sources), inspection activities, wet weather monitoring, and special studies. All stormwater controls will be designed in accordance with Contra Costa County C.3 Handbook guidelines. b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The Project's proposed three single-family homes would each have an on-site well. The County • required that a well be dug at the site to test for well feasibility. A well was dug on Parcel B and Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 55 produced 20 gallons per minute(gpm), considered adequate to support a proposed house.No wells have been dug for Parcels A and C. It is unknown if the proposed wells within these • parcels are adequate. Impact VIII (a): The proposed wells on Parcels A and C may be inadequate to support the planned residential land uses and fire-protection requirements. Test wells on Parcels A and C will be dug as required by the County's conditions of approval prior to construction of the approval of home construction on those parcels. Mitigation Measure VIII(a)•Prior to filing a parcel map, the applicant shall determine the availability and adequacy of groundwater supplies by appropriate test drilling on each proposed parcel for its review and approval. Demonstrated documentation of the availabiliO7 and quality of well water supplies shall be provided to the Contra Costa Environmental Health Division. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course ofa stream or river,in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? The Project would retain the existing drainage swales and natural storm water conveyance systems. The construction of the new residences and associated new structures would not involve the alteration of the course of a stream or river. The project's grading plan is not available but such would be required prior to obtaining a building permit. Mitigation Measures VI(a), (b), and(c)require the applicant to prepare a • grading plan and geotechnical study for the proposed project. Design elements outlined in the grading plan and geotechnical study would reduce or eliminate the potential for erosion and siltation. These include: • Maintaining positive slopes to provide for rapid removal of surface water. • Installation of perimeter and interior subdrain systems • Installation of sufficient area drains to remove excess surface water. • Collection and discharge of surface water into the storm drain system. • Discharge of surface water in a concentrated manner over natural and graded slopes. • Conveyance of stormwater from roof downspouts in closed drain systems to a drainage facility. d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on-or off-site? The SWPPP prepared for the project, as required by the RWQCB would control and manage surface runoff associated with the new residences and associated impervious surfaces. The incorporation of the SWPPP conditions and is not expected to result in impacts related to a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in • flooding on- or off-site. Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 56 e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of • existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The project development areas are not adjacent to riparian or creek habitat. As the project site is currently unpaved and,for the most part, on relatively steep slopes, site drainage is via sheet flow. Such flow would be expected to increase because of the project's hard, impervious surfaces. Impact VIII (b): Project would contribute to stormwater flow volumes because of the projected cover of hard,impervious surfaces associated with roofs,patios,driveways, and other areas. Mitigation Measure VIII (b): The project's drainage system shall be designed to comply with storm drain design requirements of the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works and Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The project applicant shall collect and convey all storm water entering and/or originating on the property. The conveyance of storm water will be without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility. The applicant will convey stormwater to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility that conveys the storm water to an existing adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code. Impact VIII(c): The proposed project could result in the discharge of silt from the project • site into the storm drain system or to the dry gulches during construction. Mitigation Measure VIII(c): At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an erosion control plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department. The erosion control plan shall provide for the following measures. All grading, excavation and filling shall be conducted during the dry season (April 15 through October 1 S) only, and all areas of exposed soils shall be replanted to minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October 15, the grading permit shall allow only erosion control work. Any modification to the above schedule shall be subject to review by the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact to less than significant. f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? The project is not expected to degrade water quality of Marsh Creek. The project is located some distance from the Creek. The SWPPP prepared for the project would have the following components: • Identification of sediment and pollution sources for potential stormwater runoff affected by Project construction activity • Identification of non-stormwater discharges • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 57 • Description of the Best Management Practices(BMPs)for erosion control and • pollution prevention that will reduce sediment and pollutants in stormwater discharges from the Project site during construction. • Presentation of a plan and schedule for monitoring the construction activity and a maintenance schedule for BMPs installed during construction, designed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction is completed(post-construction BMPs) Additional considerations that would be incorporated into the Project include the following provisions: • All permanent slopes, fills or cuts, would be protected against erosion by means of erosion control planting, topsoil placement, hydroseeding, and in some cases, by installation of jute matting or equivalent. Erosion protection shall be provided as soon as possible after completion of the slope grading. • Because of the nature of the site soils, slopes may experience severe erosion when grading is halted by heavy rain. Therefore, before work is stopped, a positive gradient away from the slopes would be provided to carry the surface runoff away from the slopes to areas where erosion can be controlled. It is vital that no completed slope be ]eft standing through a winter season without erosion control measures having been provided. CF Would theproject place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard • delineation map? The property is not within a 100-year flood hazard area, based on the Safety Element of the County General Plan,Figure 10-8, and the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate map covering the Project Site. h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? The proposed replacement residence and accessory structures will not be located within a 100- year floodplain or an area prone to flooding. i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. j) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche,tsunami or mudflow? The project is an inland site well removed from coastal areas that would be inundated by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 58 Potentially Less Than Less Than • ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated • LAND USE/PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? El❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulationElQ El of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ natural community conservation plan? El DISCUSSION a) Would the project physically divide an established community? Development of the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. Future approved house sites will be contained within a 2-acra area on each 5.0 to 6.2-acre parcel . pursuant to the County Ranchette Policy. b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to,the general plan, specific plan,local coastal program or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The Safety Element of the County General Plan contains a relevant policy regarding building structures on hillside slopes: • Policy 10-28: Generally, residential density shall decrease as slope increases, especially above a 15 percent slope. Future approved house sites within each Parcel and the specific design guidelines for each house would comply with the mitigation measures identified in issue sections on Geology(Mitigation Measures VI(a),(b), and (c)). The project would not be in conflict with the policies and implementation measure outlined in the Safety Element of the County General Plan. The Scenic Routes goal in the General Plan is "to identify,preserve and enhance scenic routes in the County." The following related policies may be relevant: • Policy 5-34: Scenic corridors shall be maintained with the intent of protecting attractive natural qualities adjacent to various roads throughout the county. • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 59 • Policy 5-36: Scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be conserved, enhanced, and • protected to the extent possible. Future approved house sites within each Parcel and the specific design guidelines for each house would comply with the mitigation measures identified in issue sections on Aesthetics (Mitigation Measures I(a),(b),and (c)). The project would not be in conflict with the policies and implementation measure outlined in the Conservation Element of the County General Plan related to Scenic Routes. Relevant Implementation Measures in the General Plan Policies(Conservation Element) for Rural Residential Development include: • Measure 8-v(2):Agricultural/Open Space subdivisions are considered a long-term, rural/residential use of the land. Parcel size shall be a minimum of 5 acres in lands designated Agricultural Lands .... • Measure 8-v(4)(a): Each parcel must have an "on site"producing water well or install a "test well" having a minimum yield of three gallons per minute with bacterial and chemical quality in compliance with the State standards for a pure,wholesome and potable water supply(Title 22, Section 64433). If the chemical analysis exceeds the State standards for "maximum contaminant levels" for water potability, a statement must be attached and "run with the deed" advising of these levels. • Measure 8-v(7): The land must be suitable for septic tank use according to the County Ordinance Code criteria and Health Services Department Regulations. Percolation tests • must be passed on all lots prior to the filing of the Parcel or Final Map. The proposed project parcels sizes are 5.0 to 6.2 acres each in compliance with General Plan Implementation Measure 8-v(2) for rural subdivisions,pursuant to the County Ranchette Policy. A water well and septic system is proposed for each parcel, in compliance with Measure s 8-v(4) (a)and 8-v(7). The implementation of Mitigation Measure VIII(a), as discussed under the issue area Hydrology and Water Quality,would further avoid conflict with the General Plan. Relevant Policies and Implementation Measures in the General Plan(Public Facilities/Services Element)for Fire Protection in the wildlands interface include: • Policy 10-90: Restrict homes built in rural areas or adjacent to major open space areas from having roofs which are covered with combustible materials. • Measure 7-au: Fire protection agencies shall be afforded the opportunity to review projects and submit conditions of approval for consideration to determine whether: I. there is an adequate water supply for fire fighting; 2. road widths,road grades and turnaround radii are adequate for emergency equipment; and 3. structures are built to the standards of the Uniform Building Code,the Uniform Fire Code, other State regulations, and local ordinances regarding the use of fire- retardant materials and detection, warning and extinguishment devices. • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision �sion MS050030 Initial Study 60 The proposed project would be in partial compliance with the Fire Protection goals of the General Plan(Public Facilities/Services Element). The impact would be reduced by the implementation • of the above-mentioned Mitigation Measure VIII (a), along with the mitigation measures identified under the issue area of Hazards/Hazardous Materials (Mitigation Measures VII(a)-1, (a)-2 and (a)-3 related to vegetation management and maintenance of defensible space. The project would also implement Mitigation Measure I(a) regarding the submittal of architectural plans prior to the approval of a building permit. Such plans would have details on roofmg materials appropriate for fire-prone areas. In 1995, the County Board of Supervisors adopted interim design standards that address road and driveway standards of the County Fire Protection District(Public Resources Code 4290), regarding turning radius, road widths, and emergency water supply). Based on the project's Tentative Map it appears that the project's road design does not comply with these standards. Relevant Implementation Measures in the General Plan (Public Facilities/Services Element)for Water Service include: • Measure 74: Conditionally approve all tentative subdivision maps and other preliminary development plans on verification of adequate water supply for the project. Such condition shall be satisfied by verification, based on substantial evidence in the record,that capacity within the system to serve the specific development project exists or comparable demonstration of adequate wastewater treatment capacity. Where no tentative map or preliminary plan is required prior to development, approve no map or development permit without this standard being satisfied. The proposed project would be in compliance with the General Plan with the implementation of • Mitigation Measure VIII(a). c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The project site is within the Inventory Area of the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP. The HCP/NCCP covers 173,680 acres, and proposes coverage for 28 species. Grazed annual grasslands are the most common land cover in the undeveloped portions of the planning area. Other natural communities present include oak woodland, oak savannah,chaparral/scrub,riparian scrub and woodland,and permanent and seasonal wetlands. Listed species being addressed in planning include San Joaquin kit fox, California red-legged frog,Alameda whipsnake, and other species. The project area is outside of but near the"Suitable Core Habitat"of the San Joaquin kit fox,Alameda whipsnake, and California red-legged frog but the project would not adversely affect the essential breeding and aestivation habitat for these species. The proposed project, with mitigation measures,would not result in impacts to individual species or land areas addressed in the Plan,therefore, the Project would not be in conflict with the East Contra Costa County HCP or NCCP provisions to protect biological resources. • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 61 • potentially Less Than Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated • MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the EJ state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, El El specific plan or other land use plan? DISCUSSION a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Significant mineral resources such as clay, diabase, shale, crushed rock, and Domengine sandstone occur in the County. Due to the nature of the project and the site description, the proposal will not result in impacts to mineral resources. No Mineral Resource Areas identified in the Conversation Element(Figure 8-4)of the County General Plan occur on the project site. • b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant miner p al resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? (See Discussion under the preceding Item(a)above) • Proposed 3-Lot Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 62 Potentially Less Than Less Than • ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated • NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of Q El standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne E] E vibration or ground bome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the El Q project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise El levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, E 0 • would the project expose peoples residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? DISCUSSION a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or of applicable standards of other agencies? The Project involves the construction of three single-family residences. The noise element of the County General Plan contains the land use compatibility guidelines for community noise. For residences, a noise level of 55-70 dB is conditionally acceptable.Usually the noise levels associated with traffic would be less than 70 dBA and would not pose significant impacts to residential units adjacent to a road noise source such as Bragdon Way or Marsh Creek Road. Interior noise levels are expected to meet noise ordinance element requirements through standard building construction techniques and noise attenuation designs of windows and doors. This development will not result in any long-term exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the Contra Costa County General Plan or the County Code or applicable standards of other agencies. Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision • MS050030 Initial Study 63 b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground • borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? (See above discussion for Item (a)) c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The primary sources of noise in the project area is traffic on Bragdon Way and Marsh Creek Road, and the firearms range practice associated with the Contra Costa County Jail Farm Juvenile Detention Facility along Marsh Creek Road. By far, the firearm noise is the predominant, episodic noise source in the area. The proposed development of three, single-family residences would not result in noise levels in excess of the existing ambient noise levels. d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Short-term noise levels would occur during construction and the Project has the potential to expose some nearby residents to construction-related noise, as would be the case when routine construction is undertaken on other properties within the area. Impact X (a): Short-term noise levels would occur during construction and the Project has the potential to expose some nearby residents to construction-related noise. Standard measures that include restricting construction hours,traffic flow and heavy equipment . usage will reduce the noise effects. Incorporation of the following mitigation measures will reduce noise impacts to a less than significant level: Mitigation MeasureX(a): The County construction noise police limiting construction to the hours of 7.30 AM-S PMMonday-Friday, will be implemented Construction contractors will be required to include measures to reduce equipment noise such as: • All internal engine-driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers that are in good condition; • Use 'quiet'gasoline powered compressors or other electric powered Jcompressors wherever possible. • Retain a disturbance coordinator to monitor construction activity and to identify additional mitigation measures as needed e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project is not located in the vicinity of airport or private airstrip. • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 64 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people • residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (See discussion under preceding Item (e) above). • • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 65 • Potentially Less Than Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation Inco orated • POPULATION/HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly E Q (for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating El El Q the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating theQ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? El El El DISCUSSION a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly(e.g.,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? • The project would involve the addition of three single-family residences in the area. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project will not displace any existing housing, but instead will add three single- family residences on land that currently does not have housing. c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project will not displace any people. The project area proposed for construction of the three, single-family homes is now vacant land. • Proposed 3-Lot p o Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 66 Potentially Less Than Less Than • ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation Inco orated • PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q DISCUSSION • a) through e) The proposed project is within existing unincorporated County area served by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, County Sheriffs Department, and various County Departments serving the area. ; The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection station is located on Marsh Creek Road,approximately 0.25 miles from the project site. The proposed project would have a small but insignificant contribution to the demand for fire services. The project applicant is required to provide adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a minimum flow pressure of 20 pounds, in addition to providing one hydrant to deliver the required water The size of the proposed project and the anticipated number of new residents is not expected to increase significantly the demand for Sheriff Department services, schools or parks. • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 67 • Potentially Less Than Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated • RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood Q and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the El 2 construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? DISCUSSION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? The Project consists of the addition of three, single-family homes. The Project will not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that • substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 68 potentially Less Than Less Than • ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated • TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation El Q to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency on designated roads or highways? C) Result in a change in traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., El El E sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? El El ❑ • f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1 11 Q g) Conflict with adopted polices,plans,or programs 13 ❑ supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? DISCUSSION a) Would the project cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? After project construction of the proposed three single-family residences,the Project would result in no impact relating to exceeding, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Trip generation rates derived from the existing literature (Institute of Transportation Engineers. 1997. Trip Generation, 16`h Edition) indicate that the proposed project would result in approximately 28 daily trips to the local street system(Marsh Creek Road) (based on an average daily trip of 9.55 per dwelling unit). Such 28 trips spread throughout the day would not represent a significant traffic impact. • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 69 • Short-term increases in traffic at the Project Site are expected to occur during the construction period, due to construction activities. This short-term construction-related traffic is not expected to result in a substantial increase in the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestions at intersections. Impact XIV(a): For construction trucks entering and existing from the project site and during installation of the project infrastructure,short-term,temporary disruption of vehicular traffic on Marsh Creek Road is anticipated. �Miti�ation Measure XIV(a): Standard construction traffic control procedures will be i implemented during project construction. These include: As needed, warning signs shall be placed at appropriate locations in advance of the construction operation to alert traffic on Marsh Creek Road • The construction contractor shall place and maintain barriers and warning i devices necessary for safety of the general public. • Flagmen shall be provided as necessary to control the flow and circulation of traffic. b) Would the project exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service • standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? See discussion above under Item (a). c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The Project will not result in any change in air traffic patterns. d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? The Project will not result in any changes to existing roads or highways. The Project proposes land uses that are essentially identical to existing land uses,which consist of single-family residential uses within a rural area of the County and will not introduce incompatible uses. e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The project applicant shall submit detailed site plans to the County Zoning Administrator for review and approval pursuant to Mitigation Measure I(a). Such review would also include the by the County Fire Protection District and other appropriate County Departments. The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District has requested that the following provisions be included as conditions of approval: • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 70 • Driveway access will be all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 16 feet unobstructed • width and not less than 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance, to within 150 feet of travel distance to all portions of the exterior walls of every building.Access roads shall not exceed 16% grade, shall have a minimum outside turning radius of 35 feet, and must be capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus,i.e., 22 tons. (902.2) CFC • Dead-end Fire District access roads in excess of 150 feet long shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of Fire District apparatus. (areas within 30 feet of buildings or structures). (Appendix E-A, Section 16.1) CFC • Where open space is maintained for public or private use, the developer shall provide access into these areas from the public ways. These access ways shall be a minimum 16 feet width to accommodate fire department equipment.All open spaces,when left in their natural state, shall meet the Fire District's weed abatement standards. Contra Costa County Ordinance 2002-32,Article 14, §1401.1 f) Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity? The Project consists of the three, single-family units on 2-acre portions of each of the three parcels with access roads providing adequate parking. All parking during demolition will be on- site. During the construction period, construction personnel will park on-site. g) Would the project conflict with adopted policies,plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The proposed project does not conflict with any adopted policies,plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation modes. • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 71 • Potentially Less Than Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated • UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater El Q treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from Q existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, El which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the • provider's existing commitments? fl Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? El g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? El 13 DISCUSSION a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Wastewater treatment will be on site using County approved septic systems and appropriately sized leach fields pursuant to the County Ranchette Policy for rural areas. The Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Studv 72 b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could • cause significant environmental effects? The Project's proposed three single-family homes would each have an on-site well. The County required that a well be dug at the site to test for well feasibility. A well was dug on Parcel B and produced 20 gallons per minute(gpm), considered adequate to support a proposed house. The wells on Parcels A and C will be dug as required by the County's conditions of approval prior to construction of the approval of home construction on those parcels. The project proposes three leach fields, as follows: • Parcel A: 4,400 square foot primary leach field; with an additional 8,200 square foot replacement leach field only to be used in the event that the primary leach field fails or is inoperable. • Parcel B: 7,100 square foot leach field • Parcel C: 8,000 square foot leach field The construction of these leach fields involving the construction of 24 inch trenches, capped with 12 inches of soil, could result in soil erosion and impacts to trees. The implementation of Mitigation Measures V 1 (a), (b)-1, and(b)-2, under the issue area Geology would reduce the significance of the potential impact of erosion and sedimentation. Trees proposed for removal or retention around the proposed leach fields have been designated in • the project's Vesting Tentative Map(VTM). Mitigation Measures IV(e)-1 and IV(e)-2 are incorporated to compensate for the loss of trees and to ensure protection of those trees identified as such on the VTM. Any additional trees,not identified on the VTM,which would require removal to construct the leachfields would require a Tree Removal Permit from the County, as identified in Mitigation Measure IV(e)-3. Contra Costa County Tree Preservation Ordinance Sections 816-6.1208 regulates the removal of trees. Chapter 816-6 of the Ordinance mandates that a project proponent receive a permit from the Community Development department prior to grading, trenching, or filling any area within the dripline of a tree greater than 6.5 inches diameter, as measured at 4.5 feet above grade (diameter-at-breast height or DBH). This standard also applies to removal or destruction of qualifying trees. The County conditions of a Tree Permit under the ordinance would result in the compensatory planting of trees to replace those that would be either removed or potentially damaged by the construction and operation of the leach fields. c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Storm water drainage and management would occur on-site and therefore, would not require the expansion of existing facilities. Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision • MS050030 Initial Study 73 d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from • existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? The Project proposes on-site water supply from new water wells,therefore,no potable water providers are required. e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand,in addition to the provider's existing commitments? The Project proposes on-site wastewater treatment via approved septic systems; therefore, no wastewater treatment providers are required. f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Existing landfill capacity will satisfy the Project's disposal needs, including disposal of demolition debris. g) Would the project comply with federal,state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (See Item (f)above) • • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 74 Potentially Less Than Less Than • ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated • MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality Q El 11 of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will Q cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? • DISCUSSION a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species,cause fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The Project has the potential to adversely affect nests of migratory birds or raptors,and special- status bats. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, special-status, sensitive wildlife would be protected and their potential habitat either enhanced or their habitat loss compensated. As with all projects involving excavation and grading, there could be unforeseen impacts to subsurface cultural resources or human remains of archaeological significance. With the incorporation of contingency mitigation measures, these impacts would be avoided. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,the effects of probable future projects. No impacts that are cumulatively considerable because of the proposed project are identified. • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 75 • c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? The Project would not expose hazards to human beings; however, mitigation measures identified under the environmental issues concerning Air Quality, Geology and Soils, and Noise would further ensure that adverse effects on human beings will be reduced to insignificant levels. • • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision ision MS050030 Initial Studv 76 REFERENCES • Bay Area Air Quality Management District,BAA OAM CEQA Guidelines:Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans,April 1996. Bay Area Air Quality Management District,Summary of Air Pollution in the Bay Area: 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG). 2003.List of California Terrestrial \ Natural Communities Recognized by the Natural Diversity Data Base.Natural Heritage Division. The Resources Agency. September 2003. Federal Highway Administration. 1983. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (Contract DOT-FH-11-9694). Washington, D.C. Holland, R. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game, The Resources agency. 156 pp. • G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Environmental Review\Initial Studies\1\4S05003O.Habig Initial Study.doc • Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision MS050030 Initial Study 77 ,�f � /I� \rte � `} C �/r ` IIr. • � . fit f fes - k 7-11-01 , :- � _� `��\fir � .•, - � j LL ✓� 114 171MOM \^\ � l,*,ro)nQj )y Pyla-nI� • • DELIBERATION ITEM# D.2 JULY 812008 RESPONSES RECEIVED TO MCD �n�er�l-ionally P�Ia.�K 1 East BayW I Regional Park District • 2950 PERALTA OAKS COURT P.O.BOX 5381 OAKLAND CALIFORNIA 94605-0381 T.1688 EBPARKS F.510 569 4319 TDD.510 633 0460 WWW.EBPARKS.ORG March 26, 2008 Rose Marie Pietras ` Community Development Department C Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, 4th floor, north wing Martinez, CA 94533-0095 s- Subject: County File#MS050030 — 37.99 acre (Habig) subdivision MND Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve Dear Ms. Pietras, Thank you for providing the East Bay Regional Park District ("District") with a copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for a proposal to subdivide a 37.99 acre parcel into four parcels in unincorporated Contra Costa County, just north of Marsh Creek Road. This project is also known as the Habig subdivision. The proposed project is adjacent to the southeast corner of Clayton Ranch, which is part of the District's Black Diamond Mines Regional • Preserve. Please see attached Exhibit A. The District is submitting comments on the proposed project due to its potential to result in significant adverse impacts to Clayton Ranch and surrounding open space. These are impacts to the visual environment, special-status species and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Each of these potentially significant impacts are discussed below. Visual Impacts to Clayton Ranch The MND provides a discussion and visual simulation of visual impacts of the proposed development, as seen from two locations on Marsh Creek Road. However, the MND fails to perform similar visual impact simulations from the adjacent Clayton Ranch. There are at least two locations at Clayton Ranch where the proposed three new hornes would be visually prominent and would be disruptive to park users. The 1,031-acre Clayton Ranch property was fully acquired by the District in 2000. Since that time the property has been in land-bank status pending development of a land use plan and development of public access facilities. This property was specifically acquired to close a major gap in the Black Diamond Mines to Mt. Diablo State Park Regional Trail. It also has an excellent location on Marsh Creek Road for construction of a staging area to provide access to both Mt. Diablo State Park and Black Diamond Mines. The existing road system within Clayton Ranch provides the necessary connections between Marsh Creek Road, and property boundaries to • the east, west and north. Board of Directors Ayn Wieskamp Ted Radke Doug Siden Nancy Skinner Beverly Lane Carol Severin John Sutter Pat O'Brien President Vice-President Treasurer Secretary Ward 6 Ward 3 Ward 2 General Manager Ward 5 Ward 7 Ward 4 Ward I Two of these roads segments will take trail users to the northeast and east boundaries of Clayton Ranch where the proposed project would be visually prominent. The first location sits on a high ridge at 1,549 feet, providing a spectacular 360 degree view of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range, Morgan Territory and Mt. Diablo. Trail users on this ridge looking south towards Morgan Territory would look directly at the three new proposed home sites (and the existing home). Other- than these four- homes, there are no other structures visible on the north side of Marsh Creek Road. Intrusion of these three new homes into this nearly intact viewshed would result in both individual and cumulatively significant visual impacts to park users. Please see attached Exhibit B. Impacts would include cut and fill slopes, vegetation clearing for leach fields and fuel breaks, landscaping, roof tops, window glare, new pavement and night time lighting. The visual impact simulations on pages I I and 13 of the MND understate the actual visual impact of the proposed homes. The simulations do now depict the total foot print of the proposed homes, including, cut and fill slopes, cleared areas, roof tops, window glare and pavement. When all of these factors are cumulatively considered, the actual foot print of the proposed homes may be more than four to five times the size of the conservative 3,000 square foot home described. Page 7 of the MND describes the criteria used to evaluate the significance of visual impacts. The last paragraph states that "areas of high visual sensitivity are highly visible to the general public". As depicted in Exhibit B, this area would be highly visible from Clayton Ranch. Further in this paragraph the MND states that "recreation areas are considered more visually sensitive than more urbanized locations". Such would be the case for Clayton Ranch. The MND fails to apply either of these criteria to evaluate potential visual impacts to Clayton Ranch. • Page 8 of the MND states in the second paragraph that a "worst-case scenario" of a standard 3,000 square foot home was used to determine the maximum size of the proposed homes. As previously described, this analysis does not consider the visual effects from cut and fill slopes, vegetation clearing, landscaping, roof tops, window glare!, pavement and night time lighting. Furthermore, the existing home at this location appears to be well in excess of 3,000 square feet, so it is unlikely that a 3,000 square foot home represents the actual "worst-case scenario". Page 14 describes several mitigation measures for visual impacts. All of these measures should be implemented. Some of the specific measures include stal:ements such as "will be discouraged" or "shall be avoided". These statements are somewhat vague and leave room for subjective interpretation. We suggest that such statements be replaced with words like "prohibited" so there is no future uncertainly about the specific intent of the measure. Mitigation Measure I (b)-2 on page 16 requires a scenic easement be granted over the remaining undeveloped portions of the new parcels. This is a good conservation tool for the three parcels. We request that a scenic easement also be placed over the undeveloped portions of the 21.85 acre remainder parcel. There is no mechanism that would prohibit future subdivision of this property, resulting in further individual and cumulative significant impacts, including esthetics, water quality, noise, air quality, special-status species and wildlife movement. A scenic easement on the remainder parcel would also minimize potential conflicts with the HCP. More detail is provided on these impacts in the following sections of this letter. • L. Special-Status Species • The MND provides a fairly comprehensive listing of potential special-status species in the project area. Much of the discussion for impacts to red-legged frog (RLF), California tiger salamander (CTS) and Alameda whipsnake (AWS) appears to have been lifted from earlier environmental documents. Some of this information is now outdated by more recent studies which have documented these three species using habitats in the East Bay where they were not historically known to occur. For example, during large storm events RLF and CTS will disburse more than one mile from breeding locations to aestivation sites, including sites within oak savanna. AWS have also been found using primarily grassland habitats at several East Bay locations. All three of these species, plus Western pond turtle, have been documented at Clayton Ranch within the past five years. Accordingly, it is inappropriate for the MND to dismiss potential impacts to these species without SOME! level of field investigation, such as AWS trapping surveys, before any conclusions can be reached about their potential significance. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HC The HCP is a plan for the conservation and recovery of special-status species subject to the Federal Endangered Species Act. The Department of Fish and Game (DFG), through the Natural Communities Conservation Act, provides for the development of a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP). While patterned after the Federal HCP regulations, the NCCP also provides for protection of natural communities. Jointly the two processes provide for the conservation and recovery of Federal and State special-status species and their associated natural habitats. • The MND does not include adequate mitigation measures q g res for compliance with the above stated purposes of the HCP. While preservation of scenic easements within the three new parcels will partly mitigate for project impacts, the MND should also require a similar easement over the remainder parcel. The HCP may not permit incidental take of special-status species resulting from small residential developments, such as the proposed project, within the HCP preserve area. This project may need to undergo separate review and permitting for compliance with Federal and State Endangered Species Act regulations. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. Should you have any questions, please call me at (5 10) 544-2622. Sincerely, 1441 Brad Olson Environmental Programs Manager • Attachments (2) 3 BLACK DIAMOND MINES jM Proposed Clayton REGIONAL PRESERVE 0 1000 2DOD 3000 FW CLAYTON RANCH INVESTORS PROPERTY Ranch Acquisition 7j;i •=i�i e- PrU§-:t+i -f!RvE'! gg g ssr VM^ F�g �gmggmx., R, AAA= 0 :lit- m., ti K'- -m Fi, w; 9 1 *m.o Kv r*L r% -4.Ai wm, 0PN RD k v" ell* '�7 . ..... rx 4. % Phase%I L Phas 3 ct Areq� ,., Al. yrf Aq.� n `tlp�g`4e .. ._ 4 V� _ x d s4 i 4 :NL14-Ot rli� t r 1 i Y Svt: J *Morgan Miller Blair 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD,SUITE 200 WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94596-4544 A LAW CORPORATION 925.937.3600 925.943.1106 FAx www.mmblaw.com • PATRICIA E.CURTIN (925)979-3353 pcurtin@mmblaw.com March 28, 2008 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Rose Marie Pietrasco - Senior Planner Community Development Department =� W 7:.1 Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 2nd Floor - North Wing X. Martinez, CA 94553 c' Re: County File No. MS050030 =- r+ E.t3 Habig - Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision Map Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration • Our File No. 10230-001 Dear Rose Marie: As you know, this office represents the Habigs with respect to their application for a three lot subdivision. Please consider this letter as our comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed project. The MND includes two computer simulations of the three proposed homes from viewpoints along Marsh Creek Road. The simulations are contained at pages 11 and 13 of the MND and are attached as Exhibit A. These simulations grossly misrepresent the visual aspects of the proposed homes. These simulations show homes that will not and cannot be built on the property. Specifically, these simulations show homes that 1) are approximately 54 feet in height, 2) are approximately 8,000 to 9,500 square feet in size, 3) have been placed on top of or in place of existing trees, 4) do not step down the slope and are a single floor height, and 5)have a bright yellow exterior color which is highly reflective. My client has prepared accurate simulations from both viewpoints. These accurate simulations are attached as Exhibit B. As required by the mitigation measures in the MND (MM I(a) at p. 14) and as shown by my client, the homes 1) will not exceed 35 feet in height, 2) will be 4,000 to 5,000 square feet in size, 3) will be tucked behind and/or screened by the existing trees, 4) will not have a single floor height but rather the building pads will step down the slope, • and 5) will not be painted with bright reflective colors but rather, with muted earth tones. MMB:10230-001:8903 90.1 Rose Marie Pietras March 28, 2008 Page 2 • These accurate simulations were prepared by first placing story/flag poles in the location of the proposed homes,pictures were then taken from the viewpoints and lastly, the homes were drawn to scale on the pictures at the location of the story/flag poles. The accurate simulations are representative of the homes that will be built on the property, if approved, whereas the simulations in the MND are not. As you can see by the accurate simulations, the three homes are barley visible and will not create any potential significant visual impacts. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the MND. Very truly yours, MO AN LLER BLAIR CLV — PATRICIA TIN PEC:klm Enclosures • cc: Roger and Kandell Habig Charles Capp • MMB:10230-001:890390.1 CA W C Y • O C O O z N U 1 r Iq � � Ytik 6 '44 3 b i ey�F ° a 5ti k Ts 4 { N LD) C � Q C 7 _ Q- �, k 'i. IN J �T S t 1 rF y • f a •I • r. 1 r r I�S h�'� t 'fn • t- 'i i — P tip N rcoxr-,r" C • #fir ` �$ s r,.: • �y r . Lg" j f -�� 11 A6A j,il Gbh T 6� r eg i f� sl F x Q) 00 O N co CM (n M TAT pCO= �R o 3 O E u �PMN4A>✓<`�^±_' � tea+ V/ Fir ! a t taj tt 2 W. Wit Nj ga ff 1",2°m rte. ' ;�x� x - -y' �,•.""� NY em i F r +_ Gr•a, ln�: r i�i ,;yrT` • q; a �N E 5 � � r Q', . 5 >w� hX � w5_ 'f� ay r' w r .. M.. ¢v t !b. - P savV1 . Y't_L Board of Directors March 31, 2008 Malcolm Sproul President Rose Marie Pietras, Project Planner Amara Morrison Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. Secretary County Administration Building Frank Varenchik 651 Pine St., 4th Floor, North Wing Treasurer Martinez, CA 94553 Burt Bassler Arthur Bonwell Re: File# MS 050030 Dana Dornsife Tax parcel # 078-090-025 CharJohn GallagherApplicant: Bellecci and Associates John llaghply Claudia Hein Owner: Roger and Kandell Habig Scott Hein Location: 3000 Bragdon Way, off of Marsh Creek Road Michael Hitchcock David Husted Doug Knauer Dear Ms. Pietras, Allan Prager David Sargent Save Mount Diablo appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the above ' rotter pP pp y On'Walters mentioned project proposal. tors Save Mount Diablo's Position Staff The applicant is requesting approval of a three unit subdivision on a 37.99-acre parcel Ronald Brown on Bragdon Way just off of Marsh Creek Road. Executive Director Seth Adams Save Mount Diablo is opposed to this subdivision application and recommends Director, Land Programs that the county deny the proposal Julie Seelen Development Manager Staff recommended denial of the project on General Plan issues beginning in Monica E.Oei 2006, due to "the project's inconsistency with the General Plan goals and policies Finance& protecting hillsides, open space and the Marsh Creek Road scenic corridor." (Staff Administrative Manager Report for the Tuesday May 23, 2006 Contra Costa County Planning Commission Meeting) Mailing Address 1901 Olympic Blvd.,0220 The applicant was supposed to dedicate development rights when they first built Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Tel: (925)947-353535 y their house and failed to do so. The should not be rewarded with additional Fax: (925)947-0642 subdivision. Website The applicant has illegally graded pads and cut down trees,without permits. www.savemounidiablo.org The project location is a sensitive one, in an area characterized by public open *rs space and parks, and the proposal would conflict with ECC HCP goals. Bonwell Mary L. Bowerman Save Mount Diablo,comments,MS05-00030,Roger&Kandell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 1 of 21 The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is not adequate and mischaracterizes a variety of potentially significant impacts including visual and biological impacts, understates the amount of the parcel that would be affected and fails to consider cumulative impacts. If the County decides to move forward with this project, there are a variety of significant issues and impacts which remain areas of concern to SMD. We believe that the Mitigated Negative • Declaration submitted does not sufficiently address these significant issues and impacts and we urge the County to require an Environmental Impact Report for this project. Dedication of Conservation Easement SMD has previously made extensive comments on this project based on in depth consideration of the application and proposal. The proposal would violate the Conditions of Approval of the previous subdivision MS 64-90 by which the parcel was created. In short, the owner was required to deed all development rights beyond a (3) acre building site to Contra Costa County, prior to the construction of the existing house, but failed to do so. In MS-64-90 a 320 acre parcel was subdivided into 4 parcels with a remainder. The Habig property is one of the four parcels. The project was approved by the County Planning Commission on Sept. 25, 1990,then on Jan. 8, 1991, effective Jan. 21, 1991, Condition of approval 12.13 (regarding installation of a private roadway) was modified. The following conditions regarding placing a conservation easement over the four parcels remained unchanged. Conditions of Approval, MS 64-90 Sept. 25 1990 & Jan. 21 1991 "2. The applicant/owner shall provide for an Agricultural Conservation Easement to Contra Costa County on all of the 160 acres of the project site. The 160 acre remainder is not included. Building site areas shall be permitted and not exceed 3 acres. Leach field sites approved by the Health Department shall be identified on each parcel. This easement shall not prevent the erection of agricultural related buildings or structures anywhere on the site, subject to the related • setbacks. Easement shall be shown on the parcel map, and shall indicate that a 3-acre building site is permitted, as well as referenced in deed description." "3. Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits,the applicant shall submit plans including tentative building envelopes all within the 3-acre envelope as stipulated in Condition of Approval #2, a grading plan, and an erosion control plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Future modification of the building envelope must be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. The maximum grade for the proposed private road shall be identified and shall not exceed 20 percent." Condition 4 states that: "...Homes and large structures shall be designed and placed to minimize the visual impact on adjoining properties and Marsh Creek Road"; and "5. The erection of structures, to include (but not limited to) buildings, obscure fences, swimming pools, tennis courts, and sports courts, is prohibited in scenic areas." The file copy of the Conditions for MS-64-90 have a handwritten note that conditions 2 &3 shall be applied with building permits. Finally, the approved and recorded parcel map for MS 64-90, Sheet 1 of 8 on its face includes an additional "NOTE: PRIOR TO OBTAINING A GRADING PERMIT OR BUILDING PERMIT, THE APPLICANT/OWNER SHALL SELECT A BUILDING SITE AND DEED • DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FOR ALL BUT (3) ACRE{sic } Save Mount Diablo,comments,MS05-00030,Roger&Kandell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 2 Of 21 OF EACH PARCEL EXCLUDING THE REMAINDER PARCEL. THIS AGREEMENT SHALL NOT PREVENT THE ERECTION OF AGRICULTURAL RELATED BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES ANYWHERE ON THE SITE, SUBJECT TO ZONING RELATED SETBACKS." • Beyond the violation with the approved conditions of approval of the previous subdivision, further subdivision of the Habig parcel would affect nearby and neighboring properties including public parks and open space. Property Description The Habig parcel is located on a steep slope facing southwest. The property's habitats include grassland, oak savannah and chaparral. The property apparently has at least one existing structure, a single-family residence near the top of the slope on the property. It is located across from a Contra Costa County's Jail Farm. Mr. Habig's property in question is 37.99 acres of land. The proposed action is for this land to be divided into 3 lots and a remainder. There is some evidence of disturbance, possibly off road vehicles on the low area at the north end of the property. SMD visited the property with the project planner on November 30, 2005; there is also evidence of substantial and illegal grading and tree cutting. • Property Location (Doughnut Hole) The parcel is located near Mount Diablo State Park, Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve to the north, and the hilly slopes of East Bay Regional Park District's Clayton Ranch property adjacent on the northwest corner. Chaparral Springs, a large property maintained as open space • by Save Mount Diablo, is one parcel to the west. Save Mount Diablo,comments,MS05-00030,Roger&Kandell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 3 Of 2l Habig is located along the Marsh Creek scenic corridor that runs through the hills on the northern and eastern side of Mount Diablo. The property location is exceptionally important in the sense that the protected parkland and easements in the area form a circular area of preserved open space and wildlife corridors surrounding a"doughnut hole" of private land zoned for agricultural • use, all of it within the bounds of the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservation Plan. Any additional development will degrade the resources of the area. The development of the Habig property must be looked at in the context of the existing pattern of development in the region. The rural character of the area may be changed by the cumulative addition of ranchettes on the Habig property and other similar parcels. Not only does the application increase the number of houses in the area where the Habig parcel is located, it would alter the rural character of the Marsh Creek doughnut hole and affect county policies designed to protect resources. 1 + i 1 • r sew aq'i MMVIABLO STATEPARK Habig is located in an area dominated by parks and wildlife habitat. Issues of Concern In addition to violating the Conditions of Approval for a previous subdivision,this proposal would have significant impacts on a number of important issues. The Marsh Creek area is rich with resources, home to a number of special status species, and serves as a wildlife corridor between large areas of undeveloped land. It is important to consider what impacts the subdivision and development of this property would have on biological resources and wildlife habitats. Save Mount Diablo believes that the Mitigated Negative Declaration presented is insufficient and strongly urges the county to require an Environmental Impact Report for this proposal. • Save Mount Diablo,comments,MS05-00030,Roger&Kandell Habig,applicant Bellecci&.Associates 4 0f 21 Issues to Consider: CEQA Issues Subdivision and further development of this property could potentially have significant impacts on aesthetics, listed endangered species and their habitat, wildlife corridors, unstable slopes, • water quality issues, land use issues, noise, and traffic. As a result, SMD would request that the County prepare an Environmental Impact Report for this application. Aesthetics Very simply, the project proposed is to add three large houses to an undeveloped slope of oak woodland above Marsh Creek Road, highly visible in both directions, and near protected park land. Trees have already been illegally removed, dozens more would be removed as proposed and still more affected by field management for fire safety—this is an inappropriate place to develop. These visual impacts are too great to mitigate to a level of insignificance. The Marsh Creek area remains largely undeveloped, a beautiful landscape of rolling hills and sweeping canyons accented by scattered oak woodland and Marsh Creek's riparian corridor. Residents of the area and people traveling along Marsh Creek Road enjoy the rural character that defines the area. Each approved subdivision paves the way for a greater amount of development and diminishes the rural character of the area. The three units proposed for development would be highly visible from Marsh Creek Road, Mt. Diablo State Park, and East Bay Regional Park District's Clayton Ranch. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) acknowledges that Marsh Creek Road has been designated by the County as a Scenic Route, but downplays how significant the visual impacts will be on both the road and from each of these public open spaces. In addition, the mitigations offered to offset the negative impacts are insufficient. • One of mitigations proposed in the MND requires the applicant to adhere to specific PP p design standards to minimize the negative impacts of the houses. Save Mount Diablo believes that adding three new units to the area will degrade the rural character of the area and impact the visual resources regardless of how strict of design standards are implemented. Another mitigation proposed in the MND would require the applicant to dedicate a scenic easement to the County covering "the 3-4 acre portions of each property not proposed for residential building envelopes." (MND Pg. 16) Based on the fact that this parcel was supposed to be preserved with a scenic easement as a Condition of Approval for the previous subdivision and that no such action was taken, SMD has no confidence that this mitigation would be followed for this subdivision. Scenic Vistas: The project will have a significant impact on scenic vistas because it is located adjacent at a corner and above a regional park property and within the viewshed of both this regional park facility and of Mt. Diablo State Park. Visual analysis from the parks was not conducted and this impact has not been mitigated to a level of insignificance. Scenic Resources: The project could substantially damage scenic resources such as heritage trees and oak woodland, given that some construction would take place in this woodland. The impact is compounded by the possible presence of heritage trees on the property. • Local Scenic Route: The Contra Costa County General Plan defines a scenic route as, "a road, street, or freeway, which traverses a scenic corridor of relatively high visual or cultural value. It Save Mount Diablo,comments,MS05-00030,Roger&Kandell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 5 of 21 r consists of both the scenic corridor and the public-right-of-way." The General Plan defines the scenic corridor element of a scenic route as "consisting of much of the adjacent area that can be seen from the road (see General Plan, Figure 5-4). In this case, construction of proposed units and accessory development would be visible from Marsh Creek Road and would adversely impact the visual character of the scenic route. Despite a discussion of the relative values of • these impacts the MND does not mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance. Substantial Light or Glare: The location of potential units on a western slope would create a significant amount of light and glare directed towards Marsh Creek Road and park resources. This impact cannot be mitigated to an insignificant level. If the MND does not adequately assess the impacts of the project on aesthetic resources, it cannot propose sufficient mitigations. Biological Resources and Wildlife Habitat The Mitigated Negative Declaration is inadequate in regards to biological resources. There are a number of special status species that have been confirmed on neighboring properties that the MND states are unlikely to occur on the project site. Special Status Species The Habig property is located within (or near) federally designated critical habitat for the Alameda whip snake, California red-legged frog, and the California Tiger Salamander, among other species which may be found onsite or nearby. Several ponds exist near the property and the Habig property drains into Marsh Creek. Both the ponds and the creek contain habitat for the California red legged frog. California red-legged frogs have been found to range as far as 10,500 feet from aquatic habitats, well within range of • the Habig tract (Bulger et al. 2003). The California Tiger Salamander, a separate federally threatened species inhabits grasslands, riparian areas and ponds (possibly migrates between the two during mating season) in close proximity to the Habig property. Save Mount Diablo and East Bay Regional Park District both own land adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Habig parcel. There are confirmed records of Tiger Salamander and Alameda Whip snake on both of these properties, and confirmed sightings of Red Legged Frog on the Clayton Ranch property. The Habig Property is also located in close proximity to confirmed sightings of the San Joaquin Kit Fox, in Black Diamond Mines and along Marsh Creek Road, as well as other points to the east such as Cowell Ranch State Park, Round Valley regional Preserve and Los Vaqueros. Among a long list of rare species found in this area, biotic analysis should have paid special attention to San Joaquin Kit Fox. The Mitigated Negative Declaration,however, includes no discussion of the Kit Fox. Impacts on Habitat and Mitigation Measures Habitat Modifications: There is potential for the new construction to have an adverse impact on sensitive species in the area. The property lies in areas that are adjacent or near confirmed records for the Federally Protected California Red-Legged Frog, Tiger Salamander, Alameda • Whip snake, various nesting birds, and San Joaquin Kit Fox. Save Mount Diablo,comments,MS05-00030,Roger&Kandell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 6 of 21 A. California Red Legged Frog: The California Red Legged Frog is known to occur locally. It has been identified at several nearby locations. The species is known to migrate to terrestrial upland habitats, especially during • mating season where it migrates between riparian areas and ponds. The frog is known to use ground squirrel burrows for aestivation during the summer months. The Habig parcel is located between Marsh Creek and several potential breeding ponds. Save Mount Diablo believes that the mitigations proposed in the MND are not adequate to offset the negative impacts of the project. There are a variety of additional mitigations that should be required if subdivision and development are approved. i. Project developed should limit construction to the non-rainy season(April 15-November 1) so that the frogs will be less active. ii. Given the high potential for Red-legged Frogs to occur onsite, Federal Consultation with the USFWF under either section 7 or Section 10 of the Federal Endangered Species Act should occur, and "take" authorization under the FESA should be obtained prior to recording the parcel map or issuance of a grading permit. iii. Any construction related to the project should avoid riparian, aquatic, or drainage areas by at least 300 feet. iv. If California red-legged frogs are found during any survey, CDFG and USFWS should be contacted and a permitted biologist should carry out relocation measures, if deemed necessary by the biologist and agencies. • v. If California red-legged frogs are found duringthe pre-construction coon survey, a permitted biologist should also be present at the start of construction to inspect the integrity of the exclusion fencing and relocate California red-legged frogs out of the project area if necessary. vi. Mitigation lands, providing similar or better habitat for California red-legged frog at a replacement ratio required by the appropriate resource agencies (CDFG or USFW), should be preserved in perpetuity by a conservation easement or similar mechanism. This mitigation measure, detailed in a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, should be required prior to issuance of final grading permits. The identified mitigation lands, detailed mitigation monitoring plans, and the conservation easement or similar preservation mechanism should be approved by the County before construction commences. The conservation easement will be recorded within 12 months of commencement of grading. vii. Copies of all state and federal regulatory permits should be present on site during project construction and available for inspection at all times. B. Alameda Whip Snake: The primary habitat of Alameda Whip Snake is chaparral in combination with rock outcroppings, but it is also known to be common in oak woodland areas. The species has also been known to travel over 500 feet into adjacent habitats including grassland, oak savanna, and occasionally oak-bay woodland (Swaim, 1994). A chaparral community exists on a hillside near the Habig property. The Alameda Whip Snake is listed as a Federally Threatened Species. • Save Mount Diablo,comments,MS05-00030,Roger&Kandell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 7 of 2l The MND relies on the belief that Alameda Whip Snake is found only in Chaparral habitats but recent research shows that the special status species is often found in woodland habitat as well. The Alameda Whip Snake is confirmed at East Bay Regional Park District's neighboring Clayton Ranch property and at Save Mount Diablo's nearby Chaparral Spring property. • Save Mount Diablo believes that the mitigations proposed in the MND are not adequate to offset the negative impacts of the project. There are a variety of additional mitigations that should be required if subdivision and development are approved. i. Any project-related construction activity should avoid scrub and chaparral habitat and the area within 500 feet of scrub and chaparral habitat on site to the extent feasible as determined by the County. ii. A pre-construction survey should be conducted according to USFWS protocols by a qualified biologist within two weeks and 48 hours prior to the onset of construction activities to ensure no Alameda whip snakes are within the project area. iii. If Alameda whip snakes are found during the any surveys, CDFG and USFWS should be contacted and a permitted biologist will carry out relocation measures, if deemed necessary by the biologist. If avoidance of scrub and chaparral habitat and the area within 500 feet of that habitat is infeasible as determined by the County, additional mitigation measures should be required as outlined below. iv. Mitigation lands, providing similar or better habitat for Alameda whip snake at a • replacement ratio of 3:1 should be preserved in perpetuity by a conservation easement or similar mechanism. This mitigation measure, detailed in a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, should be required prior to issuance of final grading permits. The identified mitigation lands, detailed mitigation monitoring plans, the conservation easement, or similar preservation mechanism should be approved by the County before construction commences. The conservation easement should be recorded within 12 months of commencement of grading. v. Copies of all state and federal regulatory permits should be present on site during project construction and available for inspection at all times. C. California Tiger Salamander The California Tiger Salamander primarily inhabits oak woodland and grassland typical of the inner central California Coast Range. They require pools or ponds of still water in order to breed. In addition, they require adjacent areas, where dry burrows, usually created by small mammals, provide shelter. The area surrounding the Habig parcel may contain salamander habitat. There is a pool and a spring located in close proximity to the parcel boundary. The pools of water surrounded by upland habitat, including the Habig parcel, are ideal for Salamanders. Save Mount Diablo believes that the mitigations proposed in the MND are not adequate to offset the negative impacts of the project. There are a variety of additional mitigations that should be required if subdivision and development are approved. • Save Mount Diablo,comments,MS05-00030,Roger&Kandell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 8 of 2l i. Any project developed should limit construction to the non-rainy season (April 15- November 1) so that the Salamanders should be less active. ii. Given the potential for California Tiger Salamanders to occur onsite, Federal • Consultation with the USFWF under either section 7 or Section 10 of the Federal Endangered Species Act should occur, and "take" authorization under the FESA should be obtained prior to recording the parcel map or issuance of a grading permit. iii. Any construction related to the project should avoid riparian, aquatic, or drainage areas by at least 300 feet. iv. A pre-construction survey should be conducted according to USFWS protocols by a qualified biologist within two weeks and 48 hours prior to the onset of construction activities to ensure no California Tiger Salamanders are within the proposed development area. v. If California Tiger Salamanders are found during any survey, CDFG and USFWS should be contacted and a permitted biologist should carry out relocation measures, if deemed necessary by the biologist and agencies. vi. Mitigation lands,providing similar or better habitat for California Tiger Salamanders at a replacement ratio required by the appropriate resource agencies (CDFG or USFW), should be preserved in perpetuity by a conservation easement or similar mechanism. This mitigation measure, detailed in a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, should be required prior to issuance of final grading permits. The identified mitigation lands, detailed mitigation monitoring plans, and the conservation easement or similar preservation mechanism should • be approved by the County before construction commences. The conservation easement will be recorded within 12 months of commencement of grading. vii. Copies of all state and federal regulatory permits should be present on site during project construction and available for inspection at all times. D. Potentially Nesting Birds Suitable nesting habitat for a number of bird species is present within trees, grasslands, and scrub vegetation on the project site. Any removal of trees or shrubs, or construction activities in the vicinity of active bird nests, could result in nest abandonment, nest failure, or premature fledging. Destruction or disturbance of active nests would be in violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Code. The MBTA is enforced by both the USFWS and CDFG. Therefore, the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts to nesting birds. Mitigation: Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potentially significant impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant impact level. i. If project construction occurs between December 1 and August 31, a nesting bird survey of areas to be disturbed (the construction zone) should be performed by a qualified ornithologist within 30 days prior to initiation of disturbance activities. • ii. All trees with active nests will be flagged and a non-disturbance buffer zone should be established around the nesting tree in coordination with CDFG. The ornithologist should Save Mount Diablo,comments,MS05-00030,Roger&Kandell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 9 of 2l determine the size of the buffer zone based upon on the species involved, site conditions, and type of work proposed. iii. Active nests should be monitored by a qualified ornithologist to determine when the young have fledged and are feeding on their own. CDFG will be consulted for clearance • before construction activities resume and removal should be consistent with CDFG regulations. iv. Surveys for ground nesting birds should also be conducted prior to project related ground disturbance. Surveys should be conducted by walking narrow transects through the grassland within 30 days prior to the commencement of project related activities by a qualified ornithologist. v. If a nest is found, a non-disturbance buffer zone should be established around the nest in coordination with CDFG. The ornithologist should determine the size of the buffer zone based upon on the species involved, site conditions, and type of work proposed. vi. Active nests should be monitored by a qualified ornithologist to determine when the young have fledged and are feeding on their own. CDFG should be consulted for clearance before construction activities resume and is consistent with CDFG regulations. E. San Joaquin Kit Fox The Kit Fox is a Federally Listed Species that ranges from Kern County in the south and reaches its northernmost range along the east Contra Costa County Hills and Delta. The Kit Fox habitat primarily includes grassland, but it frequently utilizes Oak woodland and Oak savanna in its range. The Kit Fox population, especially in the northern part of its range has become • fragmented by housing and development of its habitat. The Mitigated Negative Declaration does not identify any potential negative impacts on the San Joaquin Kit Fox and,therefore, proposes no mitigation measures. The subdivision of the property and the construction of three additional units further fragments the grasslands and Oak woodlands of the Marsh Creek area that provide habitat for the kit fox. There are a variety of additional mitigations that should be required if subdivision and development are approved. i. Given the potential for San Joaquin Kit Fox to occur onsite, Federal Consultation with the USFWF under either section 7 or Section 10 of the Federal Endangered Species Act should occur, and "take" authorization under the FESA should be obtained prior to recording the parcel map or issuance of a grading permit. ii. A pre-construction survey should be conducted according to USFWS protocols by a qualified biologist within two weeks and 48 hours prior to the onset of construction activities to ensure no San Joaquin Kit Fox are within the proposed development area. iii. If no San Joaquin Kit Fox are found within the proposed development area, buried exclusion silt fencing should be placed around all project construction areas to keep San Joaquin Kit Fox from potentially moving onto the site. Construction fencing should be • placed around the riparian area if deemed necessary by the biologist. The biologist should Save Mount Diablo,comments,MS05-00030,Roger&Kandell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 10 of 21 routinely inspect the site throughout the course of construction to ensure that construction fencing is intact and sensitive habitats are avoided. The biological monitor should provide an anticipated schedule to the County defining the frequency of the necessary site inspection visits. • iv. If San Joaquin Kit Fox are found during g any survey, CDFG and USFWS should be contacted and a permitted biologist should carry out relocation measures, if deemed necessary by the biologist and agencies. v. Mitigation lands, providing similar or better habitat for San Joaquin Kit Fox at a replacement ratio required by the appropriate resource agencies (CDFG or USFW), should be preserved in perpetuity by a conservation easement or similar mechanism. This mitigation measure, detailed in a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, should be required prior to issuance of final grading permits. The identified mitigation lands, detailed mitigation monitoring plans, and the conservation easement or similar preservation mechanism should be approved by the County before construction continences. The conservation easement will be recorded within 12 months of commencement of grading. vi. Copies of all state and federal regulatory permits should be present on site during project construction and available for inspection at all times. Migratory Wildlife Corridors: Due to the location of new construction between the riparian habitat along Marsh Creek and ponds above the parcel, there is risk that the migration of several species including the federally threatened California Red Legged Frog and California Tiger Salamander. This more likely to occur in the rainy season (November 1-April 15). The ponds located above the property act as • breeding sites and nursery grounds for several species. The range both species have been reported to range away from their riparian or water habitat is well within the range of the Habig parcel. Tree Protection Policy: Two of the potential three housing sites appear to be located within the oak woodland on the parcel. This conflicts with the County's tree preservation policies. The location of heritage trees, as well as trees defined as having a trunk diameter of 6.5 inches or greater must be taken into consideration during analysis and mitigated. The applicant may need to take greater measures to avoid or replace any heritage trees that are removed or destroyed during the course of construction. On November 30, 2005, Save Mount Diablo, the owners and applicant, and representatives from Sycamore and Associates walked the property to evaluate its condition and layout. The first and third house site that we visited were set back in groves of oaks. The hillside where this house was located has an open view to the north peak of Mount Diablo obstructed by the oaks. There is cause for concern that potential owners at the proposed house site C will remove the grove in order to obtain an unobstructed view of the mountain. Existing trees have already been removed from sites A and C without permits and before arborists report could be performed. The possibility that heritage trees were among those illegally taken is a possibility. • On the November 30, 2005 tour of the property SMD staff observed illegal grading within a tree dripline and into the roots of trees on the property. Photographs showing the illegal grading and Save Mount Diablo,comments,MS05-00030,Roger&Kandell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 1 1 Of 21 the high visibility of the proposed house sight can be seen below(Attachment 1). The MND does not include discussion of this illegal grading, nor does it include discussion of trees which have already been cut down on the project site without permits. If a house is allowed on any of the three proposed parcels there may need to be a prohibition on • the further removal of trees on any owner of the subdivided parcel. In addition any potential construction on the habitat will need to include, but not be limited to, these provisions: i. Oak woodland habitat, "Protected Trees" should be avoided to the greatest extent possible, as determined by the County. Oak woodlands avoided on-site should be permanently preserved, through a conservation easement or other similar mechanism approved by the County. The conservation easement should be approved by the County prior to grading and should be recorded within 12 months of commencement of grading. ii. A tree preservation plan should be prepared by a qualified arborist to control possible damage by development or construction activities to the trees to be preserved. Protected Trees"as determined by the County Code cannot be avoided, then an oak woodland and tree replacement plan should be prepared to ensure that they are replaced according to the standards outlined below. iii. Replacement of impacted woodlands or trees should occur at a planting ratio of 3:1. In addition, existing woodlands should be preserved at a 5:1 ratio as compensation for impacted woodland area as deemed necessary by the County. This should be accomplished on site to the extent practicable, as determined by the County. iv. Planting and preservation should occur in a suitable area either within the project site or off site that is permanently preserved, through a conservation easement or other similar mechanism approved by the County. The conservation easement should be approved by the County prior to • grading and should be recorded within 12 months of commencement of grading. If the MND does not adequately assess the impacts of the project on biological resources, special status species, and habitat, it cannot propose sufficient mitigations. Cumulative Impacts There are a number of other subdivision applications currently being considered in the Marsh Creek-Morgan Territory Region. The MND does not include a discussion of the any other subdivisions in the area or what cumulative impacts these subdivisions would collectively have on the area. As more subdivisions are approved,the area will lose its rural character and more wildlife habitat will be fragmented. Subdivision applications and their impacts need to be considered cumulatively to ensure the rural character of the region is preserved. If the MND does not adequately assess the cumulative impacts of the project, it cannot propose sufficient mitigations. Geology Erosion: The proposed construction developments may cause significant erosion down slope and into the Marsh creek drainage. There is a danger that the soils removed for construction may wash into the Marsh Creek area with potential adverse affects on its riparian habitat and species. Slope: The slope on the property is greater than 26 % in many areas, including sites now • proposed as houses. The angle and nature of the slopes on the property increase the risk of Save Mount Diablo,comments,MS05-00030,Roger&Kandell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 12 Of 21 landslides on the property, especially in the event of heavy rains. The slope of proposed house site A is particularly worrying. It is located on a steep, north-facing slope overlooking Bragdon Way. The house site parcel B is located on flat land and territory, has the problem of being located on land which is visibly creeping forward. Fuel Management: The MND states that"the proposed project's s fuel management, includes,but is not limited to, removal of flammable vegetation on hillside slopes greater than 20%." However, the MND dos not include any analysis identifying which slopes are over 20%. If the MND does not adequately assess the impacts of the project on erosion and slopes, it cannot propose sufficient mitigations. Water and Hydrology Issues Water Tanks and Accessory structures: The proposed sites reliance on local well water may necessitate the construction of water tanks. It is important to know where on the parcel any potential tanks will be located. Their location has the potential to impact the parcel's habitat, erosion,run off, and the scenic view shed. The tanks could be visible from the Marsh Creek Scenic Rural route or park properties with related impacts; mitigations could be necessary. The MND does not detail what other structures are contemplated and what their impacts would be. If the MND does not adequately assess the impacts of the project on water and hydrology issues, it cannot propose sufficient mitigations. tiii Urban D�volcrrncnt Arco �,. Legend -- Habig is both an HCP medium �; Inrenlcry Area acquisition priority; it is also Lima Une a keyrestoration Level of priority area �� :. Acgeiaihon Effort s� given its proximity to Marsh �..ra ., �c reek o Id Untl Usa� wei neUone� �. .,» i� rk ��� ,•; L;*f oaram.�na�eiren 21, 2, -y - r .ia z 2b z: - y Wryone: Pana,Urbm Parlor. open Space.and .ubb.Wmrahed 'i°a 2 zl Pubb.Fa 6. Ml vnln Unrlev I.W VI4�I�� f II �I�yl f'•�" 1Ml knt' 4b`.: 4c' fi �, �L, � ' f- ' ^ f v f ncift­ LUceel 9and I F vtr,•,<�� x �°':est ��a� �, y�� �,. ��•� 4 �' oaPPmen, y }r, X45 Lend Ueee +t,\ Mdibonal Me' 3aeerorebon p aibea 2(� S "'eM:M M emWai �I -nor acpukNoru e,.x.a,+e. r1.az •t,� f _ .no,J,onpabb £ , naloc 4 b 4O cwits&,ckcs Save Mount Diablo,comments,MS05-00030,Roger&Kandell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 13 of 21 Land Use East Contra Costa Habitat Conservation Plan: The MND does not accurately discuss the conflicts between the proposal and the HCP/NCCP. The subject property is within the HCP's medium priority acquisition area and is in the vicinity of Marsh Creek which is considered an area of special attention for restoration. The fact that Habig falls within the Plan's medium priority zone for acquisition is evidence of its importance for wildlife. Approval of the subdivision would be counter to the goals of the HCP. Regional Park policies - Save Mount Diablo and the Regional Park District have worked for many years to bring about a wildlife and recreational corridor connection between Mount Diablo State Park and Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve. SMD and EBRPD both own property (Chaparral Springs and Clayton Ranch respectively)that lie in close proximity to the Habig parcel and its proposed subdivision. The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect these two properties. The MND claims the project will have no impacts on recreational opportunities in the area. In addition to the properties owned by Save Mount Diablo and East Bay Regional Park District, the project site is also in the vicinity of Mt. Diablo State Park. The public open spaces help to define the recreational character of the areas. Approval of this subdivision would have impacts on these recreational opportunities. If the MND does not adequately assess the impacts of the project on land use issues, it cannot propose sufficient mitigations. Noise Excessive Noise Levels: The construction of the additional three homes on the property may contribute to the noise generated by the property and may conflict with the public's peaceful . enjoyment of the neighboring park property. The MND does not consider the noise impacts on nearby parks and public lands. Increase in Ambient Noise: There may be a permanent increase in the ambient noise in the area. The three units proposed for construction would in all likelihood permanently raise the ambient noise level. Due to the rural environment surrounding the Habig Property, the construction of three new homes has the potential to produce a permanent increase in noise level. The MND does not consider impacts that an increase in ambient noise levels would have on the rural character of the area. Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise: The construction of the three new homes in the area has the potential to increase ambient noise in the area well beyond what would be expected without the construction project. The excess noise coming off the hill during the project may be detrimental to the quality of life for the other residents surrounding the Habig parcel. If the MND does not adequately assess the noise impacts of the project, it cannot propose sufficient mitigations. Traffic and Transportation: Marsh Creek Road's observed speeds are quite high and making turns from Bragdon Way, especially left hand, can be quite dangerous. The MND only considers these safety issues in the context of added traffic due to construction and does not consider the permanent increase in Save Mount Diablo,comments,MS05-00030,Roger&Kandell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates W of 21 traffic due to three additional units on Bragdon Way. The increased traffic may increase the risk of accident along the road. If the MND does not adequately assess the impacts of the project on traffic and transportation, it cannot propose sufficient mitigations. Findings of Significance: Loss of Quality and the Environment: There is potential to impact several federally protected species. The project is in close proximity to habitat of California Tiger Salamander, Red Legged Frog, and Alameda Whip Snake. The MND does not accurately assess the habitat values of the property and does not propose sufficient mitigation measures to offset these impacts. Cumulative Impact: There is potential for the cumulative impact of this project to become quite important. Marsh Creek Road and its rural setting are largely free of development. The expansion of further housing in the area begins to alter the character of the region. Above all there may be some concern that the project is assisting continuing expansion into the Marsh Creek Scenic Route Area. The MND does not identify any cumulative impacts caused by the proposal. It is imperative that every subdivision application in the Marsh Creek area is considered in context with all other subdivision applications currently being considered by the County. Zoning/Grading The Habig parcel is located outside the County's Urban Limit Line, within the A-2 zoning district. The land use designation for the surrounding areas include agricultural land preserves both in the A2 zone and in the adjacent A4 zone. The area is rural in character without the presence of large-scale housing developments. • The Habig property is located on a steep slope, and there may be cause for concern Y here. Any development may be located within a potential landslide area. In addition, in order to build on a slope excessive grading may be required. Any development on the property would be visible from large areas of the east slope of Mount Diablo's North Peak and the foothills of the State Park. The MND does not consider the impacts this proposal would have on Mt. Diablo State Park or on Clayton Ranch and offers no mitigations to minimize these impacts to less than significant. Non permitted Grading On the November 30th tour of the parcel conducted by the owners and applicant, Save Mount Diablo, and Sycamore and Associates, evidence of unpermitted grading was found. At two of the three house sites, parcels A and C, the ground cover of grass or oak had been removed. In addition for house sites A and C, driveways had been graded to the house site. This grading was done recently, as no satellite photos of the property show any evidence of grading at the sites. In both instances there was evidence that the grading had cut tree lines, which could lead to the eventual death of those trees. There is no evidence that this grading was permitted or authorized by the county, which is of concern to SMD. The amount of grading is well over the threshold for which a grading permit is required. Development Grant or Easement There is documentation to show that when the county allowed for the subdivision of 160 acres, • which included the Habig's parcel, a conservation easement was required to be placed over the property. The county was to retain development rights to the whole of the property not covered Save Mount Diablo,comments,MS05-00030,Roger&Kandell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 15 of 21 in Mr. Habig's 3-acre building envelope. The construction of agricultural buildings is permitted, with some restrictions. Conclusion The Habig parcel is located on one of the County's major ridges and in the Marsh Creek Road • scenic corridor. There are confirmed locations for several rare and endangered species in the vicinity, and development may threaten major public amenities including nearby regional park lands and regional trail connections. Given its elevation and visibility to surrounding parkland, and biological resources and agency plans to connect Mt. Diablo State Park to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, development of the property should be prevented as was contemplated and required in the previous subdivision. As a result, Save Mount Diablo is opposed to this application. Should development be contemplated however, SMD believes the MND does not sufficiently identify potential significant impacts and, therefore, cannot adequately propose the proper mitigations to minimize these impacts. . Please inform us of action on this file or any public hearing dates. Thank you. Sincerely., i17 V��7 Troy Bristol Land Conservation Associate • • Save Mount Diablo,comments,MS05-00030,Roger&Kandell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 16 of 21 1 � 1 4 S �,,*•'yam I� ��`af��x^ � �.�a�s��4 c d ?;' rc mat a � ; S� y+ � yi �y�e � � i �F��..,..Tj ^'� '"'X`.„c-'�'� •,.- �,x.�B 9+,��`^:t`ar 7� ,r,,,,� `r�v'>r�'�g�»+`'b''^tn.�.R�.r�tf a.a1'e'� „:A "`�,�. +�S� a »�u.3e .s � .:,. '`� � .,,� ;e moi, K-=ux. �"i^�a �S� -'��Y;,'t+'�'$°e S, - 7'�'�''�ra'�•e�"�j'-°ck sy'����;.��”4� �o�°`,'^� s { r r o � I ii i • I 111 / '�•� • i• ii iii i � � w . 4 • illegal grading & into tree lines (11-30-2005) • Save Mount Diablo,comments,MS05-00030,Roger&Kandell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 18 of 21 =4 4 yyr%�y �• �"s5� �'m�Jy�ry\,t �(yam-a3.a..;.u': i. n �* r a$ ��� ". rf 7� r ��,Crr�.�v. �' `'"'" 4�rrr ,-r+'>�' ?e ;% ✓' { '" 5�"a�er i � %,� � l p }q•,A jt�r.r,K.. � y. ,.�},,,✓b� ,'�'' � . v � • I ii • i I /lI I 'i•� i i• ii iii i � � • • Highly Visible from—both irec ions of Marshree 11-30-2005 • Save Mount Diablo,comments,MS05-00030,Roger&Kandell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 20 Of 21 i � LO ti y. ani 4�' a% 2 3 ✓..ii�F fi���� (bi 914' I� ��W, ' ' � F2 �..in"`P�{tl ,fir L� � ^ +�cw {b'✓` r� io-�' + ay Cq n if Y 1 y, ra ori1 1 Y4��3d �1 a W �A _ r .FRG Y �h f ■� i y ■ -#i' , Z • Save Mount Diablo,comments,MS05-00030,Roger&Kandell Habig,applicant Bellecci&Associates 21 of 21 Ir�l-�t�al�y Vi1cunK • • z C) O c v LU v E v • ` C 0 T Y d_ Q) O O J C O a c Ql 01 = Y mO iw C i0 C Q; O O V T "'y- 41 C = } C `J N R V o U CO d ` O C a O N O C v� VE 4 'o 0 c + o o • Q ^ o v D rN > ' 0 00 v z Q Q v E m Ar N Y o 0 o `o_ s f •. > o C `0 .z OLE N QJ • � O U N fi. ry 9� Y ^64 L E Z � O N y�4•. Q C m N C O O L C) j m �) 00 p O O E C) N Lu CL D "' U • o � ''anr•+*w•• v� C V M a m z v p c � E 0 c k 4 c c U 0 ° s O > Y rn � J C C m O C C W O E C v o 3 N v T O C N v O rn v v 1 � c °c' CU O � m v ' p v _m un O O o v +- c Y s m O O C ., O f'. O Dc " C vii V N N O Oa c C GJ ) W c > y p 00 a • _� .` � G1 z Q C y� w E s c O m ,, O } O 01•o O Sys- C jam' •1 -O C w • � v 1• i t H LLL U .�-. M ,.y Y x 7' L, b F' C � • Q. oe —� g D LrZ,f •c i N Icb... 0 O j 0 U OD N O OCL Q ,, E O N c Lu ^ p N _6 Q D w E D "' U DELIBERATION ITEM# D.2 JULY 81 2008 NOTIFICATION LIST 78070027 78090020 78090025 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DIST. SMITH,LARRY A&BONNIE M HABIG,ROGER G&KANDELL K TRE LAND ACQUISITION DEPT. P.O.BOX 546 3000 BRAGDON WAY 2950 PERALTA OAKS CT. CLAYTON,CA 94517 CLAYTON,CA 94517 • OAKLAND,CA 94605 78090026 78090027 78090028 DEYOREO,JAMES JON&KELLY L K GREGORY,JOHN EDWARD TRE THIELAMAY SANJIVA&DIANA T 3050 BRAGDON WAY 1547 PALOS VERDES#166 3165 BRAGDON WAY CLAYTON,CA 94517 WALNUT CREEK,CA 94597 CLAYTON,CA 94517 78090030 78120011 78190005 CALIFORNIA RESCOM VENTURES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FARM GHIO,WALTER H&ROSE M TRE LLC 94596 255 GLACIER DRIVE 12360 MARSH CREEK RD. 2122 WILMINGTON MARTINEZ,CA 94553 CLAYTON,CA 94517 WALNUT CREEK,CA 945 PATRICIA E.CURTIN MORGAN MILLER BLAIR,A LAW CORP. BONNIE&LARRY SMITH ELOISE& JOHN POUND 1331 N.CALIFORNIA BLVD.,ST. 200 12103 MARSH CREEK ROAD P.O.BOX 219 WALNUT CREEK,CA 94596 CLAYTON,CA 94517 CLAYTON,CA 94517 FRANK BELLECCI CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY BELLECI&ASSOC.,INC. COUNTY FILE # CONTROL BOARD 2290 DIAMOND BLVD. ST. 100 CENTRAL/SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REGION CONCORD,CA 94520 MS05 0030- HABIG 11020 SUN CENTER DRIVE#200 RANCHO CORDOVA,CA 95670-6114 BRAD OLSON U.S.FISH&WILDLIFE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK TROY BRISTOL-SAVE MOUNT DISTRICT DIABLO CALIF/NEVADA OPERATION 2950 PERALTA OAKS CT. 1901 OLYMPIC BLVD., ST.220 DIVISION OF ECOLOGICAL SERVICES-2606 W TE. 2800 COTTAGE WAY, S OAKLAND,CA 94605 WALNUT CREEK,CA 94596 SACRAMENTO,CS E.W 25 STATE DEPT.OF FISH&GAME US ARMY CORP. OF ENGINEERS CITY OF CLAYTON REGION 3 SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT 6000 HERITAGE TRAIL 7329 SILVERADO TRAIL 333 MARKET ST., 8T"FL. CLAYTON,CA 94517 NAPA,CA 94558 SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94105-2197 BAAQMD EAST CCC FIRE PROTECTION DIST. MT.DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL ATTN:ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 2010 GEARY ROAD 1936 CARLOTTA DRIVE SECTION PLEASANT HILL,CA 94523 CONCORD,CA 94519 939 ELLIS STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94109 CONTRA COSTA MOSQUITO ABATEMENT SETH ADAMS-SAVE MOUNT DIABLO HEALTH DEPARTMENT C/O CHARLES BEESLEY,DIST.MGR. 1901 OLYMPIC BLVD., ST.220 INTEROFFICE 155 MASON CIRCLE WALNUT CREEK,CA 94596 CONCORD,CA 94520 to CHARLES J.CAPP,PLS PUBLIC WORKS MAIN LIBRARY-PLEASANT HILL BELLECCI&ASSOC.,INC. ENGINEERING SERVICES INTEROFFICE 2290 DIAMOND BLVD.,SUITE 100 CONCORD,CA 94520 DELIBERATION ITEM# D.2 JULY 81 2008 MAPS General Plan / Urban Limit Line Map Clayton/Marsh Creek Area File #MS05-0030 (Habig) Legend Site E MS64-90 PS (Public/Semi-Public) PR (Parks and Recreation) OS (Open Space) Miles • AL (Agricultural Lands) 0 0.25 0.5 SV (Single Family Residential - Very Low) • A-2, General Agriculture 1, I Zoning / Land Conservation Contracts Contract #11-7 Clayton/Marsh Creek Area File #MS05-0030 (Habig) . son Act - — ntract #3-99 Williamson A -- Contract #7-70 A el Williamson Act Contract #18-69 R-40 Legend Williamson Act Site MS64-90 i Agricultural Preserve Creek or Drainage R-40, Single Family Residential � F-R, Forestry Recreational iliamson Act I4 trach A-2, General Agriculture Miles A-4, Agricultural Preserve 0 0.25 0.5 Legend -: Elevation Map Site Clayton/Marsh Creek Area Ms64-90 -- --- -------- - _--- --- File #MS05-0030 (Habig) Creek or Drainage _= Streets Elevation (feet) Miles 540 - 660 ft 0 0.25 0.5 661 - 780 ft ^-�-- ® 781 - 900 ft - 901 - 1020 ft 1,021 - 1,140 ft 1,141 - 1,260 ft 1,261 - 1,380 ft I 1,381 - 1,500 ft I n 1,501 - 1,625 ft 1,626 - 1,745 ft VS 'c ra Aspa a Dr , --- Oak Hill L+n� —T ------ -�� . c T_� 0 T; Legend N� Topo Map site =' Clayton/Marsh Creek Area MS64-90 - ^-� #. File #MS05-0030 (Habig) 10 Ft Contour Creek or Drainage Elevation (feet) Streets 540 - 660 ft NONE— Miles 661 - 780 ft 0 0.25 0.5 IWILI, 781 - 900 ft - --- ' 901 — 1020 ft 1,021 — 1,140 ft 1,141 — 1,260 ft 1,261 — 1,380 ft a — 1,500 ft 1,381 — --_ 1,501 — 1,625 ft — 1,745 ft 1,626 1 i iAspara Dr oak Hill I�n�- -��— — o co � Q j J LeonrGt r I Y� Legend Ortho Photo hl _ _ Topo 10-Foot Contour Lines rOw�w• d ��.t.i� � i ha '; � tr � Site Clayton/Marsh Creek Area �. �. File #MS05-0030 Habi Creek or Drainage _= Streets lite - �F�� � - t� `�/'�t� ` >�$ :� � •'fir # - 10 Foot Contours Ar" Feet 1 , ;, +�► J� r 0 350 700 - . 77 l:. y �!� , 7 rt 1s h A �` • f1 R yam ` �� i. 71— y✓� -F y II !�,\ � ��. ,,\ "� ✓ .�.c� \ tr���'� �'-. IY 94 A. �► R e . �l ; i �e r€.. ' � � r R 7. t 'f c i t Mix •'Y.rr',.' +r. � Fri`. .�.�, �.." �. �.�c.>>.rrA:41 4.�i. � �`�\ '0, �' '� !t Li V� s l:. yy'kz a. sr IF p� �`7� i `• �{"i�i��G .Y`+.�Sr 91 1i��'vi ��w' t {: - �'sA,<'y�• ' t��.��4' °''<^,^� tr .� �.� ,'ali+�• ��'.. ~i '! � •,nom "�F 7�Y?Q, �r':Q'� ��� � - _ � � F.a R s � '- x f , Ptd.�'� ��, •. 41 ��\ r t 1 .� � �'{�K� ��1 � 6• Mew' �t.. x�'! Count RaN _ Ir . 4wjail Farm big �J• "` -�e� �'^� � ,�r��'` p9 F ,u��41 .' , " • �.`<�r ! 'y kR,l iyi A y■W1y� " t I 1. `. r,fr• �`th Q qtr •A F r�` � -�k •rs ;4 wn �:.e ,y Stl�. a . `"".�'' �II.s_�'^'? lr fig"- ` G„�'l�p;p t... AL .01 ol NO Creek Ll ' 3i� g)� � t r, �:,�.�, 1�'1'<� �.ar� c�•-�t i t�r,,,�a�`%+°- � x 1„��:�. !F ,pt para Dir rd , '+ _• ► t"� � �.? .+ .•.y4 � '!!y[bra! a^ h � ` 11 .e- , �_.___k a Legend Figure IX Slope ` • Clayton/MarshSite Area File #MS05-0030 (Habig) - e Creek or .•- Streets Slope ,• % • , NEER- Miles ! e � Al- J Iva VP y .,. • / .• OF i Ilk i f Slope Analysis Map jProposed Habig Minor, Subdivision County File #MS05-0030 Limits of \ Clayton / Marsh Creek Area on Site --- - - Slide Area \ i - - - c / Existing a i 'Residence \\'0 \ /' N�\ Legend Site Roads Slope Percentage \ [-1 Parcels -- 1 Oft Contours = 0 - 15 .100 Proposed Horne Sites ® 15.01 - 26 ® 26.0 and above -� Mapcreated 5/8/2008 Q Feet by Contra Costa County Community Development,GIS Group .✓' \, 651 Pine Street,4th Floor North Wing,Martinez,CA 94553-0095 t 0 70 140 280 420 560 37:59:48.455N 122:06:35.384W This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited.Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. MOM N N O — N N N • N N N N los o N ° .y x y � � N W N is as.si it i-•i j v > CL OD CID W w r fA ue•' !O.. COs\\ _ N V" ro ro O �'%r iO�•� •� v • , r�=.iii+ '-_.ve•�rr7r'.. :r•n.•T-J- \ I N N •A -r 1' 92A L9 M �� e• v�c O � 1 ao rr•�• � — O (.0 N 10 O co W O ° N Z s m OD W I Boor H 1 ' Y o N _ orf a -+ O ;tee CO ° oC D > N J p ^ M 'U MS nc� OD3 n o ,o C / T ..___..-•_:.::_,_.. ._ys.�..s�•:_:=iT�....�s. -.r:::ak..s�."sriiot�s —_ ___ - - _ r S - J'� I 6now CLAT-TON RANCH INVESTORS I PLOD ASSUMED NORTH 1/4 CORNER S 7059 OR 249 I 15182 OR 436 /ESTABLISHED BY P., CnPD E±FAT 2447.93' do DIStANCE FROM FOUND ,v.SUI \ N 89'29'16" E CORNER 22/23/26/27 PER. 3124 ASSUMED SECTION CORNER LOCATION, ;SECTIONS ' 21/22/27/28 ESTABLISHED BY RECORD BEARING F (ROTATED) do DISTANCE FROM FOUND ASSUMED SECTION +� 0 CORNER 22/23/26/27 PER 3129 OR 128. �r�1p Ri S E E SHEET 3 F��s''tic F�s�hc Z � N ' J (NOT A PART) ? FND 1" Z \ C.C. cc REMANDER f 151.27 ACRES U \ BrZADFORD F'UINANCIAL ASSI� ED SE, :E N 89' 55'35' 1551,57 OR �C O wok C� SEE SHEET 4 .-I �o��o J C1 C LL n. 2497.22' \Z-cZZ 15' 45 E —L 2497.22' 1248.61' 1 1248.61 N 0100DEA c') A o� 11 SEE'SHEET 5 r ,,Am �^ i� SEE SH l✓ O LARRY THOMAS c,)— PARCEL�` VIRGINIA FOUST z � �.. w � PARCEL B ' _ Z w A = �>9�0 38.26 ACRES +/-;�� o PARCEL C u 1541 1 OR 279• N Z �Oim�nZ T %V1 ^?� 38.54 ACRES +/- Q A < Vf?5,O (`25' MDE ACCESS � 'i N 'nn.z, \ EASEMENT N ° \ La o' \\ co cilY JDt,�N 89'11'22"En T250.83'P g Lsm 4:9. m 8.corvTRA co.8i: SEE$ SHEET 7PACOUNTY JAIL m� //�� w 3E3.91FARM A ' PARCEL A 37.99 ACRESENETI SEE Som o \a FNO 2' IRO"! PIPE RCE �a _� p\ �\ N 89'55'35" 25H8.91ASSUMED 1 4 CORNER ASSUMED SEG COR T ASSUMED l/4 /27/34 PER 155 PM 5 N 84 55'35" 2588.91'1255.21 / 1240.00 459.12' 850.56' SM DETAIL A PARCEL A BASIJ OF BE 7 FND 6"x6" CONCRETE MONUMENT PARCEL PARCEL D ASSUMED SECTION CORNER SET BY C COUNTY,SECTION CORNER 155 PM 5 � SECTIONS 27/28/33/34 D ;u 12\ K- • em � aN . wN6 o orf W � " N � rP n lb ? p m a° M � Z 22I � "t Lii � CONTRA COSTA COUNTY JAIL FARMI 'j"' - �rE I trtO � , �' ' PER 19 LSM 49 ✓moi '�z loll. . 1f � � 253.3' "Os ssetmo '� Ln n°01 Ep Sityt44 ....»-.." ;-• :s 'ts'✓x°. dY r= �.'�-, �: �/ A ..� vi vii 1 O� a `il,� o+ R c �q s#� �� r fi ti�•. Hr, a AlEn w -..--.-...,,,..'":•„°=^v �; !� ,, I f�of r#`i yC{r s i r�/ ! 00 dO co a ac df m ux—i ': F 9"YC t'r. UNi� t t ONrq O . fitrnr{rI 1.4 tj dF do 7 m n �,a'9' y' „^.�a�Y�...;.�✓�fI'p ,�s �^'e } `" j j N� = o i`� ° o } � m { � � ' 4 !#�t f�'r�f Iij f° � €f dd• � I+Ga z ,i tt N 417..9' ��.�.•--.. � �, -� � :' � ;. � 894 9' b N074T56'W % 1312.8' cp MILLS g MICHAUD �. e'''® 67366 e a i l l 2000-157660 PP.. p cw CIO tz Z _ 0 I I g g ` z F n -Do rr m Z: '� cj� � ��� � � 8 >+� > Nc L dwg\Tentative Map S(yA FQ� Nv \ _ •o w \ \ c\.�m r \ ! �8 co 10 ia 0-4 oul C \ d" , rk N• �• F_ �:�? / �• J .� � ,• � = 1111 • -L.111 el O (A rri m -�-� 17 0 t•Eprp,\(. CA � f I! V \ / i \ I \ / I • �✓ I 0w5v Z m m iI • n N u n o w D Z Q U1 ; moo g F to Dc � ! O ! J ! _ G) Z m /V • i DA m ;• • i c / PARCEL C 8 132- V J W \ \ ` \`\ \•NLU LLJ Z i a \\\ J •Q 7 W Z W \�\ Ll IL D P3 CO U N U O n \ \\ \ \\ LG :— ao f Z m ILu J Ltl ca W J N19 cc \ �C`LLJ \ CV \•N I / I CN. O Li \ \ E 5; ................ J 769.6 \\ / 19 -rQ O�D, 394Y L E A C'�i Rl E D o0 —� I 39,•� � I cX I HABIG SUBDIVISION TREE R E PARCEL A LD I SCALE, 1 l'-40 January 8,2008 388. JOSEPH MCNEIL, CONSULTING ARBORIST • �✓ 1 3 HALTEN COURT, PLEASANT HILL, CA 387 94323 925-676-8232 031 306 36? 4• / - 315 350 •+ I �' I/ 310 � 348 3•Z6 / / • •�� \ • 348 3 347 I 3q PARCEL A DRAIN FIELD A� \ r / � i , L ocn ' \ p \ � C3, ✓ 110 CD mo A F 1 G m Z W O IL IL 1 • / // ED N. II N U Q r OD W �0 r ' U Q C m I 0 in J 6 J — _ ------------� 11 U) 7 7 17 N 0' k _ — 1 I \I DELIBERATION ITEM# D.2 JULY 81 2,008 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RECOMMENDED TO CPC Wwrh"Ily DlOmK CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT STAFF RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE TENTATIVE MAP COUNTY FILE #MS050030 IN THE MARSH CREEK AREA OF CLAYTON RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TO THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR APRIL 8, 2008 HEARING A. Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Traffic: The project will generate an estimated three additional AM and PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements. 2. Drainage and Flood Control: Condition #65 requires that the applicant collect and convey all storm waters entering or originating within the project to an adequate natural water course having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys to storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance. The parcel map may not be filed until the collect and convey requirements and improvements have been met. 3. Water and Waste Disposal: The project site is not within a water or sanitary district service area. Wastewater treatment will be on site using the County approved septic systems and appropriately sized leach fields pursuant to the County Ranchette Policy for rural areas. Each approved homesite shall be served by a well in accordance with the requirements of the County Health Department/Environmental Health Division. 4. Fire Protection: The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection station is located on Marsh Creek Road, approximately 0.25 miles from the project site. The applicant is required to provide adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a minimum flow pressure of 20 pounds, in addition to providing one hydrant to deliver the required water. 5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element Standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff facility station per 1,000 population. The small population increase associated with this project is not significant. Prior to approval of the Parcel Map, the applicant is required to establish a police service tax district to mitigate the impacts of the development on police services. • 1 6. Parks and Recreation: The proposed project will have a minor cumulative effect on demand for park and recreation facilities, and is subject to payment of park dedication fees in the amount of$7,238.00 per residential parcel to mitigate impacts. B. Findingfor Approval of a Tentative Map 1. Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans required by law. Project Finding: The project is consistent with the various elements of the General Plan. The land use designation is Agricultural Lands (AL) I du/per S acres. All of the proposed parcels exceed five acres in area. 2. Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision fulfills construction requirements. Project Finding: Conditions of approval for the project require fulfillment of construction requirements. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General: This approval is based upon the exhibits received by the Community Development Department listed as follows: Approved per plans as generally shown on the Vesting Tentative Map: A. MS050030 — Vesting Tentative Map and Preliminary Grading Plan, 3000 Bragdon Way, prepared by Bellecci & Associates, Inc. dated July 22, 2005, and revised on January 3, 2008 and stamped dated received by the Community Development Department on February 8, 2008. The approval is also based upon the following reports: B. Biological Assessment and Jurisdictional Determination for the 38-Acre Habig Property, Contra Costa County, California, prepared by Sycamore Associates LLC (July 12, 2005). • 2 C. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Ting & Associates • (September 19, 2005), D. Geotechnical Peer Review, Darwin Myers & Associates (December 19, 2005). E. Archaeological Field Inspection Report. Holman & Associates (October 25, 2005). F. California Red-Legged Frog, California Tiger Salamander, and Alameda Whipsnake Site Assessment for the 38-Acre Habig Property, Clayton, California, prepared by TOVA Applied Science &Technology(December 12, 2007) G. Arborist Report, prepared by Joseph McNeil, Consulting Arborist (January 8, 2008). Indemnification: 2. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Contra Costa County and its agents, officers, and employees any claim, action, or proceeding against • the County's or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the County's approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. Compliance Report: 3. At least 45 days prior to filing a final map or issuance of grading permit, which ever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a report on compliance with the conditions of approval with this permit for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The fee for this application is a deposit of$1500.00 that is subject to staff time and materials costs. Should staff costs exceed the deposit, additional fees will be required. A. Except for those conditions administered by the Public Works Department, the report shall list each condition followed by a description of what the applicant has provided as evidence of compliance with that condition. The report shall also indicate whether the applicant believes that he has done all the applicant • is in a position to do to comply with the applicable condition. 3 (A copy of the computer file containing the conditions of approval may be available; to try to obtain a copy, contact the project planner at 335-1216.) Hillside Design: 4. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit architectural plans, color schemes, and elevations of the three individual residential units for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Such architectural plans and specification shall be incorporated in to the deed disclosure for each of the three parcels. The plans and elevations shall demonstrate the following: A. Exterior wall colors shall be limited to muted earth tones. The use of bright colors shall be avoided.* B. Roof colors shall be limited to muted earth tones. Highly relective materials shall be prohibited.* C. Materials and colors shall reflect less than 25% of incident rays. D. Retaining walls shall blend into the color of the surrounding landscape, be less than 6 feet high, parallel to existing contours.* E. Building pads shall step down the hill and be no more than 18 feet wide.* The plans for each parcel will be based, as well, on the following design guidelines:* F. Buildings shall be cut into the slope to reduce the effective visual bulk. The buildings shall also be stepped up the slope rather than have a single floor height.* G. The under-storey height or foundations on the downhill side of each house shall be minimized.* H. The building shall not exceed 35 feet in height measured from finished grade or natural grade, whichever is lower. Steep, pitched roofs shall be avoided.* • 4 I. Large raised decks or cantilevers on the downhill side of a house shall be minimized.* J. Large vertical planes on the downhill side of a house will be discouraged.* K. Tall retaining walls will be avoided and several smaller walls will be constructed with appropriate landscaping in between. MM I (a) * Deed Disclosure for Conditions Applicable for Recording Parcel Map 5. Prior to filing a Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit proposed deed disclosures for each parcel for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The disclosures shall provide for the conditions and mitigation measures identified by asterisk (*). These conditions would be applicable for the development of individual parcels. The approved disclosures shall be recorded with the Parcel Map. Copies of the recorded documents shall be provide to the Community Development Department. Archaeology: 6. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, • trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. * 7. 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. * 8. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Contra Costa County has been 5 contacted, per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. Child Care Conditions: 9. _ The developer shall pay a fee of$400.00 per lot/unit toward child care facility needs in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors. Grading: 10. The grading plan shall attempt to balance cut and fill on-site, ( to the extent possible no import or export of fill material. However, some export may be required on hillside grading.)* 11. No trees shall be removed prior to approval of the grading/tree preservation plan without the prior approval of the Zoning Administrator except as specifically authorized by this approval. *. 12. The developer and applicant shall adhere to the following tree preservation standards required by Section 816-6.1202 of the County Code: A. Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, • grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation on a site with trees to be preserved, the applicant shall install fencing at the dripline or other area as determined by an arborist report of all trees adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and the location thereof approved by appropriate County staff.* B. No grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching, paving or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline unless indicated on the grading plans approved by the County and addressed in any required report prepared by an arborist. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline, an arborist may be required to be present during grading operations. The arborist shall have the authority to require protective measures to protect the roots.* C. No parking or storing vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials, construction trailers and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the dripline of any tree to be saved. • 6 13. If no trees are located within 40 feet of the proposed development, the construction plans shall be noted. Landscaping: 14. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval. The plan shall illustrate the exclusive use tree, shrub, and herbaceous species that are native to the area. In addition: ❖ The Landscape plan shall be sufficient to provide screening and erosion control for the hillside.* ❖ Landscaping shall conform to the County Water Conservation landscaping program plan.* ❖ Landscaping shall conform to the County Water Conservation Landscaping Ordinance 82-26. MM I (b)-1.* 15. A recorded scenic easement shall be granted to the County for the approximately 3-4 acre portions of each parcel not proposed for the residential building envelopes. At least 30 days prior to filing a Parcel Map or the issuance of a Grading Permit, which ever comes first, the applicant shall submit a deed instrument for each propose • parcel for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator for the purpose of a Grant Deed of Development Rights. The erection of structures, including but not limited to buildings, solid fences, swimming pools tennis courts, and sports courts, will be prohibited in scenic easement areas. In addition: ❖ Scenic easements shall be dedicated to the County for those areas shown on the Vesting Tentative Map not proposed for the proposed house site and access road. Scenic easement shall allow permitted leach fields and well sites.* ❖ The easement instrument shall provide that no grading, other development activity or removal of trees may occur in that area without the prior written approval of the Zoning Administrator. MM I(b)-2 Lighting: 16. At least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits for any of the individual lots, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator a Lighting Plan. The Lighting Plan shall, at a minimum, provide that low-lying and exterior lights on the buildings be deflected so that lights shine onto the building site • and not toward adjacent properties or offsite locations. MM I (c) 7 Construction Conditions: 17. _ Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements. A. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays.* B. All internal engine-driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers that are in good condition;* C. Use 'quiet' gasoline-powered compressors or other electric- powered compressors wherever possible.* D. Retain a disturbance coordinator to monitor construction activity and to identify additional mitigation measures as needed. MM X (a) * E. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, • title, phone number and areas of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number, shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be re- issued with each phase of major grading and construction activity.* A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed. F. 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 • 8 work shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an isappropriate construction bond has been posted.* G. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. Prior to issuance of building permits, the proposed roads serving this development shall be constructed to provide access to each lot. This shall include provision for an on-site area in which to park earth moving equipment.* H. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to weekdays between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. and prohibited on Federal and State holidays.* I. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site.* J. Construction Period Development Activity Restrictions — Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction noise, dust, litter, and traffic control requirements:* . K. 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: 9 Federal Holidays http://www.opm.gov/fedhol/2006.asp California Holidays http://www.edd.ca.gov/eddsthol.htm Air Quality: 18. During construction the project applicant will implement BAAQMD construction dust control measures such as the following: ❖ Water all active construction sites at least twice daily.* ❖ Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soils, sand and other materials that can be blown by the wind daily.* ❖ Cover all trucks hauling soils, sand and other loose material or require all material hauling trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.* ❖ Pave, apply water 3 times daily, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access road, parking lots and staging areas of construction sites.* ❖ Sweep street daily, preferably with water sweepers, if soil is carried onto adjacent streets.* ❖ Seed the disturbed areas as quickly as possible and install cover vegetation over the leach fields. MM III (a) * 0 19. Construction-related vehicle access to the site shall be limited to two. 20. Haul routes shall be generally limited to those areas of the site which are proposed to be graded to avoid unnecessary scarring of the hillside. Hauling of material through an approved scenic easement shall be precluded. Biology: California Red-legged frog/Califomia Tiger Salamander/Alameda Whipsnake 21. The project applicant will conduct a pre-construction survey and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) and project construction monitoring to avoid injury or mortality to individual red-legged frog, tiger salamander, or Alameda whipsnakes during project construction activities. MM IV (a) * The following BMP's shall be implemented for the prior to and during construction activities: 10 A. All work crew members shall undergo sensitive-species training prior to their involvement with construction activities. The program would consist of a brief presentation by trained biologists knowledgeable about listed species biology and legislative protection. The biologist shall explain technical and regulatory concerns to contractors and their employees involved with the proposed action. The program shall include the following: a description of the species and their habitat needs; locations of occurrences in the action area; an explanation of the status of each listed species and their protection under the Endangered Species Act; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to the species during construction and implementation of the proposed action. Training cards containing this information shall be distributed to the above-mentioned people and anyone else entering the project site.* B. An exclusion fence around the home construction area shall be installed to prevent sensitive herpetofaunal species from entering the construction area during construction activities. Exclusion fence of a design currently approved by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Fish and Game shall be installed before ground breaking. The fence will be constructed with a flexible plastic material such as Proplex I I99T"" or similar material. The material comes in 12 foot wide, 225 ft long rolls. It shall be cut into 4 foot wide rolls. A trench will be cut to 12 inches deep in the soil and the lower 12 inches of the material placed in the trench and backfilled.* C. The fence shall be staked with four foot long stakes or "t" posts every 10 feet so that the material is maintained at a height of 3 feet throughout its length. The material shall be fastened to the stakes. Where needed, drainage will be provided by placing small 4" pipes through the material with a clear Mylar flap on the outer portion of the pipe. A small mesh screen shall also be placed under the flap. Exit funnels, to enable any species that inadvertently remain within or enter the home construction area to leave the impact areas, will be placed every 100 feet on the north, east and south sides of the fence.* D. No home construction related work shall be allowed outside the area enclosed by the exclusion fence without a 11 biological monitor being present. No trash storage, debris, or construction materials shall be placed outside of the exclusion fencing.* E. Vegetative growth adjacent to the fence shall be controlled to eliminate the potential of"ladders" for animals to crawl over the fencing. The integrity of the fence shall be inspected once a week or after major storm events by the contractor or assigned representative.* F. A preconstruction survey shall be conducted by the biological monitor in areas that will be enclosed by the exclusion fence where any potential habitat is present for sensitive herpetofauna. If any listed species are observed, the all work in the area will cease until the animal(s) have been allowed to disperse outside of the work area.* G. Rocky features shall be removed by hand and under the supervision of a biological monitor. If a listed species is uncovered, it shall be allowed to leave the work area unmolested. If it does not leave on its own accord, the exclusion fence will be altered to encircle the area where the species is located and this area shall remain undisturbed until the monitor verifies that the species has vacated the area. No work crew shall touch or attempt to move the animal until a biological monitor is present to confirm whether or not it is a protected species.* H. Any potential listed species sightings by workers shall be reported immediately to the biological monitor and the workers will cease work in the area until the monitor provides clearance that the species is either not a protected species or has left the area.* 1. Any excavations will be backfilled or covered at the end of the work day to prevent trapping sensitive species.* J. During construction, the biological monitor shall conduct regular inspections of the construction area and the exclusion fence to assure that the fencing is maintained adequately and that all construction areas are free of debris and trash that might attract.wildlife.* K. A monitoring log shall be maintained on-site to record all activities of the biological monitor and their findings and 12 recommendations. The log will be available for inspection by the County. MM IV (a) Nesting Birds 22. The applicant shall implement and initiate a pre-construction survey for newly established or actively used nest structures in trees and implement nest protective procedures if such nests occur. MM IV(b) * A. If proposed site clearing, grading, or noise-generating constructions were to occur during the period September through January, no pre-construction survey for nesting birds would be required. If grading or construction occurs during the February through August breeding season, however, a biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey to determine if special-status birds are nesting in or near trees within the grading zone or within trees proposed for removal. The biologist shall conduct the survey no more than 30 days prior to initiation of grading, site preparation, or construction. If there were no nesting activity observed, site preparation, grading or construction could proceed.* B. If a nesting activity is observed in the tree, the nest structure shall be monitored for bird egg-incubation, including: ■ Incubation behavior (e.g., regular periods of "disappearance" into the same location followed by short, secretive flights to forage)* ■ Extreme distress and alarm calls when in close vicinity of the nest tree.* ■ Observation of food carried in the beak or claws to the nest.* C. If the biologist observes incubation behavior, incorporating the following measures shall protect the nest location:* ■ Establishment of a buffer using orange construction fencing around the tree in accordance with CDFG recommendations until the young have fledged. A no- disturbance zone of a width needed to adequately protect nests during construction shall protect all active nests. For most songbirds, a 50-foot zone is recommended; for raptors, a 200-foot zone is recommended.* ■ The nest tree should be monitored a minimum of once per week to confirm that the young have fledged and that no new nesting pairs are present before the buffer is removed. 13 After the biologist has determined that all young have fledged, construction may proceed within the protected zone.* D. If it is not feasible to delay or modify construction activities around the tree, the biologist should contact the CDFG to discuss alternative buffer options MM IV (b) Special-Status Bats 23. The project applicant will avoid disturbance to the potential roosts of special-status bats during the removal of trees through a Pre- Construction Special Status Bat Species Survey. MM IV (c) * A. If construction activities (i.e., ground clearing and grading, including removal of trees) occur during the nonbreeding season of bats (September 1 through February 28), no preconstruction survey and no other mitigation is required.* B. If construction occurs during the breeding season (March 1 through August 31), the applicant shall perform a pre- construction special status bat species survey with the following components to avoid impacts to special-status bats.* C. Prior to grading or tree removal, a biologist shall inspect each group of trees to determine bat presence and use. The biologist shall conduct the assessment through appropriate combination of inspection, sampling, exit counts, and acoustic surveys. As appropriate,bat exit or emergence counts shall be made at dusk to determine bat activity. In addition, an acoustic detector may be also be used to determine such activity.* D. If preconstruction surveys indicate that roosts are inactive or potential habitat is unoccupied during the constriction period, no further mitigation is required. Trees that have been determined to be unoccupied by special-status bats may be removed.* E. If, however, individuals or colonies were present during proposed tree removal, and the tree removal can reasonably be expected to result in harm., then bats shall be excluded from their roost locations during the appropriate time of the year using humane methods. Such methods will be selected in consultation between the biologist and the CDFG.* • 14 F. If there is potential for adverse effects on bat habitat, then measures developed under the direction of the biologist shall be implemented to reduce the effect on the bat colony to a negligible level. Measures may include improvement of off- site colony roosts, installation of artificial "bat boxes", or improvement of species management sufficient to offset impacts from the loss of a colony. Such measures shall be implemented in consultation between the biologist and the CDFG.MM IV (c) Native Tree and Plant Species 24. Thirty (30) days prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval to Contra Costa County a Landscape Plan that incorporates the planting of native tree and ground cover plants on each of the proposed building lots. MM IV (d) * A. The Landscape Plan shall also incorporate specific standards of fire defensibility in wildland interface areas that include, at a minimum, the following criteria:* • Domestic landscaping should emphasize the use of native, water-conserving, fire resistant, and deer tolerant plants that will blend with the natural vegetation.* • Avoid planting trees and shrubs in straight lines should be clustered informally to blend with the natural vegetation.* • Existing natural vegetation should be preserved as much as possible for wildlife habitat and slope protection.* B. The following plants species shall be prohibited from use as landscaping material within theses areas:* • Tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) • English ivy(Hedra helix) • Periwinkle (Vinca major) • Himalayan blackberry(Rubus discolor) • Giant reed (Arundo donax) • Tamarisk(Tamarix sp.) • Scotch broom (Cystisus scoparius) • Cape ivy(Delairea odorata) • Pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata/C. selloana) C. The project applicant shall contact the California Exotic Pest Plant Council (CalEPPC) to identify other potential invasive plants prior to completing landscaping plans for the proposed residential units. MM IV (d) 15 25. _ All trees proposed for removal, as indicated on the project's Vesting Tentative Map, would be replaced at a minimum of a 3:1 ratio by the provision of at suitably-sized oaks, as per County guidelines, and other native trees planted around the Project Site in natural locations and plant groupings. MM IV(e)-1 Trees and Tree Preservation 26. Trees identified to be retained on each parcel designated on the Vesting Tentative Map will be preserved by suitable construction buffers, fencing, and Best Management Practices. MM IV (e)-2 * A. An undisturbed and unirrigated buffer with a radius of 1.5 times the distance from the trunk to the edge of the dripline of each native tree identified for preservation shall be installed. Construction measures, such as installing temporary construction fencing around the buffer areas of the trees, shall be implemented as outlined in the Contra Costa County Tree Protection Ordinance.* B. To prevent injury to those trees proposed for retention and preservation near.proposed construction areas, the following protection measures shall be implemented as part of the proj ect:* 1. Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, tree protection fencing or other barriers at least (5) feet outside of the dripline of all trees to be preserved on site shall be installed in order to give grading contractors proper visual notification to keep equipment out of the area surrounding these trees. (During grading operations a qualified arborist shall be on site to approve any needed exceptions to these requirements).* 2. Tree fencing shall be a minimum of 48 inches in height. Fence supports shall be steel "T" drive posts with a maximum spacing of 10 feet. The top of the fencing shall be supported by attaching a wire or poly rope between the post supports and attaching it to the fencing.* 3. Once the tree fencing has been installed and its location and installation approved, the fencing shall not be taken down or moved without prior written authorization from the project arborist/forester.* 16 4. No grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching, paving or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline except where minor encroachments are required, and as shown on project maps. The project arborist/forester shall be onsite when any work is done within the dripline. The project arborist/forester shall have the authority to require protective measures in the event any major roots are encountered in the dripline encroachment area. Upon completion of grading and construction, an arborist shall prepare a report outlining further methods for tree protection if any are required. All arborist expense shall be borne by the developer and applicant.* If grading is proposed to be in close proximity to the protected trees on the site the applicant shall submit at least 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or filing of a Parcel Map, a grading/tree preservation plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall identify all trees with a trunk circumference of 10 inches or more, 4 '/2 feet above the ground. The trunk size, species and approximate drip line of each qualifying tree shall be identified on the plan, and whether the tree is proposed to be removed or preserved. The plan shall be accompanied by a report from a qualified arborist on the proposed development recommending measures to protect trees as appropriate during the construction and post-construction stages. The recommended measures from the arborist shall be integrated into or otherwise attached to the proposed grading plan.* 5. No parking or storing of vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials, construction trailers, and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the dripline of any preserved tree.* 6. Weekly site inspections by the project arborist/forester will be provided to insure compliance with the recommendations of the above protection measures.* 7. Upon completion of grading and construction, the project arborist/forester shall prepare a report outlining any further tree protection remediation measures, if any, are required. MM IV(e)-2 17 27. The applicant will not remove those trees not identified for removal on the project's Vesting Tentative Map without obtaining a Tree Permit from the County and adhering to permit conditions. MM IV (e)-3 * Restitution For Trees That Are to Be Preserved 28. _ 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 construction. Prior to posting the bond or deposit, a licensed arborist shall assess the value of the trees and reasonable compensatory terms in the event that a tree to be preserved is destroyed or otherwise damaged by construction-related activity. The tree-bonding program shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.* Monetary Contribution to Allow for Either On-site or Off-Site Replacement of Protected Trees to be Removed 29. _ To mitigate the loss of maximum of 54 code-protected trees that are proposed and approved for removal, prior to filing a parcel map the applicant shall provide the following for the loss of existing trees: A. On-Site Tree Replacement Program Option The applicant shall submit the following for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 1. An on-site tree planting program that has been prepared and certified by a licensed landscape architect.* ❖ The plan shall provide for planting a minimum of: a. 171-15 gallon trees of indigenous species; b. suitable soil preparation; and c. irrigation for the planting. 2. A labor and materials estimate of the proposed program by a qualified professional.* 3. An agreement to maintain the trees for a minimum period of two (2) years following planting and to replace trees that fail 18 that exceed more than seventeen trees. The proposal shall be subject to a peer review by a qualified professional retained by the County.* The applicant shall post a suitable security with the County that covers the approved tree planting plan and cost estimate for the term of the approved maintenance agreement. Prior to filing the parcel map, the applicant shall provide evidence that the approved tree planting and irrigation plan has been installed. B. Contribute to Trust Fund for Equivalent Off-Site Tree Planting on Nearby Public Lands. The applicant shall be required to submit a monetary contribution to an appropriate public entity to be used for planting of trees on public lands within a five-mile radius of the site, within five years of the recording of the parcel map. The extent of the contribution shall be based on the overall costs of providing a ratio of three 15-gallon trees for each tree that is authorized for removal (or, a total of 171 replacement trees). The potentially eligible recipients for this contribution shall be the California State Park Department, East Bay Regional Park District, or the County, subject to the proposed beneficiary agency providing a written statement that it shall place the contribution in a trust fund for this purpose. The applicant shall submit materials to the Community Development Department for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator as follows: 1. Cost Report - A detailed cost estimate for planting and initial maintenance of 171 minimum-fifteen-gallon trees that are indigenous to the vicinity of this site that has been certified (wet-stamped) by either a licensed landscape architect or a licensed arborist. The estimate shall identify the cost of* • purchasing the trees and related soil improvements; • planting the trees; and • maintaining (including irrigation) for a minimum two-year period to assure their survival with a maximum 10% failure rate. 2. Identification of Proposed Public Entity to Benefit from is the Contribution — The cost estimate shall be 19 accompanied by a letter from the applicant proposing a public entity as beneficiary for this contribution. It shall be accompanied by a letter from that public entity indicating that it is prepared to accept the terms of this condition.* 3. Peer Review of Cost Estimate — Prior to approval of the cost estimate and determination of compliance with this condition, a peer review shall be conducted on the proposed cost estimate by a licensed landscape architect or a licensed arborist retained by the County. The applicant shall be responsible for fees covering the peer review costs.* 4. Evidence of Completed Contribution — Following approval of the cost estimate by the Zoning Administrator, but prior to issuance of a grading permit, removal of any trees including those authorized by this approval, or filing a parcel map, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall provide evidence that the approved contribution has been accepted by the selected public entity. MM IV (e)-1* Water: 30. At least 30 days prior to filing the Parcel Map, the applicant shall provide proof that adequate water facilities can be provided.* 31. The applicant shall comply with the Contra Costa County Ordinance pertaining to water conservation. Compliance with the Water Conservation Ordinance shall be designed to encourage low-flow water devices and other interior and exterior water conservation techniques. Rural Residential Development 32. Prior to filing the Parcel Map the applicant must comply with the following: A. Each parcel must have an "on site" producing water well or install a "test well" having a minimum yield of three gallons per minute with bacterial and chemical quality in compliance with the State standards for a pure, wholesome and potable water supply (Title 22, Section 64433). If the chemical analysis exceeds the State standards for "maximum contaminant levels" for water potability, a statement must be 20 attached and "run with the deed" advising of these levels; MM VII (a)*or B. Have verifiable water availability data from adjacent parcels presented by the applicant, or knowledge of the same, known by the Health Services Department concerning water quality and quantity per (a) above; and, have a statement that "attaches and runs with the deed" indicating that a water well shall be installed on the subject parcel complying with the general requirements state above prior to obtaining a Building Inspection Department permit for construction.* C. In addition to the above, a hydrogeological evaluation may be required in known or suspected water short areas. This will include seasonal as well as yearly variations.* D. The purpose for requesting hydrgeological evaluations is to determine the total projected number of dwelling units that can be supplied with drinking water from existing aquifers. A primary circumstance that would generally require hydrogeological evaluations is:* In those cases where density is increasing in particular drainage basins due to the buildout of previously approved subdivisions using individual wells for water supplies, existing well yields begin to evidence declines due to the increased demand or in water short basins, hydrogeological studies would be appropriate as conditions of approval of subsequent development to provide sufficient yield for proposed uses. Specific reasons will be stated in support of requested hydrgeological evaluations in each case. * 33. The land must be suitable for septic tank use according to the County Ordinance Code criteria and Health Services Department Regulation. Percolation tests must be passed on all lots prior to the filling of the Parcel Map. * 34._ _ Future owners shall provide adequate fencing to contain domestic animals on the residential parcels with the gates to be closeable by a nearby rancher/farmer when necessary.* Cultural Resources: 35. Stop work and evaluation of accidental discovery of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials. MM V (a) 21 A. If discrete, concentrated deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered during project • activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to evaluate the finds and make recommendations. For the purposes of accidental discovery, discrete deposits are differentiated from the widely scattered and disturbed deposit evaluated as part of the field surveys already conducted on the project site, those resources found ineligible for listing in the California Register. B. If such discrete, concentrated archaeological deposits are identified, it is recommended that such deposits be avoided by project activities. If such deposits cannot be avoided, they shall be evaluated for their significance in accordance with the California Register of Historical Resources. If the resources are not significant, further protection is not necessary. C. Prehistoric materials can include flaked-stone tools (e.g. projectile points, knives, and choppers) or obsidian, chert, or quartzite tool making debris; culturally darkened soil (i.e., midden soil often containing heat affected rock, ash and charcoal, shellfish remains, and cultural materials); and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, hand stones). D. Historical materials can include wood, stone, concrete, or adobe footings, walls and other structural remains; debris-filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, glass, ceramics, and other refuse. Project personnel shall not collect or move any cultural or archaeological material. MM V (a) * 36. _ Stop work and evaluation of accidental discovery of human remains. MM V (b) * A. Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner's authority. B. If human remains are encountered, work shall halt within 25 feet of the find and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the situation. If the human remains are of Native 22 American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendent to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. MM V (b) Geology: 37. Implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with Regional Water Quality Control Board Erosion and Sediment Control procedures. MM VI (a) * Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be used to reduce erosion and sedimentation resulting from construction. Measures to be implemented, as appropriate, shall include, but not necessarily limited to, the following activities: A. Confine grading activities to the May 1 through October 15 period; B. Minimizing the disturbance to steep slopes whenever possible; C. Re-vegetating exposed slope faces before the rainy season; wD. Locating straw bale dikes or filter fabric barriers down slope of disturbed areas to act as sediment traps; E. When dewatering the site, remove sediment from the discharge using filtration methods; F. Constructing temporary sedimentation basins as needed; G. Selectively removing, stockpiling, and replacing topsoil as a surface medium for re-vegetation; and H. Provide erosion control plans and institute measures per plans. 38. The applicant shall prepare a grading plan subject to review by the project geotechnical engineer. The applicant shall submit the grading plan to the County for technical review prior to issuance of the grading permit. MM VI(b)-1 * 39. Development on parcels shall be confined to the two-acre development site. Prior to issuance of building permits, specific site development plans shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. These shall include: A. Proposed grading for and location of structures and driveways. toDrainage, well site, leach field location, and utilities shall also 23 be shown but not confined to a two acre building site.* B. Design of home sites with a minimum of grading. Residences 0 should closely conform to the terrain.* C. Erosion control plans shall be provided for all proposed grading if significant grading is needed. MM VI (b)-2 * 40. _ Prior to building permits, the site-specific geotechnical studies are required to evaluate the specific approach to grading and development. These studies shall be subject to review by the Peer Review Geologist and review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The design and construction of the proposed on- site uses shall adhere to the recommendations identified in the geotechnical investigation. The risk can be reduced through adherence to recommendations contained in the geotechnical investigation. These recommendations include (but shall not be limited to) considerations of deeper building foundations or drilled support piers and other engineering designs to control or prevent damages to structures associated with expansive soils. MM VI (c)* Geotechnical and Geologic Evaluation and Monitoring 41. _ A A geotechnical report shall be required for issuance of building permits for individual lots. The intent of this is to have the geotechnical consultant characterize site conditions, provide final grading, drainage and foundation recommendations, and verify that plans comply with the provisions of the final geotechnical reports. The reports shall include subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analysis, and shall be subject to review and approval of the peer review geologist.* B. The recommendation of the approved geotechnical report shall be followed to avoid/ minimize the effects of expansive soils, soil creep and other forms of mass wasting.* C. During grading operations, all keyways and cut slopes shall be logged by an engineering geologist. In areas of highly sheared or deeply weathered rock, the applicant's geologist shall provide supplemental recommendations, such as drainage facilities, over-excavation of the slope, and replacement with engineered fill or use of reinforced earth.* D. A representative of the project geotechnical engineer will be on- site during foundation work (observing pier drilling and preparation work for all slabs) to verify compliance of 24 construction practices and exposed conditions with the provisions of the approved geotechnical report.* E. The Geotechnical Engineer shall issue a Grading Completion Report. It shall include an original geologic map that shows the details of observed features and conditions for cut slopes, along with showing keyways and areas of continuous benching. The geologic mapping should be accompanied by a discussion of the significance of the exposed features and how design was adapted to address exposed conditions. The Grading Completion Report shall also include a map based on field surveys or GPS measurements that show the location and depth of subdrains, as well as adequate ASTM compaction test data. During construction of improvements, evidence of geotechnical monitoring of foundation laying for buildings and retaining walls, along with other details, shall be provided (e.g., backfilling of utility trenches).* Design Guidelines for Grading 42. Prior to approval of a grading or building permit for development of a residence, submit for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator a revised grading/tree preservation plan. The revised grading shall: A. Be designed on a current topographical survey with 2-foot contours.* B. Reflect the proposed house grading. The approach shall minimize site grading by designing improvements that conform closely to site terrain, avoid large padded areas on Parcels A and C, and utilize retaining walls to control the footprint of grading.* C. The revised grading plan shall clearly label all retaining walls, note wall heights, and the type, color and finish of walls.* D. Identify all trees with a trunk diameter of 6.5 inches or greater within 20 feet of areas proposed for grading. Reasonable efforts shall be made to minimize the loss of or potential damage to existing trees. The plans shall identify the trunk circumference, approximate canopy area, species, and whether the tree is to be preserved or removed. The plan shall be prepared with the assistance of a licensed arborist. The plan shall provide suitable measures to assure protection of trees during the construction period.* E. Earthwork quantities (cut and fill) shall be noted on the revised grading plan. Should the site not balance, the applicant shall 25 provide details of the proposed import/export. Include information on location(s) of proposed fill import/export site, type of trucks, haul route, haul hours, trucks/day and duration of operation, proposed safety measures (flag men, strut sweeping, dust control). Any import/export plan shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Department.* Alternative Leachfield Site, Parcel A 43. Prior to use of this leachfield, provide an engineering geologic report and slope stability analysis for review by the Peer Review Geologist and review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.* Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Fire Safety During Construction 44 _ Prior to and ongoing throughout grading, and/or construction, the project applicant and construction contractor shall ensure that during project construction, all construction vehicles and equipment will be fitted with spark arrestors to minimize accidental ignition of dry construction debris and surrounding dry vegetation. MM VII (a)-1 Vegetation Management Plan 45. _ Prior to issuance of a grading and/or construction permit, and ongoing throughout the life of the project, the project applicant shall submit a vegetation management plan to the County and County Fire Protection District that includes if deemed appropriate, but is not limited to the following measures: ■ Removal of dead vegetation overhanging roof and chimney areas ■ Removal of leaves and needles from roofs ■ Planting and Placement of Fire-resistant plants around the house and phasing out flammable vegetation ■ A '0-foot non-vegetated or low-growing vegetated buffer around the building envelope ■ Trimming back vegetation around windows ■ Removal of flammable vegetation on hillside slopes greater than 20% ■ Pruning the lower branches of tall trees ■ Clearing out ground-level brush and debris ■ Stacking woodpiles away from structures 26 A. The selection of plants for project landscaping shall also be compatible with the applied philosophy of "defensible space", a term first coined in the 1980 Fire Safe Guide for Residential Development in California. Defensible space is the area within the perimeter of a parcel or development where basic wildland fire prevention practices and measures are implemented, providing the key point of defense from an approaching wildfire, encroaching wildlife, or for escaping structure fire. Fuel modification or fuels management plans are effective in defense of wildfires. Such modification shall include a 30-foot-wide defensible border around buildings, which may include appropriately sized fuel modification zones. MM VII (a)-2 * 46. All residential buildings shall have fire resistant roofs and exterior materials, and have fire protection sprinklers pursuant to the requirements of the County Fire Protection District, and any other relevant County departments. These include sprinklers for garages and under decks at downslope hillside areas. . MM VII (a)-3 Hydrology and Water Quality 47. The project's drainage system shall be designed to comply with storm drain design requirements of the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works and Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The project applicant shall collect and convey all storm water entering and/or originating on the property. The conveyance of storm water will be without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility. The applicant will convey stormwater to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility that conveys the storm water to an existing adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code. MM VIII (b)* 48. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an erosion control plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department. The erosion control plan shall provide for the following measures: All grading, excavation and filling shall be conducted during the dry season (April 15 through October 15) only, and all areas of exposed soils shall be replanted to minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October 15, the grading permit 27 shall allow only erosion control work. Any modification to the above schedule shall be subject to review by the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department and the review and to approval of the Zoning Administrator. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact to less than significant. MM VIII (c) Traffic: 49. Standard construction traffic control procedures will be implemented during project construction. These include: • As needed, warning signs shall be placed at appropriate locations in advance of the construction operation to alert traffic on Marsh Creek Road. • The construction contractor shall place and maintain barriers and warning devices necessary for safety of the general public. • Flagmen shall be provided as necessary to control the flow and circulation of traffic. MM XTV (a) Police Service/Crime Prevention: 50. Police Service District to Augment Police Services --- The following requirements shall be met prior to filing a Parcel Map or issuance of a building permit as specified below: A. 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 prospective buyers of parcels which are not occupied by existing legally- established residences at time of filing the tentative map application. The disclosure statement shall advise prospective buyers of affected parcels that prior to issuance of a building permit, they will be required to contribute to the County $1,000.00 for police services mitigation. The fee may be paid to the Contra Costa County Application & Permit Center. * B. Prior to issuance of a building permit on any parcel that is not occupied by a legal resident, the applicant shall contribute $1,000.00 to the County for police services mitigation. The fee shall be paid to the Contra Costa County Application & Permit Center. 28 Fire Protection District: 51. Prior to the approval of a Parcel Map, the applicant shall provide evidence of compliance with the requirements of Contra Costa Fire Protection District. * A. Prior to approval of the Parcel Map is required to demonstrate that all of the proposed development is located within one and one-half miles of a fire station, or that development within the project that is more than one and one-half miles from a fire station shall be required to provide automatic fire sprinkler systems. IF the project requires fire sprinkler systems then a deed disclosure for each new residential lot shall be recorded with the Final Map. This disclosure shall indicate that the proposed structure has been designed with automatic interior fire-suppression sprinkler system that meets the design standards of the Consolidated Fire Protection District. This provision is required at least in part so as to allow a plan consistency determination associated with the approval of County File#MS050030. * Payment of Any Supplemental Application Fees 52. This application is subject to an initial application fee of$5,813.00 which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If additional fees are owed, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION MS 05-0030 Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9, and Title 10 of the County Ordinance Code. Any exceptions must be stipulated in these conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the revised Tentative Map received by the Community Development Department on January 11, 2008. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE PARCEL MAP: 29 53. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions there from must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the Public Works Department and are based on the revised Tentative Map received by the Community Development Department on January 11, 2008. 54. Improvement 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 (On-Site): 55. The applicant shall construct any necessary improvements to ensure that the private road (Bragdon Way) has a minimum traveled way width of 18 feet with a minimum 1-foot wide shoulder on each side within a 25-foot access easement, subject to the review and approval of the Fire District, and as shown on the tentative map. 56. _ Applicant shall construct/improve any driveway to meet rural driveway standards. Access to Adjoining Property: Proof of Access 57. Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department 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. 30 58. Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, that legal access through all adjacent properties to the subject property is available from Marsh Creek Road. Encroachment Permit 59. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit Center, if necessary, for any work done within the right of way of Marsh Creek Road. Sight Distance: 60. Applicant shall provide sight distance at the intersection of Marsh Creek Road and Bragdon Way for a through traffic design speed of 55 miles per hour in accordance with Caltrans standards. The applicant shall trim vegetation, as necessary, to provide sight distance at this intersection, and any new signage, landscaping, fencing, retaining walls, or other obstructions proposed at this intersection shall be setback to ensure that the sight line is clear of any obstructions. Parking: 61. Parking shall be prohibited on both sides of on-site roadway where the curb-to-curb width is less than 28 feet. "No Parking" signs shall be installed along these portions of the road subject to the review and approval of Public Works. Utilities/Undergroun ding: 62. All new utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground. Maintenance of Facilities: 63. Applicant shall record a Statement of Obligation, in the form of a deed notification, to inform all future property owners of their legal obligation to maintain the private roadway and that each parcel/lot in this subdivision that will use the proposed private road will share in its maintenance. 64. Applicant shall insure that the private road be privately maintained in perpetuity. A maintenance plan of operation for the private road 31 shall be submitted for Public Works review. The County will not accept these improvements for ownership or maintenance. Drainage Improvements: Collect and Convey 65. _ The applicant may be granted an exception from the collect and convey requirement of the County Ordinance Code due to the large size of the proposed parcels, provided that there are no known drainage problems on-site, the existing drainage pattern is maintained, and concentrated storm water runoff is not discharged onto adjacent properties. Provision "C.3" of the NPDES Permit 66. In compliance with the County's Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, it has been determined that the applicant is not required to submit a Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) for this project. New or redeveloped impervious surface area totals less than one acre (43,560 square feet), which was the threshold requirement for submittal of a SWCP when this application was deemed complete. However, this project is required to incorporate storm water quality elements to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). This must include efforts to limit new impervious surface area, limit directly connected impervious areas, provide for self retaining areas and include other Best Management Practices to the MEP. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements: 67. Any new drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with specifications outlined in Division 914 and in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): 68. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay Region or Central Valley Region). 32 Compliance will include developing long-term best management practices (BMP's) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate, where feasible, some or all of the following long term BMP's in accordance with the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program for the site's storm water drainage. - Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. - Stencil advisory warnings on all catch basins. - Slope pavements to direct runoff to landscaped/pervious areas, where feasible. - Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program to buyers. - Shallow roadside and on-site swales Other alternatives as approved by the Public Works Department. ADVISORY NOTES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT A. NOTIFY OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to ad 90-day period after the project is approved. The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. B. Comply with the requirements of the County Building Inspection Department 33 C. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department — Environmental Health Division. 0 D. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. E. Comply with the requirements of the California Department of Forestry. F. Comply with the requirements of the Sheriff's Department. G. The applicant shall be required to comply with all 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 Il or Central Valley — Region V). H. The project is subject to the development fees in effect under County Ordinance as of May 31, 2006, the date the tentative map application was accepted as complete by the Community Development Department. These fees are in addition to any other development fees which may be specified in the conditions of approval. The fees include but are not limited to the following: Park Dedication $7,238.00 per residence Child Care $400.00 per residence An estimate of the fee charges for each approved lot may be contacting the Building Inspection Department at 335-1196. I. The applicant shall be required to comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements for the Marsh Creek Traffic and ECCRFFA/RTDIM County Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. This fee must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. J. 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. K. 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. 34 • L. Applicant shall comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage Area 108 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. This fee must be paid prior to filing the Parcel Map. G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\ms050030-staff rec COA for 4-8-08 CPC.doc • • 35 Inte�honaUy ��c�k • t DELIBERATION ITEM# D.2 JULY 812008 RECENT EMAILS 1r)"Onojuv PAVK • 460 Bob Drake/CD/CCC To pcurtin@mmblaw.com .� 05/27/2008 08:38 AM cc bcc Subject Fw: Mutual Consent of Delayed June 24, 2008 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of CPC Approval of Habig Minor Subdivision, County File#MS05-0030 Patty, Message from EBRPD rep that the District may not be able to send a representative to a Board hearing of their appeal on June 24. Bob -----Forwarded by Bob Drake/CD/CCC on 05/27/2008 08:36 AM----- "Brad Olson" <bolson@ebparks.org> To "Bob Drake"<bdrak@cd.cccounty.us> 05/23/2008 11:12 AM cc "Catherine Kutsuris"<ckuts@cd.cccounty.us>, "Seth Adams" <sadams@savemountdiablo.org>, "Ron Brown" <rbrown@savemountdiablo.org>, "Bob Doyle" <Bdoyle@ebparks.org> Subject RE: Mutual Consent of Delayed June 24, 2008 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of CPC Approval of Habig Minor Subdivision, County File#MS05-0030 • I would not be able to attend the rescheduled hearing. I have to make a presentation to our Board of Directors that same day and time. I will check to see if someone else may be able to attend. If not, then I suggest another date be selected. Thank you. Brad Olson Environmental Programs Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court P.O. Box 5381 Oakland, CA 94605-0381 (510) 544-2622 bolson@ebparks.org -----Original Message----- From: Seth Adams [mailto:sadams@savemountdiablo.org] Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 10:32 AM To: 'Bob Drake' ; Brad Olson Cc: 'Catherine Kutsuris' ; Ron Brown Subject: RE: Mutual Consent of Delayed June 24, 2008 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of CPC Approval of Habig Minor Subdivision, County File #MS05-0030 Bob, • We have no objection to moving the Habig appeal hearing date to June 24 if EBRPD doesn't have an objection. However this is the third time in recent months that the applicant was • asked about ok'ng delay and Save Mount Diablo, the appellant, wasn't asked or even informed until after the decision had been made, though in both cases it was our appeal in the first place. Our calendars are crowded too. And in the case of Habig, earlier in the process a hearing date was moved by the County from a date we had scheduled and could make, to a date when I was on vacation; the applicant refused to move the date to one convenient for both of us. I:n the other case, the Duffield appeal in Alamo, we weren't even informed--we heard that the meeting had been continued from the applicant, not the county. We'd appreciate being included in consultation about moving scheduled hearing dates. Thanks, Seth Adams ---------------- Seth Adams, Director of Land Programs, Save Mount Diablo • 1.901 Olympic Blvd. , Suite 220, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 w 925 947-3535, Fax 925 947-0642 E-mail: sadams@savemountdiablo.org www.savemountdiablo.org ------Original Message----- From: Bob Drake [mailto:bdrak@cd.cccounty.us] Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 9:51 AM To: sadams@savemountdiablo.org; BOlson@ebparks.org Cc: rpiet Subject: Fw: Mutual Consent of Delayed June 24, 2008 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of CPC Approval of Habig Minor Subdivision, County File #MS05-0030 FYI, Bob ----- Forwarded by Bob Drake/CD/CCC on 05/23/2008 09:50 AM ----- "Patricia Curtin" <PCurtin@mmblaw.com> 05/21/2008 03:05 PM To •"Bob • Drake" <bdrak@cd.cccountyE]®s> cc Subject RE: Mutual Consent of Delayed June 24, 2008 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of CPC Approval of Habig Minor Subdivision, County File #MS05-0030 • Thanks Bob! See you on Friday at 2:00. Patricia E. Curtin Morgan Miller Blair, a Law Corporation 1331 N. California Blvd. , Suite 200 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Direct: (925) 979-3353 Main: (925) 937-3600 Direct Fax: (925) 274-7553 Asst: Karen Mason (925) 979-3324 email: pcurtin@mmblaw.com http://www.mmblaw.com -----Original Message----- From: Bob Drake [mailto:bdrak@cd.cccounty.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 2:54 PM To: Patricia Curtin Cc: cKuts@cd.cccounty.us; Charles Capp (RightFax) ; khabig@juno.com; Dennis Barry; Maureen Parkes; Julie Enea; jpenn; jmchu@cob.cccounty.us; rpiet; Debbie Sittser Subject: Mutual Consent of Delayed June 24, 2008 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of CPC Approval of Habig Minor Subdivision, County File #MS05-0030 • Pattie, As staff representative of the County Advisory Agency, by email, this is • to confirm that the County agrees to deferring an initial Board of Supervisors hearing to June 24, 2008 on the appeal of Save Mt. Diablo and EBRPD of the County Planning Commission approval of the Habig Minor Subdivision pursuant to Government Code Section 66451.1 (a) . We! shall request that the Clerk of the Board remove this item from the June 3 Board agenda that was previously discussed. Should there be any questions, please call me. Bob Drake Dept. of Conservation & Development Contra Costa County (925) 335-1214 "Patricia Curtin" <PCurtin@mmblaw.com> 05/21/2008 12:29 PM • To "Bob Drake" <bdrak@cd.cccounty.us>, <cKuts@cd.cccounty.us> Cc <:khabig@juno.com>, "Charles Capp \ (RightFax\) " <:IMCEARFAX-Charles+20Capp+40_FN=+2B1+20+28040+29925+29+20685-4838 VN=+28 040+2992 15+29+20685-4569_CO=Bellecci+20+26+20Associates+2C+20Inc+2E_CI=Concord+2C +20CA@mm blaw.com> Subject Habig Board hearing date for June 24 • • Catherine and Bob- As legal counsel to the Habigs, we are requesting to postpone our agreed upon hearing date of June 3 to June 24 before the Board of Supervisors. In a previous email dated April 29 to Bob, I agreed that the County could schedule a hearing date to consider the appeal filed by Save Mt. Diablo and EBRPD for June 3. In an effort to allow us time to discuss this matter with Save Mt. Diablo in anticipation of resolving their issues, we request that the appeal not be scheduled for June 3 but rather June 24. Thank you. Patricia E. Curtin Morgan Miller Blair, a Law Corporation 1331 N. California Blvd. , Suite 200 • Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Direct: (925) 979-3353 Main: (925) 937-3600 Direct Fax: (925) 274-7553 Asst: Karen Mason (925) 979-3324 email: pcurtin@mmblaw.com http://www.mmblaw.com Brad Olson.vcf • In�e�i�na��y �ia���- • • • "Patricia Curtin" To "Bob Drake"<bdrak@cd.cccounty.us> ' <PCurtin@mmblaw.com> cc <khabig@juno.com>,"rpiet"<rpiet@cd.cccounty.us>, 06/10/2008 12:47 PM <cKuts@cd.cccounty.us> bcc Subject RE: Seeking Permission to View Habig Property for Purposes of Determining Code Compliance Bob- I got your voice mail (and Katherine's) regarding changing the Board meeting from June 24 to July 8. We have been criticized by Save Mt. Diablo for postponing the date twice so I do not want to be criticized for moving it again. We should keep the hearing on for June 24 and if we are successful at our meeting at Supervisor Bonilla's and need we need more time to finalize a settlement then we can continue the hearing. I am not too hopeful that a settlement will occur as Seth has told me twice that he will only "settle" if we give up the three houses. We can't agree to that. Please provide your feedback. Please make sure the Findings I prepared are in the packet as findings are required by CEQA when changes have been made to mitigation measures. Thank you. Pattie • Patricia E. Curtin Morgan Miller Blair, a Law Corporation 1331 N. California Blvd. , Suite 200 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Direct: (925) 979-3353 Main: (925) 937-3600 Direct Fax: (925) 274-7553 Asst: Karen Mason (925) 979-3324 email: pcurtin@mmblaw.com http://www.mmblaw.com -----Original Message----- From: Bob Drake [mailto:bdrak@cd.cccounty.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 11:39 AM To: Patricia Curtin Cc: khabig@juno.com; rpiet; jromo Subject: RE: Seeking Permission to View Habig Property for Purposes of Determining Code Compliance Patty, It would be myself and Joe Romo, a County Grading Inspector, and no one else. I have not heard of anyone from the Supervisor's Office wishing to attend. We will plan on seeing you and the Habigs on Friday at 9 a.m. Thank you for making this arrangement. • Bob Drake • "Patricia Curtin" <PCurtin@mmblaw.com> 06/10/2008 11:22 AM To "Bob Drake" <bdrak@cd.cccounty.us> CC <]chabig@Juno.com> Subject RE: Seeking Permission to View Habig Property for Purposes of Determining Code Compliance • Bob- I just spoke to the Habig's and they can meet you at 9:00am on Friday, the 13th. This invitation is only open to you and if someone from Supervisor Bonilla's office wants to come that would be fine too. Just let me know. At this time, we are not extending this invitation to Save Mt. Diablo or EBPRD. I will be there too. We will meet you at the bottom of Bragdon Way and Marsh Creek Road at the mailboxes. There is no sign for Bragdon Way - it is the next street on the left after the CFD Fire Station. Flease let me know if this works. Thank you. Fatricia E. Curtin • Morgan Miller Blair, a Law Corporation • 1331 N. California Blvd. , Suite 200 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Direct: (925) 979-3353 Main: (925) 937-3600 Direct Fax: (925) 274-7553 Asst: Karen Mason (925) 979-3324 email: pcurtin@mmblaw.com http://www.mmblaw.com -----Original Message----- From: Bob Drake [mailto:bdrak@cd.cccounty.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 8:13 AM To: Patricia Curtin Subject: Seeking Permission to View Habig Property for Purposes of Determining Code Compliance Patty, Catherine informs me that Supervisor Bonilla has asked that we conduct an investigation of the Habig property prior to the Board of Supervisors hearing on the appeal that has been filed on the County Planning Commission approval. I would like to conduct a site inspection this Friday, June 13, if possible. Would you mind checking with the Habigs to see if this might be arranged for that date? I am still on Jury Duty, but will be checking my email. • Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Bob Drake Dept. of Conservation & Development 335-1214 • P�la� K � • "Slava Gospodchikov" To "Patricia Curtin" <PCurtin@mmblaw.com> _ '' <sgosp@pw.cccounty.us> cc <bdrak@cd.co.contra-costa.ca.us>, <khabig@juno.com>, 06/30/2008 01:38 PM "David Bowlby" <david@thebowlbygroup.com> bcc Subject RE:: Collect& Convey exception on MS 050030- Habig Patricia, As per our telephone conversation, Public Works is agreeable to changing the wording of the COA 65; specifically, replacing may with shall .The changed wording will be: The applicant shall be granted an exception from collect and convey... (subject to certain provisions). Please let me know if you have any questions. Slava Gospodchikov Senior Civil Engineer Contra Costa County Public Works Department Engineering Services Division 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Tel. (925) 313-2316 Fax (925) 313-2333 From: Patricia Curtin [mailto:PCurtin@mmblaw.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 10:21 AM To: Slava Gospodchikov Cc: bdrak@cd.co.contra-costa.ca.us; khabig@juno.com; David Bowlby Subject: Collect &Convey exception on MS 050030- Habig Slava- Thank you for talking with Bob and me on Friday afternoon regarding a request for an exception to the collect & convey requirements in the County's Ordinance for MS050030. The project is a request for a minor subdivision to subdivide a 37.99 acre parcel into 4 parcels as follows: • Parcel A - 6.20 acres • Parcel B — 5.0 acres • Parcel C — 5.0 acres • Designated remainder— 21.70 acres. The designated remainder consists of the residence of the property owner. The project site is located on Marsh Creek Road at Bragdon Way. The zoning is 5-acre minimum. Save Mt. Diablo and EBRPD appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the �j1 Qn K project. We are in negotiations with the appellants to settle the appeal. We will reduce • the project by a lot so there will only be two new lots created. Condition of Approval 65 states that "the applicant may be granted an exception for the collect and convey requirements...". Also COA 47 states that the applicant shall collect and convey. Due to the fact that the two new parcels are large lots, we request that an exception be granted to the collect and convey requirements. I have been involved in other large lot projects where an exception was granted at the time of tentative map approval. Of course, a drainage pattern will be maintained and storm drainage will not be discharged onto adjacent property. Thank you for your time and attention. As explained by Bob during our call, we need an answer by tomorrow as we are scheduled to go to the Board on July 8. Thank you and we hope you can grant an exception as part of this approval. Pattie Patricia E. Curtin Morgan Miller Blair, a Law Corporation 1331 N. California Blvd., Suite 200 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Direct: (925) 979-3353 Main: (925) 937-3600 Direct Fax: (925) 274-7553 Asst: Karen Mason (925) 979-3324 email: pcurtin(cDmmblaw.com http://www.mmblaw.com • 9�ianK • • ;40 Hiliana Li/CD/CCC To sbonilla04@aol.com, luis.quinonezl @gmail.com, Susan ` Bonilla/BOS/CCC@CCC, Luis Quinon ez/BOS/CCC@CCC, �0 07/07/2008 09:46 PM Federal D Glover/BOS/CCC@CCC,John cc Catherine Kutsuris/CD/CCC@CCC, Jane Pennington/COB/CCC@CCC, Maureen Parkes/CD/CCC@CCC, Bob Drake/CD/CCC@CCC bcc Subject 7-08-08(D.2 Mitigation Measures) Dear Supervisors: Please find attached the Mitigation Measures and Findings for the Habig board order- Item D.2 on the July 8th Board of Supervisors agenda. Copies will also be given to the Clerk of the Board tomorrow morning for distribution to all of the supervisors. Ali �— iki:: MS050030 7-7.08 MMP.doc ms05003O-bo-sup.pdf Findings re Board approval of MS050030 7.7.2008.DOC Hiliana Li, Secretary Department of Conservation and Development 651 Pine Street, 2nd Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Telephone: 925-335-1203 Fax: 925-335-1222 46 Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa FROM: Dennis M. Barry, AICP, Interim Director '. ��` County Department of Conservation and Development oN DATE: July 8, 2008 SUBJECT: Consideration of"Waiver of Better Government Ordinance Time Limits for Receipt of Supplemental Documents Pertaining to Staff Report for Rescheduled Hearing on Joint Appeal Filed by Save Mt. Diablo and EBRPD on County Planning Commission Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map, County File #M111305-0030 (Bellecci & Associates - Applicant; Roger & Kandell Habig), in the Clayton/Marsh Creek area. (S.D. IV) SPECIFIC: REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: Adopt a motion: A. Finding that it is essential to accept the attached recommended (1) Mifigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and (2) Project and Environmental Findings relative to the July 8, 2008 hearing; and B. Waiving the time limits of Ordinance Code Section 26-2.206 for distribution and consideration of these reports at least 96 hours prior to the July 8, 2008 hearing. i CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ® YES ❑ NO SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON _ _ APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF :SUPERVISORS I (HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND UNANIMOUS (ABSENT _ ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD AYES:_ NOES: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ABSENT:_ ABSTAIN: — ATTESTED_ Contact: Bob Drake (925-33;5-1214) JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF THE cc: Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND Bellecci &Associates -Charles Capp COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Morgan, Miller, Blair- Patricia Curtin Save Mt. Diablo- Seth Adams BY _ DEPUTY EBRPD - Brad Olsen County Counsel RD\ GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Board\Board 0rders\Habig\ms050-0030 7-8-2008 sup doc.bo.doc FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: The applicant, the appellants, and staff have been engaged in discussions and negotiations as late as Thursday, July 3, 2008 to resolve the concerns that prompted this appeal. While terms that are agreeable to the interested parties were determined late last week, as reflected in the recommended conditions of approval that were included in the staff report, there was not sufficient time to complete other related and necessary documents for the Board's consideration of this appeal until the day prior to the Board hearing. The staff report which was issued late last week reported on progress that the three parties had made towards this objective, but also indicated that two documents were not completed: (1) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and (2) Environmental and Project Findings. These documents must be considered and acted on by the Board as part of any project approval. Failure to waive the time limits for acceptance of these documents would create an unacceptable delay in the Board's consideration of an approval of this project that would resolve the concerns that prompted the filing of the joint appeal. Insofar as these documents were not issued until July 7, 2008 (less than 96 hours before the Board's July 8 hearing), under provision of Code Section 26-2.206 of the Better Government Ordinance, the Board of Supervisors may only consider these two documents for the July 8 hearing if by a three-fourths vote it waives the time limits. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board fails to adopt a waiver of the Better Government Ordinance time limits for this item, then, notwithstanding the terms that have been resolved by the interested parties, the Board could not be able to consider approval of this project at the July 8, 2008 hearing. The Board would have to continue the matter to a future hearing; the next Board hearing is currently scheduled for July 22, 2008. FINDINGS FOR ADOPTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SUBDIVISION MS050030 The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County(Board)hereby makes the following findings relating to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) for a Minor Subdivision (MS050030) and approval of MS050030 relating to a request to subdivide 37.99 acres into three parcels and a Remainder on property located at 3000 Bragdon Way in eastern Contra Costa County. The property owners are Roger and Kandell Habig. The Project has been revised and Parcel A has been eliminated. The revised Project consists of Parcel B, Parcel C and a Remainder; The area of Parcel A is combined with Parcel B and the Remainder. I. GENERAL FINDINGS AND OVERVIEW A. Purpose. The findings and approvals set forth below(Findings) are made and adopted by the Board relating to Vesting Tentative Map MS050300 (VTM). MS050300 is a request to subdivide 37.99 acres into two parcels and a remainder(Proposed Project). These Findings are made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State Planning and Zoning Laws. These Findings are a summary of the information and evidence contained in the entire administrative record relating to the Proposed Project. B. Proposed Proiect. As modified by the Board of Supervisors, the Proposed Project is a request for a minor subdivision to subdivide a 37.99 acre parcel into two parcels and a Remainder as follows: • Parcel B —approximately 7.0 acres • Parcel C —approximately 5.0 acres • Remainder—approximately 25 acres. The Remainder consists of the residence of the property owner. The proposed parcels are oriented on the west and north side of the property and would access from a private road, Bragdon Way off of Marsh Creek Road. The VTM identifies proposed home sites, leach fields, well sites and access roads. C. General Plan/Zoning Designations. The General Plan designation is Agricultural Land--AL, which allows 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. The Rural Residential De-velopment Measures ("Ranchette policy") apply to the Proposed Project. Consistent with the Ranchette policy, the VTM identifies well sites, leach fields, access roads, and building envelopes. The County's Geologist reviewed the VTM for geological constraints and all recommendations from the Geologist have been incorporated into the Proposed Project or will be required by the conditions of approval. Home sites have been identified to require a minimum of grading. The conditions of approval require fencing to contain domestic animals from interfering with adjacent ranching/farming operations. The zoning designation is A-2 General Agricultural District, which allows for a minimum parcel size of 5 acres. MMB:904197.2TATRICIA CURTIN D. California Environmental Ouality Act. On February 27, 2008 the County posted a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) which allowed for a public comment period that extended to March 31, 2008. The MND concluded that the Proposed Project, with mitigation measures, would not result in any significant environmental impacts. E. County Planning Commission Hearings. The application for the Proposed Project was filed in August 2004. In mid-2005,planning staff questioned whether the Proposed Project could continue to be processed because a 1993 parcel map for an approved tentative map, County File#MS 64-90, which included the 37.99 acre site contained a note on the face of the map specifying that a deed restriction may be required that could preclude further subdivision of the site. (The 1993 parcel map involved 320 acres owned by Bradford Land& Cattle and divided that acreage into 4 parcels of approximately 40 acres each with a 160 acre remainder. The Proposed Project site is one of those 40 acre sites, referred to as Parcel A.) The note stated that prior to obtaining a grading permit or building permit,the applicant/owner shall select a building site and deed development rights to the County for all but three acres of each parcel excluding the remainder. The note also stated that"when the pending general plan amendment has been adopted,the County will consider relinquishing the development rights." The County did not obtain a deed restriction from Bradford& Cattle before the underlying parcels were sold. The Habigs purchased the Proposed Project site in 1999. The Habigs have indicated that they were not aware of the note on the map and no agricultural conservation easement or other restrictive easement was recorded against the Proposed Project site. In early 2000, the County issued grading and building permits to the Habigs for a residence. At that time,the County did not require the Habigs to provide an easement on their property. Other grading and building permits were issued by the County on other properties underlying the 1993 parcel map;the County did not require an easement on those properties before issuing permits. Planning staff asked the County Planning Commission to make a decision on whether or not staff could process the Proposed Project in light of this note on the Parcel Map. On July 11, 2006, after holding a noticed public hearing on the matter,the Planning Commission found that the note was unenforceable because it alone cannot serve as a restrictive interest against property. In order for an interest in real property to be created (like a deed restriction),the interest must be recorded against the affected property. The Planning Commission noted that a restriction against the Proposed Project site was not recorded so subsequent purchasers (such as the Habigs)had no notice of the restriction. Also, the Planning Commission noted that the restriction was not enforced at the time of issuance of building or grading permits were issued to the Habigs or other owners of the other affected parcels created by the 1993 Parcel Map, and that the Parcel Map Note would not be an obstacle for processing of the Habig VTM. The Planning Commission directed staff to continue processing the Proposed Project. On April 8, 2008,the County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed MND and Proposed Project. After making revisions to the conditions of approval and mitigation measures recommended by staff, the County Planning Commission approved the MND and Proposed Project for three parcels and a Remainder. The Planning Commission found that the revisions made to the mitigation measures did not change the analysis in the MND or its conclusion that the Proposed Project will not result in a significant impact on the environment. 2 F. Joint Anneal of County Planning Commission Actions by Save Mt. Diablo and East Bay Regional Park District. In a letter dated April 17, 2008 and filed with the County on April 18, 2008, Save Mt. Diablo and the East Bay Regional Park District filed a joint appeal of the County Planning Commission decision to the Board of Supervisors (Board). At the mutual agreement of the applicant(subdivider) and the County staff,the initial hearing before the Board of Supervisors was postponed twice (on April 29, 2008, and subsequently on May 21, 200 8) pursuant to Government Code Section 66451.1 (a). The Joint Appeal was initially scheduled for hearing before the Board of Supervisors, and notice was issued as required by law for June 24, 2008, but after the hearing notice was issued,the applicant and County staff, and the two appellants mutually agreed to reschedule the initial hearing to the July 8, 2008 hearing of the Board of Supervisors. At the June 24, 2008 hearing,the Board rescheduled the hearing at staff's recommendation to the July 8, 2008 hearing date. The parties reached an agreement whereby the project was revised (mainly, Parcel A was eliminated, an easement restricting future development rights was negotiated, additional conditions of approval were negotiated and some mitigation measures removed by the Planning Commission were restored). In exchange for the Project revisions, the appellant agreed to drop their appeal. F. Record of Proceedings. The administrative record upon which this Board's Findings are based include, but are not limited to the following: • The Proposed Project application,VTM and all reports and studies submitted on the Proposed Project. • The MND and its associated reports. • All staff reports relating to the MND and Proposed Project. • All other public reports and documents prepared for the County Planning Commission and Board or County Staff relating to the proposed project and MND. • All documentary and oral evidence received at public hearings or submitted to the County prior to the date these Findings are adopted. • All matters of common knowledge to this Board, including, but not limited to the County's policies, guidelines and regulations. The documents described above comprising the record of proceedings are located in the offices of the Department of Conservation and Development(formerly the Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, 4"' Floor,North Wing, Martinez, CA 94553. The custodian of these documents is the Director of Conservation and Development, or his designee. II.. FINDINGS RELATING TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). A. General. As recommended by the County Planning Commission,the Board, in exercising its independent judgment on the MND as required by CEQA, agrees with the changes made to the MND. Any changes made to the mitigation measures by the Planning Commission and Board during the hearing process on the MND are explained in these Findings. This Board 3 finds that such changes do not require recirculation of the MND for one or more of the following reasons: 1. A new, avoidable significant effect was not identified. 2. The proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will reduce potential effects to less than significance and no new measures or revisions are required. 3. Mitigation measures were replaced with equivalent or more effective measures. 4. New project revisions were added in response to written or verbal comments on the projects effects identified in the MND which were not new avoidable significant effects. 5. Measures or conditions of project approval were added after circulation of the MND which were not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect. 6. New information is added to the MND which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. (See, CEQA Guideline Section 15073.5) As a result of the public review process for the proposed mitigated negative declaration, including any administrative decisions or public hearings conducted on a project prior to its approval, the decision makers may conclude that certain mitigation measures are not necessary and thereby remove the measure or find that certain mitigation measures are infeasible or otherwise undesirable. Prior to approving the project, the decision makers may delete infeasible or otherwise undesirable mitigation measures and substitute for them other measures which the decision makers determine are equivalent or more effective. "Equivalent or more effective" means that the new measure will avoid or reduce the significant effect to at least the same degree as, or to a greater degree than,the original measure and will create no more adverse effect of its own,than would have the original measure. (CEQA Guideline Section 15074.1.) In addition, the decision makers may remove the original mitigation measure without substituting another measure for it if the decision makers determine that the impact will not result in a significant effect on the environment with the removal of the original measure. Before approving the MND, the County Planning Commission changed some mitigation measures and in certain circumstances removed measures. Some measures were removed to eliminate redundancy and possible confusion because the conditions of approval contained other mitigation measures and/or conditions that already mitigated the potential impact. The Board accepts some of the changes to the MND that were adopted by the County Planning Commission, but in adopting these Findings, makes additional changes to the original Mitigation Measures proposed in the MND. B. Specific Changes to Mitigation Measures. 4 In explaining why and how certain mitigation measures were changed, these Findings provide the following format 1) a summary of the potential environmental impact associated with the changed measure, 2) the changed measure in underline (reflects additional text) and strikeout (reflects text removed), 3) an explanation that the changed measure does not change the analysis and outcome in the MND and, 4) a conclusion stating that the potential impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance with the changes to the measure. The mitigation measures are: identified as conditions of approvals (COA); reference to both the COA and mitigation measure as numbered in the MND are provided. 1. AESTHETICS. The MND identified three potential impacts relating to aesthetics. Four mitigation measures were recommended to mitigate those impacts. Two of the measures are changed as follows. 1-a. Impact I(a) re: scenic vista. The three residential units proposed for the project site would introduce new sources of visual intrusion into the existing scenic vista, Marsh Creek Road (MND, p. 8). 1-b. Mitigation Measure I(a) (COA No. 1, 4 and 5). The project is approved for a reduction in the number of parcels from three parcels and a remainder to a maximum of two parcels and a remainder. The resultant parcels shall have an area of at least five (5) acres, and shall be configured to comply with the minimum parcel dimensions (area, depth and width) of the General Agricultural zoning district subject to final review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to filing a Parcel Map. Parcel A on the Vesting Tentative Map shall be eliminated. The portion of this parcel lying to the east of Bragdon Way shall be added to the Remainder; the portion lying to the west of Bragdon Way shall be added to Parcel B. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit architectural plans, color schemes, and elevations of the twee individual residential units for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plans and elevations shall demonstrate the following: At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit architectural plans, color schemes, and elevations of the individual residential units for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. c,•,.h a r-ehito,.*.,,..,' pads. The plans and elevations shall demonstrate the following: A. Use earth tone colors in the medium-to-dark range for roofs and walls in order to complement the natural surroundings. For purposes of these guidelines, the medium-to-dark range is defined as less than 50% light reflectance. B. Retaining walls shall blend into the color of the surrounding landscape, be less than 6 feet high, parallel to existing contours. Where multiple and parallel retaining walls are proposed, the plans shall also provide for landscape/irrigation improvements (e.g., shrubs, and vines)to soften their appearance. 5 Building pads shall step down the hill. C. Reducing Visibility of Residences on Parcels B and C - To reduce the visibility of the project, residential development of Parcels B and C shall be subject to the following restrictions: i. The primary residence shall be limited to a maximum floor area of 5000 square feet. ii. Garage floor area shall be limited to a maximum of 800 square feet. iii. The roof shall be designed to blend the structure with the topography; the primary roof ridge shall run parallel with the slope. iv. The height of the residence shall not exceed 28 feet, with the exception that an additional 7 feet of building height is allowed for that portion of a residence that is subterranean and within the building "footprint" of the aboveground structure (i.e., basement). Steep-pitched roofs shall be avoided. Building height is measured from finished grade or natural grade, whichever is lower. For purposes of verifying compliance with this building height requirement, the County may require special documentation from a licensed land surveyor including a topographic survey, special house design and grading plans, and post-construction survey of the buildings height elevation following completion of building framing. V. The residence shall be designed to blend to the topography of the site and the visible under story portions of buildings shall be reduced by limiting the height of the aboveground finished floor (including elevated decks) to a maximum height of six (6) feet measured from finished grade. vi. The wallplate of any story above the first story on a downslope building elevation shall be recessed at least 10 feet from the story immediately below. vii. Proposed construction plans shall provide only nonreflective windows that may be visible from Marsh Creek Road or other vantage points on land held by public entities (e.g., Clayton Ranch, Mt. Diablo State Park), and include documentation that substantiates compliance with this standard. D. No Residential Second Units are allowed on the two new parcels (Parcels B and Q. 6 A Residential Second Unit within the building envelope of the Remainder may be allowed subject to compliance with the Residential Second Unit Ordinance including a maximum floor area of 1200 square feet. If a proposed Residential Second Unit is proposed to be attached to an accessory structure, that structure must be a garage and limited to a maximum floor area of 200 square feet. Buildings shall be cut into the slope to reduce the effective visual bulk. Prior to filing a Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit proposed deed disclosures for each parcel for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The disclosures shall provide for the conditions and mitigations identified by asterisk (*) (which include the above described Hillside Design and Land Use Restrictions). These conditions would be applicable for the development of individual parcels. The approved disclosures shall be recorded with the Parcel Map. 1-c. Facts. The MND acknowledges that the proposed homes may have a visual impact on Marsh Creek Road, which is a scenic vista identified in the General Plan. The MND states that the homes have not been designed so the specific impacts of the homes are not known. In order to address potential impacts, the MND recommends the architectural design measures in Mitigation Measure I (a). The MND acknowledges that the homes would not block views from Marsh Creek Road and further acknowledges that the homes would only be briefly seen by motorists or bicyclists using the road. (MND,p. 8.) The MND contains visual simulations of the originally proposed three homes. These simulations represent a worse case scenario and do not reflect mitigation measures or other conditions that will mitigate the aesthetic impact. The visual simulations submitted by the Habigs represent the potential impacts with certain mitigation measures as proposed in the MND such as homes with a height limitation, homes that step down the slope and homes painted in earth tone colors (required by Mitigation Measure I (a)), a 3:1 tree replacement planting (required by Mitigation Measure IV(e)-1 and COA 22) and landscaping plan to screen the homes (required by Mitigation Measure I(b)-1). One of the proposed parcels, Parcel A, is eliminated (COA 1), the development of which may have significantly impacted the aesthetics of the area. Subsections A — C of the original measure are removed and restated in accordance with County policy as reflected in the revised Subsections A through C. A portion of original Subsection B was eliminated since it is infeasible to build a home on a pad limited to 18 feet in width. Original Subsections G, H, I, J, and K were identified as guidelines only (not requirements); it has been determined that they are too vague to enforce so they have been 7 removed. New subsections A, B, C and D have been included which contain design and building restrictions as opposed to just guidelines. COA 5 requires that prior to filing a Parcel Map, the applicant submit a draft deed disclosure for each approved parcel that would identify the design restrictions and procedures that would apply to development of parcels, and that the approved deed disclosures would be recorded with the Parcel Map. COA 373 requires improvements to conform closely to terrain, and requires avoidance of large padded areas for Parcel C, which also addresses the measures in the removed subsections. The MND noted that architectural design requirements in Mitigation Measure I (a), in addition to other mitigation measures, will ensure that the Proposed Project will not conflict with the Scenic Route goals in the General Plan (MND, p. 59). The changes to the Measure will not create any inconsistency with those goals since the Measure as revised, in addition to the other measures and COAs, are more than adequate to ensure that the Proposed Project remains consistent with the General Plan. 1-d. Findings. This Board finds that changes to Mitigation Measure I (a), along with the other measures and conditions already provided and those as revised, will mitigate the potential visual impact on a scenic vista to a level of insignificance. This Board further finds that the revisions to Measure I (a), along with all other applicable measures and conditions, are equivalent or more effective in mitigating the potential aesthetic impact on the scenic vista and that the revised measure will not cause any significant effect on the environment. The Board further finds that the change in the Measure will not cause any inconsistencies between the Proposed Project and the General Plan. 2-a. Impact IN re: introduction of"man-made" elements. The low density distribution of the three proposed residences would introduce new"man-made" elements into the general landscape (MND, p. 15). 2-b-1. Mitigation Measure I(b)-1 (COA No. 13). Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval. The plan shall illustrate the exclusive use tree, shrub, and herbaceous species that are native to the area. In addition: • The Landscape plan shall be sufficient to provide screening and erosion control for the hillside. • Landscaping shall conform to the County Water Conservation landscaping program plan. • Landscaping shall conform to the County Water Conservation Landscaping Ordinance 82-26. 2-b-2. Mitigation Measure I(b)-2 (COA No. 14) 8 environment. The Board hereby adopts the mitigation measures (including those changed and discussed in these Findings and all the measures that are not changed and included in the MND). The Board further finds that the MND reflects its independent judgment and analysis. 25 III. FINDINGS RELATING TO THE STATE PLANNING AND ZONING LAWS ON APPROVAL OF THE VTM. A. General Plan. The General Plan land use designation for the Proposed Project site is Agricultural Land (AL), which allows one dwelling unit per 5 acres. The Proposed Project requests a minor subdivision to subdivide a 37.99 acre parcel into three parcels as follows: Parcel B into approximately 7 acres, Parcel C into 5 acres and a designated remainder of 25 acres. The proposed parcel sizes are consistent with the General Plan land use designation. The Ranchette policy also applies to the site. Consistent with those Measures, the Proposed Project identifies well sites, leach fields, access roads and building envelopes. Consistent with the Ranchette policy, the County's Geologist reviewed the VTM for geologic constraints and all recommendations from the Geologist have been incorporated into the VTM or will be required by the COAs. Consistent with the Ranchette policy, home sites have been identified to minimize grading. In addition, a COA has been imposed that requires fencing to prevent domestic animals from interfering with the adjacent ranching/farming operations. The Board finds that the VTM is consistent with the General Plan. B. Zoning. The zoning designation is A-2 General Agricultural District which allows for a minimum parcel size of 5 acres. The Proposed Project is a request for a minor subdivision to subdivide parcels into 5 acres or more. This proposed parcel sizes are consistent with the zoning. The Board finds that the VTM is consistent with the zoning. C. Housing Balance. As Required By Gov't Code Section 66412.3, in considering approval of the VTM,the Board must consider the effect of the approval on the housing needs of eastern Contra Costa County and balance those needs against public service needs of its residence and available fiscal and environmental resources. The VTM will provide three additional residences in the County. Consistent with the County's General Plan and Conditions of Approval of the proposed project, the proposed project will mitigate all impacts relating to public services and environmental resources. The Board finds that the VTM will provide additional housing and will not create an impact on public services, fiscal resources or environmental resources. D. Future Passive or Natural Heating or Cooling Opportunities. As Required By Gov't Code Section 66473.1, the design of the homes will provide, to the extent feasible, future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. Specifically, passive or natural heating opportunities are reflected in this subdivision design which includes the design of lots sizes and configurations to permit orientation of the units in a westerly alignment. In addition, passive or natural cooling opportunities have been used by designing lot sizes and configurations to permit orientation of the units to take advantage of shade or prevailing breezes. The Board finds that the VTM has been designed to provide for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities, to the extent feasible. E. Proposed Type and Density. The site is physically suited for the proposed development and it is consistent with the General Plan and zoning. The Board finds that the site is physically suited for the proposed type and density of the development. 26 F. Environmental Concerns. A MND has been prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. The Board finds that the VTM improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidably injure fish, wildlife or their habitats, or cause serious public health problems. This finding is also reflected in the Findings above relating to the California Environmental Quality Act. G. Easements. The Board finds that the VTM design and its improvements will not conflict with public easements for access through or for use of property within the Proposed Proj ect. GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Board\Board Orders\Habiff indings re Board approval of MS050030 7-7- 2008.DOC 27 O C U O C cB — vo d E U E "� o O U a) m d c a) C) o (1) c ca az Q �_ n c C C C O C QO -0 E > m a) _ C F- CD Q C O C:)— (aca- m� C O 0 (1) > C a U 0 O U N N O O a) (a U > C C o cu. C '5 .0 a to a cm ca- 0 :o L t O F— O Em N C o U -6 E _ (B a d O o) CD- CD CD C C � O O Q C� tn E U C Z > V] Q Q U 'O O .,,,y — "D a CD- < <Lo a) Q) m d Q FTy C6 7r3 �O _0 LL 27 w L C6 '~ ai (n H V] > -N2 N O ) � a O CO cn - v m U dz aZ nz ca E -o c o mo � O c C° 'o_ d C ac v - cu �a Q o � E c op = c-c CD- 0 - c rr O N m p [n ._ -C (O -0 C C O a) C m a) 0- C%3 L O a N N °� n �_ p D 'c No N S. U Nn N a) N T) 'p M C C U Ca _ O_ c d C O N QC >i Q) OLO U to N C3) c FD N '� .� CO's �- L ) O U m 0) 0 1E 7 o Q O -0 m (O S N N -R C -a :5Q.N a) N U) Q) c E o ca o o Cl o c m cc(n@) F m c cn o O E 57< a) c a a) � a) Lr- cB _ p N Q U� Q L U to N '6 p a d.Dca to (II «> O) a5 @ QL--. '6 �: O O (B Q) Q) CT.0 to L — '� L > U) U) is (-- O a) a) ch a c ani o f v' c' c 0) a acv c o C O-_O Q) (6 m C ns as m ca .� p a) a) a O C) o _c o c a) -2 t > E E o o) E E � 0 L '" a s — -a 1 E E 's L a) a) -0 o un c 0 = 0 a) = m o c L E a) oa) a) Q -o m a) L Q o ca U a o m E o-T v) mQ� CL Q CD U a) `II a) a cn M ; a) co0- C U O w E c c o (B O C (B C — CL C C N U 0 a) N p > U in U C C/) Q7 O U :- CO _o a) c c U L O 'DC C .0 LJ On o > x O 2 U d >i O N CO � QE (a U O C C6 C6 .Q U E O N C) a) CS) C6 d U C a) a) cn L Q Cn � C C O a) M CD � (O Q a) C m� C U � Q) Q r� V m Ozo a0o aci o o � E Z > QQ FW C) E m — 'D L y C: (6 C C C a) U) w U Z A G� api o o `m ai ca ._ w c c L a`� c 0 m m 0 0 m o Q O W o .• o E oo _ io t a) v o y `ai c > 03-2-0 -o o Ems- F" a m c °~) a) aa)) a �) L a� c o 0 ai Q p0 z L CO .� m '_ `n o L a) E a`� '`° E �i .� o �° a) a) O pU>� �Up O C LLo_N Q) V) .n U > X CO ON —U LlC LLCLO -Q)) ) - > LEa) .iQCas)) ,w_N> •'OC�`aO E N Uaon o U ) O o .> @ o Q Oc> CU 0N CO Q mIC-6 Q) t0 NL 1 p QUII cO m 03 a) O O oM LE L CU) L ECdTO OO o OU 0 -0 o I N N a) n 0 E m C-' � a) o a) o o L o o ' o � a E 0).E a) 0 0 a > a) tz 'c m a) 3 m n o 'x m x a) v p o o cL5 - coo n -3 E 0 , � o L m U H E E Fa) czL- axi m .� '�.00 m `o)li :S U o p m N O �- O > m -15 U C6 C2 E C CO U .0 m CJ) T CLS C a) 0 O C U p C �— @ cu Q U E O p N M U > a.) a> m d U O a) N C) O N O- E Q a) c U o c N m 0 a� C7) U C O .O co C7) cn C U C fl c� O O � O D fl t+ m O a x � m azo C) en a) o o 2Q �- z > �, Q �? o E aCD.- OZ = — ac0Q an cv icn cOz 0 -00 -0Y o_� n0 0 _ L o c -o o a . O FDmo a oo c0a � wa� =oC— g0 . C3)` (D a) o � c,, oE 'cE� Lo _ � E o E 0-m -o o a� o io O _ m m E ° a' ` 2 av >C O 0-iu � a `o >o c cn - m cn m E cu a� a o m E n a> a� ca 3 „ a p c m a� c m o Q Q — c o -. a L E o m m (D a o � a3 o o c o o .— U o Cn a' O c m c U w _>, C -6 L _ C 'C -6 .C Q) cn T O Fn -D (D m ca c cn Q c `ter coo o CD o c U m cn m d c6 a� a� m c 00 c° � a> ca Imo-. (D �. "' � L m U a) <n o to E �' c 6 cp.> a' M o p 'o c o cn n o c EE2 c m � f- -)i v ov � ca c cn -o ca ca cz o U 7 Q- � oo� � � � � � opa :tf � Q cn � Ecj oojom - 2 S � � cn Q) c m a� cis > o8 E .o a> , oO v, o E o 0 15 D —3 .0 3 m � E a c a) E aOR - Ni o o ca t o N L C E O C .� c6 aj C O p L � Q) .� O � U U 'X L C 0 cn cn of m E U) ca ti m.(D (6 0 cu a a) O C c0 U O U, -p (a — cz C E C cn � ca EU) _ C In � aJ O1 O a.1 C (n O U J O o C O O O d O C L O C .— O L d O 0 11 a) C U O C — m cu V U E 4= O O j U � O) U (1) a) Q O � d N 0 � E U a � o U m N LD 0 c Fu > O > C — — > C Q)U Q)(B O m C m 4 Q m O Q Q) U � O C � Q) CM ` O N d d O OU Q Cn O z O c aO0 a) O p O � i..l ir) E U C C F Z > C�/]I Q Q U 'o O WR'jA /� E Q� Q C) < < bA -m �. L--' O cc::) Cc L a) OZ a) Y cu W F— m _ _ m o o a C'- — c mo � Ll o o a) a) LC) c U m rn a> Q o O cd o- a ai o U L U c � c) En a a) cp Q Z p Z in L m — c v) m o a) i: En o o m o O �y 0 C fn O Q O a) O C) O C C Cp o a) a) c� w „ x m OTE U U . L' m c W c g C, 2 a) n m� w a E- m U � m o fl p m a) o c c a, c a 0 O co a) ca o m -c c cn O m cd o -c o m o n m Uj a) > a) O > v o O ca c- L > c 22 f- C) o — a) L" U m o aa)i 0 aco m p c a) E U) rri o m a) L a) m L .� bD O o m c E � -0 (D O w N m a n m U -o ui nc — v Ri n n cca Q' �. s� N a) m O a`ni `° `n ca s. a' �c o a °) o is m m a o v 4; N a) .� O n U a': o o m-o o 0 a) Q a c v �° n cC c a) c 3' ' a) m a) c) � 0 o m `n U) a) U) c O N m > a) c U _0 > o v m cn a) g U o c c m T 'q c o cn m o — c a) c . cz cca w aEi m a) .a' a) , 2 m m =o io m L a) C. ~ Q) J � �.i N •-- O C m CY U) In O a, in M C:) rn .C' -p � i C m a) U N RI Q) -p L U -a C cOj O a) I U — U rn m C O O C O - O N C L m U C� U 7 C a) O N Q ¢i •:• n_•:• U U Q m F- d m v� m cn m N U m Q E C m U Q1 C C o7 Q) a) Cl) L_ T O m c ai a) d c m p 41 U � E � Q) C Q) � a) U O .Q U � O U > LO a) o� @ 2 U a) @ � Q C C CO a) a) � Q O c o .o a)m C U r� V CT pzo a O o o Z > Q M LO a) @ 'O m Q) — O O a) () N a) u) a) @ U _T- O U L C C L Q L d@ L @ o O)'— L L Q) L @ O O L F■ �" o �' p _ > i > a7 cD C a ,a) a) c aon cn ca- cL o` °' oO (' no o o ) O @ v Qo .DO xac° a) 5 iQ-� o - @ o(ouo cccU) -0 -o JT E n a) a) c c O o)-o In E 'E w <v E n o o > E Z a) — F cc a' n 0 6 cn p a — -CD 2 o)-- M m ' c E a) a) a)m n U) cm� t c L Qm _ n c Q a) = a`) O °' o E c is c ca o .o m m _ a@ o — E .� a) o o a) h E E a) @ L a) 0 ' U c ) N Fm to ` C 'O TO1 `O C o a) U) U@ O 2 -0 -0 02 — C @C c c @ Q i2) o a) @O @ >,-O c O x O U'3 -p @ 0 N E N .N :E:- a) in ") N Q O N C@ ) O O O U O O 0 `Q Q a) (a Q) U � 'J .0 CC, LQ) aQ) > L.c c m "n C 41 -t:) -D DCf) C O OE — a) @ n ou) � ' — EQ cu o > :E O LLo c 3c0E � Q 0@ aC a) ` cO Q Oa@ a 'p Con ( N a) cn d N CD O a) @ @ O @ 0 O U x p @ o a) _6 N a) o ca E -o h- [1 a) _5 O c @ a) o � L U @ O_ E C @ U C D7 CO T O � C U O Q U U > � a� ca U O O L Q N � C C O N Q QJ � � (a d Q C) [] U C.> � O o O c C C C U � Q Qi O) O O N O Q O a 0 O Fz > � Q o U. o > Q ., ., � - La ppa � Qc.> a QUa Q Q w Gz, c Co U .c m a 3 c ,r � _ .= o O o U a� � FL a o ca O _ O � cn v E■ pF, iaw 0) "J rnC � o U `(� � aL 0 o min .Q�, (U V' -O m (O w (B °' O ❑ + O (n U U o co .l m o 0 m O O 'O � U in c - E ,hh Q (ti O U L — O O (Q O N O (6 U E- C6 L Up 0 CZ cm C N C O C O m m p � o C CU .c 'in COL--, Q O L Q O U U O O m -0 (T Q w Q� m O "" N ` p w0 c� G_ C O .@ M .N C _ C (6 - ' a > > `o m .� o g a`> w in Uo U ` (d. c oto oo � I o in o a=N — C) � m _ '53 z E P1715 — _ (O p d d (II (n cn C N En O �, d O -16) O U Y (n c 0 a� E — '� — p U, ca a> p p m 'x a> m a`> t t x a� a> -- is U d a'� -0 O a ❑ (n Q (n a> .2,)-o ca E ._ M (e a m n o (a is E d :T Q) - _ ca O CD- .0 L O (n .-. (6 _O _ O �- 4- O L ,{ C U — (Q O L U (n M-c C O O (n o O O U3C(6 (6 O �ncc (6 O m (n nN -O > U 4: O O2 c L <v d Ct3 c m a> m {' o a xU a� E G: (n O n c � o cm c a (D C-i CZ O :T @ ❑- O m iS p 'O O Q '� c d m 'O O0 m n v Q c ca O C U O C — m iv v 'Q. U w O O ; ti U a) a) m >' c CD a) t-.= N c E cm m Q n ii a) m a) QE O m 0m Q- Fa) CD .m � c6 cm c cmn aa) c — o L N m U o c 0 a) m U C C N O .O lupcn E o) m cn a) a) C U — C ca- HE HE O O O) f— O EO 'D ,_ O d m O Q Ozo a O O N O Q O N V] O EU c to- O O` E <0< Co C a)O) o o � mm C U U m Q = to � O cm a (n nOT°J ` m O a � m °' a Cmo z `° . na mo mCD 0 w a o a ,- m m E > o N 2) c C in Q A U ai v w ' Go °> ca a c aNi in 2 a) t m a) o ur c a) _ m � _ —E CL) � .S E m C) V) > ` ma) a) Q) a) U) Q) Q) U) O_ m U m C C O d'� LL-. O` T 'Q N _ -O _C .� °' E cn C:) c o a) o O o w U Sm 'p.c0 O U iq U Q) .� C � .0 cn -O c�a m o a) c _ m „ E > a) m o a) o o = E m O D U NO- m O O�C dm 0O C- C` CL C -2 a)E Q) ' E p O C La, 0 .2 L 1O U m O c, U U Q) C Oc icOm aU) U0 � 2 CO N maa o Om -0 F- m ` E (n m E mn N m O (p 3 � 'O a m -o o n m a ) — c a) U) 0 Qo � Z) rU) 0 0 F) -o 0 )Uwm M o m m o0 � m '� a Fc o Q C Y O cm C E L 'm _ a) °� a) m w W F U o � `n a) a) n E v C -O cn (B O O L-. U U m m C) m 2 -o — a) m a) w O C p >1 V) '2 `fn O` C O Q Q) U) .O cp O C 41 Cl_O W -p U C 'm a) U U mM - m C .L--. (n Fu Ua) c aci C CO 0 m t E 2 umi ac) L) Q m -i m > O C U p C .— .Q U_ m ca 2 C) (1) a) E 0 C C O a) d a) � (6 a a) C � (B C_ U � Q) r � r� V D7 Ozo a0o aa)i o FZ > roi� aQ W E xO � a dOA � W (D U) C a) -) a) Q) N -Oca ooQ) yya) LO 0 0 Q .Fo > � 0C-) - C CD � = F F N o L c > > o . o L is co ca c a) a) o Q O QI C -6 C (n (n m c p@ .0 (d (� Q1 U O c � L... N -p cn a) O O o ca co a 16 O d U C U O d F 0.a, c co m c m �' m a) .Q o n ca cn cu 0 N ` C Q) w U N ¢ ca _N �y a7 a) V LU O F n c °> L Cl- a)E U) cn a) a) n c� N .o .� o J- E E �- c 0 0 M-cz n@ 0 � o � o v � E � Q E -0 o - m — o a) a`) E m = � � o0 � o a) O Q U _ a3 .N a) Q) U L L (B _ C a E c C7 a) S a m Y a F- o f a) °) m c o a a a).a)�_ o)�_ o a @ a) c w E Q) _ C .Y X O ,�O C U) Q) �7 L fn co, a) O U m v .� '� ca api ca a as an3i cv o aa)) '� a) •v a)Y o Q oo _a) a) ami _� O C U w C Q (9 a Ln -o a3 07 '00 cy06 L U 1� �` (6 a j c5 :f:-: M N a) U O C6 07 C — O .— N L OL a) c a) E .o a) a) a) ii .N o u) E a iII a) o o C co Oj N - N LCO Uo 0 O 8) C) O 15 C 67 UU= co F 5 20 a) aQ) E ( _ U Cl) a) L C(� CaOC) Q _ aOa) p �0 cz E M LO o oQa, LU � Um E En � E -Fu a) C) UOJ -T C6 U U (6 0- F=E coC 0 U C Q) w 2!- .T Q) 0 U O LD Ca U E 4= O O j Q) U a) m ca d U O N L Q N � C C O a) Q E Q) (a O_ a) C) C O .L 0)(a C U a Ozo � a0o aa)i o o E - ZZ > � �Q IW � Ca � L Q 0 '0 o En L 0 Q) 'DID c- '�. v) a = O a) C QJ ca u) j� ca > 73 m . m o ' cai >z u) u) -0 mo D 0 Z m o � N O —d oE z E O a) -0 0 .— j) 0X aN a) 0 Uoa) caco) `3aE ) cm o o a) L o c c c c c > 3 > _ Z -2 o 0 N T N .L C C O OU — 0 C O — m >ID m L Q) — N L" O O co -0 L L U O d -0 (a -� (a 41 aS L a3 0 --') .0 — O - C a) °) -0 ` .N c °) Cl) N a) Q Y E o ca a) N a) E aci v o f x c000 a > ca t L @ p a) ) .' o L) o N a) C C � � Q) U � U O O O a) 'O N -fl ` (a a) N — d L CII d Q Q) is o c E U a) ns n3 > c > _ c N = > E N Q -� U N N `p L C O a) :- > (a N N O a) N Q) "— ca .0 O -� > O �_ aa)i O O a`a)) a) u) E- -o L CO N _ 4) a) Q) C O O` a) ca ca a) Q1 U C N p O OU E X O = a) C a) CO O -0 -0 m O U L > O CO w C C Q)CD M C U O p 0 -o a) o n N o az n ca o U o- 0 m o > 0 a)) o c c is cn ca � a) a� a) ' a_) ca u) N O O U U N N 0- N Q) a) a) O U O -OD 0 Q7'a @ O ca N U � X C a) a) T 0 41 c6 cu c7). U O .L--' O (Ua O C Q) ca Q 0' O a) Q p p 4) a) p O a) L ca -,- .o O C Z o 3 Q > o m E a) Q L u U � v) ca L. N � N -n c o ui L U a3 d E coC 0 U C O) C/) T ca C Q) O O C U O C - Q U � � O O � O U aM CM ca U � a) O RS C n N O LL. N C OCD CL E N Q Q a) C @ cT U E w o c p @ a) p c o Q E a) Rs N c�apC� O 07 cd (6 E co 0- CM aM L � Q V m 0 c a0o ac) o a M o � cz— Z — CL c n. ac � a x O a N m N a) a) — ca N c QO � � � � N � C) m o n3 E ca EF. H � .� L Qo 0 a) o .o c m a) Q Z a Z c a) :FMN . O O a) Y : a .� O c E a c4 0 U o Q E w - - m coX v) ►Fa vci N U ca CO m N Y > O uNi E -� ?< i` v) Q) U O U a) � N � � � O` O Q1 R3 �_'a Q � a R3 RS Q aUj a) N d .� L O (6 (d N F: O O X RS O E- 0- a`> o o n > .N_ Q �i a c`B U U Y '> ID T C O C Q) v N p O O Q C p "N O -FuQ L -C cz 0 3 � 0 0 (1) Q O L C O (O C cm U ... N 3: CQ N Q a) cco E o c'a _ o0 a) aXi a) '� Q) W E ca co ca m o � a) C/i a)� a) •� ca O n-_ OLS L_ X O .O C C L N C — U '_ -0 C R) d E C L O C O C d C .m • • • • • • • • • Q N E .N Q o N c) m E ns 3 -o O U Q) U C N ca -o (3) Q O O ' E c a)-o C C O 0- 0 a) C U O V U (O O [� N U C = � p � C. co V� O v 0cu O. a .0 > a1 L a) Cd >(a d� C C 4 > N N O W �. O C U O C — Ca cu V d U U M O) a- 0 C C� T CC C Ci, O Q) ° a) ) c a) a) @ Q O C a) m m a) p -C -O O N N C) U O O a) a) U U C C C p C N Ca O .L 7 C Cn C6 Cn E C U � Q) C CL () a) N O C, L d C ~ O CD O L a- ca O C O _ O O QCj o a) N N o- ° �t o- O it — _ E C C C C Z Q U 'O O U 'O O Ea D n c Q Q c Q pay ac) Q <0< m a) a) a) -0 a) -o c a) - --0 a) (1) U z y GSM O C O — (n Fu a) Co a L s) a) om) a c "0 a) U) ° °u) a) m oo) occ Qao Ua) o°c 0 m ciQQ_ C) � rn-o a0ai Q) o ° E U a° o ) w U c ca a) Cn Q a U c`aa � o .� CO o c � � o a) ao) ai L m� � u) � � -o ca C) co � o a) N O to U L U O L D 3 p O m O U) � .c U -- o 2 aci ° cL.) U O iFr 0 ca a o .� a) sa <n a) c- m •— c o .v a) � -c v a) a) ca a) ami ` macne o �O_. -j; 2 n c o " cn o T o i U O an) vS-cEn Ua) (L)= ° 'o .Q o aO N a) oc� ` : O �m acacpmo � .cmN00sn O O a) C ma B - ' j 9 ,) 5 c Un 7C3 C) M U) m O acOoa)O M a)Q a) a ai too 'fl U U ca- L) acncCaN aa oc a .. o o > Nao o a n O o m Cf) U W -0 -o a CO o so- v) `n L w C m Q) O O N O o Q) O Q (D E a) . Q o � U - ca a F U E n L O .D a) O (6 > M a) Q m (a .L_, (aLl Cn C O O a) U -O Cn LO �_ L 7 C U (7 E N (a a7 N C "O .— U) d L a) _ C3 .� C C E70 0 70O Q y ro, O O V U U T U O _O __ 3 U Ca HE O Q p Q O Ca C — _ F -0 m (B toen C 0 0 a) a) 41 >. I co — aj O_70- .� Ca Q1 N Q (a N N N w (a `O O N L--� in O` >i O O C U p C .- m .Q U_ O > � U a) m U a) a) L Q C C O N f1 a) � Q) C O .L fT m C U '� 4= � a) V p) Z O � O O a) O tn FZ > i aQ WCCm E �+ O a a) o m cmc o _ _) _0 a) -p a) o a) Q O A fi. a c cB LE5 -ro0mOO) m o o E E o o E m a) M fcm o o fcm`oz m ` o o m ms- � o (cDS o o ) : ox � U) 0 o iB ) O a) L ) a) O -O E p ' U) 7v) 'D ) cU y N CT E O O �- O p > p - n o c E X ar — c�a m c� ' «. cn — m C FO--. T m Q m c U L m m Q_ f1 E � Y m a) a`> a) c Q E o m a) n a) c E `O o Q oani aci c=n m a) m cc—i ) 1� o m �' a) .�—� a) E ca co m a a >o m a) = � .3 amici o o pc)___ � cca a"i Q a) c L U (d C [n C N Q'7 to C 3 0 m m a) m — O) N m d O m 7 .— C .� -- O N C ca 0- m IT »U. O) C co O p c d u) U_0 x O' m .0 Q C L C1 p m a) C L O a) -c d (d to f1 (6 m Q) C- a) fL-- ~ L N .O L O a) C C1.� LO � _ U a) O c p QU) L m 'c �i N C N N O v) a) U Y V) O N a) L N m U U U C1 fl' I=n CZ > m U m C a) >_ a) T o c N C o p c aa) . a) m c . m a) C a) O _0 fz O — o_ z ai a m E o L E a) cu U N M U m 0- E C m U C 27) CO T M m O Q) C U D .- C Q U E O U > a� m co U a) Q) C C O Q) Q E CL a) ❑ ❑ U 0 Ca J C U E w o O O 0 � CT rra � C O O aoc� QC p CO �-/�. ; ca- U O W D d C C1 wOoa *k QUQ 6co a) 0 -6 2i 0 0 M Q �Q" mo 5 an`oi amT �Z Z O c o in a �CD o � m o a ~acCcTi "�cca .Q N3acNci E ( U — En EL c/)o ) op C' C)ao -0 > a) acOui) ami F E c c " `o .� c Q Eo c N v o o n .o o a) vi Q o c w c `) api > O c>o a) `o 7 vi.L' = 45 U m o a) a) o a) � a) N .Q CO Q) _ a) d- Q) 41 C a) d M C C `•- Q) U CB O v7 >i �O C6 C C C p a) C: r a) E o) c co o a) ) a) °) t :F; a) � E -,=, YC2 U -Q(U F — - FEE p > omO O Nd 2 O O ( N N O n -O — N U5 O C - Q) ` a a)O � N - O 2 o o E 2 o 2 CZ O Qa E o E i O Z mp �Oaax) O p p > LL O Cf) npn O) C7 LO@ O N Oco 0 E (d . _ Ll :E 0- m :5 it cc)) :S O U CB Q E C U ZT T (Q Q) O d O C U O C — m � .Q U O � V U a) M M Cl- C)U o C a) o m Q N C C O C a) d E 70 2 @ mC) C_ 0 E -n U 0 cca O O @ 0) U U .- C -O C m 70 O .O C E m m N 41 N Q) C U '— C CL C C2 I- OO -o O 0 -2 E = E E O O Op d m o m o U m 00 Ozo � xs a0o ac) o CL E Q a� o - c c r� u► .�. V) Q) c (6 O M Hz > v° �O o 0 ►W'! Q QUQ Q U Q ID U z A m a) .� N c M c Y a) @ o c c- a) in '- o m M () o E@ m o m a`) c- o - [� E •C -p -`- "' m m o (>6 o O -�(n O •� .� L N O [� H v=i c c E L- o�-= c`' > U M U a) n c n L �° o dzaz o o E U c a) L c m N n iv m N c U = o m m v 0 OI m a� �° p c � o a� m - c , ami m o'Q a> a L —O OU O N O w C OU N Q) N m U) C, U o = c m - c o rdh @ m .O in o O C -0 0 .� T (n C m (O (n (@6 .� V (D E a) U -O .�. N (n .D C C -c O L` C N = C Q) U tNn .T m O@ .p (d m p O) C '(6 L m m O [/� (O um C N > Gy _0>N (Dm - ao L a) cz '4oD m -c = . ONU - c � o O O 0 O O O zj5 Q A) CT O O -p N N C (NC M aa - C mm (D S' a) mpC U m aOniS)m OLN U_ wN CD 0- 0a ol m L NI � CO 'D a) O a)mM. O O mO O 6 m ) ON LO a) ` m co m Ooa>E mUO v N p Q O mUn o v E c coo > Ud m N aNa) CDO 'p m . O) O ) B Cl m Cl, NC Cl O 3: a) a) QC) 6 .� O O E a) O � (4 O a) L - > (6 a) o U -(Q4 N C M O U O Cf) U > -d a) N U 'N E N N > U O ` E o0) M co NL O 0)W N m U U > O U c- -E -O LU Qa) O U W' ` O C E O m C '@ ::D N > @ Q) �_ 'O N C C > E _� o �n O y O O O U N N .2 O E (n U is O O a) E C C W a) E C C Ca m (D p a) Co C > @ > >. a) L 4) ` U > >` N E U O @ m m m J - N O m p m a'l) _ E ' Q E p m aa)) E E O Fes- U W J m m S] U E > > 8 § 0 2 \ J c $ & + $ \ 0 C) t = ° m » _ \ y r c$ 7 k/ k \ HE o G / 00 1) c E=- 0 g \ E 2 2 = o g ozA / a a2 ? G % \» / _ E « w / \ \ 0- � � ƒ E 2 2 2 ® k 0 0 c = <\ < u z _ U 2 Q E J / ® \ r - \ / / % § .- .[ c ) 73 \ ^ 2 % 5 0 22 E # » / w 222 2 2 / / < z 2 z $ - / a e o E 2 2 ) o / / 7 / EC \ ¥ _ \ / \ ® ƒ 2 � \ / / ƒ% e r 2 2 / � ƒ a) / / / / { ® 99 / § $ a E f U) :3 ¥6 ) ° \ o = = g / -0 ._ 2 / m § / } m / 5 / � \ = 5 ° 6 / / /o / 22 G2 / CL) ƒ r ± % § G - = o R » \ / / \ k 2 & E\ \ � » / ? / ( g e ) 0 UM) -2 \ ® ® \ / \ $ / g \ \ e 0 / c - I ® _ 0 w \ �\ \ ~ ƒ \ & \� 7@ \ ) ± ƒ -0 \ 2 7f\ ( F 7 7 � \ / ƒ / \ \ / » f z m § 0 9 @ \ � \ ƒ \ / /.2 C) ƒ r / 2@ / 2 / CZ .g 4 k G k o \ \/ « a G 6 a s d kap - ° ® s \ / / % \ \/ cz \ ° # E &7 / 05 _ % \ ° 3 \ ° e c \ } 3 � y -o ƒ _ / _ % ) ƒ " § G § = e _ g = 2 2 ® / \ � � /\ \ / o L) &» 2 / \ � / / s 0 C U O (6 m Q U O CO U O iT U O Q) .Q Q U � C C O Q) a tll CL U U U 0 5 o -p o 4) p) C Q) 03 C a) O) U C @ U C (6 C U C O .O c c° E U c `d E UO Q) (6 W Q) = C N N C N tll O C a'- O C t1 U -- U — O@ CU O p) O U? O tT N > 0 0 -1 Ud O O U Q O O Z7 E Q7 O '�3 m OE 7 0 '0 p O L -p O 1) LL (d O -O m d m 0 -0 co D.. M O t� O ZO C M V n7 0., O O�O a 0 Q O �- O 3k O i.y U C p m C p (6 O C6 C1 Q CQ > (6 :C. > (U6 - F" �. Vl U =p U 'B 'O {y 1? C C1 C2 C C1 W Q cL O C1 Cl- 0 C1 C1 O C1 QU Q QUQ QUQ -C3 p -0 c o (1) L c a) a) a) N ca o M 'E c E a)G FQ. ,a) a) rn. . p -o o L o -o o c_ -0 v N v c _et z O a" >O t� a) m e -p m O Cin U co `�' cca c m aE`� m o m o m ami U 'ia Q Q'y U C C C6 a) U [1 1- L (6 C m C C (6 U CT) U C m N C3 U .O O C6 U -C _0 O U -Q Ey Q) C N m ,� _6 O a) C U) , C -6 > Q) O L — � C)-"O tT a) m C C y cz O Cd (n — -� U C1 > "� Cn U (U -� U C _� `� 03 U p a) C �G U O c a " c T is o a) a`> L� 2 E C__ U U Q) ~ L O .2 CCL L6 L UO — U O N O L O CL U C 0) M a) U) - L--. -6 _ _p _ U U C O U O a) C C O () C O -p Gc a) N U w. o � a)0 m Q E ..m� O E () ca E a Eu) E ao Q) } aiaiaC 0 i— O U 4) 'O Q w .� 0 L--� 27 Q CV U n Cv c �G �a a) = CD _ U _0 ll 5 U CD (D U O a) p_ U -a C a) aJ Q1 CO O C:)- 0- (6 C2 �� C C2 U E m tT (U U E ai o cL) E o p f— o ' ov co N c r E �) c U 'n 2 cp O a O O O D U O O> > p > V .O col-2 Q) cd — C U U > a) p O — a) 1� m O C6 [1 O` co iT T C -FzU O O Z .> U Cn - U) L (n Q -t3 C Q) a) :2 ?. O CQ tT N (a U CD-'aU (6 O).0 �O [T T Q (Tsn `o a._ .c E m E : U a) t!) U)a ";� a m o Lo C -O > O a) p 07 oo NC6 C N (6 LL in co O m m U) U C) i� Co Ln Q) O O C U p C •— 'Q U _ � � O O j U a> m Co U C o aci U p Q CO U (llo T o U U o O 0 CL 0 o TT ui U C � O U m Mcij (T N 'O C6 C C, C E !� CU O CT 'C o C.; '— ~ O O a O � E .� .� N O O L O C CSS O OU CT C W O O C C (D C CO N O C1 0 CZ O 4t C C rr Ur O O QU z O Ca O (TT v -0 O U O pcA QUQ QUQ o i) 0 .— Q W a O > .` a� a� Cn � .a?'c O T o N _ o � �-0 CL E� (�D Lmc> O -N C6. SC > 0 CL O Q U C) cz cu CO O ON � d = O ., O N OV cn `QC/) C Co CUN O U C O E wNO m COOCd U tO L -O a O O C Q9S ►r�1 Cn C �_ p Q L O J p CT O C (U �D O C C. Q) O N C O — U (ZS >, , ( 73 O Cn 0T m (V L is a rn v w o ca Y '`o > E 0 o — U a) c m U N C C C i Cll L CS3 'O > w U CSS (U D 'O — (n 07 O_ @ O d OC 'O (6 N w U O C L � ct3 C _0 C (J C m O` .0 O (d CTS O O U C CL7 C 'O CT OU O o "O 'O O (D T CSs C C c LU om@ ° p= a n C6 CO p Cllj OO _ UO — — > L C co N 07 Cn = O CII CS Cts ca-,= N O U N ' C O U Q CU C O (5 ..-. E C C C Cl C O CTS O c m x c O 'O N Cts U d Cts CSs N p CC4 'p E 0 0 O m C (6 CZ a) N C O ■ ■ _ O (6 > > d; E T T U L CSs Q U CO (O N In CD U) '2 C d co -o CSS Q C O a CU N O c 2 - n, Q 2�- _ (n CL O Cc) -O QJ U N m CB J 0 B =1 C > L LEF F— N m QU O Q in 'O CE w @ CE 2 : > U o C -- .Q U O CD OO U N ZT RS C Q) a) 41 U :5 CM '— O C U Cl) U E)- E c (D c 0 R) U O U o Cl a_ cn C � > O .0 = U 0) ca p ca C U p C O cz U O ` � O Q r� V c7 BOO (1) O QOV .ru► � o ESQ cCo -o Co E Q w 00 o '►t1' O C% .W.7 Q7 a) m-o ` RS a) Q) -O T a) C co N t Q) Q -0 a) -D O A fr, C o m c a ` o c L °) v U E U p Q— L N F vp >" o o _o o ca ai o F O F a O - m = C .U in cz r [n� U (9 p = o m O a) ccu -E; m U U FE c2 - o o a). > °? c o CL Cl m a U o _0 cua) o f p Q cn cn .o fl Q aNii n a .`o_ Q ap C"J co o o Q m u) a) c o .ca cn a`> o rFr O ca R) > T CO a) LL a) > C O Zs -� C d �n X a Q) o U j M O_ O o) 41 C . O C R3 C 1 a) N= cmp O � 42 coC6 N O O K O O Q) N R3 mC .� (n (6 E C)) Q) U a) O O � a) ul co C LL E R) C N {],_ O 4) > a) c0 d r= — p ,.>-. O m C O � L-- .Q U -p C- a) '� - U O '6 C w O C a) o ca 3 0 = o a RS n a a) o c p rn cCv (Cf ..p-. Qi .a '� c -C o U N O aQ'i p O .� o f C .� O U) L — a) N C .� a) .0 _ a) .0 �O a) N > RS p) CT Q7 Q) m Q C N � U � R3 O R3 :- a) L R3 Y > C C a) N O -p a) a) J O R) u) a) a) m o CD c ca cn — o c m E .� m c o c T a °) `o a o C N O (ll (a L t 'o O d) a) m a) O C N Ri j N R) o Q C Q > a) 0)�' v) 2 U Co to Q U a E w a) Ci co p N 66 En E E cv Q CD CL) -5 U U R) Q C cz C D7 Cf) T (R C 0 O d U C:) .Q U E w O U a) m m d U m C C a) a) Q) Q Q E N C C C O O a) > ca- U) c () W elf a a) c C (B O a) U 2 c � p a) — L m C U 07 w C (m Q) E�E O O d d V � a ° o (3.) 0 � � C4 Fz > � QQ o WaA � ° ca *� 0- < Ua U Z Ca _0 a io n Q c c M m o a) a = Q - 7 0 L a) = -U m � � m M _ L m — m 0 En LD Q z a Z CO `=' a=i 3 c U m 0-L '� -`_m � c Lm CL) `9 `" >cu O a O m 0- teo E .°n ma) = � -92 � L0 CU co n o m c ) p 0 U) � c UF a)o ao -o uc � 15 a) ~ a) E m = .O > N • o �-= = � O N C> CD '6 Qm md a) O_ O ON a) D) U) T m m " Co —� a a) U) oa) a) W - iO o n _ m �7- TEmai c m aN QO oC -2o mm _ _ x -p CD- -oz ca)) �-T-0 'C in .� , � o-- m m m o 30 m C m a) cn U S] — O O L m (6 E O N _m =o u, m m@ m c i E a o U = o L cm 0 m c 3 o Q m ` G) T '� m L m co 0 E a) o `m U o is m cm ca a) y E °� c n o LD ._ a-� o- c .� m a) fl C � o o m a) o = o = = a) L E w , t o �- a) -o o)-o m o <n W C N (a .c_ U N .�-a :E (a -O N -O O = 0 �6 W 3 F= :E Q� U) 3 m � (5 o 0 O Y -O C6 C — T C Q Q) m ~ _O >m El 2 ` o m O J � N E Q-m o U � c a � a) a m Of o -2 a) W a) m = Q o Q p 5 O - N m L m m a) C J a) p JE [ifD O c U O C — O m N Q U E = O U (1) N Q) 07 m U C O a) L cnQ O C a) Q E Q) of m 0- a)O c o .o m is C U � Q) Q r� V Q1 O Z o a0oaci o o .- cn a� Q E� Z > rn a O c E `o m cm m o F m0Q cn a ca c o M w (D O m aca ov U L o � 'ic -0 acG,),i = a) aO "E5 ) .0Z a ° ) n o O coci m o 0) � t Q n O - coL_ O ,C L C L C 0) 3 (n (n (6 E _ _ ~ (D m C a) O _O .0 O_ m 7 m j cn () .«J a) ca m C 'O = 6 $' C m ami c a) o >0 0 m E :c o a) � o c cn o a) E ca a) O n m - m ci) F a) m a) m a) o 0 n m L w U m a) o T c' > 'a C', u)o a) E a) � 5i .— � — "g o � 0) m .� o_ m E- a . m EOO i-Ocns E .mm a .c:m o 0 � d cn OUaO mQ O a) Ou, ca C.) = m C N CL : o-omO E O)"L3 N> N cn O 13) O O O � 6 C) O ca- O nO U ._ 6 n m 2 2 - .� > -0oc > mEam a) = ai Coo LUm U (1) (n n!) C6 U ci U m a E C C', U C Q) U) T m C Q) L Q) C U O C •— m a U N w O U > c� a� m m d U C Q) Q) a � Q � N � C C N O O Y CL E 0 Q) � m a U Q C) � U a O m O U _ c0 O m C d O C O .L m C .� m m a) m a) E LL .Ln p a ~ O O m O O C O E V m O) ZO c N a O 0 (1) O Q O Q O C �/ r aa C a QUQ QUQ aci O U N �, p m O 0 N o c c o m a) = u) aci _N o oai m0 or) ap = m c Qte� O ao)° ocE o o ` pa -0a ipo — m °No s on' o C 2 a c U am) c 2:' N o c x > N m N -.0U O 'n O ca ( p c � ccD ca ` m - O N .Q Q) C p _ a) C >' T•(D U O w O N C1�31 (din m -0 U () a) - m m N -0 U O O fl- CO — O a) > 4= S u) N O .ro a p N M a) Om O C @ U _m ccm 2H O N cz p U c N a) N c 0m U 0 in 2 00 -6 p U '`= c nmi a c� L a) v � o a m m o co U p Q c co Q � m E o' o ui mc i m c a)m -0 -o E- ao co m o ami E o co E o -� > aco) > nca La) mccEa no O E p m m Q) c am aa o E C) ap a)Eo po MN c pm m6 L _ N L m C Q) E p0p- a Ucf) mO G) ma) o m m E is CM � acm) a) m a) U u) c U v c o 0 o N p) (D N N a) C N U — In C -O — N C O o m O _ O m N _ E O O aN >Q ) L apj m C a) .0 N _O �_ O- N cCp UO o 'D ON a) p--O a E L m O L m � m a) O p C O 3 O m a) 0 cn at N cn E a) O fl "� E a) Em a) m N p O 0 a) L n Ta) `p U > a N O O Qp O C cn Q) U c d F- a) O � U (3) C U p E �= O U > N a) tT cD U a) a) Q C C O O d E Q) i c CD fl C U o m c c O .O U CD _ m M C C U � cn C En O O- O z- CD O � a L [T Z OCO (U O Q O 4t ISI �► V') Q CCZ p (9 F Z >00 W WI D-0 d p 0.1 Q U ca- < Q O Ca fs" co a' ai 'E cz oa F■ V� m > o N o o cD O ci a) .N o cD E CL C ' o -> a. c o Lca " n s. 00 F+1 O C E Q) U.: C On` L O �� 'n -O �•. C CD -2) CD 'p m c o o > - o cn iD .o a) -p v O N a) 3 O n V) U L U O o N cc EFEO C2 'O tT C ` O >•. a3 O d co OU (6 C CII O Zo D3 co o Q m o N o vi ' t 02 voi a) -� _ C O O cD ` Q) a) -p O p [D a) p U cu v c Q a) a) _cn N .c c. a s 'O _ O o o L o E � co .� o c m O a a) m a`) "U) c r O o C) Q a`) a) o a N .p a@ 70 t o ai aci O a C c N c CD N 0 O � � o � � 0 moo � y b 0 0 cl ' CD_ U ago 0 rD c o .E E — � m Ec n U) U) oc� o < E x _ w ° c E c?) _ o n. czcn o E k C U Y .O N O c6 cD LL. U ZT.D 0 LL ` O O Q C CCD (D L Q O C C C O O O ` U CD c� Z S-) -0u) O -o O -o c O C c c co n _U) N cD U O U ` O CO Q C OT T O C O (B oO O elfU Q) d 6 n-.0 Q) 7 c O U_ aci .� .� > U U u) U) C7 O Z U (II � Q CD -sE ` Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS . Costa FROM: Dennis M. Barry, AICP, Interim Director Department of Conservation and Development °os- County �'9 COUP1'� DATE: July 8, 2008 SUBJECT: Consideration of Waiver of Better Government Ordinance Time Limits for Receipt of Supplemental Documents Pertaining to Staff Report for Rescheduled Hearing on Joint Appeal Filed by Save Mt. Diablo and EBRPD on County Planning Commission Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map, County File #MS05-0030 (Bellecci & Associates - Applicant; Roger & Kandell Habig), in the Clayton/Marsh Creek area. (S.D. IV) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: Adopt a motion: A. Finding that it is essential to accept the attached recommended (1) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and (2) Project and Environmental Findings relative to the July 8, 2008 hearing; and B. Waiving the time limits of Ordinance Code Section 26-2.206 for distribution and consideration of these reports at least 96 hours prior to the July 8, 2008 hearing. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ® YES ❑ NO SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR (RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED 'L�� VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ENTERED ON T4CV0,tN, ES OF THE BOARD AYES: NOES: OF SUPERVISOE DATE SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED 4 Contact: Bob Drake (925-335-1214) CLERK OF THE cc: Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) OAPERVISORS AND Bellecci &Associates - Charles Capp UNTY ADMINISTRATOR Morgan, Miller, Blair.- Patricia Curtin Save Mt. Diablo - Seth Adams BY —, DEPUTY EBRPD - Brad Olsen County Counsel l RD\ G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Board\Board 0rders\Habig\ms050-0030 7-8-2008 sup doc.bo.doc 7 FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: The applicant, the appellants, and staff have been engaged in discussions and negotiations as late as Thursday, July 3, 2008 to resolve the concerns that prompted this appeal. While terms that are agreeable to the interested parties were determined late last week, as reflected in the recommended conditions of approval that were included in the staff report, there was not sufficient time to complete other related and necessary documents for the Board's consideration of this appeal until the day prior to the Board hearing. The staff report which was issued late last week reported on progress that the three parties had made towards this objective, but also indicated that two documents were not completed: (1) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and (2) Environmental and Project Findings. These documents must be considered and acted on by the Board as part of any project approval. Failure to waive the time limits for acceptance of these documents would create an unacceptable delay in the Board's consideration of an approval of this project that would resolve the concerns that prompted the filing of the joint appeal. Insofar as these documents were not issued until Jule 7, 2008 (less than 96 hours before the Board's July 8 hearing), under provision of Code Section 26-2.206 of the Better Government Ordinance, the Board of Supervisors may only consider these two documents for the July 8 hearing if by a three-fourths vote it waives the time limits. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board fails to adopt a waiver of the Better Government Ordinance time limits for this item, then, notwithstanding the terms that have been resolved by the interested parties, the Board could not be able to consider approval of this project: at the July 8, 2008 hearing. The Board would have to continue the matter to a future hearing; the next Board hearing is currently scheduled for July 22, 2008. FINDINGS FOR ADOPTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SUBDIVISION MS050030 The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County (Board)hereby makes the following findings relating to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) for a Minor Subdivision (MS050030) and approval of MS050030 relating to a request to subdivide 37.99 acres into three parcels and a Remainder on property located at 3000 Bragdon Way in eastern Contra Costa County. The property owners are Roger and Kandell Habig. The Project has been revised and Parcel A has been eliminated. The revised Project consists of Parcel B, Parcel C and a Remainder; The area of Parcel A is combined with Parcel B and the Remainder. I. GENERAL FINDINGS AND OVERVIEW A. Purpose. The findings and approvals set forth below(Findings) are made and adopted by the Board relating to Vesting Tentative Map MS050300 (VTM). MS050300 is a request to subdivide 37.99 acres into two parcels and a remainder(Proposed Project). These Findings are made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State Planning and Zoning Laws. These Findings are a summary of the information and evidence contained in the entire administrative record relating to the Proposed Project. B. Proposed Proiect. As modified by the Board of Supervisors, the Proposed Project is a request for a minor subdivision to subdivide a 37.99 acre parcel into two parcels and a Remainder as follows: • Parcel B —approximately 7.0 acres • Parcel C—approximately 5.0 acres • Remainder—approximately 25 acres. The Remainder consists of the residence of the property owner. The proposed parcels are oriented on the west and north side of the property and would access from a private road, Bragdon Way off of Marsh Creek Road. The VTM identifies proposed home sites, leach fields, well sites and access roads. C. General Plan/Zoning Designations. The General Plan designation is Agricultural Land—AL, which allows 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. The Rural Residential Development Measures ("Ranchette policy") apply to the Proposed Project. Consistent with the Ranchette policy,the VTM identifies well sites, leach fields, access roads, and building envelopes. The County's Geologist reviewed the VTM for geological constraints and all recommendations from the Geologist have been incorporated into the Proposed Project or will be required by the conditions of approval. Home sites have been identified to require a minimum of grading. The conditions of approval require fencing to contain domestic animals from interfering with adjacent ranching/farming operations. The zoning designation is A-2 General Agricultural District, which allows for a minimum parcel size of 5 acres. MMB:904197.2:PATRICIA CURTIN D. California Environmental Ouality Act. On February 27, 2008 the County posted a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) which allowed for a public comment period that extended to March 31, 2008. The MND concluded that the Proposed Project, with mitigation measures, would not result in any significant environmental impacts. E. County Planning Commission Hearings. The application for the Proposed Project was filed in August 2004. In mid-2005, planning staff questioned whether the Proposed Project could continue to be processed because a 1993 parcel map for an approved tentative map, County File #MS 64-90, which included the 37.99 acre site contained a note on the face of the map specifying that a deed restriction may be required that could preclude further subdivision of the site. (The 1993 parcel map involved 320 acres owned by Bradford Land& Cattle and divided that acreage into 4 parcels of approximately 40 acres each with a 160 acre remainder. The Proposed Project site is one of those 40 acre sites, referred to as Parcel A.) The note stated that prior to obtaining a grading permit or building permit, the applicant/owner shall select a building site and deed development rights to the County for all but three acres of each parcel excluding the remainder. The note also stated that "when the pending general plan amendment has been adopted, the County will consider relinquishing the development rights." The County did not obtain a deed restriction from Bradford & Cattle before the underlying parcels were sold. The Habigs purchased the Proposed Project site in 1999. The Habigs have indicated that they were not aware of the note on the map and no agricultural conservation easement or other restrictive easement was recorded against the Proposed Project site. In early 2000, the County issued grading and building permits to the Habigs for a residence. At that time, the County did not require the Habigs to provide an easement on their property. Other grading and building permits were issued by the County on other properties underlying the 1993 parcel map; the County did not require an easement on those properties before issuing permits. Planning staff asked the County Planning Commission to make a decision on whether or not staff could process the Proposed Project in light of this note on the Parcel Map. On July 11, 2006, after holding a noticed public hearing on the matter, the Planning Commission found that the note was unenforceable because it alone cannot serve as a restrictive interest against property. In order for an interest in real property to be created (like a deed restriction), the interest must be recorded against the affected property. The Planning Commission noted that a restriction against the Proposed Project site was not recorded so subsequent purchasers (such as the Habigs) had no notice of the restriction. Also, the Planning Commission noted that the restriction was not enforced at the time of issuance of building or grading permits were issued to the Habigs or other owners of the other affected parcels created by the 1993 Parcel Map, and that the Parcel Map Note would not be an obstacle for processing of the Habig VTM. The Planning Commission directed staff to continue processing the Proposed Project. On April 8, 2008, the County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed MND and Proposed Project. After making revisions to the conditions of approval and mitigation measures recommended by staff, the County Planning Commission approved the MND and Proposed Project for three parcels and a Remainder. The Planning Commission found that the revisions made to the mitigation measures did not change the analysis in the MND or its conclusion that the Proposed Project will not result in a significant impact on the environment. 2 i F. Joint Appeal of County Planning Commission Actions by Save Mt. Diablo and East Bay Regional Park District. In a letter dated April 17, 2008 and filed with the County on April 18, 2008, Save Mt. Diablo and the East Bay Regional Park District filed a joint appeal of the County Planning Commission decision to the Board of Supervisors (Board). At the mutual agreement of the applicant(subdivider) and the County staff,the initial hearing before the Board of Supervisors was postponed twice (on April 29, 2008, and subsequently on May 21, 2008)pursuant to Government Code Section 66451.1 (a). The Joint Appeal was initially scheduled for hearing before the Board of Supervisors, and notice was issued as required by law for June 24, 2008, but after the hearing notice was issued, the applicant and County staff, and the two appellants mutually agreed to reschedule the initial hearing to the July 8, 2008 hearing of the Board of Supervisors. At the June 24, 2008 hearing, the Board rescheduled the hearing at staff's recommendation to the July 8, 2008 hearing date. The parties reached an agreement whereby the project was revised (mainly, Parcel A was eliminated, an easement restricting future development rights was negotiated, additional conditions of approval were negotiated and some mitigation measures removed by the Planning Commission were restored). In exchange for the Project revisions, the appellant agreed to drop their appeal. F. Record of Proceedings. The administrative record upon which this Board's Findings are based include, but are not limited to the following: • The Proposed Project application, VTM and all reports and studies submitted on the Proposed Project. • The MND and its associated reports. • All staff reports relating to the MND and Proposed Project. • All other public reports and documents prepared for the County Planning Commission and Board or County Staff relating to the proposed project and MND. • All documentary and oral evidence received at public hearings or submitted to the County prior to the date these Findings are adopted. • All matters of common knowledge to this Board, including, but not limited to the County's policies, guidelines and regulations. The documents described above comprising the record of proceedings are located in the offices of the Department of Conservation and Development (formerly the Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, 4t" Floor,North Wing, Martinez, CA 94553. The custodian of these documents is the Director of Conservation and Development, or his designee. II. FINDINGS RELATING TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). A. General. As recommended by the County Planning Commission, the Board, in exercising its independent judgment on the MND as required by CEQA, agrees with the changes made to the MND. Any changes made to the mitigation measures by the Planning Commission and Board during the hearing process on the MND are explained in these Findings. This Board 3 finds that such changes do not require recirculation of the MND for one or more of the following reasons: 1. A new, avoidable significant effect was not identified. 2. The proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will reduce potential effects to less than significance and no new measures or revisions are required. 3. Mitigation measures were replaced with equivalent or more effective measures. 4. New project revisions were added in response to written or verbal comments on the projects effects identified in the MND which were not new avoidable significant effects. 5. Measures or conditions of project approval were added after circulation of the MND which were not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect. 6. New information is added to the MND which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. (See, CEQA Guideline Section 15073.5) As a result of the public review process for the proposed mitigated negative declaration, including any administrative decisions or public hearings conducted on a project prior to its approval, the decision makers may conclude that certain mitigation measures are not necessary and thereby remove the measure or find that certain mitigation measures are infeasible or otherwise undesirable. Prior to approving the project, the decision makers may delete infeasible or otherwise undesirable mitigation measures and substitute for them other measures which the decision makers determine are equivalent or more effective. "Equivalent or more effective" means that the new measure will avoid or reduce the significant effect to at least the same degree as, or to a greater degree than, the original measure and will create no more adverse effect of its own, than would have the original measure. (CEQA Guideline Section 15074.1.) In addition, the decision makers may remove the original mitigation measure without substituting another measure for it if the decision makers determine that the impact will not result in a significant effect on the environment with the removal of the original measure. Before approving the MND, the County Planning Commission changed some mitigation measures and in certain circumstances removed measures. Some measures were removed to eliminate redundancy and possible confusion because the conditions of approval contained other mitigation measures and/or conditions that already mitigated the potential impact. The Board accepts some of the changes to the MND that were adopted by the County Planning Commission, but in adopting these Findings, makes additional changes to the original Mitigation Measures proposed in the MND. B. Specific Changes to Mitigation Measures. 4 In explaining why and how certain mitigation measures were changed, these Findings provide the following format 1) a summary of the potential environmental impact associated with the changed measure, 2)the changed measure in underline (reflects additional text) and strikeout (reflects text removed), 3) an explanation that the changed measure does not change the analysis and outcome in the MND and, 4) a conclusion stating that the potential impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance with the changes to the measure. The mitigation measures are identified as conditions of approvals (COA); reference to both the COA and mitigation measure as numbered in the MND are provided. 1. AESTHETICS. The MND identified three potential impacts relating to aesthetics. Four mitigation measures were recommended to mitigate those impacts. Two of the measures are changed as follows. 1-a. Impact I(a) re: scenic vista. The three residential units proposed for the project site would introduce new sources of visual intrusion into the existing scenic vista, Marsh Creek Road (MND,p. 8). 1-b. M_ititzation Measure I(a) (COA No. 1, 4 and 5). The project is approved for a reduction in the number of parcels from three parcels and a remainder to a maximum of two parcels and a remainder. The resultant parcels shall have an area of at least five (5) acres, and shall be configured to comply with the minimum parcel dimensions (area, depth and width) of the General Agricultural zoning district subject to final review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to filing a Parcel Map. Parcel A on the Vesting Tentative Map shall be eliminated. The portion of this parcel lying to the east of Bragdon Way shall be added to the Remainder; the portion lying to the west of Bragdon Way shall be added to Parcel B. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit architectural plans, color schemes, and elevations of the tree individual residential units for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plans and elevations shall demonstrate the following: At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit architectural plans, color schemes, and elevations of the individual residential units for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. plans and speeifieation shall be ineerperated in to the deed diselesure for-eaeh of the t panels. The plans and elevations shall demonstrate the following: A. Use earth tone colors in the medium-to-dark range for roofs and walls in order to complement the natural surroundings. For purposes of these guidelines, the medium-to-dark range is defined as less than 50% light reflectance. B. Retaining walls shall blend into the color of the surrounding landscape, be less than 6 feet high, parallel to existing contours. Where multiple and parallel retaining walls are proposed, the plans shall also provide for landscape/irrigation improvements (e.g., shrubs, and vines) to soften their appearance. 5 Building pads shall step down the hill. C. Reducing Visibility of Residences on Parcels B and C - To reduce the visibility of the project, residential development of Parcels B and C shall be subject to the following restrictions: i. The primary residence shall be limited to a maximum floor area of 5000 square feet. ii. Garage floor area shall be limited to a maximum of 800 square feet. iii. The roof shall be designed to blend the structure with the topography; the primary roof ridge shall run parallel with the Slope. iv. The height of the residence shall not exceed 28 feet, with the exception that an additional 7 feet of building height is allowed for that portion of a residence that is subterranean and within the building "footprint" of the aboveground structure (i.e., basement). Steep-pitched roofs shall be avoided. Building height is measured from finished grade or natural grade, whichever is lower. For purposes of verifying compliance with this building height requirement, the County may require special documentation from a licensed land surveyor including a topographic survey, special house design and grading plans, and post-construction survey of the buildings height elevation following completion of building framing. V. The residence shall be designed to blend to the topography of the site and the visible under story portions of buildings shall be reduced by limiting the height of the aboveground finished floor (including elevated decks) to a maximum height of six (6) feet measured from finished grade. vi. The wallplate of any story above the first story on a downslope building elevation shall be recessed at least 10 feet from the story immediately below. vii. Proposed construction plans shall provide only nonreflective windows that may be visible from Marsh Creek Road or other vantage points on land held by public entities (e.g., Clayton Ranch, Mt. Diablo State Park), and include documentation that substantiates compliance with this standard. D. No Residential Second Units are allowed on the two new parcels (Parcels B and C). 6 A Residential Second Unit within the building envelope of the Remainder may be allowed subject to compliance with the Residential Second Unit Ordinance including a maximum floor area of 1200 square feet. If a proposed Residential Second Unit is proposed to be attached to an accessory structure, that structure must be a garage and limited to a maximum floor area of 200 square feet. Buildings shall be cut into the slope to reduce the effective visual bulk. Prior to filing a Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit proposed deed disclosures for each parcel for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The disclosures shall provide for the conditions and mitigations identified by asterisk (*) (which include the above described Hillside Design and Land Use Restrictions). These conditions would be applicable for the development of individual parcels. The approved disclosures shall be recorded with the Parcel Map. 1-c. Facts. The MND acknowledges that the proposed homes may have a visual impact on Marsh Creek Road, which is a scenic vista identified in the General Plan. The MND states that the homes have not been designed so the specific impacts of the homes are not known. In order to address potential impacts, the MND recommends the architectural design measures in Mitigation Measure I (a). The MND acknowledges that the homes would not block views from Marsh Creek Road and further acknowledges that the homes would only be briefly seen by motorists or bicyclists using the road. (MND, p. 8.) The MND contains visual simulations of the originally proposed three homes. These simulations represent a worse case scenario and do not reflect mitigation measures or other conditions that will mitigate the aesthetic impact. The visual simulations submitted by the Habigs represent the potential impacts with certain mitigation measures as proposed in the MND such as homes with a height limitation, homes that step down the slope and homes painted in earth tone colors (required by Mitigation Measure I (a)), a 3:1 tree replacement planting (required by Mitigation Measure IV(e)-1 and COA 22) and landscaping plan to screen the homes (required by Mitigation Measure I(b)-1). One of the proposed parcels, Parcel A, is eliminated (COA 1), the development of which may have significantly impacted the aesthetics of the area. Subsections A — C of the original measure are removed and restated in accordance with County policy as reflected in the revised Subsections A through C. A portion of original Subsection B was eliminated since it is infeasible to build a home on a pad limited to 18 feet in width. Original Subsections G, H, 1, J, and K were identified as guidelines only (not requirements); it has been determined that they are too vague to enforce so they have been 7 removed. New subsections A, B, C and D have been included which contain design and building restrictions as opposed to just guidelines. COA 5 requires that prior to filing a Parcel Map, the applicant submit a draft deed disclosure for each approved parcel that would identify the design restrictions and procedures that would apply to development of parcels, and that the approved deed disclosures would be recorded with the Parcel Map. COA 37.13 requires improvements to conform closely to terrain, and requires avoidance of large padded areas for Parcel C, which also addresses the measures in the removed subsections. The MND noted that architectural design requirements in Mitigation Measure I (a), in addition to other mitigation measures, will ensure that the Proposed Project will not conflict with the Scenic Route goals in the General Plan (MND, p. 59). The changes to the Measure will not create any inconsistency with those goals since the Measure as revised, in addition to the other measures and COAs, are more than adequate to ensure that the Proposed Project remains consistent with the General Plan. 1-d. Findings. This Board finds that changes to Mitigation Measure I (a), along with the other measures and conditions already provided and those as revised, will mitigate the potential visual impact on a scenic vista to a level of insignificance. This Board further finds that the revisions to Measure I (a), along with all other applicable measures and conditions, are equivalent or more effective in mitigating the potential aesthetic impact on the scenic vista and that the revised measure will not cause any significant effect on the environment. The Board further finds that the change in the Measure will not cause any inconsistencies between the Proposed Project and the General Plan. 2-a. Impact IN re: introduction of"man-made" elements. The low density distribution of the three proposed residences would introduce new"man-made" elements into the general landscape (MND, p. 15). 2-b-1. Mitigation Measure I(b)-1 (COA No. 13). Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval. The plan shall illustrate the exclusive use tree, shrub, and herbaceous species that are native to the area. In addition: • The Landscape plan shall be sufficient to provide screening and erosion control for the hillside. • Landscaping shall conform to the County Water Conservation landscaping program plan. • Landscaping shall conform to the County Water Conservation Landscaping Ordinance 82-26. 2-b-2. Mitigation Measure I(b)-2 (COA No. 14) 8 Grant Deed of Conservation Easement to the County and the East Bay Regional Park District for the Area of Subdivision and Remainder Except for Area of Building Envelopes Within twenty (20) days of the effective date of this approval, and at least twenty (20) days prior to the filing of a parcel map or issuance of a grading permit (whichever comes first), the applicant shall submit a draft Grant Deed of a Conservation Easement (with a copy of the proposed parcel Map) to the Department of Conservation and Development for the review and approval of the Board of Supervisors. A recorded easement shall be granted to the County and to EBRPD for all of Parcel B, Parcel C and the Remainder Parcel not identified within building envelopes. A draft easement shall be considered by the Board within 80 days from the date of approval of MS 050030. The approved easement shall be executed and recorded concurrently with the recordation of the parcel map. The easement shall provide that concurrence from Contra Costa County is required if the EBRPD wishes to initiate court action related to enforcement. The easement shall reflect the following: • Parcels B and C shall contain a building envelope of 1 acre for each parcel. A residence (limited to 5,000 square feet with an 800 square foot garage) and accessory buildings may be constructed within the building envelopes. Other buildings and structures such as pools, and tennis and sports courts, shall not be constructed outside the building envelope. No residential second units may be constructed on Parcels B and C. Sewer/leach systems, well sites, water tanks, fences, gates, utilities, driveways and roads are allowed outside the building envelopes. • The Remainder shall contain a building envelope of 1.5 acres. A residence and other structures exist on the Remainder. Any additional buildings including a Residential Second Unit and accessory buildings and other structures including pools, tennis and sports courts must be constructed within the building envelope. A Residential Second Unit on the Remainder shall not exceed 1,200 sq. ft. with a 200 sq. ft. garage. The existing out building and trailers shall be allowed to remain outside the building envelope with the provision that the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator that the storage or use of the trailers is otherwise consistent with the County Code. Building permits to allow repair or maintenance of these buildings outside the envelope are allowed up to 50% of their value. These buildings may not be expanded or replaced if more than 50% is damaged or is lost. • The easement shall preclude further subdivision of the Property and preclude lot line adjustments. The easement shall preclude the 9 removal of protected trees beyond those permitted to be removed as part of the Project, or for fire safety. The easement shall allow a one-acre vineyard on former grassland provided that no additional trees are removed. No right of public access shall be created by the easement. The approved deed instrument shall be appropriately executed, notarized, processed and recorded concurrently with the parcel map. Prior to approval of the parcel map, the applicant shall provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator that the deed instrument that has been approved by the Zoning Administrator has been accepted by the governing board of the East Bay Regional Park District. 2-c. Facts. The MND also acknowledges that the homes would not obstruct any"view corridors" and would not conflict with the rural character of the existing uses in the area, including scattered homes and ranches, and other structures, such as the Contra Costa County Jail Farm, and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Sunshine Camp Fire Station. The project site is approximately 38 acres and the owner is requesting a minor subdivision to reflect the following 3 parcels—Parcel B at 7 acres, Parcel C at 5 acres and a remainder parcel at 25 acres. The current land use designation is AL which allows residential development and agricultural uses. The current zoning is A-2, which allows 1 unit per 5 acres. The revisions to Mitigation Measure I(b)-2 include more specific building restrictions to be included in an easement than those recommended in the original Mitigation Measure. Mitigation Measures I(a) and COA No. 4 as revised (design requirements), Mitigation Measure I(b)-1 and COA 13 (requires a landscape and irrigation plan), Mitigation Measure I(c) and COA 15 (approval of lighting plan), Mitigation Measure IV(e)-1 (tree replacement of 3:1 on-site), COA No. 12 (tree preservation standards), Mitigation Measure IV(e) 1 and 2 and COAs 23, 26 (tree preservation requirements), and COA 37 (design guidelines for grading), will also ensure that this impact is mitigated a level of insignificance. The Proposed Project site is outside the "Suitable Core Habitat" area for the identified endangered species protected by the HCP. Further as acknowledged in the MND, the site does not contain suitable habitat for the protected species and will not adversely affect the essential breeding and aestivation breeding of the protected species. 2-d. Findings. The Board finds that changes to Mitigation Measure I(a)-2, along with the other measures and conditions already provided and those as revised, will mitigate the potential visual impact relating to the introduction of manmade elements to a level of insignificance. The Board further finds that the revisions to Measure I(a)-2, along with all other applicable measures and conditions, are equivalent or more effective in mitigating the potential aesthetic impact and that the revised measure will not cause any significant effect on the environment. The Board further finds that the change in the Measure will not cause any inconsistencies between the Proposed Project and the General Plan. 10 2. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. The MND identified potential impacts relating to biological resources. Mitigation measures were recommended to mitigate those impacts and some of the measures are changed as follows. a. Impact IV(d) re: non-native landscaping. The introduction of non-native landscaping on the five-acre lots could reduce the habitat value of the vegetation cover in these areas (MND, p. 36). Impact IV(b) and (c) re: nesting birds. Tree-nesting birds and bat species could be adversely affected if trees proposed for removal provide nesting or roosting habitat for these species (MND, p. 32 and 34). b. Mitigation Measure IV(b) (original COA No. 22) newly established of aetively used nest stfuettifes in *.fees and implement x b b the pefied Septembefb h Januafy, fie p. Hen F l i fds would l 0 nesting )e r-equifed. if b of eenstfuet eeetifs b the Febfuafy thfaugh Augustb season, howevef rirere than cmzi6n o-1-bfadiiig,-site -9f grading nesting in thetfee,the nest stfuetu e- halffien 'oe ;t, ed fee L.•,..1 e ineubatie., � inetibation be i-a;ier(C ., egulaf pefi « " intothe same-leE&tion fallowed by shaft, seefet-iy e flightav � Extfefne-distf2ss and-c`klaffn ealls when in elese vieinity of the nest-tfee.** # Observatien of feed eafried in the beak of elawsto the ne if bialeggist ebsen,es-ifieubation behavief, ineerperat measttfes shall pfeteet the nest 1.,..4;.,n*.* Establishment „f a b ffef using b ,,,tie fencing the yo .. have fledged. A di f idtL, `�`'�oed�e ��ee—joie—ems 11 b feeemenae�'�zaptef.,200 foot z mended.* b fledged. istdetefmined that all young have if;t ; of feasible to delay o edify . „stfuetie. a t..,;ties a nd the tfee MM W (b); b. Mitigation Measure IWO (original COA No. 23) The pfejeet-applieatit will avoidtur ree—te the speeial st„t„s l.,is a,,..:ng the femoval of tfees thfough ., Pfe Censtniet; if eonstfuetion aetivi ., gfetind eleafing b atf on is feEluifed. if censtfuetien eeeufs during, the knee sease eh 1 t,-,_,.ug August spo .,1 stat, bats. Pfie,- t. ,..,ring of tfee femeval, „ 1.ielogist shall inspeet eaeh gfetip Ef tfees-to detefmine bat osenee and tise. The bieleggist shall eonduetcni assessment appfopfia4e , sampling, o eek, and aeaustie sufveys—AS�-e. bat exit ef efnefgen eeunts shall be made at Idtisk to detlefmine bat—aeti Ifi addition, habitat is tineeeupiedrl, .,b the �t t; efie ,, :t; .,t: o f; -tl1o- iszeEluzfed Tfees that have been detefikii.edte�l' 1bspeeial st.,t„t bats .v be femoved. lily be 0 eeted tr l+ refl4v= 1��st, iki3C� t�tfee-fe�nv=Pz^c1 c;^ „ L,.,f then bats shall be el„rl .rl f;..,m tl eif est lr.e tions rl,,.-ing, th b appfE)pfia4e tiffie ef the yeaf using humane methods. Sueh methods will b-e seleeted in eonsultation between the bieleggist .,n ('' the DF b 12 if there is potential fer-advefse-e€feet on beA 1,abit„+ the 0 0 develop of the d}ree ien of the biologist shall be implemented te vifmproveriieitt of speeies management uffie eR4 t„ „��o+ impaets f e +L o 1A- .,f s eeleny. Sueh measufesshall b implemented eensultatien between the bielegist and the GDFG.1%4A4 IN' (e) C. Facts. The MND acknowledges that no sensitive or protected bird species or bats were observed on the Project site and that it is not likely that such birds or bats would nest in the trees on the site. With the elimination of Parcel A, fewer trees will be removed. Since no birds or bats were observed on site, and are not likely to come to the site and few trees for potential nesting will be removed, Mitigation Measures IV(b) and (c) are not necessary. d. Findings. The Board findings that Mitigation Measures IV(b) and (c) are not necessary because there is no credible evidence to support a determination that the Proposed Project may result in a significant impact exists on nesting birds or bats. The Board also finds that the removal of these mitigation measures will not change the Findings in the MND. b. Mitigation Measure IV(d) (original COA No. 24) Thifty (30) da ,s prior- to thee „f building po,mit, uthe sppiic.,t - s 1.,, liesuii shall submit fnr-eview ,...7 appfeval to reit, Gests County a Landseape Plan that rstns the pls„t;..g of neAi ,o t«vo .,,,..7 gr-eunde v" plan w en eaeh ef the pfepesed building lots. MM Al (d+A A The Tan seape Plan shall slse ,-stv s ,,;f;., stanch«,7s of f;.o Vl defensibility „1. 1xn inter -meas-t�at�ncruQe, a4ir �--Dvicatr�E�i��6�1E-�%e-th usenative, wato f ee sef-y ng, fireresistant, stant, n deo told .t pla is tl .+ will blend .;1 planting tfees and shfubs--in stfai& lines should luster 7 i f;e..,,...slly to blend with the ,,.,t,,,..,1 getafief, * ,&EistkignaturalvegeteAien should be pfeser-Ved as mueh as possible f r-wildlife habitat and slope pr-eteetie * B. The following plants species shall be prohibited from use as landscaping material within theses areas:* • Tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) • English ivy (Hedra helix) • Periwinkle (Vinca major) • Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) 13 • Giant reed (Arundo donax) • Tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) • Scotch broom (Cystisus scoparius) • Cape ivy (Delairea odorata) • Pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata/C. selloana) G. The p eet ., .,1;eant shall . ntaet the G lif fni 1~ iet;.. Dost Dl�.,t (`.,,,neil ((''.,11r PPG) to identify other-potential invasive plants prior-to M() C. Facts. Mitigation Measure IV(d) recommended a landscaping plan to ensure the planting of native plants and that standards for fire defensibility were included in the plan. These requirements are already included in the following mitigation measures and COAs that are required as part of the Proposed Project: • Mitigation Measure IN-1 and COA No. 13 (requires native planting): Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval. The plan shall illustrate the exclusive use tree, shrub, and herbaceous species that are native to the area. In addition: ❖ The Landscape plan shall be sufficient to provide screening and erosion control for the hillside. ❖ Landscaping shall conform to the County Water Conservation landscaping program plan. ❖ Landscaping shall conform to the County Water Conservation Landscaping Ordinance 82-26. • Mitigation Measure VII(a)-2 and COA No. 39 (requires a vegetation management plan with fire defensibility standards): Prior to issuance of a grading and/or construction permit, and ongoing throughout the life of the project, the project applicant shall submit a vegetation management plan to the County and County Fire Protection District that includes if deemed appropriate, but is not limited to the following measures: ■ Removal of dead vegetation overhanging roof and chimney areas ■ Removal of leaves and needles from roofs ■ Planting and Placement of Fire-resistant plants around the house and phasing out flammable vegetation ■ A 30-foot non-vegetated or low-growing vegetated buffer around the building envelope ■ Trimming back vegetation around windows 14 ■ Removal of flammable vegetation on hillside slopes greater than 20% ■ Pruning the lower branches of tall trees ■ Clearing out ground-level brush and debris ■ Stacking woodpiles away from structures A. The selection of plants for project landscaping shall also be compatible with the applied philosophy of "defensible space", a term first coined in the 1980 Fire Safe Guide for Residential Development in California. Defensible space is the area within the perimeter of a parcel or development where basic wild land fire prevention practices and measures are implemented, providing the key point of defense from an approaching wildfire, encroaching wildlife, or for escaping structure fire. Fuel modification or fuels management plans are effective in defense of wildfires. Such modification shall include a 30-foot-wide defensible border around buildings, which may include appropriately sized fuel modification zones. d. Findings. The Board finds that the stricken sections of Mitigation Measure IV(d) duplicate the requirements in Mitigation Measure I(b)-1, COA 13, Mitigation Measure VII(a)-2 and COA 39 and hereby finds that the removed portions of Mitigation Measure IV(d) are not necessary. The Board also finds that the removal of portions of Mitigation Measure IV(d) will not change the findings in the MND. The Board further finds that the requirements in Mitigation Measure I(b)-1, COA 13, Mitigation Measure VII(a)-2 and COA 39 are more effective in mitigating the potential impact of introducing non-native landscaping to the area to a level of insignificant and that these measures and COAs will not cause any significant effect on the environment. a. Impact IV(e) re: potential tree removal. Protected trees located within 50-feet of the proposed alignment of the access roads and house sites could be removed to construct the three new residential structures, access roadways, leach fields and well site (MND, P. 37). b. Mitigation Measure IV(e)-2 (COA No. 23). Trees identified to be retained on each parcel designated on the VTM will be preserved by suitable construction buffers, fencing, and Best Management Practices. A. An undisturbed and unirrigated buffer with a radius of 1.5 times the distance from the trunk to the edge of the dripline of each native tree identified for preservation shall be installed. Construction measures, such as installing temporary construction fencing around the buffer areas of the trees, shall be implemented as outlined in the Contra Costa County Tree Protection Ordinance. B. To prevent injury to those trees proposed for retention and preservation near proposed construction areas, the following 15 protection measures shall be implemented as part of the project: 1. Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, tree protection fencing or other barriers at least (5) feet outside of the dripline of all trees to be preserved on site shall be installed in order to give grading contractors proper visual notification to keep equipment out of the area surrounding these trees. (During grading operations a qualified arborist shall be on site to approve any needed exceptions to these requirements). 2. Tree fencing shall be a minimum of 48 inches in height. Fence supports shall be steel "T" drive posts with a maximum spacing of 10 feet. The top of the fencing shall be supported by attaching a wire or poly rope between the post supports and attaching it to the fencing. 3. Once the tree fencing has been installed and its location and installation approved, the fencing shall not be taken down or moved without prior written authorization from the project arborist/forester. 4. No grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching, paving or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline except where minor encroachments are required, and as shown on project maps. The project arborist/forester shall be onsite when any work is done within the dripline. The project arborist/forester shall have the authority to require protective measures in the event any major roots are encountered in the dripline encroachment area. Upon completion of grading and construction, an arborist shall prepare a report outlining further methods for tree protection if any are required. All arborist expense shall be borne by the developer and applicant. if gr-ad pr-epese,l to be in ele pr-ex :ty to the ete trees en the site the appliexaiit shall days •� Map, Zoning Adffiinistfatef. The plan shall idenfif , all tree i tFunk cir-etffi€ere11ee of 10 inehes ef fnefe, A 1/_ feet ..b,eye the gfOuid. The tFunk src , and appfeydmate dfip line e� eb qttalif , — shall be identified the plan,eee n� n „ the-tree is pr-epeseedrtBbe remeyed Ar- pfesen,ed. The plan s be aeeempanied by a fepe«t f.em a Eltiel:f:ed a«b a-;st en�l�e sta es f the erhefist shall b.e 16 PkH:I-. 5. No parking or storing of vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials, construction trailers, and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the dripline of any preserved tree.* 6. Weekly site inspections by the project arborist/forester will be provided to insure compliance with the recommendations of the above protection measures. 7. Upon completion of grading and construction, the project arborist/forester shall prepare a report outlining any further tree protection remediation measures, if any, are required. C. Facts. The protections identified in the original Subsection 4 of Mitigation Measure IV(e)-2 that are stricken above are set forth in COA no. 37.1) and are more restrictive than those contained in the original Subsection 4. d. Findings. The Board finds that COA No. 37.1) contains more restrictive requirements then the portions of Subsection 4 which are stricken. The Board finds that the removal of the stricken portions of Subsection 4 and the retention COA 37.1) will ensure that this potential impact on trees is mitigated to a level of insignificance. The Board also finds that the removal of the stricken sections of Subsection 4 will not change the findings in the MND. The Board further finds that this change makes Mitigation Measure IV(e)-2 more effective in mitigating the potential impact on trees. The Board further finds that this change will not cause any significant effect on the environment. 3. CULTURAL RESOURCES. The MND identified two potential impacts relating to cultural resources. Mitigation measures were recommended to mitigate these impacts. Two measures are changes as follows: a. Impact V(a) re: prehistoric and historical materials. During construction activities involving excavation and earth movement, such activities may uncover previously unseen or unobserved prehistoric or historical materials (MND, p. 44). b. Mitieation Measure V(a) (original COA No. 35). hep work f� wefk within 50 feet ef the diseevefy shall be fedifeeted and a qualified deposit e ,.,ittated as paft efthe field sttf-,�eys „i..v.,dy „dueled o the 17 pr-ejeet site, these r-esetffees fiathnd ineligible for- listing in t Galifefnia Register-. B. if sueh > > s'cieh depesitTeannet be .wide they sh ll be a ,alua4e f« thei neeessaf• ,. ffieAdng debris; etiltur-a4ly dar-kened soil (i.e., midden seil eften > shellfish remains, and etthufal fneAer-ials); and stone milli 4 (e.g., > pestles, hand stenes)-. D. Hist6rieal fflatefials ean inelude weed, stene, eenefetbe featings> walls and ethef stfitetufal remains; e weed, glass, > c. Facts. Mitigation Measure V(a) relates to the possible finding of prehistoric or historical materials during construction. COAs 6, 7, and 8 already contain adequate measure to assure that this impact is mitigated to a level of insignificance. These COAs require: • Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. (COA No. 6) • 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. (COA No. 7) 18 • In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Contra Costa County has been contacted, per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. (COA No. 8) d. Findings. The Board finds that Mitigation Measure V(a) duplicates the requirements in COAs 6, 7 and 8 and finds that Mitigation Measure V(a) is not necessary. The Board also finds that the replacement of Mitigation Measure V(a) with COAs 6,7 and 8 will not change the findings in the MND. The Board further finds that the requirements in COAs 6, 7 and 8 are equivalent or more effective in mitigating the potential impact on prehistoric or historical materials to a level of insignificance and that COAs 6, 7 and 8 will not cause any significant effects on the environment. a. Impacts V(b) re: human remains. During construction activities involving excavation and earth movement, such activities may uncover previously unseen or unobserved human remains (MND, p. 44). b. Mitigation Measure V(b) (original COA No. 36). Step wer- A. ceetie 7050.5 „f the !'alit ..ni Healti, and Safety Cede sta4es that in the event of dise,.. e fy or r-eeegnifieii of „ hump r-efflains in any 1ee do other- then ., dediea4ed eo ...,etvtL,oro shall be ne f;,.ther- e .,tie of dist„«1..,nee „file site or- any neafby afea reasonably s e eted to efl:o adlia ent di'seeveFed has detefmined M}et e. of net the femc�rnTaic B. if human remains afe-erieetff tefe'a, . er-k ..hall halt v�,:tin 5 foot of the find and the (''.,,,.it.. (`.,fe mor „„t:fed edi to1., At the same tifne, an-ai-7ehaeelegisst--shall be eentaete t. evaluate the if the humeare ef Na4ive A.,..e fiea efigin, the Ger-. ner- must nefif;, the NativeA.,,. o,«...,., Heritage 74 1.oufs of this identif1.at: The Nati'dam-AmefieE Her-itage Gefliffiissien will :.aef4 fif__o Native Azfnefiean Melt-Like13-Dseendent te-inspeet-the-site d p ide feeefiffneadatiens fee the ,, ,mor t,.eeAf.e t of tl,o femains and ., .,tea eds C. Facts. Mitigation Measure V(b) relates to the possible finding of human remains on site during construction. COAs 6, 7, and 8 already contain adequate measures to assure that this impact is mitigated to a level of insignificance. These COAs are recited above relating to prehistoric and historical materials and also relate to human remains. 19 d. Findings. The Board finds that Mitigation Measure V(b) duplicates the requirements in COAs 6, 7 and 8 and finds that Mitigation Measure V(b) is not necessary. The Board also finds that the replacement of Mitigation Measure V(b) with COAs 6, 7 and 8 will not change the findings in the MND. The Board further finds that the requirements in COAs 6, 7 and 8 are equivalent or more effective in mitigating the potential impact on possible human remains to a level of insignificance and that COAs 6, 7 and 8 will not cause any significant effects on the environment. 4. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. The MND identified three potential impacts on geology and soils. Mitigation measures were recommended to mitigate these impacts. One measure is changes as follows. a. Impacts VI(b). The project proposes cuts and fills to provide drainable grades for the site, building pads, driveways and leach fields. For driveways in areas of steep terrain, use of retaining walls is proposed to minimize loss of tress and minimize the footprint of grading. Nevertheless, grading activities could result in soil erosion due to the steepness of slopes and erodability of base soils. b. Mitigation Measure VI(b)-2 (COA No. 34) Erosion control plans shall be provided for all proposed grading if significant grading is needed. C. Facts. The location of the proposed homes, access roads, leach fields and well sites are shown on the VTM and cannot be changed without approval and additional review by the County. The County's Geologist reviewed these locations and agreed with them and additional recommendations of the Geologist are contained in COAs 35 and 37. The requirements relating to a grading plan set forth in original Subsections A and B of Mitigation Measure VI(b)-2 are already required by Mitigation Measure VI(b)-1 (requires grading plan to be reviewed by geotechnical engineer) and by COAs 10, 11, 12, and 37. These COAs and Mitigation Measure VI(b)-2 require additional and more specific data to be included on the grading plan and are adequate to assure that this impact is mitigate to a level of insignificance. d. Findings. The Board finds that Mitigation Measures IV(b)-1, and COAs 10, 11, 12, 35 and 37 contain measures adequate to mitigate this impact to a level of insignificance and thus, the Board finds that original Subsections A and B to Mitigation Measure VI(b)-2 are not necessary. The Board further finds that the requirements in Mitigation Measures IV(b)-2, and COAs 10, 11, 12, 35 and 37 are equivalent or more effective in mitigating the potential impact on grading to a level of insignificant and that Mitigation measure IV (b)-1 and COAs 10, 11, 12, 35 and 37 will not cause any significant effects on the environment. 5. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. MND identified one potential impact relating to hazards/hazardous materials. Three mitigation measures were recommended to mitigate the potential impact. A portion of one measure was changes as follows. 20 a. Impact VII(a). The wildlands adjacent to the project could affect the fire safety of the residents and structures of the development and nearby areas (MND, p. 52). b. Mitigation Measure VII(a)-3 (COA No. 40). All residential buildings shall have Class A composition or tile roofs and exterior materials, and have fire protection sprinklers pursuant to the requirements of the County Fire Protection District, and any other relevant County departments. These include sprinklers for garages and under decks at downslope hillside areas. C. Facts. The reference to "fire resistant" was changed to "Class A composition or tile" to specify the specific material that must be used to ensure the buildings are fire resistant. d. Findings. The Board finds that the change to Mitigation Measure VI1(a)-3 which now states the exact material that must be used to provide for fire resistant buildings will ensure that this potential impact is mitigated to a level of insignificance. The Board also finds that this change will not change the findings in the MND. The Board further finds that this change makes Mitigation Measure VII(a) -3 more effective in mitigating the potential impact on fire safety to a level of insignificance and also finds that this change will not cause any significant effect on the environment. 6. NOISE. The MND identified one potential impact relating to short-term construction noise. One mitigation measure was recommended to mitigate the impact and a portion of that measure is changes as follows. a. Impact X(a). Short-term noise levels would occur during construction and the Project has the potential to expose some nearby residents to construction- related noise (MND, p. 63). b. Mitigation Measure X (a) (COA No. 16). The County construction noise policy limiting construction to the hours of 7:30 a.m. — 5 p.m. Monday-Friday, will be implemented. Construction contractors will be required to include measures to reduce equipment noise such as: • All internal engine-driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers that are in good condition; C. Facts. Mitigation Measure X(a) recommended certain measures to ensure construction noise was mitigated to a level of insignificance. More detailed and restrictive measures relating to the mitigation of potential construction noise are contained in COA No. 16 which provides: • Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements. 21 A. All internal engine-driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers that are in good condition; B. At least one week prior to commencement of grading,the applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and areas of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number, shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of major grading and construction activity. A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed. C. 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. D. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. This shall include provision for an on-site area in which to park earth moving equipment. E. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to weekdays between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. and prohibited on Federal and State holidays. F. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site. 22 J. Construction Period Development Activity Restrictions — Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction noise, dust, litter, and traffic control requirements: K. 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 unless there is a written request from the applicant that is submitted to the Department of Conservation and Development to waive some limitation for a good reason, and said request is reviewed and administrativelyby the Deputy Director of Conservation and Development:* 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://www.opm.gov/fedhol/2006.asp California Holidays http://www.edd.ca.gov/eddsthol.htm (COA No. 17) d. Findings. The Board finds that the requirements to ensure that noise construction is mitigated to a level of insignificance are more specific and detailed in COA No. 16 than those contained in Mitigation Measure X(a) and herby removes those portions of mitigation measure X(a). The Board finds that the removed portions of Mitigation Measure X(a) will not change the findings in the MND. The Board further finds that the change to the Mitigation Measure will not cause any significant effect on the environment. 7. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. The MND identified potential impacts relating to hydrology and water quality. Mitigation measures were recommended to mitigate those impacts and one measure is changed as follows: 23 a. Impact VIII (b) re: Contribution of Stormwater flow volumes. The project would contribute to stormwater flow volumes because of the projected cover of hard, impervious surfaces associated with roofs, patios, driveways, and other areas (MND, pg. 57). b. Mitigation Measure VIII(b) (original COA No. 47). The project's drainage system shall be designed to comply with storm drain design requirements of the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works and Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. pfepei4y. The eenveyanee of stefm water-will be withetA diversion and within an adequate stefm having definable bed and banks, er- to an existing adequa�e publie stefm drainage f6eility t Division 914 ef the Ceun�y Ofdinanee Cede. C. Facts. Following additional review of the project by the Public Works Department, that department has determined that due to the size of the proposed parcels (minimum 5-acres), the impact of the additional runoff that would be created by this project would not be significant and that granting of an exception to the collect and convey requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance would be reasonable provided that there are no known drainage problems on-site, the existing drainage pattern is maintained, and concentrated storm water runoff is not discharged onto adjacent properties. Refer to e-mail dated June 30, 2008 from Slava Gospodchikov of the Public Works Department to Patricia Curtin, revised Collect and Convey COA No. 59.) d. Findings. This Board finds that changes to Mitigation Measure VIII b, along with the other measures and conditions already provided and thoses as revised, will mitigate the potential hydrology and water quality impact on drainage facilities to a level of insignificance. This Board further finds that the revision to Measure VIII (b), along with all other applicable measures and conditions, are equivalent or more effective in mitigating the potential hydrological impact to drainage facilities, and that the revised measure will not cause any significant effect on the environment. This Board further finds that the change in the measure will not cause any inconsistencies between the Proposed Project and the General Plan. C. Conclusion. The Board finds that the above original mitigation measures that are hereby changed or removed are infeasible, otherwise undesirable or are not necessary because there are other measures and/or COAs that address and mitigate the same potential impact identified. The Board finds that the measures and conditions now in place are equivalent or more effective in mitigating or avoiding the identified potential environmental impact to a level of insignificance. The Board further finds that the replacement mitigation measures and COAs do not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment. The Board finds that the adoption of the changed measures and all the additional measures recommended in the MND and in the COAs will ensure that the Proposed Project will not create a significant effect on the 24 environment. The Board hereby adopts the mitigation measures (including those changed and discussed in these Findings and all the measures that are not changed and included in the MND). The Board further finds that the MND reflects its independent judgment and analysis. 25 III. FINDINGS RELATING TO THE STATE PLANNING AND ZONING LAWS ON APPROVAL OF THE VTM. A. General Plan. The General Plan land use designation for the Proposed Project site is Agricultural Land (AL), which allows one dwelling unit per 5 acres. The Proposed Project requests a minor subdivision to subdivide a 37.99 acre parcel into three parcels as follows: Parcel B into approximately 7 acres, Parcel C into 5 acres and a designated remainder of 25 acres. The proposed parcel sizes are consistent with the General Plan land use designation. The Ranchette policy also applies to the site. Consistent with those Measures,the Proposed Project identifies well sites, leach fields, access roads and building envelopes. Consistent with the Ranchette policy, the County's Geologist reviewed the VTM for geologic constraints and all recommendations from the Geologist have been incorporated into the VTM or will be required by the COAs. Consistent with the Ranchette policy, home sites have been identified to minimize grading. In addition, a COA has been imposed that requires fencing to prevent domestic animals from interfering with the adjacent ranching/farming operations. The Board finds that the VTM is consistent with the General Plan. B. Zoning. The zoning designation is A-2 General Agricultural District which allows for a minimum parcel size of 5 acres. The Proposed Project is a request for a minor subdivision to subdivide parcels into 5 acres or more. This proposed parcel sizes are consistent with the zoning. The Board finds that the VTM is consistent with the zoning. C. Housine Balance. As Required By Gov't Code Section 66412.3, in considering approval of the VTM, the Board must consider the effect of the approval on the housing needs of eastern Contra Costa County and balance those needs against public service needs of its residence and available fiscal and environmental resources. The VTM will provide three additional residences in the County. Consistent with the County's General Plan and Conditions of Approval of the proposed project, the proposed project will mitigate all impacts relating to public services and environmental resources. The Board finds that the VTM will provide additional housing and will not create an impact on public services, fiscal resources or environmental resources. D. Future Passive or Natural Heatiniz or Cooling Opportunities. As Required By Gov't Code Section 66473.1, the design of the homes will provide, to the extent feasible, future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. Specifically, passive or natural heating opportunities are reflected in this subdivision design which includes the design of lots sizes and configurations to permit orientation of the units in a westerly alignment. In addition, passive or natural cooling opportunities have been used by designing lot sizes and configurations to permit orientation of the units to take advantage of shade or prevailing breezes. The Board finds that the VTM has been designed to provide for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities, to the extent feasible. E. Proposed Type and Density. The site is physically suited for the proposed development and it is consistent with the General Plan and zoning. The Board finds that the site is physically suited for the proposed type and density of the development. 26 F. Environmental Concerns. A MND has been prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. The Board finds that the VTM improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidably injure fish, wildlife or their habitats, or cause serious public health problems. This finding is also reflected in the Findings above relating to the California Environmental Quality Act. G. Easements. The Board finds that the VTM design and its improvements will not conflict with public easements for access through or for use of property within the Proposed Project. G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Board\Board Orders\Habiff indings re Board approval of MS050030 7-7- 2008.DOC 27 U C U O C .— co � N w O O j U a) a) co c a) c o E o (6 Cis Q N Q C C CCL(n E ,� j a) 0 Cd Q 7 a) Q.. p) op a) c U o > U o -oU a) p N m O M O 0 U c O = C O Q ww a (iS cu O C U ,O L O o7. a) C- `O U 0 a E (O @ o 0) 0- � C C (ts O en C C p Qq ISI p 0 O p_ Cn c — U •o O H � E Wp � �* CI- Ua� xrFr v0] a Y o 0 o L a> 6 a) a) `o uz co cnF m @ � (n o � � o ocfl � Q z 0.0 Z `° h o E a c E o o) 0 � o cca 3 0 a`Oi O a) c — c) c E " L � a c a = c 0 m v cn `° ° m .c c a) cu a) a) c L O F a u, c > a) - c o cn o O) o u O O- CO (O a) a) 0 0 `O V) C .0 (n ._ L0 a) i E a N vi cn o a) O .c iv a) a) U ..� m a) 2 � a m e a) aa) S U ca — o o c E+ p 0--6 a) cu Ln> @ 3 rn .c -o -0 a) m a c 3 D 0.4 n a)co U cn o p a) c cu c m E _o a p a) O cn C1 O 'O Co C C Cn C '� _O 0 O Q of E O cu U O Q O O c co 0' c — C cd c O -2 — E N O C E X a) - c a. Q) O a) @ tUi) CO c O co E . C a) C6 H N U 0 0 -00 cn 'C O ss Q.� -53- 0-:F; t rCD Mn C6 0 �, cn Cd 0 N E a a) � L > � U o o @ o ca o a) c o a) 3 a) cu w = o m > is iv c a`� a`) oM CD,o c 3 o a) u) o) U rn - ca o Q m a p N o) U o aa) y m m c 0- a) U, Co p).c U-) .� .� ca c °) m E .� o a) a) a o v c o a o ' - � a) t > E E a) 0) E a a) m r 0-a E a E E 2 a) 0 7o a) c o p ca a) cm> o c L a) oQ -0 ca a) Q -0 ca o n.a Of cn L E a n mcr-I a Q m U cn � m F- — a) L)) U � (d N Cn C fll C1 'C U O .L o C m Q C U C (n O C O C U T cn Cn (D a) C (E m U -.co o . c w o 0 0 > p o = a Q 3 o aa)) Q E =° CD C U p C .— c6 E w O 0 >U C\j a) c6 a U Q) a) � Q C C O Q) Q E () ca- c6 a) Q c o .o Cj)i6 C U V CT Ozo a 0 O O kh U Fz > � a w � A � - w (6 (6 LO O c .V) (6 m a) iU ' L w C m c c c _0 a) <n o A GL+ m o O m ai c o �_ L a`) ' L o o').0) 0 o ami o m Q QOM w _o�c a E_ op-— i6 L p U » �n o 3 �6 c i� i6 a> c Q) p C D L C L W fn U C a) -C U D -� F -- _ a) Q z p z L m (6 L L O L Q) N O E Q) 'm E 7 .0 j O CE6 c m L L 0O' '�' a' a� � E o " L a> aa> �no � - > cLa) U p U � a, � .�' E o C4 O O U L 0 L.'""' C> U C C 7 a) t E -7 'o `0 L N .� C o) ul U - o ma a) a) Q 3 a) x m '� U p - T- o a) 'N 0 Q = a a' L oo - w c ca a a) '� _ a) c6 > .C6 a) _ c cn Lo i6 a) '6' a)ca a) O > ai 3 c a) n a) a) o E N a) L n p c o L m a0 0_ c _ '� O O U O 0- c6 O .� -O N -0 ._ L -p c6 c O O 0_ y c O Q. a) C �6 Q) C O co o _ L & v7 0_.� E L .N Ca o - � - -o Cc: m o �-o c6 a) ca a) o v o o `) op °° L L p ti c .� a) rn a) `) cn `n 0 L E c o a`) c > U (d G= O N 3 p)M O O N L C O 'D U L OU _0 Fo- n E 6, E o o r ami o ami .Q.n o �' a s c6 c° rn T8- Z3 m a) a) C) > a) o - c o L X -0 o w pp a) a) `° `o `n p 0 0- 0 o L U� a) -0 F E U E F � F a) C6 co .� -0 CO 0)ti w U o c6 n o F- o '> n a � m C6 N U CO CL E C 0 U C _Q1 CO _T Lo 0 0 U C U O C — m cp N Q U N E o O co U a) rn m c o Q � U o c c p � Q c � c U � o � N m 0 a) m U C O .o m ca E m m a) m C U — C Q a) U Q) H O 0 -0 m O r� V a) ozo O E c tQ N Q C O (a W QCQ QUQ u, c o E a) a a) ca m a) a) o 0 -�n O c -- m i n oL c m m O` m O C C 0 o) Na) Q a) oOa) )E a) Eaca) ).ccCmEQ`—a) DeE 0 m (n a) aE Qa -a o f a2cg C° -n oo c E Uac Oa o , :E; o Q o a) -o a) > E .D cn -0 m -o E a)E E o o ) .,n Oao )N � m (n Cm -o 6 ca cn mO °> e ua' m cD cqai g aa ) ca oga o EU 0 a � co > E o ca o mmc m aamc— o U >> OYam p C a E ) - U2E n � o ca -o oC) CZU)ai cao c C5- 0 � aU vc6 l! 16 o N o o ca- co > o ao (n ) o_0J) E a t 3 m N E_ a > z3 D oa) vn -o cu a).� E W Cn m 6 C O O � � ) 15R U t o o o > mo o Num' E Qa) 0 . m En U) o U > ca Cl m,> m a) U . U C) Q) Q Q) m a) � CU O U ON — to m E 70 U E C m _ m -0 'y E 0U ' 3 27) a) c U O a) T O C N � d. N C U p (d N E O O U o m (6 U C a) Q) � Q C o p U 0 aE i o U � cri a) O c => 0 p > rn 0 is o ca c cv C U CL _ co f- Q) Q O _0 U C C o CL 0- O U Q�I O O OO a O kr) _v U c c (6 Z > C/] a Q W OCC1 � QUQ o-o a a� a c o N O n a� U Z Q O m 0 o cz c — ` c a) cn c 6 is ca as cn 2 2 Q O L�, r7 n p s o= C7 E in co 2 > `o 3 w -aoi o � a0 c ai u' U � o o aci _a' C,-0, � 'cCd uia Q a U o a> a, 0 w Y x m o'. o m o a> ' m C7 0 � - m = c c w c "o 2 m` a aui O - C." a a> in c c n = cn H h v) a •? t p ,O cu a o c - o as o ca o ami c a� c u' o o mFz o c' �o a� cn > o aJ c c c m cC2 �, FLo_. c u' c N E c N cn o O 4] c a) :�° a`� c° t ca 45 a� L x is o — cm U cv �ca- Z75 0 En a) oQco t° O c a� cn ri cz o a`� L c bD O o m c c — > a) cn ca sT (nc"Q > N o m m m ai 2c o c"pa aa)i Q'.tz � U - N D a) .� Ln U tz�_ o ca -o o a`) a) Q n. cz c co m cd -Q o f 3 '� a� vi U 3 C° cn o ccn a) n °�i ca a' as m c op ` �' cn cv -o '- c L U o = cd C•7 m lL Q) m o p Q .� rn o cv L o a> �_ N o c a> vcni �' `° p o cn o n ca ' o co U p c`o a) =o = U c co> 3 c o a c 'S � o _— L co c U u cn ca c o O Q 0- CL U �i� Im I- a- m Q cn m w cB U (L Q E C @ N U t_- a)a) C O7 O1 a) C T O cd a> cL Q) m C � 0 O U cn Q) C Q) cz O (— o C — m (dN Q U N E . O O > U LO o) m d U C O () L Q C C C O Q) d E a) � Cf' clm a) 0 C CD m C U F- m r� v O) Ozo aGo ac) o 00 E � C7 � o 2 < Fz > 0. Ll ►�,yy as If, wa<n' -m c -nOc 'O 0 1 Q) —o) nNo) —O LiNv cn �o N> mtao1 ap) a) tao) 0 m -rfl . -0 ,6 p � pUC - cz "L 12aa � � a)o c 0) �an- UO ) oO O oO OQ1 a U O 0 - -0 -0 aaai oo a) m o aQE v> a .c p1 7-0oeL o L Qm a)a) Co °101 `° o a1 cC° a o va1 paa)) ncCU0 .m. aO� _6 L1 o - `„ EL = `c m -2--00 cEo Lo' co cL m ai Q E N a c `° ap E : O aC ' () o E (1) `C Na ) O L E - a) () a) a) a) -O .� a) O m d O .E-P U m m ::DU -m (dCO E O "' O .J iC1 'p m a) a) E to Q O (n C O o o O o Q m o .� a) a) n n- - a a a) o - c. E v cn to c L H > m - c acg .� c a) m a) c 3 Co c p c c m a) c ,- ow o c ca - > T E Q E Q cm a) -`v E E a) 6 ami C:)- o U cz aci 3 - -, (D m e o ai '� a c a) c c a m o a) u1 a) a) c O o a) v1 .T a) -p ' Q m E 'c vi Co a) 01 'm c NJ m aa)) a`) E c m -o m e m o a) �' aEi aNi > > aEi p1 `° o L E a) ca E a) oQ (n >,.o d) C° a) api c a) a) L U O C a) - m L m a) C O U L X O m o o a) n 3 w 3 o ca E -o H d a) - o c m I- a) o U m Q E C m U t� C U) 2:- L13 m Q) O O C U o C .— m @ (V Q U cv E - O O > co U a) m m a U Q) a) � Q N � C C O N Q Q) RQ a) 0 U U 0 � 0 0 C O ,O o U Q)MC_ C U m E m -p c c m N Q N O1 c c_ E 4 a - �o 0- a) a) o Qo Qo � E � c c Hz > � Qa o � _0 o WpC4 QUQ QUQ � O W dOAfs � m om 0 .2c a`a))M oQE _0 0') CL � T U) aN a) a -0 m m e a) v> n N o m a a o v o O c :E; -co m—' 0c vi cfla =33 vi -0c � m U ai C -o o O Q a V _0 o o m o � m .o 0 ( N E a) > > o CO QLQ) o a) ff f — m m 0 -0 acoaCQ)c'-0 -co C=O, Q-=0 2, co, N c m p m .� c ON Q) Qm)Om O O C O 03 O U ( NO > L 0 0Q )1 -J c - 0 >, >, `o m .E o o N N o v c 3 m c ` ' o .� -ma c `O o En 0 0 o C� co Nis E —a 0 o — m _ m L _N m E 0@ o a) Q. N .N L C C U > > m a)d m ... N C m p N o N •U oU a) ca E ca 4) m D c N m _ a) o o ` m x m a) om O a) L < L X O)-0 a) O Cm U ++ Q —00 Q N �i Q Q N Q N a) _ m _m E c a) m N ca N a) ca L v = a) m m L E O E m Z, TO .� O L O a) O CL 0 '-n Z5 E o O o N O Q m > N@ O m N — Q) C 'D c O` N Q N m L m m a) N a) m a o a) m E cn _6J N 0 N C O m C C a) a) N Cn O a) N a) a) a O o m > oQ 0 a) c a) a)@ 3 'm o � o m o m N 7 0 Q a) L S m � — Z j -0 O 'caa Qm 0 ca Q E o = C .o m co N O O j U � m m d C a) (3) Q in IL a) m a) 'E u o n E a) o m o m E m �cl U) .m U U) = 0 ._ o cn 0 c -off '- ii o N M U o c O a) O�- U =_ C m M (n N CU - = CI- EE � O O D7 F- O O O E ,_ O d m O Oz0 O a) O nON (/] EU C F 1 z�yyl C/1 a Q _U 'o O WRiA � E n (_- n pal Qco� Q ►'r'. � � a U) a) m c D -0 U Z o vi c a) c d) o c = c N m c v = QOQfs" — � a na) moo . o � 'mm cam o mQ F p F o m �-. a) a) m o - O — o '3 " o .o Q Z i� z n v _ = m a�'i o o a o m a) v o as a) c m o o E o c o rn > o o c n m o cn Q ts� U (D w o in c a) a A mo 3 c om oo L v Y = C7 c) m o L aci 'c E Cd .� n L .� m a) m o a) cn > > _ a) a) a) L F c ui � o c = 3 E iii — '� a) 0-75 = � o o o' c m a' a) m o O C .> m a N `3 4: O T -� c m 'U -a) . 3 in T 0 o a) E o a) a) co 3 n o W -v c c m n E �_ o @ a) m a`) _ .N ~ _� .� C - L a) aoi a Q «- _ _ LD CL._ U a) >_ m O w '> (d C N 'O C O - Q d am° U (D 01 T.m � n._ L E d.u) O O m > m cn ` N a) m mo a) `p v n 0 c n c .c � c o 0 m >o aoi m m v E > a) m 0 a) a) � a) c E cn T Q):_. N a) cn L._. U O _p U O '> m O - =O d. N .0 U Q) a) O Q) O C L a) =o a) a fl m E a'o '� �: co a) .c m 6-:5 n-0 a. @ o _ o 0 0 fl o a) ci, o � C c cam° o _ ami ccv `o) c o o .� cn '0 m � m 0 = O ) E N m .0 E n n O C n m 0 o to m v 'c m o o 3 'v in 3 %n = - `v ._ m E o o o o — n o a) v a) n o �c U) m o a`> 'm a) a Q Ln o m Y a) w _0 o a) m . 0 oLl ) a cu .rnn F o Q m a) E-a m U -2 L N a) = m � C _ 2 E cn m c m a) a) m w W 0 U _ fn @ V) -O O) L U .0 m m U _ 0 m7 a) 70 o m c C ann- a�a-- ) E- o - o a) W TO _CUO U E U ` o _ N =m E 00m mn Oo CD nU) (1) C) O M (a 0 E O C U O m (d N O O pp U (1) CT m U O Q) L C O .� CT C6 en C U r� V � a O O (U O > n.Q E xO � a d O W :c a) c a) a) > a) a a) a) o N -o a) a) a) a) t o c o o a) — _ n vi E ca z O z ~ U) o m ch m m L o a) a) > o d O O E co o m c 3 m m p U o o N acini m Co a`>> a .. a+ O _ m CL O c c m p __ C O F" �, - o o c c ur a) -0 0 m m o a) � m ami o o c P, U @ L CC, a) > a) '� -'"> is E E ;n .� -n m a`� ami n a. .x ` v t a) 'O to 4) � C U N ¢ .-. _a) (U a) V' LLJ > C/) .o o a) Q Eo c tz a) m CO o .o a 3 p E m E ca m co a) oN m 1:,-s a) L g 2 o o (D E n E -o_ a) cII a) a) E > _ c' fl QE`o • 4y) iniC �mC �Ym iQma �O . O NO a) C p O Q " . O U 7 m m O U N m -O CU rn () O -E mNQCn1 a) a) U O m n) M C It a m _ O C N ... .f?. c Ca) E O w a) `m a) �` n � C' a) E c- m a) -o n-o a m o c o a n u- c U o c 3 a) c a) U) E a) 3 n) a c aci O m L m U C O Q)U Q U U N O -� U O H O ' 0 d m a) U Q) <n o L .o c/) E o m v a) c in t a- a) E a) .S_ L) O N � N -O U) � ) - 0) C a) CO � a) C a) _OO CoH--' 41 d (n Q p N — Y Y � .--. -0 > m C C O a) 0 x 0 0 0 0 to m S C U C L :6 Cu O` Cn = a) o ton C', m Q) HIU a) Q ca t U w : _0 U m E u) U .S .n I- v) E ° 3 cl iv a) 3 2 IT] U U m Q E C C, U .0 CT Cf) a m C (1) O d I U C) C .- m (B N a V N O O Cn U (1) 11 a) m U C C Q Q N � C C O O CL � O m CLaJ C O O CY) m C V r� ./ CM O Z o � Go (1c) o 14 F- Z > a Q E UZAL� Q O a .Ln o c C, m . — F k,y ',y O ,�0, m m ` .- _ .� O = N > > c (n O Y 7 L F z Q Ei- m c Z � o co o o c�a > 3 o m m — a) > a) N .2 -o Y O O L C m 0 c N c 0 O (6 L -0 <n cn a) m . a) c m a) iv m w o o 0 3 3 O Q a U 0 c .c c 0mmi c zis � -0o co o CU Q) LaX °) � o ~ o i) _ i 00QCY O p 16 LY a) c O N a) Cm3fi � owmc o C: c - > To o aE m o co _ coamici -o U mw m a) L m >o .L o '- .cn ' p O cO ` 2 NL E _20_) 6 .-�0 U) � O d O a) v) ' u) O : O N 0V) U -0 iE C O o m a) OD o Z o aa) is o c o a) m m > c c () a) '� � — `° o c n ? > E m v) Cn O `p w L C O a) N U - > m cd N O O m N .- -p ` m .V O L C 0 O w C p N O > 7 _o L RS O .a--) m p L -O Cn C U L a) > i C) O U) O n .� C C C O C U O C O a) 7 m ai an) ' m E LQ m m mc",0 cn m aoo mE N N o mo0.N a) -0 O0a) uC) C UY 0 - 00 C O � L O m c 'C a) (a CL O- O O CL O O C 0- O U O -5 m L C 0 Z o 3 cn Q > U m E °) Q 1� w Q cn 0 � � w w � m � N LJ U, U m Cl E C m U C O) C) T m C N p O C U O C - (6 (U6 N O o O U a) O) (d CL U KS C O co T C N U cn cn U c a) Q E c CK m U E = Q) 0 0 c a n. E o c N co 0 c O .p U N m(Q C E C U � 4 N d +-- C en O � r� aO0 aJ O QOM (/] � E U C E.y z > WpW � ca- UQ W O .� ca .m �, U) az a o'~ cc czmo F r/� >4o o a� a as co = c .G ` M Q o F H 3 ,o cn 0 a o o .o c � � co Q z p z > a) "' -� 2 c m o cn � .Q E E c—co E c m m w a c — is o o L `o m U oo m ccoo o Q a �r o> p c O a' � c0 N c0 a p > ca m a� c o � � cv a� o = a) ca CO .m _ _ o ai co " a) .� � a>i � o � -o w of � •'� `o � co -- , o .0 '3 U 0- .D a O C 0 m ..- Zz ,� N a Q.� a0 c a E a' ami `n � a`)i �[ co E � a co E a`> n E > a-"i U —aTi 0 a 3 Z m U � U '- .o _ n amici Cu a� a' a' o 3 0 o n � o cn _ � 3 n _ c 0-- co F- o p ca N Q) p cn Y O 0 O C ) j 0 m 0 Y O � d L-- O Q CO p (B <n co a) Y T N p j N (a C a3 N C 7 N a- p L C co L a7 O CO C U '-- (O 3 (Q (O a) 0 - T o Ec ' o -p . ._ va) m o LB ` ` x mctww = C7m cnUmd U5 0) a) • ma o .a) c � = o C — a) @ U E M O C t C C C d O C -- '' • • • • • • • • • Q B E .� Q a) cn U co E ca y o U Q) U 0 ca -o a) 0 Q) E C O C 0- O 7 > U CZ o C mO O O = C O Q) _O U (O N (d a) N O) O C t C � .L--• > a3 Q) � O Q_ -p a� U O C -- n1 � N Q U N U > a) rn m d U otS C O T @ L ami Q O c E a) m p @ m p p c n o E N o O O O a) m UU C C C Oa) 7 (d C_ U CQ _ O O O O ol — C ~ > O m O 0 O O O L m O ,y O C w O O C C N N a) O O., O 4 Q O M V] E c — c — Fz > � Ca � o 0 W Q W Q U Q Q U Q a) Q) Q O A Gza CO U — (n L C L N a) O Q) O = Q (a 7 a1 3 > N a) E O� a) O O O O a) Cil L U .L.-. .— C C C O C O O �--' U 07 O -O Q ry, Z c 2 m m c c ' a`� is ' o Q c 0- a Q `° c m-o o a) o �) E c a) O O 0 c a c .n � '� ami .>_ 2E O coo `° .� U Q ca m m c m"o a) .o "Q) U) co c c a a) a@i L c)-o N 0 c 3 -O as a) m .R O a) O .� 'O a a) Q) U L U 'U — O O .4--J C U C C�7 c>a 3 'o` c c c o f c, o o U — o o aci o U g o rn•� m a) rF- cn E o > m c a) c, -o cnc g `�' �° u' a) aEi ca Q) c d fn L C C Q NN C N C .L--. L Q C O v N ca rn c n o > o c m a E Ou>) a) - , m —a .oco amca))_o o ch ma CU oac`o)v ° (i a) � c O a mco > QEQ) oa Nomc ' c 2 =o �Q iE E -0 cLa.) > _ n aN noCD 0 a) o Q E a) O () :3 u) 00F= Q C7 ( . O Q) cL tB > @ N Q m O O a) a)) E � co ca Ucn ca a) c a) E o in cn O- C c N 0 O O O 0 p o N L (6 Mc-L c- to E U U U T (B O O 3 U (a C UO a�O O_ v) "N a) @ Q) c µ- c U) E ai _� a) m > .o ca ai as P- cm _ =3Q N a, (d O a) L L a) O` 3 O d � (1) C U O O U > a) m m d U Q) a) 1] Q C C O N d E a) � (B a) C O O m CO C U r� V m O Z o aC) o (3c) o o t-- '— ..i h 'n O U F .zI > � ' Q w � q � — x Oq rpil a 0) o m CD o U = o -a a) -v a) -o a) @ j -p 41 U a) a) — a) (U C 'p m > ) a) C) o m a) na � Q nU 0) a)— n a) - Ecz CO o omv L° L L -6 -6 o na) x o ca o a) cn o o h O3 o O N -0 C6 a) 0 75 70 (6 oo a) � U) � to (6 O C = > � G C O O C6 ' `p L f N T C to O 0 "E .� �57< m O c RS Y � U c N � I� O > «. a_) T C co 0 C6 U Q U L RS m CO m Q E Cn O Y C6 O O . ' i`— C C min Z5 m L -,:E -6 U O o a`ni aci a ca a) is -�' o a`� aoi aoi c�`a O N .fl- CT Ca O L U _ 3 C O .> — 3 (6 O@ Cl t L O) .� C7-.E- N 0- C 3 O rn cu O (L1 — .� (a (B 0,- ) cr O O a) -p CO CC6 ( LL .N-. Q p C -C=u .O `O c CL N U CL L .0 N 0 C @ Cl O N C L O L U 0 L �6 Cl C6 CT CO Q) 3 ~ L N O Co C a) a) (U _m CL m C U p)'_' m C .0 Q) a) L O N Q-" '0 3'— N O O c O U L .c ui a) c rn (n U Y fn O N L > y C — .0 L-- O U C �' (U cB.0 .C1 >>6 a) O N H .S o -0 a O :� 3 a Z a) -a ca E o L E a) ca o N M V U C6 0- E. C M U Lr- CG _m T (B C Q) O 2 W C U o C -- (d @ N O j '�2 U a> cu a c a> p � o c c o p a � p i � U 0 C�o cz J C U a) > m U O (1) 0 0- en c 04 a O CO O O Q O 4t 0.0 E c E.r IL, cr n Q U p O W A d 0 d W Q U x' ~" 0� T a> -o UZA � o c o a� a> > o o m L =FuLcn ca m o a,' 3 m 2 O pap U(d > .OCE p n na o aCj 'C n C C a> F. Q L ca (D o v co a� a� � n o o o c U) p. U 0 L m E Ta c CLQ ca ca a' .- mp `° Q 6 N Q C L p L o 4) �° T �° L O (D Q) T 4t p U O E Cn >` > i-c E o c cn a E vi c c (v -o O o cn L .o E-1 c a o c o a) cn ° w e E 3 o 1v .. n p c o a� ui cn _n o aD U > M - ._ U cu c a, a' > c° `n ` � t@ .a O cn Q) N O N -0 td 41 a� o (D o aa) _ m T - a m E o .o c cn ca o 0 � is o a.3 � E o .� cco c N Co c a T 0 T L O C C '� � L-.. C c c o n 3 0 a3 E (D 3 a) c o U 0 0 7 .0 cn U C O) Z:3 .N O "L-' (L3 (a O O E 0 o a� .Q a> c a o .o p o -a 0 °� 0 0 0 CL cn cO "' g 0 c E a� o n > - n o a� n m E ca m n o °' 0 CD- Q N =m U o o cca n M U cv 7 :Z- E xLu 0 N L o o M n-�o M u-i cfl n > p d '- a> @ > o cn p 0- > L n cu .0 U L U ca Q E coC u U C T (O C 0 O Q) C 0 0 C L N O U N O O j � U a) Q) m a c o O Q in c � � 0 a) CL E a) <_0 p p N m p 0 0 a) m a) 0) C -0 •-- c -0 •-- O � 7 �_ CO E O) ca U) 0) O N CD a) c U •- C Q '- C O_ a) O Q) F- > O O 'd O O '0 0 a co o ca `o 0) co 0 c a 0 0 CD o a o a o CO O m O m zco > V] 0 a U U .- O .D 00 CL MW p W QUQ QUQ W IrF�.I C% N -O — -O -O U) C C T w 'O - a) fn T N () V Z A 03 N L C N C N C 0 2 (a O .Q C Q 2 N L . 0):F; @ Q O W L a? 0 0 ca C) 0 L) io o m a) c— O o . cn .E o c ami L > o o U) 'o .� L L aa) a) on F- F u 0 c E w 2 � v U cn U 0 U ca 0 3 ca is a Q Z p, Z c '� U 3 U co .E 00 U c x 2 a) v m n in coo O .7 m m — a= " ca a) M ca U 00 O cu is a) -o c � � o ca _ c a) x ._@ a)Q > H 0.! O a) a a) w o0 0 o in o a) "c o a) o a) 0cn o m o L .o C c c cn L c @ � m N E c c o 0 E L c n .O a) 0 c .a o c a) m 'N E co .o ' ami H = U U O C — N (I N Q U N O O � U > Q) 0) aS cn d U O O � Q C C O O d E a) a) � � U o -o (D a) c U C @ C o .a N aa) E v ) CUn _ a`) CD- a) g a) c o 7 c O > o O -F, U .2 E ca `o -=o U' Z C4 a) a0c aa)i o Qom 4 Hz > � CL o E W A — o n CD- C) O W Q U a Q O W g cu o m _o a) m o E o HGF mm - ._ `n � OOH U o �, Lr-- m m = _0 O %) U a) a o �+ cn n o c a a) a) is a) m n o cn a) a a) co C a) O C O C d p) cn � r� cu O UO . (6 0 cn C ` - cn Cr 0 0 a) W) a`) d m a) o U Cl. - a) a) ) j cB c0 mc0 p O .— E cd cn O a N a) O O ccn CO (d C U 0 O ` :p .Q d O Q m E d E .� O O .0 y O C O N O (6 C L a) a) c a O) in O U co O � � C @ 3 U Q) 0 CO O .— — O U d C N in O C a3 'L _ m o) a) CU a) c .D m O 0) m ca a) 3 -a S ami o a) L c a) a) a) a) u, .E o a) v o a) c a a) C c6 '� C a7 N O1 (n C _ � 2 a) O Cn a) .N U) (UII C ` .0 Q > C U O E C Q) d O) � ' ca o co ai - U - 3 m 0 .n ca CJ m m > c =m a) .0 co 3 N o 2E O c a Q cm b w ti C7 Cd N .N U � O 2C O -V5 -7p c a 0 > CSW m S co C U CU O m c0 O O co a a) a) a) O a3 : o Uco I- U C X O C C S (O co J O a) 'O -p � U CO WD 0 Z3 0 cn �_' a a) a) U) Lw- 2!, Q Dom — E -o os (B >- a3 C N _ O (UO � O o J U n pLU ca m (° O � > U O C - (� (a N n U c14 U a) a) ca d U QJ a) L Q C C O a) d E a) a) Cl 0 0 U U U 0 0 0 o a o -0 0 a) m e a) 0) c o m U c Co C U c@ C U c C E E O 7 Q1(Q Q) a) 2 c a1 a) i c V) U) a) C _ a) O n U O a) O n .L L Cp Q Q1 H- > cn O m O 00 -000 O O 0 O p O p O p L d m O 'a m m O -a m a3 O �./ a) O C LO co W Q O O co N Cl) a) co a) O O- O *k n O � Q O # c c C W A — � fA -aQ Qa LED p Q o o a o QUQ QUQ QUQ -0 rn a) — L cm,c a) a) Fvj N c aa)i o a) ai cu ca o .o g a ami o (y c @ .c a) -0 =p c nN � U = c c Q a ani ac�i o o a) .O a) amici o a) u) o a) O a) o cao a) c U o Q a U c c a m c Q ma) co o — (D U a> o i..i N n p U N — c a) m fn H vii O (B a) m 0 L N 3 n-a N a) a) 4J (U t-- V) O Q a) a, n .� (n 0 a) .— a) a C ui a) O to ca <n _ p a) : C Y E 5 O c L1 a) d @ a) 0 Cd U a) a) Q-a a) a) ` c c m Lr, C U N a) c n m O` 2i Q a a) C U Q) d Ca L N N a) OU @ O p L n'— a) n3 U L a) t C c L a) 02 .0 C c :tfO p- xs c N L O U N M T y O 'a N O N C O 'D _C013 c a) 03 () p .a — M U a) fn Q) L a) >. m U) C .0 a) O C a) 7 CdcL .0 c y -a L O a) U a) Q) >o o Co _� U o o a) o as o c E E a) m e a) a) a) 'E fl o a) O E o " o Q w a c L—a@) ) > a`) Q La) 0 >c_ @ aai j =3 o o a o 42 va) O (3.1 cnc O N 'Op c Q (-) - c`na Q (3)) L a) a a) a) a) co o E (D o o a) 6o o oc c o a) a`Ni ai 4E 05 2 n Q (4 m Cc6 Ca c a3 O N Z .> Q) N - cn N y w a <n CO N U O c C (n C _a) O 2-0 �, ) O E o) co cn Q cv � O c O T d @ L -� Q C .c E (6C '--' a) a1_2 Y N O LID a) as .�_ ca E _p) a ca a a) C O c Q) (6 'a <n L LL T. (CQ O O) m U) C.L.) OU U Cd v) O > > N C U O C — (O � N a U N O O > � U a) d U C d N a) Q LL .0 c U rn Q a) U � � c O U 0 N rn a) U C ) O O �=3 = U �N cn _ � C U C a C .� a) Q 0) @ O O 0 -0 O ` O O c r CL N O d OU v O) 0 C c c � a � o a) o ao ao c Hz > � WQP�I QUQCL QUQ W Q O A G4 0 > a) .a) m E-� 5 vWj Q o E N .92 23Q Q (:r) N Qzaz m 'cu) cca55 2a> L .Ev oa) o= a o) m a `Q m cv .0 a) c. 0 MO- a) ca t ►., � a) 0) c E o U i i iCL dp" O i.., .... c cu— n U)cn j,- c EQ � -0oo o ca Oim = a) o o O, ca o ca n) o 0-4 U) fl O 2 o) Emt c ai cn — L, ao (UL)) n E ao) � o, a) a) C_- We c v - ca `o a) m,- 3 > n , m a) _ 0 O C c0 c a m O 'o ca C L 2 -0 U5 45 75 CU CCOc>do '._0 2� O O U O i . U C :E Q m p O Q , t.. C C(—U ON Q) N Q (6 = O a) O O L O N N o) O m C m a = OQ U a) a d O = O E a) Q _o pN V)cm E c 'o- 5 _0 a) -o E a) oa a) -o a .aO OCNCc=a O O @ ' ...: a Q)HI U C E c0 a)ca ,cn O > > 0- aEcL -o T T a) 'O aUi 'n -O (D U) N Q 2 c c c aC,w ca O a) c a) Q E a) o aa)) *Fn voi a) = aa) a-5 0 a) cz cn N H N cz Er m oU o in a c`a � Q LUEl @ (d _ E c U o C — M Cd N � � O O > U co a) m (d U C O O Q) Q U U N O U 0 U O N m c c > O .p U Q1 Cd co C O CQ ~ O ` � C � O m aO O a) CO -0 � E c Fz > � �¢ o w � A o � Q� Q d O A Frtr-" F �+ ai U � cnc a � 3 . Ncn i= (n cca t cca _a 3 ai a'a a .v-' o) 0, (nm 3 vs m U m o QOO � o c 7 cv � m2 a) � U 3 m � 0) M, � � mN m' m � (5 �Fo a) QQ) CO m cza) aC) . ' (CQ E o a Lnc Yu)a` p -sao m > a a) 3 a � a) a) � i 70 wT CY o C O ( X N dC O � — OO ) a)O C Oa L -0 a N a rnO aE p Ln O_ c .� Li- c -0 E 2 Oico(D 0 cnEao o Q co a 0cn c O o N CO ao �o LaD� n . c�c -Ln 75 0 a) aa) M o co o > a).� a) m o -o a) c" a) 3 0 m ii a w o a) E a c m U o c (n ca c c T O o Q m Q)) c a) a) o a) m :c 'o a) 0 m a) 'o c a) a3 � a) cv o Q c � Q > o c � in � UU) F (n cLc) o--aE Qa) acn -o E E p o E M N E E o a) L > op L o U cd d E C (B U O co T (O C Q) O a. U G C .— m � N O O � � U a) c m CL U C C cm N N a) 9 Q E C C O O Q) Lu'�)t- E C O W cr- m n cm o a) U 2 c p G Q) Cj)is C U D1 C (9 H N O co O U a_ 0- en O a) 0LD co a W ^ FSI /- L Q = Q ppa QUQ FSI (1) a) — >+ 0) m LL... U Z A a on w C O a C5 cy) .3 cCo M t - m F i U O a) 0 C13 v c m c Lo o t a>i m cn > �) @ O -0 U m I ._ a) C Q1 n'L ._ '_ y C w, m o — a) a) Co -0n.ui o - C o w 3 Cl U 3 cn a) -E = o a C -O T O .o U O O N c 'C N N X m �_ G �n IL�1 O C a) C d a N :'-' (n O- N a) O �T, O N a) C N C C Irl O _ m «T T E2 m > Cl_L--' C @ � d a) O QCj > -r- � W • E _ in a i� a) CO m 0) m ._ E mom° m m Q) m Cm CD- �cca a) can) O Co .-T�>o _ oa _0 o E co Uu) Eo � m cm a.2 c E2 m m Ca) 3 a)U) siEm w _ Uc a) m c 3 o 2 > w E � — '>, cCo h m ) — (6 O '� a d m 2 C a) � 6 — . Q7 o Q) 7 — a.5 0- 3 0 .m m a) U (Q d 0 C a) o a' a) '— c c c 0) L E in ) -0 o 0 m a- -o o)-o m o v) w c U � .E U m c -0 E - > En °) m m m a) o is iv c a) c o t (D m w 3 E - n cn 3 m m _ o O Y -0 c n O LT n L > Q CD >- a) 70 C m ~ C T m '0 CL J O m 0 — U E Q E n .�§ O` d C ' O O O n N 0 W a) m a) L= c C Q O Q m -0 E _O N Q N (C6 T Q U -0c fn 0 m m a) 0- ia UO c Q a) C J 0 U Ll� p m U O Lo @CN N w O O a) m d U a) a) � Q C C O a) 0- or) O)CU C U � a) V m a 0 O O O -- E U Hz > cl, a E Om _T cL3 'a LN c0 a D 715 -503NO a)0 a _0 i ED :3 � aa) :3Fo C', 3Cl O a''g 0 2 m — Un) @ aCl- C) = o -om _0 o-oiicc " L oai � a O L (6 3 Cn 0cu D 'N N O U o c 'c o E s a .n 0 > = oQ ca. a)a) c v) ui X _ 703 _ N (>6 -O Y U L -O T a Q) a) Q) C Q) .L--� C cn O Co cd ? ai co <° m 3 a > a) 'o ca E .� E a) -0 n � a) c 3 > C U O N U (d N EO .On @ m 2 w (B a) "tn -O N m CO N C `�L U a) O >. U U Q) -0 > 'O o 0 3 a a) E a`> @ 3 a) g m m o m a) 0 o f o o `o � Co a) cn L a is m m >. — o a) m E aa)) U) m a ` o m Fu c�a �' o a a o E 3 3 (n .N � ` o an 'ca m o o c O U na a) O � O0 N O C> _ ^ m O O a) O 70 UQ a) O "D _ O 'O Q) m Q cu cU :E5 (D 0 -O c crm Qa) E E " N -0Q 6Oam 5 n m (n m U a N U) a) c cn U U cC1 a E C cD U 4= E D) CO T cB C _O O d Q) C U O LIO C — a3 N Q U_ � � O O (3) U > N () C cu a. U C 4) n. Q a) C C cn 0Y u) O W U 3 U � D co o co o a) O .O c0 U N a)@ c c U a) m m E Ln 0 0- om o E a- ti o) clic o _ a 0 o ac) o o a) o n a o c — Fz > � Qa o LD 0 E a WDA ao a pm QUQ ac) a UZ � ►a- o @ 0)Z2 � aL 3c O U 6n ai cm c cn a)o o a) (f)i a) o oo co o -o c aa) ao) 8 0, : :3: a) -CO= > aQ ) cna) py o E a) a) -0 (D 2 0 W O a) T C6 ` Q) .U... (a - 0 o C ALO C @ > cm.0 cu a) L _�.T� c0 L O N m a) mo C a-U v) (n C � N N O C X N U Q) 7 N .0 m .0 O _� QJ @ (c6 'Uo C .� @ > f0 Q) c0 C ~ N a .0 a) ZL 'O O .O (d @ -0 � T m U •-- 6 d. C O — � C0 v) c0 Li IZ iz L a) O (Q C (O U CO) O C — (n U Q) U cn (6 a) .m N Q C M o Q @ 2) a, ° = ca m a) o c L ca aL>a) oa) (a1)i a) co o3 U o o -v o U > (n ao0E Ou) Qtu) �7E0E o Q =o n °' `°u) o 0 on N c is N a oU accn E o n 0 > cca Fo E ( E CL Q a> a) _0 a>) ao CL o 0 a) - o u) u) o cma) com� c - o L t a) Q) o c E c) -'n E -o .0 U > w c o@ L O m � o m a) — a) Q - C = cu a) N 41 -2 C/') Ea_ 0. 0 -0 a) c > -o 2)' a. m > m <nw0 w o o E o a) .� cv c :3 (1) a) T CL o o n.2 ami t "m c 3o z E .v 'o o a) vi O c 'D (B a) LO LO O _ =3 O a) 3 u) o a`)) cu (1) Q.E E a) o N E E a) oQT@ U N � i O O = 2 0 v)a) T L O _0 n cn .0 to 0 U C D- f— O L U > > O C U O C .— �p N U N E O O Q) U > N a) rn co U O a) C C O a) Q) � N � U m `o o � c = O O U 0 C CU 0 cu Cif cn 0 d ~ > O - CT O = O E -0 _0 r� CO a � C a) O Qom EU C Z, , (/] CLQ U O �J rr W LSA Qa O p w a U a UZA � c oa cQ) o U Q O W .O L-. m 0cu N= V v° oN O a) QMa) ci a d Z p Z o c = c c -o — c �,1;7 > a� cz O p O Q1 y O (U CO L = O �' N M T � 00 Q QN V Cd C O O [>6 .�E 0 to ca .� N -0 `Z mQ U U o f v, U c c) a) c) m cn y Q Lncn o) o E U ca V) E' c a) O QL a=i a) u' a) N L o O o co o o o ca E o @ c am o o Q) 3 cn = o w a) 5 E Q cu c m b n o m g o = ca a) .0 N u '� c a) .c—i .b 0 D o m .o in E 0 'o cn Q-- o c U n > a) p CO U 2 co 41 m U U N Q .� L a) o N = c n O b O o a) a) E L� c = ami m ca = 'ca cn z clsQ Q CO a co @ n Q n m m m -0 a)7tD v =o 0 U C 0 m U O in cnE2 2 N O N ,o CT p C d U N — E 'D (d :E:- N > U) U) a E m M E a) L a n cva (Ucn o E a) E L ` O LC •V U LL- _ Q .� _ — b4 Q cn = Q) L a o = C m � O .X w L ` U (9 �`— z 0 -0 h O _ 2 = CCZ C/) Q C (Y).Q) .0 ` E2O C a O C O (a lu O i ) cn _ Q o- m O-.U O 3 U o = O o E I U _ � a) .� .� 2 > U a) C7 Z m ca Q > � E X O C U U C .— m U N O O N U N a) Q1 m U C N N 1] Q O � C C O a) Q E (1) OL m CDN C) U 0 m p o 0) c � O U 0 -0 @ m O = T, O 0- 0 O = O) Z: O C O E r� �./ O) co en a O C O O _d O E *k F. Z > V] E U o 0 Qca. CIL a c Q zm QC) Q � zAw = La o 0 e 0 m oN o o m O a QZ a, Z a� m c Q c ca o a' E LI) ` Z .2 . m - a) m Fu -E Cd C t 00-12 cn m >, [n oo C) Q Qr m C O cc > �, CO N m .� a) -p U O r N N U Q cn u) m O � U m_ � m� a) `. aci o `n a) in L `2 rn .O Mo o c 5 n c) c° c m 'd v o W m co m o Q c m o o O Ny o c a`� ca 3 . Q E o a) c ci b o o @ E m Q) `nm o . U � OU mcn c w c "O' O = mm o a) a) E ai > U m = 'm cn - fs C a Fn 75 o Ocl o Q U N o _ > a) -O '> c 3 a) O c cn m a`> Q U co m E mo =o Q c m m -oO a) n o > aci o = cz oO O is 3 o cn E iv S o o ■ Y n Q) m a) Qcn QU N o E o 0 E w O m 0 0] a io m a>i 7o > m on 0 < E X f� o CO c ro C O a) O Cp Q LL U O)"O O— C U E U- = C 'Oa 0 .o Q N c a) a o c c (C6 O >,< m 02 U m Z U ' O 0 -0 c O ? ccu o c O a CO Q O> =- M co � c -1 o c o m o O Y t @ U Q C6 Q.0 a) O o = a) E a) U c d LL a) O z U m V d Q m E X K' ; -�D , '-D- / ©flog SEL CONTRA COSTA COUNTY •: -- = Department of Conservation & Development Community Development Division 651 Pine Street, North Wing — 4th Floor 553-1229 Martinez, CA 94„ Telephone: 335-1214 Fax: 335-1222 TO: Jane Pennington, Chief Clerk FROM: Dennis M. Barry, AICP, Interim Director By: Bob Drake, Principal Planne4j DATE: July 30, 2008 SUBJECT: MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PER JULY 8, 2008 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVAL. MINOR SUBDIVISION FILE #MS05-0030 (BELLECCI & ASSOCIATES/HABIG) On July 8, 2008 the Board of Supervisors conducted a rescheduled hearing on an appeal that had been jointly filed by Save Mt. Diablo and East Bay Regional Park District of a County Planning Commission decision to approve the above captioned minor subdivision. After completing the hearing, the Board denied the appeal, but approved the project subject to a reduction in the number of allowed parcels from three to two, plus a remainder. The Board also directed that a number of other conditions be modified in its approval of the project, including directing staff to prepare a modified Mitigation Monitoring Program in accord with the conditions modified by the Board. Pursuant to the Board action, we are attaching revised conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring program. If you have any questions, please call me at: extension 5-1214. RD\ G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Board\Board 0rders\Habig\rns05-0030 rev app doc cb.mem.doc c: Patricia Curtin - Morgan Miller Blair Charley Capp, Bellecci &Associates Rose Marie Pietras File z Att. Per 7/8/2008 BOS Approval, Modified Conditions of Approval Mitigation Monitoring Program t RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, COUNTY FILE #MS050030 (Bellecci and Associates - Applicant; Habig - Owner) IN THE CLAYTON/MARSH CREEK AREA REFLECTING (1) EDITS TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ADOPT-ED BY THE COUNT PLANNING COMMISSION LN ITS APPROVAL A T O THE APPLICATION N APRIL f 2008, AND (2) ADDITIONAL EDITS THAT STAFF 1SRECOMMENDING BASED ON SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSIONS f THE APPLICANT, APPELLANTS (Save • Diablo and f AND COUNTY STA FFPER JULY 8, 2008 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVAL FINDINGS A. Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Traffic: The project will generate an estimated two additional AM and PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements. 2. Drainage and Flood Control: Insofar as the parcels that would be created by this development will be a minimum of 5 acres in area, the County (including the Public Works Department) is satisfied that the additional runoff from this project would be de minimus. In view of the minimal runoff that would be generated by this project, the County grants an exception to the collect and convey requirement for this project, on the condition that there are no known drainage problems on- site; the existing drainage pattern is maintained; and concentrated storm water runoff is not discharged onto adjacent properties (see Condition #59). 3. Water and Wastewater Disposal: The project site is not within a water or sanitary district service area. Wastewater treatment will be on site using the County approved septic systems and appropriately sized leach fields pursuant to the County Ranchette Policy for rural areas. Each approved homesite shall be served by a well in accordance with the requirements of the County Health Department/Environmental Health Division. 4. Fire Protection: The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection station is located on Marsh Creek Road, approximately 0.25 miles from the project site. The applicant is required to provide adequate t f � Conditions of Approval Beeo mmendedfe!per July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors AdepFienAp . oval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) and reliable water supply for fire protection with a minimum flow pressure of 20 pounds, in addition to providing one hydrant to deliver the required water. 5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element Standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff facility station per 1,000 population. The small population increase associated with this project is not significant. Prior to approval of the Parcel Map, the applicant is required to establish a police service tax district to mitigate the impacts of the development on police services. 6. Parks and Recreation: The proposed project will have a minor cumulative effect on demand for park and recreation facilities, and is subject to payment of park dedication fees in the amount of$7,238.00 per residential parcel to mitigate impacts. B. Findingfor or Approval of a Tentative Map 1. Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans required by law. Project Finding: The project is consistent with the various elements of the General Plan. The land use designation is Agricultural Lands (AL) 1 du/per S acres. All of the proposed parcels exceed five acres in area. 2. Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision fulfills construction requirements. Project Finding: Conditions of approval for the project require fulfillment of construction requirements. 2 Conditions of Approval per July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors Adeptim4pproval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General: L* This approval is generally based upon the exhibits received by the Community Development Department listed as follows: Approved per plans as generally shown on the Vesting Tentative Map: A. MS050030 — Vesting Tentative Map and Preliminary Grading Plan, 3000 Bragdon Way, prepared by Bellecci & Associates, Inc. dated July 22, 2005, and revised on January 3, 2008 and stamped dated received by the Community Development Department on February 8, 2008. The approval is also based upon the following reports: B. Biological Assessment and Jurisdictional Determination for the 38-Acre Habig Property, Contra Costa County, California, prepared by Sycamore Associates LLC (July 12, 2005). C. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Ting & Associates (September 19, 2005), D. Geotechnical Peer Review, Darwin Myers & Associates (December 19, 2005). E. Archaeological Field Inspection Report. Holman & Associates (October 25, 2005). F. California Red-Legged Frog, California Tiger Salamander, and Alameda Whipsnake Site Assessment for the 38-Acre Habig Property, Clayton, California, prepared by TOVA Applied Science &Technology(December 12, 2007) G. Arborist Report, prepared by Joseph McNeil, Consulting Arborist(January 8, 2008). Reduction in the Number of Approved Parcels — This project is approved for a reduction in the number of parcels from three parcels and a remainder to a maximum of two parcels plus the remainder. The resultant parcels shall have an area of at least five (5) acres, and shall be configured to comply with the minimum lot dimensions (area, depth, width) of the 3 t Conditions of Approval Beeommended fo -per July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors AdoptionApproval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) General Agricultural zoning (A-2) zoning district subject to final review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to filing a Parcel Map. Parcel A on the Vesting Tentative Map shall be eliminated. The portion of this parcel lying to the east of Bragdon Way shall be added to the Remainder; the portion lying to the west of Bragdon Way shall be added to Parcel B. Submittal of a Revised VTM - Prior to filing a parcel map, the applicant shall submit three (3) copies of a revised Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The revised VTM shall identify the area of the proposed conservation easements and building envelope required by Condition #14 below. The building envelopes shall be described by a metes-and-bounds description. Indemnification: 2. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Contra Costa County and its agents, officers, and employees any claim, action, or proceeding against the County's or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the County's approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. Prior to filing a Parcel Map, the applicant shall provide the County with a letter agreeing to the above indemnification. Compliance Report: 3. At least 45 days prior to filing a final map or issuance of grading permit, which ever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a report on compliance with the conditions of approval with this permit for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The fee for this application is a deposit of$500 that is subject to staff time and materials costs. Should staff costs exceed the deposit, additional fees will be required. A. Except for those conditions administered by the Public Works Department, the report shall list each condition followed by a description of what the applicant has provided as evidence of compliance with that condition. The report shall also indicate whether the applicant believes that he has done all the applicant 4 Conditions of Approval Beeommended fesper July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors AdepenApproval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) is in a position to do to comply with the applicable condition. (A copy of the computer file containing the conditions of approval may be available; to try to obtain a copy, contact the project planner at 335-1216.) Hillside Design and Land Use Restrictions:* 4. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit architectural plans, color schemes, and elevations of the individual residential units for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plans and elevations shall demonstrate the following: A. Use earth tone colors in the medium-to-dark range for roofs and walls in order to complement the natural surroundings. For purposes of these guidelines, the medium-to-dark range is defined as less than 50% light reflectance. B. Retaining walls shall blend into the color of the surrounding landscape, be less than 6 feet high, parallel to existing contours. Where multiple and parallel retaining walls are proposed, the plans shall also provide for landscape/irrigation improvements (e.g., shrubs, and vines) to soften their appearance. Building pads shall step down the hill-. C. Reducing Visibility of Residences on Parcels B and C - To reduce the visibility of the project, residential development of Parcels B and C shall be subject to the following restrictions: 1) The primary residence shall be limited to a maximum floor area of 5000 square feet. 2) Garage floor area shall be limited to a maximum of 800 square feet. 3) The roof shall be designed to blend the structure with the topography; the primary roof ridge shall run parallel with the slope. 4) The height of the residence shall not exceed 28 feet, with the exception that an additional 7 feet of building height is allowed for that portion of a residence that is subterranean and within the building "footprint" of the aboveground structure (i.e., basement). Steep-pitched roofs shall be avoided. 5 t � Conditions o A roval Beeemme� J pp rded{eper July 8,2008 Board oJSupervisors AdeptionApproval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) Building height is measured from finished grade or natural grade, whichever is lower. For purposes of verifying compliance with this building height requirement, the County may require special documentation from a licensed land surveyor including a topographic survey, special house design and grading plans, and post-construction survey of the buildings height elevation following completion of building framing. 5) The residence shall be designed to blend to the topography of the site and the visible under story portions of buildings shall be reduced by limiting the height of the aboveground finished floor (including elevated decks) to a maximum height of six (6) feet measured from finished grade. 6) The wallplate of any story above the first story on a downslope building elevation shall be recessed at least 10 feet from the story immediately below. 7) Proposed construction plans shall provide only nonreflective windows that may be visible from Marsh Creek Road or other vantage points on land held by public entities (e.g., Clayton Ranch, Mt. Diablo State Park), and include documentation that substantiates compliance with this standard. D. No Residential Second Units are allowed on the two new parcels (Parcels B and Q. A Residential Second Unit onl within the building envelope of the Remainder) may be allowed subject to compliance with the Residential Second Unit Ordinance including a maximum floor area of 1200 square feet. If a proposed Residential Second Unit is proposed to be attached to an accessory structure, that structure must be a garage and limited to a maximum floor area of 200 square feet. —Buildings shall be cut into the slope to reduce the effective visual bulk..MM I (a) Deed Disclosure and Restriction for Conditions Applicable for Recording Parcel Map 5. Prior to filing a Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit-proposed deed disclosures and deed restrictions for each approved parcel and 6 • f • I Conditions ofApproval Bees c4deF fefper July 8.2008 Board of Supervisors AdeptiP*Approval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) the Remainder for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. A. The deed disclosures shall provide for the conditions and mitigation measures identified by asterisk (*). These conditions would be applicable for the development of individual parcels. B. The deed restrictions shall preclude further subdivision of the subject 38-acre parcel and preclude lot line adjustments. Upon receipt of the proposed deed disclosure and deed restriction documents, the Department of Conservation and Development shall forward copies of them to Save Mt. Diablo and East Bay Regional Park District for opportunity to review and comment. The approved disclosures and deed restrictions shall be recorded with the Parcel Map. Copies of the recorded documents shall be provided to the Department of Conservation and Development — Current Planning Section. Archaeology:* 6. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. 7. 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. 8. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Contra Costa County has been 7 1 r Conditions o A roval Beeenrne f pp endedferper July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors AdeptienApproval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) contacted, per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. Child Care Conditions:* 9. At time of issuance of a residential building permit, the developer shall pay a fee of $400.00 per lot/unit toward child care facility needs in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors. Grading:* 10. The grading plan shall attempt to balance cut and fill. If the site cannot balance, the applicant may request that fill material be exported from the site or imported to the site subject to an administrative review and approval by the Zoning Administrator; no public hearing will be required provided that grading is consistent with grading depicted on the approved site plan and the provisions of the Grading Ordinance that would not require public notice. [CCC Ord. Code § 716-4.202(e)]. 11. No trees shall be removed prior to approval of the grading/tree preservation plan without the prior approval of the Zoning Administrator except as specifically authorized by this approval. 12. The developer and applicant shall adhere to the following tree preservation standards required by Section 816-6.1202 of the County Code: A. Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation on a site with trees to be preserved, the applicant shall install fencing at the dripline or other area as determined by an arborist report of all trees adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and the location thereof approved by appropriate County staff. B. No grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching, paving or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline unless indicated on the grading plans approved by the County and addressed in any required report prepared by an arborist. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline, an arborist may be required to be present during grading operations. The arborist shall have the authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. 8 • y Conditions of Approval Beeemmended ferper July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors AdepttenApproval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) C. No parking or storing vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials, construction trailers and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the dripline of any tree to be saved. Landscaping:* 13. _Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Conservation and Development for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall illustrate the exclusive use of tree, shrub, and herbaceous species that are native to the area. In addition: ❖ The Landscape plan shall be sufficient to provide screening and erosion control for the hillside. ❖ Landscaping shall conform to the County Water Conservation landscaping program plan. ❖ Landscaping shall conform to the County Water Conservation Landscaping Ordinance 82-26. MM I (b)-1. The following plant species shall be prohibited from use as landscaping material within theses areas: • Tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) • English ivy(Nedra helix) • Periwinkle(Vinca major) • Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) • Giant reed (Arundo donax) • Tamarisk(Tamarix sp.) • Scotch broom (Cystisus scoparius) • Cape ivy(Delairea odorata) • Pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata/C. selloana) 14. Grant Deed of Conservation Easement to the County and the East Bay Regional Park District for the Area of Subdivision and Remainder Except for Area of Building Envelopes Within twenty (20) days of the effective date of this approval, and at least twenty (20) days prior to the filing of a parcel map or issuance of a grading permit (whichever comes first), the applicant shall submit a draft Grant Deed of a Conservation Easement (with a copy of the proposed parcel Map) to the Department of 9 IL ' I Conditions of Approval Beeommended fo-per July 8.2008 Board of Supervisors Adepti wAgproval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) Conservation and Development for the review and approval of the Board of Supervisors. A recorded easement shall be granted to the County and to EBRPD for all of Parcel B, Parcel C and the Remainder Parcel not identified within building envelopes. A draft easement shall be considered by the Board within 80 days from the date of approval of MS 050030. The approved easement shall be executed and recorded concurrently with the recordation of the parcel map. The easement shall provide that concurrence from Contra Costa County is required if the EBRPD wishes to initiate court action related to enforcement. The easement shall reflect the following: • Parcels B and C shall contain a building envelope of 1 acre for each parcel. A residence (limited to 5,000 square feet with an 800 square foot garage) and accessory buildings may be constructed within the building envelopes. Other buildings and structures such as pools, and tennis and sports courts, shall not be constructed outside the building envelope. No residential second units may be constructed on Parcels B and C. Sewer/leach systems, well sites, water tanks, fences, gates, utilities, driveways and roads are allowed outside the building envelopes. • The Remainder shall contain a building envelope of 1.5 acres. A residence and other structures exist on the Remainder. Any additional buildings including a Residential Second Unit and accessory buildings and other structures including pools, tennis and sports courts must be constructed within the building envelope. A Residential Second Unit on the Remainder shall not exceed 1,200 sq. ft. with a 200 sq. ft. garage. The existing out building and trailers shall be allowed to remain outside the building envelope with the provision that the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator that the storage or use of the trailers is otherwise consistent with the County Code. Building permits to allow repair or maintenance of these buildings outside the envelope are allowed up to 50% of their value. These buildings may not be expanded or replaced if more than 50% is damaged or is lost. 10 Conditions of Approval Reeemmendedfe ver July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors AdeptfmAyyroval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) • The easement shall pr-eelude fuAher-subdivision of the Pr-e ,eAy and„ oelude lot lino adjustments. The easement shall peFmitted to be removed as paFt of the Wejeet, or-for- fire safet �-.provide that no indigenous trees shall be removed beyond those to implement the Project, for fire safety or management, for wastewater and water supply provisions to the meet the requirements of this Project Approval. The easement shall allow a one-acre vineyard on former grassland provided that no additional trees are removed. No right of public access shall be created by the easement. The approved deed instrument shall be appropriately executed, notarized, processed and recorded concurrently with the parcel map. Prior to approval of the parcel map, the applicant shall provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator that the deed instrument that has been approved by the Zoning Administrator has been accepted by the governing board of the East Bay Regional Park District. Lighting: 15. At least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits for any of the individual lots, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator a Lighting Plan. The Lighting Plan shall, at a minimum, provide that low-lying and exterior lights on the buildings be deflected so that lights shine onto the building site and not toward adjacent properties or offsite locations. MM I (c) Construction Conditions: 16. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction,noise, dust and litter control requirements. A. All internal engine-driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers that are in good condition; B. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and areas of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of 11 , e Conditions of Approval Beeemmended fo per July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors Adeptie+ej oval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number, shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be re- issued with each phase of major grading and construction activity. A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed. C. 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. D. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. This shall include provision for an on-site area in which to park earth moving equipment. E. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to weekdays between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. and prohibited on Federal and State holidays. F. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site. G. Construction Period Development Activity Restrictions — Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction noise, dust, litter, and traffic control requirements: H. 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, unless there is a written request from the applicant that is submitted to the 12 Conditions of Approval Beeemmended fe-per July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors AdeptienApproval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) Department of Conservation and Development to waive some limitation for a good reason, and said request is subject to review and administrative approval of the Deputy Director of Conservation and Development: 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://www.opm.gov/fedhol/2006.ast) California Holidays http://www.edd.ca.gov/eddsthol.htm Air Quality:* 17. During construction the project applicant will implement BAAQMD construction dust control measures such as the following: ❖ Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. ❖ Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soils, sand and other materials that can be blown by the wind daily. ❖ Cover all trucks hauling soils, sand and other loose material or require all material hauling trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. ❖ Pave, apply water 3 times daily, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access road, parking lots and staging areas of construction sites. ❖ Sweep street daily, preferably with water sweepers, if soil is carried onto adjacent streets. ❖ Seed the disturbed areas as quickly as possible and install cover vegetation over the leach fields. MM III (a) 13 Conditions of Approval Beeem+ended{eper July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors AdeptienApproval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) 18. Haul routes shall be generally limited to those areas of the site which are proposed to be graded to avoid unnecessary scarring of the hillside. Biology:* California Red-legged frog/California Tiger Salamander/Alameda Whipsnake 21. The project applicant will conduct a pre-construction survey and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) and project construction monitoring to avoid injury or mortality to individual red-legged frog, tiger salamander, or Alameda whipsnakes during project construction activities. MM IV (a) The following BMP's shall be implemented for the prior to and during construction activities: A. All work crew members shall undergo sensitive-species training prior to their involvement with construction activities. The program would consist of a brief presentation by trained biologists knowledgeable about listed species biology and legislative protection. The biologist shall explain technical and regulatory concerns to contractors and their employees involved with the proposed action. The program shall include the following: a description of the species and their habitat needs; locations of occurrences in the action area; an explanation of the status of each listed species and their protection under the Endangered Species Act; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to the species during construction and implementation of the proposed action. Training cards containing this information shall be distributed to the above-mentioned people and anyone else entering the project site. B. An exclusion fence around the home construction area shall be installed to prevent sensitive herpetofaunal species from entering the construction area during construction activities. Exclusion fence of a design currently approved by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Fish and Game shall be installed before ground breaking. The fence will be constructed with a flexible plastic material such as Proplex 1199TM or similar material. The material comes in 12 foot wide, 225 ft long rolls. It shall be cut into 4 foot wide rolls. A trench will be cut to 12 inches deep in the soil and the 14 Conditions of Approval Beeommendedfa per July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors z4deptienAnnroval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) lower 12 inches of the material placed in the trench and backfilled. C. The fence shall be staked with four foot long stakes or "t" posts every 10 feet so that the material is maintained at a height of 3 feet throughout its length. The material shall be fastened to the stakes. Where needed, drainage will be provided by placing small 4" pipes through the material with a clear Mylar flap on the outer portion of the pipe. A small mesh screen shall also be placed under the flap. Exit funnels, to enable any species that inadvertently remain within or enter the home construction area to leave the impact areas, will be placed every 100 feet on the north, east and south sides of the fence. D. No home construction related work shall be allowed outside the area enclosed by the exclusion fence without a biological monitor being present. No trash storage, debris, or construction materials shall be placed outside of the exclusion fencing. E. Vegetative growth adjacent to the fence shall be controlled to eliminate the potential of"ladders" for animals to crawl over the fencing. The integrity of the fence shall be inspected once a week or after major storm events by the contractor or assigned representative. F. A preconstruction survey shall be conducted by the biological monitor in areas that will be enclosed by the exclusion fence where any potential habitat is present for sensitive herpetofauna. If any listed species are observed, the all work in the area will cease until the animal(s) have been allowed to disperse outside of the work area. G. Rocky features shall be removed by hand and under the supervision of a biological monitor. If a listed species is uncovered, it shall be allowed to leave the work area unmolested. If it does not leave on its own accord, the exclusion fence will be altered to encircle the area where the species is located and this area shall remain undisturbed until the monitor verifies that the species has vacated the area. No work crew shall touch or attempt to move the animal until a biological monitor is present to confirm whether or not it is a protected species. 15 Conditions of Approval Reeommemdedfo -per July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors AdeptimApproval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) H. Any potential listed species sightings by workers shall be reported immediately to the biological monitor and the workers will cease work in the area until the monitor provides clearance that the species is either not a protected species or has left the area. I. Any excavations will be backfilled or covered at the end of the work day to prevent trapping sensitive species. J. During construction, the biological monitor shall conduct regular inspections of the construction area and the exclusion fence to assure that the fencing is maintained adequately and that all construction areas are free of debris and trash that might attract wildlife. K. A monitoring log shall be maintained on-site to record all activities of the biological monitor and their findings and recommendations. The log will be available for inspection by the County. MM IV (a) 22. All trees proposed for removal, as indicated on the project's Vesting Tentative Map, would be replaced at a minimum of a 3:1 ratio by the provision of at suitably-sized oaks, as per County guidelines, and other native trees planted around the Project Site in natural locations and plant groupings. MM IV (e)-1 Trees and Tree Preservation* 23. Trees identified to be retained on each parcel designated on the Vesting Tentative Map will be preserved by suitable construction buffers, fencing, and Best Management Practices. MM IV (e)-2 A. An undisturbed and unirrigated buffer with a radius of 1.5 times the distance from the trunk to the edge of the dripline of each native tree identified for preservation shall be installed. Construction measures, such as installing temporary construction fencing around the buffer areas of the trees, shall be implemented as outlined in the Contra Costa County Tree Protection Ordinance. B. To prevent injury to those trees proposed for retention and preservation near proposed construction areas, the following protection measures shall be implemented as part 16 Conditions of Approval Beeemmended fe'per July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors A eptiomApproval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) of the project: 1. Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, tree protection fencing or other barriers at least (5) feet outside of the dripline of all trees to be preserved on site shall be installed in order to give grading contractors proper visual notification to keep equipment out of the area surrounding these trees. (During grading operations a qualified arborist shall be on site to approve any needed exceptions to these requirements). 2. Tree fencing shall be a minimum of 48 inches in height. Fence supports shall be steel "T" drive posts with a maximum spacing of 10 feet. The top of the fencing shall be supported by attaching a wire or poly rope between the post supports and attaching it to the fencing. 3. Once the tree fencing has been installed and its location and installation approved, the fencing shall not be taken down or moved without prior written authorization from the project arborist/forester. 4. No grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching, paving or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline except where minor encroachments are required, and as shown on project maps. The project arborist/forester shall be onsite when any work is done within the dripline. The project arborist/forester shall have the authority to require protective measures in the event any major roots are encountered in the dripline encroachment area. Upon completion of grading and construction, an arborist shall prepare a report outlining further methods for tree protection if any are required. All arborist expense shall be borne by the developer and applicant. 5. Consistent with Condition#23.A., no parking or storing of vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials, construction trailers, and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the dripline of any preserved tree. 17 Conditions of Approval Reee ended fo-per July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors AdeptienApproval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) 6. Weekly site inspections by the project arborist/forester will be provided to insure compliance with the recommendations of the above protection measures. 7. Upon completion of grading and construction, the project arborist/forester shall prepare a report outlining any further tree protection remediation measures, if any, are required. MM IV(e)-2 24. Emeept for-the tFees s Yvvi fieully authorized by this approval a for- wastewater- the appheant shall not of U11J Par-eel approval, e trees net identified fer- r-emeval on the pr-ejeet's Vesting Tentafive Map ar-b,,-ist opert tree survey without obt.,ining ., T-fee Do,-mi l�auY Va cu vvl roti avPvr-� 4;.,.m the r,,t ty .,,,,1 adhering to pe...Y.;t , nd tiers No indigenous trees shall be removed beyond those to implement the Project, for fire safety or management, for wastewater and water supply provisions to meet the requirement of this Project approval. MM IV (e)-3 Tree removal must also be consistent with the terms of the approved conservation easement. Restitution For Trees That Are to Be Preserved 25. 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 construction. Prior to posting the bond or deposit, a licensed arborist shall assess the value of the trees and reasonable compensatory terms in the event that a tree to be preserved is destroyed or otherwise damaged by construction-related activity. The tree-bonding program shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. On-site or Off-Site Replacement of Protected Trees to be Removed * 26. To mitigate the loss of a maximum of 54 code-protected trees that are proposed and approved for removal within this project, prior to filing issuance of a grading permit, or residential building permit the applicant shall provide the following for the loss of existing trees: On-Site Tree Replacement Program Option 18 Conditions ofApprovatReeommendedfever July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors AdeptienApproval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) The applicant shall submit the following for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 1. An on-site tree planting program that has been prepared and certified by a licensed landscape architect. The trees can be planted at locations shown on the 37.99 acre site. a. The plan shall provide for planting a maximum of: a. 162 minimum one-gallon trees of indigenous species; b. Suitable soil preparation; and c. Irrigation for the planting. 2. A labor and materials estimate of the proposed program by a qualified professional. 3. An agreement to maintain the trees for a minimum period of two (2) years following planting and to replace trees that fail that exceed more than seventeen trees. The applicant shall post a suitable security with the County that covers the approved tree planting plan and cost estimate for the term of the approved maintenance agreement. Prior to receiving a final inspection on a building permit for a residence on each parcel, the applicant shall provide evidence that the approved tree planting and irrigation plan has been installed for that parcel. Water: 27. At least 30 days prior to filing the Parcel Map, the applicant shall provide proof that adequate water facilities can be provided. 28. The applicant shall comply with the Contra Costa County Ordinance pertaining to water conservation. Compliance with the Water Conservation Ordinance shall be designed to encourage low-flow water devices and other interior and exterior water conservation techniques. Rural Residential Development 29. Prior to filing the Parcel Map the applicant must comply with the following: 19 � 1 Conditions of Approval Beeemmemded fe-per July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors AdeptimApproval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) A. Each parcel must have an "on site" producing water well or install a "test well" having a minimum yield of three gallons per minute with bacterial and chemical quality in compliance with the State standards for a pure, wholesome and potable water supply (Title 22, Section 64433). If the chemical analysis exceeds the State standards for "maximum contaminant levels" for water potability, a statement must be attached and "run with the deed" advising of these levels; Demonstrated documentation of the availability and quality of well water supplies shall be provided to the County Environmental Health Division. MM VIII (a)or B. Have verifiable water availability data from adjacent parcels presented by the applicant, or knowledge of the same, known by the Health Services Department concerning water quality and quantity per (a) above; and, have a statement that "attaches and runs with the deed" indicating that a water well shall be installed on the subject parcel complying with the general requirements state above prior to obtaining a Building Inspection Department permit for construction. C. In addition to the above, a hydrogeological evaluation may be required in known or suspected water short areas. This will include seasonal as well as yearly variations. D. The purpose for requesting hydrgeological evaluations is to determine the total projected number of dwelling units that can be supplied with drinking water from existing aquifers. A primary circumstance that would generally require hydrogeological evaluations is: In those cases where density is increasing in particular drainage basins due to the buildout of previously approved subdivisions using individual wells for water supplies, existing well yields begin to evidence declines due to the increased demand or in water short basins, hydrogeological studies would be appropriate as conditions of approval of subsequent development to provide sufficient yield for proposed uses. Specific reasons will be stated in support of requested hydrogeological evaluations in each case. 30. The land must be suitable for septic tank use according to the County Ordinance Code criteria and Health Services Department 20 r Conditions of Approval Beeommended fe per July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors AdeptienA& oval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) Regulation. Percolation tests must be passed on all lots prior to the filling of the Parcel Map. 31._ Prior to issuance of a residential building permit, future owners shall provide adequate fencing to contain domestic animals on the residential parcels with the gates to be closeable by a nearby rancher/farmer when necessary.* Geology:* 32. Implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with Regional Water Quality Control Board Erosion and Sediment Control procedures. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be used to reduce erosion and sedimentation resulting from construction. Measures to be implemented, as appropriate, shall include, but not necessarily limited to,the following activities: A. Confine grading activities to the May 1 through October 15 period; B. Minimizing the disturbance to steep slopes whenever possible; C. Re-vegetating exposed slope faces before the rainy season; D. Locating straw bale dikes or filter fabric barriers down slope of disturbed areas to act as sediment traps; E. When dewatering the site, remove sediment from the discharge using filtration methods; F. Constructing temporary sedimentation basins as needed; G. Selectively removing, stockpiling, and replacing topsoil as a surface medium for re-vegetation; and H. Provide erosion control plans and institute measures per plans. MM VI (a) 33. The applicant shall prepare a grading plan subject to review by the project geotechnical engineer. The applicant shall submit the grading plan to the County for technical review prior to issuance of the grading permit. MM VI_(b)-1 34. Erosion control plans shall be provided for all proposed grading if significant grading is needed. MM VI (b)-2 35. Prior to issuance of building permits, the site-specific geotechnical studies are required to evaluate the specific approach to grading 21 Conditions of Approval Beeemmended fo -per July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors AdeptionApproval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) and development. These studies shall be subject to review by the Peer Review Geologist and review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The design and construction of the proposed on- site uses shall adhere to the recommendations identified in the geotechnical investigation. The risk can be reduced through adherence to recommendations contained in the geotechnical investigation. These recommendations include (but shall not be limited to) considerations of deeper building foundations or drilled support piers and other engineering designs to control or prevent damages to structures associated with expansive soils. MM VI (c) Geotechnical and Geologic Evaluation and Monitoring 36. A. geotechnical report shall be required for issuance of building permits for individual lots. The intent of this is to have the geotechnical consultant characterize site conditions, provide final grading, drainage and foundation recommendations, and verify that plans comply with the provisions of the final geotechnical reports. The reports shall include subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analysis, and shall be subject to review and approval of the peer review geologist. B. The recommendation of the approved geotechnical report shall be followed to avoid/ minimize the effects of expansive soils, soil creep and other forms of mass wasting. C. During grading operations, all keyways and cut slopes shall be logged by an engineering geologist. In areas of highly sheared or deeply weathered rock, the applicant's geologist shall provide supplemental recommendations, such as drainage facilities, over-excavation of the slope, and replacement with engineered fill or use of reinforced earth. D. A representative of the project geotechnical engineer will be on- site during foundation work (observing pier drilling and preparation work for all slabs) to verify compliance of construction practices and exposed conditions with the provisions of the approved geotechnical report. E. The Geotechnical Engineer shall issue a Grading Completion Report. It shall include an original geologic map that shows the details of observed features and conditions for cut slopes, along with showing keyways and areas of continuous benching. The geologic mapping should be accompanied by a discussion of the significance of the exposed features and how design was adapted to address exposed conditions. The 22 Conditions of Approval BeEommemded fe per July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors AdeptionApproval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) Grading Completion Report shall also include a map based on field surveys or GPS measurements that show the location and depth of subdrains, as well as adequate ASTM compaction test data. During construction of improvements, evidence of geotechnical monitoring of foundation laying for buildings and retaining walls, along with other details, shall be provided (e.g., backfilling of utility trenches). Design Guidelines for Grading 37. Prior to approval of a grading or building permit for development of a residence, submit for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator a revised grading/tree preservation plan. The revised grading shall: A. Be designed on a current topographical survey with 2-foot contours. B. Reflect the proposed house grading. The approach shall minimize site grading by designing improvements that conform closely to site terrain, avoid large padded areas on Parcels A and C, and utilize retaining walls to control the footprint of grading. C. The revised grading plan shall clearly label all retaining walls, note wall heights, and the type, color and finish of walls. D. Identify all trees with a trunk diameter of 6.5 inches or greater within 20 feet of areas proposed for grading. Reasonable efforts shall be made to minimize the loss of or potential damage to existing trees. The plans shall identify the trunk circumference, approximate canopy area, species, and whether the tree is to be preserved or removed. The plan shall be prepared with the assistance of a licensed arborist. The plan shall provide suitable measures to assure protection of trees during the constriction period. E. Earthwork quantities (cut and fill) shall be noted on the revised grading plan. Hazards and Hazardous Materials:* Fire Safety During Construction 38 Prior to and ongoing throughout grading, and/or construction, the project applicant and construction contractor shall ensure that during project construction, all construction equipment will be 23 Conditions of Approval Beeej"ue wife -per July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors AdopttenApproval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) fitted with spark arrestors to minimize accidental ignition of dry construction debris and surrounding dry vegetation. MM VII (a)-1 Vegetation Management Plan 39. Prior to issuance of a grading and/or construction permit, and ongoing throughout the life of the project, the project applicant shall submit a vegetation management plan to the County and County Fire Protection District that includes if deemed appropriate, but is not limited to the following measures: ■ Removal of dead vegetation overhanging roof and chimney areas ■ Removal of leaves and needles from roofs ■ Planting and Placement of Fire-resistant plants around the house and phasing out flammable vegetation ■ A 30-foot non-vegetated or low-growing vegetated buffer around the building envelope ■ Trimming back vegetation around windows ■ Removal of flammable vegetation on hillside slopes greater than 20% ■ Pruning the lower branches of tall trees ■ Clearing out ground-level brush and debris ■ Stacking woodpiles away from structures A. The selection of plants for project landscaping shall also be compatible with the applied philosophy of "defensible space", a term first coined in the 1980 Fire Safe Guide for Residential Development in California. Defensible space is the area within the perimeter of a parcel or development where basic wildland fire prevention practices and measures are implemented, providing the key point of defense from an approaching wildfire, encroaching wildlife, or for escaping structure fire. Fuel modification or fuels management plans are effective in defense of wildfires. Such modification shall include a 30-foot-wide defensible border around buildings, which may include appropriately sized fuel modification zones. MM VII(a)-2 40. All residential buildings shall have Class A composition or tile roofs and exterior materials, and have fire protection sprinklers pursuant to the requirements of the County Fire Protection District, and any other relevant County departments. These include sprinklers for garages and under decks at downslope hillside areas. MM VII (a)-3 24 r Conditions of Approval Beeemmemdedfe per July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors AdeptimjRR oval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) Hydrology and Water Quality* 41. The project's drainage system shall be designed to comply with storm drain design requirements of the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works and Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 42. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an erosion control plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department. The erosion control plan shall provide for the following measures: All grading, excavation and filling shall be conducted during the dry season (April 15 through October 15) only, and all areas of exposed soils shall be replanted to minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October 15, the grading permit shall allow only erosion control work. Any modification to the above schedule shall be subject to review by the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact to less than significant. MM VIII (c) Traffic:* 43. Standard construction traffic control procedures will be implemented during project construction. These include: • As needed, warning signs shall be placed at appropriate locations in advance of the construction operation to alert traffic on Marsh Creek Road. • The construction contractor shall place and maintain barriers and warning devices necessary for safety of the general public. • Flagmen shall be provided as necessary to control the flow and circulation of traffic. MM XIV (a) Police Service/Crime Prevention:* 44. Police Service District to Augment Police Services --- The following requirements shall be met prior to filing a Parcel Map or issuance of a building permit as specified below: A. Prior to filing a Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit two copies of a proposed disclosure statement for the review and 25 Conditions of Approval Reeommendedfo per July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors AdeptienApproval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) approval of the Zoning Administrator. The approved statement shall be used to notify prospective buyers of parcels which are not occupied by existing legally- established residences at time of filing the tentative map application. The disclosure statement shall advise prospective buyers of affected parcels that prior to issuance of a building permit, they will be required to contribute to the County $1,000.00 for police services mitigation. The fee may be paid to the Contra Costa County Application & Permit Center. B. Prior to issuance of a building permit on any parcel that is not occupied by a legal resident, the applicant shall contribute $1,000.00 to the County for police services mitigation. The fee shall be paid to the Contra Costa County Application & Permit Center. Fire Protection District: 45. Prior to the approval of a Parcel Map, the applicant shall provide evidence of compliance with the requirements of Contra Costa Fire Protection District. A. Prior to approval of the Parcel Map is required to demonstrate that all of the proposed development is located within one and one-half miles of a fire station, or that development within the project that is more than one and one-half miles from a fire station shall be required to provide automatic fire sprinkler systems. IF the project requires fire sprinkler systems then a deed disclosure for each new residential lot shall be recorded with the Final Parcel Map. This disclosure shall indicate that the proposed structure has been designed with automatic interior fire-suppression sprinkler system that meets the design standards of the Consolidated Fire Protection District. This provision is required at least in part so as to allow a plan consistency determination associated with the approval of County File#MS050030.* Payment of Any Supplemental Application Fees 46. This application is subject to an initial application fee of$5,813.00 which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever 26 r Conditions of Approval Reeemmemded fo per July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors Adeptiom4pproval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If additional fees are owed, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION MS 05-0030 Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9, and Title 10 of the County Ordinance Code. Any exceptions must be stipulated in these conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the revised Tentative Map received by the Community Development Department on January 11, 2008. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE PARCEL MAP: 47. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions there from must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the Public Works Department and are based on the revised Tentative Map received by the Community Development Department on January 11, 2008. 48. Improvement 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 (On-Site): 49. The applicant shall construct any necessary improvements to ensure that the private road (Bragdon Way) has a minimum traveled way width of 18 feet with a minimum 1-foot wide shoulder on each side within a 25-foot access easement, subject to the review and approval of the Fire District, and as shown on the tentative map. 27 • I Conditions of Approval Beeommended fe per July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors AdeptionAaaroval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) 50. Applicant shall construct/improve any driveway to meet rural driveway standards. Access to Adjoining Property: Proof of Access 51. Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department 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. 52. Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, that legal access through all adjacent properties to the subject property is available from Marsh Creek Road. Encroachment Permit 53. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit Center, if necessary, for any work done within the right of way of Marsh Creek Road. Sight Distance: 54. Applicant shall provide sight distance at the intersection of Marsh Creek Road and Bragdon Way for a through traffic design speed of 55 miles per hour in accordance with Caltrans standards. The applicant shall trim vegetation, as necessary, to provide sight distance at this intersection, and any new signage, landscaping, fencing, retaining walls, or other obstructions proposed at this intersection shall be setback to ensure that the sight line is clear of any obstructions. Parking: 55. Parking shall be prohibited on both sides of on-site roadway where the curb-to-curb width is less than 28 feet. "No Parking" signs shall be installed along these portions of the road subject to the review and approval of Public Works. Utilities/Undergrounding: 56. All new utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground. 28 Conditions of Approval Beeemmended fexper July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors Adoptie 4EL oval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) Maintenance of Facilities: 57. Applicant shall record a Statement of Obligation, in the form of a deed notification, to inform all future property owners of their legal obligation to maintain the private roadway and that each parcel/lot in this subdivision that will use the proposed private road will share in its maintenance.* 58. Applicant shall insure that the private road be privately maintained in perpetuity. A maintenance plan of operation for the private road shall be submitted for Public Works review. The County will not accept these improvements for ownership or maintenance. Drainage Improvements: Collect and Convey 59. The applicant shall be granted an exception from the collect and convey requirement of the County Ordinance Code due to the large size of the proposed parcels, provided that there are no known drainage problems on-site, the existing drainage pattern is maintained, and concentrated storm water runoff is not discharged onto adjacent properties. Provision "C.3" of the NPDES Permit 60. In compliance with the County's Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, it has been determined that the applicant is not required to submit a Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) for this project. New or redeveloped impervious surface area totals less than one acre (43,560 square feet), which was the threshold requirement for submittal of a SWCP when this application was deemed complete. However, this project is required to incorporate storm water quality elements to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). This must include efforts to limit new impervious surface area, limit directly connected impervious areas, provide for self retaining areas and include other Best Management Practices to the MEP. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements: 61. Any new drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with specifications outlined in Division 914 and in 29 r w •� • Conditions of Approval Beeemmendedfoper July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors AdeptienApproval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): 62. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay Region or Central Valley Region). Compliance will include developing long-term best management practices (BMP's) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate, where feasible, some or all of the following long term BMP's in accordance with the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program for the site's storm water drainage. - Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. - Stencil advisory warnings on all catch basins. - Slope pavements to direct runoff to landscaped/pervious areas, where feasible. - Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program to buyers. - Shallow roadside and on-site swales Other alternatives as approved by the Public Works Department. ADVISORY NOTES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT A. NOTIFY OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, 30 Conditions of Approval Beeemmended ferper July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors AdeptimApproval County File#MSO5-0030(Habig) dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to ad 90-day period after the project is approved. The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. B. Comply with the requirements of the County Department of Conservation and Development - Building Inspection Division. C. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department — Environmental Health Division. D. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. E. Comply with the requirements of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. F. Comply with the requirements of the Sheriff's Department. G. The applicant shall be required to comply with all 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 II or Central Valley — Region V). H. The project is subject to the development fees in effect under County Ordinance as of May 31, 2006, the date the Vesting Tentative Map application was accepted as complete by the Community Development Department. These fees are in addition to any other development fees which may be specified in the conditions of approval. The fees include but are not limited to the following: Park Dedication $7,238.00 per residence Child Care $400.00 per residence 31 C 1' Conditions of Approval Beeammemdedfe per July 8,2008 Board of Supervisors Adapti wdp . oval County File#MS05-0030(Habig) An estimate of the fee charges for each approved lot may be contacting the Department of Conservation and Development — Building Inspection Division at 335-1196. I. The applicant shall be required to comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements for the Marsh Creek Traffic and ECCRFFA/RTDIM County Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. This fee must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. J. 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. K. 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. L. Applicant shall comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage Area 108 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. This fee must be paid prior to filing the Parcel Map. GACurrent Planningkurr-plan\Board\Board Orders\Habig\ms050030-coa-7-8-08-c.doc 32 O t- o C - m m N d U N O U � m m d c a) a) a) 2c m m Q in o c C) � E Q > aci a) E m CL c' CL 0 c O a) co � U 0) 0 N m o 0 a) U > (Z- 2 O m C_ D1 N m o 7 C U Q) L m O O a) C_ O cz m m m O (::F) Q m W O en C C a) o r.ia � � cn LE — D o a, U ' _O Wd� Q C) QUQcn ►'4" F v0] Y O O O L a) O o o m -o E = mL m m U cu O cm � m ° N o-o E a) Lo mo Ec c-0 a) cn a CL m (n a) m Ci O c oa cL io 0 E o E o E aNa) > W -2o s ac�) E = o c cc F o o a) m U m .. � — iia ac 3a @ _0 a E �' .E o m m aci a) N i Q) 7Iz . NOQ N m C O I . (n O p EO N a) N'D d a) �O O C Q) N m m C — o_ C a-_c U a) N a) O 4 O d a.� to m .� m E N m a) m P a) U O (D a) -o C m a) L O) m ?.='m d a C O ff-. h to m a) Q1 C cn a) E c o ma) > 6- Ln Oco Q h C m Q CC6 d (n _o 'O > C C ami 2 cn cu m C d Q) (n U fn c)'U m a is o a) a o o o 0 o cn -0 c a) t > E E a) o) E fl a) -M t a o 70 � ami a) a) -o () c E m a) a) o c L a) o Q —o m a) < - cn c) Q- 0 t E a�v v) mo� Q Q OD U L a) a) mN a) CL C U O E c a) `" o O c cz C U (D N a) O > N C 2 'C U) _O O C U 7. Cl) a) () E m Q1 m N U o a . c w a) o o > = U d O a) d Cf) LU Q E `° a t- U O C ca ca N a U N E "� o O � U N as m ca U O Q) � Q C C O N Q � Q) � � cd O D C p .O as is C U H Q) r� a O O C C O O H t U F" z , CC'n Q w � A � E as w �" Fi V01 U cu ca as T o c cn os as — a L Q) c ca c c c a as w Q O w o N o— M as v n o '� m as m as L F" Q ca c a c n cn m o 0) U D E c ' . E caa. -ow aa>s s ce aNaaa)i s a Fo L m c -0 ` w as =3 a� sm . vL o Ea E N cz a Z - L (n -ras a- CL 0) on _ ao mvO X N O dL(a O cn 0-4 LO iasas as U co" _10 Qas cal), -a) -0o) C_—> � o (a .L�CEoas E (a C�mQ >�S aa > s c- aE i O @ M co a) U0- 0O 0 0 N a a) cl- as L) omO c E os Easa a o cm as . In oQ a O L o c -E- Q) -- aUaass Lx > cTcLs o mo O >x aaam -U -0 H E E � vOH m -2 -6 m as Ua cn o N a as co U (a d E C 0 U C _O) C/) _T as C as O d O C U O C .— m N N E o U o m m U C O N N iB co c c p a ai Q c n m o o a)U a) p c p o c N m 0 a) m U .0 C C O O mm vi m � C U — C Q a) O m > 0 0 C 0 0 -0 E .LD _0 m `o C7 0, Ozo a0o ac) o aoM E Q V O -ate ►yO � W <U< m o ` (D i . -Ovm, ) m O O 24a) Y Vo70 15 om o o o m C) 0) U) a) 0- (Z 7E :F; O dcO 4e1 LE E cm 75 1Q (D o o — .EcE o 10 SQ oc 'Eoiao J oao "' om �_ c � � mr o m > Q p U < w 'o a) cn N m E •� m p > co a) 0).t: a) cz _ _ m _ p °) L E o m rn a� ai a) co a c fl o o N a) on �c o u c �° p > c c L _ N p m p o O N a) m O �' -0 m cca ami ``_ o 0 0 a o g 3 U c a o a) coi c`a a) fl c > > s co S a) cn o cn c c o cn m m o cz o = Y m e m > c`n`o c m o L m a m @ m m O a) -0 cu a) m a) O p a) O U m m a) E o o n c avi v) o a v (E ca aa)) o -o m m CO ID (D C (a >+ 0 E .� CO (D 3 RI a) a) O 'p N N m O o m O >.'a o a) > W o a) c v � �ao o ia � o Qm c c c c vci — � � v E Ew m c>a co o N a) c 0 cmU .m rn O a) c�u a) — o o r .5 3 m a) E o-T c -o E 4- 3 c)W a) F v)) m o `n c U r co a) E o co '> > °) m o0 o 3 .X Q� " 'R t = m a) Q 'c O m m O m cn cn u -0ivolf E a 0 E v) > `m U U p QJ L m o — m r.. 0 � c m m O v) m E U E F C C ) m cz -u) E 3 � c ami c o a) a 3 � iso 2 0 0- 2 0 0 — a) o — � 3 O C U O C — � � N d� N U j O (3) m (O d U C O Q) � Q C O (1) CL a) 2 0 O T O C cl =3 O U ca vi a) 76 c o - mia o ccom m Q a-m co cv o - i= � ¢off �� `o 2 C:T) c Ca CO O U r� �./ 0) O Z O c ai O M c c �� C (1) O Q O ~ yV > N Q C C0 (O Z1FN..I � Vr] U O aWC 0- O � QUQ x _ O N .LO O m ca co OO 'O N O Z —ai D o m c c cd o �' a) � c m iv m p c o 2 a) o Z Z c Q o Q a) a) d n m o Q Z a Z co = t a) o a) co in `n o co coa o 0-in a) a) _ > x U U N ca d o Q) a) c c 3 a c cn 0 co rQ CL V " o -0 o c cli LU ca x rn m o ` N a) _ .� m Co () Q O a) — 0 (n 0 a) C d W C Q) N Q) cn N `n y C U [r -� (B Q U a) 30 U a) C C O p C a) > O -0 i r.a n c c c E E m is -o n am) ca o Q= o N aC)) c o c o� 0 ca 0 c o -@ ca a o N > N � c c c 0 E a cn O w c y- -o -0 F > n3 N c0 O O Q'� OV o O U U Q CC, >,t ccn cn 45 c) .m O axi t a) a) �a a)m .� -o co a) p a) cn cn p a m o a) o U cn n3 o m ca �) a) c °) c° L T cvn m 0) U 0) in ate) ccna c u� — cn cn rn cii o> -p c -0 .c a) LLJ .o a) ca c c a) c o a _ cLn c a a) c m a c a o n o n U 0 o ca o o a`> a) a) o v) Q c v v c c w c o f 3 ' ui U 3 n @ c (n a)) -moo o � co m a) m cu � o c) N a) m c a) � O U c - c (� c In UJ E m o > a) n-.mac-. is � ca c — O V) cv m nz ca 0 N o � Q (6 (Q Q) C J ` J ` z IE; h �p Q1 CN6 C C U N 'D a) ca � (n N ca l7 O U O M 0 7D t OU -0 U 3 N a) oa j ( ca o co °M -0 U) m FL- m U CX. E C � Ca � U C a) C � (n L_ � c � ai a) n ca p N U cnE Q) C Q) Cd O C U p C .- (6 Cd N Q U N U > LO a� m ca U o p Q c c C) p Q E a) O a> D c o .o m iv C_ U E � U �I > I- V m Ozo a O C C C a) o FE U Fz > ZZ as wo � 4t L xa ca m a� a) cn U) en a) a> o > o o > Q O A G4 m m o D Y L o is m a o c o m aci m a� o as a3 Fo 7r c rn a O "' a� in is v> o O _ 3 E N m o v t Co =p m C C':4 N > C C=0 > LO fn C a) a) (pn cn O C Q p O C C to Q Z pO. Z v O `° E o 0 o a> Q o E m ami cm z E 0 E a-0 E ° w .c a'� m n> `E t aci a 3 a� ami a) n m a� E t p m E o p L > m m -o Q a U m `'E c c = M c 3 -0 � o E`o p a) m _ .2 o N o m� v> E E o c _ o o Q o '� O .� U cn c_ a) C -0 p O p0 C :_ (D Eo ,Q > �..i .Q -00 Q N U)N O 0) Q cn o-N(Om > oa ES (D cEQQQa s` o b ai E o iN N.0 E o E > acut am)aD O N v >ao m p o . .> m o a -0 >< f o a> o OTp a o c a> in m d o 0 m m om _ (n Q) C C (Q L a) N , fl o, T .0 p n O N -0 m T C 'v�i O LO CcP a T sa)d OQ -0 0 a) L >N cOO =v3) O00 -o.'tco a0 3U) (n > w 0 (D M O p m Q a c5 c 2 a) a) o w v > Em >o 'a E a� aiai oU f o 3 m o � � � n co Eo Cl) O m o C-' aa) (L) 0 c(O .cCOaaUcT°c, _ a) m E OU O (a O o — c v aE i � N W cu > c . o� E -o1F- x t ->> a)o mo�n H c"U (6 0- E E C co 0 m U) _T T C 0 N C U o C — m N Q U N Uc«- O (.0 Q m d U C N Q Q Q C C C O N Q O � CI O C) U C cl 01 o ci c O O C-) U 4j Q1 m U cu E c3 � N 7 (d E N d N _ 42 O) O Cy) O O) o _ C_ 42 -0 CL lz -a Q m Oz0 C cc CL r..i O N O CL O Q O E v c — c — Fz > � CD-a o 0 wow C) �_ QQ QQ d O W U cQ m Q m _ o T o c � c O Q � 'o 7p a)a N c N 3 c U m >, p L O �` cn n a) d Z O Z Q o m � o ca c m a' a c w o O Q � o o� - � cn oc w M � vS�c a @ co a� ca Qpu. U o uS m J o o a N o 3 N o 0 0 0 3CL N O > L Q (O N .T >CZ 0 N c/) Q U �.y cm (a d~ w O 8L Q) ."i T.O 76 O -O d O ycr I-. c N ` O O IN cn C (6 O) Q) p C (SS m Q ' o C C 'v) 0 0 0- N 0 3 c m a� — M o 0 0 ai a> is cn a� o is n _o' -0E o v o > T M M C13 E7 cna _E LcCfloC m U Q �a cN 3cOa cc") to � na m 2 M U) o 0- ca >, n3 O Q �O _r: ma— a)Cd = C L N N E c0 o > >n C a) EE m t m cn o o ca x m -- = a> Q aNQ a) Cc a> pU d $ a'n •O -o C-) U) E �5 U (d Q N O 6 E N m c6 t — . E i�: R- o a N T _ N U O C E U te ` c0L U N a o Z3 cn (CO O o U) 'a O Q@ (6 > U U Q Q m (n O_ -p Co U O !� •p O C L N C CO c>. , rm 0 EaO-n o Fn O �DO .«T. a mU N V -0 O) mNa cu cc o Mmo o Q cz ca m7 acv � E — Q = o U O C — (_z cu N .O_ U N O j O ti U � m m CL U 0 C c O � a) N aC3 Q cn LL O n3 a) O C C ` a) (O Q a) E ? O Q a) EQ Q CO E cr- (B U E = N Ocn Q CO 'O =CZ W U N ca U o c 0 a) a) v c c c � O .D = 6 E a)iv cn a) C U '— C Cl w (D O ~ O O O O ID d Cd O cn en a) O op., O N E UC — Fz > � as o WOx1 QUQ x ZAvOa)i v Q) O QC) . CO Occ -0a Q) a) -0O m -"a.' aCc) C c C a) n N a) O y ca) E :5 cm .. cc a) a) U) x n ma) a) n cn aa CC a)O O7O in Z c- a. o o co o w E0 a) a) > 5 -D o oUa cL�aa) .oc U o o o � n o -- acU Y 2) ia a.) m c aOUc, .Mg —m > C1 C E ca i3 c O U)aw � � iE ` a � O Lm = Na to Q) Ua. Q) aO o E oaa ai W 0 o o W o c3 ai O LEa) t5 aU) O O . (D c a) m' mfl aLccv) imdcn 0 co Ea) n 0Eco LE CoE @CN mv o cn C"U a) co 03 E O NEO C0n co Q U ° C°` aa > o _ c (a) V) o N 2i o c o a) oa � C o o o E ) aa) - o — o 0 Eu a) E a o o. UQE (n a) c <n 5- -0 a-o o ) av cn 'v ` o cQ nm 5 2 � � -2 a) -z-: m CCU) o Q) Co o12oa))'o > 'on ) F- o Q C �c O p) (a O C70 U U O Q) , (d C — WC :C=I" N 75 U O 7 cn C 'D -6-) (d N U) OL- U U (O ca (D �. = U Q C 'p Q7 a) @ W a) (SS O C o � OO) oON 0- Q) ID . O O W cwCO O U = v Q v (6 ` -0 m C w 7 N —'� a)N v) as a) E N � o Uo 2 �E u) O 0) (@6 L C o `O a) N (5 U O)L E co =i a) U Q p m � � O C U O C - (O co N a U N E o O U 00 m (6 d U O O .n Q C C O O a E O O c 0 0 07 is gz C U � O V O� Ozo � rr� Co aci o D Q Z a z a — N ~ 3 3 o m ch m 'c o O N o Ofn 07 U O` .0 N @ O1 L O C 00 .L.-. L .L-. C m � U -0 O C (6 U — N 'O C > a a) a� °-' co c D a' o o ai °' w -' � °' is Q ? U aa) aa) c o � 2 c E m ' o o N L 'co " � a' N ow 0O - NOcuO V 0 :3 3° Cj LE� E t m — m O o r am o o a>.2) m� �' 3 m � CD m m E is o ' cco is c � O a c .X p O � c cL cu > c ca C Cd ca O O d.� N O O N N Q c6 td C CO rn (6 to O a N eN-- O O N .N-� .0 m Y Q U 'p N O O o cca W � rn c v Op is � c a >. a '� oc m w o o �' a, w o _ '� o h E a a'cv �_ a Q �, E Q c 5 m o 3 a> c -E a) q E .w 3 t n a� a c C O O — cn Z3 c0 L.L. O 'O O S C "r O - to O > 2 Cr C L 2 U O co U Q U U -� C O OC -O Q a) O t6 `O � L"' O C X U aJ ` j @ ` a m 0 yLr-_ Q1 C 61 m � O C O O Q O C �[ - C C O N O X O 0 0 0 N m t 7 V (V t cQ V7 N o w m .�--' (O O C O a> Q ca t U wL U ca E cn U .- ►— In E 3 a m a> 3 z m U U C6 Q E C (6 U D1 -L- LU(D C rl (1) C U O C _ �p N a U N E w O O > 6) U a) CM c U (3) Q) L Q N � C C C Q1 Q Q) � Q) c 0 0 a�m C U � Q) r� V O) Ozo a O C C C o (1) o cn -0 o o o � o -o o � 3 ca 2' =3 a t 3 a> a� — o 0 QO W �' aci E2 — — za> •c`(6° caa) o„ po3U) m.v o m 0 o UL0 _c7E3�OoUC m n z -0c = � J > m ' - E O3T 0o cu F ca p o L N 2 o E@ m Q w cL E U a) Cl) Oa) omQ) —NU —N O Qc.Y - Y_ O O m .N cO .c O a> a o a) Lm p (n >,'N O � c _ > co p � oa o .L — p 0) v - O O Q) a> a) o >. cz Q) O O O U �.— U .p @ O N O U O co 0 o c x n > a> �' L L cz 3 0 -0 ._ — a� U °- 5 a E E o a> -0 a) c -0 > ca 3 a> -c E o -o a > Q Q a a' E ca c a� cz is > - c a) .> a) 'E — c° � c `� -P E u) cn O Cl) a' . n p a� n m o o �o .2 oa — o p 0 -2 o is ac oN o cn p n c U@cna 76 c > n Ymo ccoa E0 o " .a_s oo0cca o 0) N () .imim a a� nm ai o „ a) aco 0 . o m om � am m oo > ptE 2Qa. 0 -0 aa�' ma> a3 cpa � � � Q U) w _ U N 0- E E C (B U C T C (1) p d o c U O C .— N m cliN d U w O O > O U a) a) co a 0 c6 0CM n Q n o ucoi m o u@i c 0 c = 'ca o 0 Q U c a) ai @ QD E .� a) tT a) c) a) p c o o EE pp Q E WM N ccC) mopC7 N m 0 a) U C c cn a)m co E N E C U E V CT C N O _ O O O Ch Q) N Qw r.i p — O- O �# a O 4t UD E C C ISI u► 0 a) Q O co c p c6 W O � QCQ QUQ UZAw a) .LD a6 :s > L �' .m ca m c o L Q O W m a) co co c c) c m a U o m a m m t_- En cn a) -o (DL) c .` co o L N U a) U L U i (n N0- C (d QZa, Z c .� o cT L) co o m m c 0 0 Y > c o o f c co U O m o 'a E m co E Q a' U a) L o m is C) m w a `m co - 'o - CO U) o -a v)L a) co Zn a3 > 3 0 ami F c ami m U) o � L m c co o x =-° cD o a cUo a`mi "0 o m o a 3 Q coa a-0 0 mo m e .CU a Q•cn o m � L c a) c a) ( O3 C m �CLI, C, Y a -nm aU -aj `iU 4) o Q1 CQU Oo a) o 3 :3 -0 2 r m U, o oQ o - 0 cr— co opcv co m UY 4::3 O 5) O O'm L O- CO O m "<n Q) m L Y >. (n L T U C CU ,[ .-.. C N — � cn 7 O w Q O .0 CO L � (d cn cn C6 C -O O c > O O 01 U +-' cu 3 N (n a) d Q) N O O (6 co E c N w a) aXi a) a) a`) E m cEa co m — E ami a) 0 U) d E Q ( .E U �, U -0 'J C fL5 � C T+ E c -� Q a) cn p U m E m .� -o a) n E m a) co = :3 Co 0 0 a) C) a) U) cn LE m _0 a) 0 E CO OC a) U C a OO a) M Q O O U O@ U m O T@ O_ � O C U U U > U a) O Q O m C m N a) c -0 T c a) U cd @ UJ X O E to co — > m L O m O C -0 co _a) m N m O` O O C U O C — (Z (o N � O U > a) Cy m U _O Q) Q Q N � C C OCL (D cn a) E a) (9 � U 0 0 a) 0) U C C C cz o .LD 7 0-)16 U) 0) N C U C O 4 O O 0) ~ > O O E = O -0 d m O O C N CO 'i V] v C ~ O O Q 0 > Hr Hz > � o w � A — 0- 0 CL �ypw QUQ W 1-1 ( I� (B -e a) Q7 a) -0 a) -0 C a) - - a) 0) O (O Q7 C O aOA � 7 "3 c E CL � � �? a) O � c' a) c � L . c a) c o W w - '� @ �a o o v a o o .� 0 c @ a) � Q a H a m (D 3 .> c c o c5 o o _o 5 0) o o 0) `U))— _o z z L Q) ca CL D_ Q d Q. a3 C Q)-OO a) w .0 o O ` _ U vc _0 (a a) ca) cO -00 c N 0 acoLc -0 (n O c 3 -0 O _0 0 C aC L U U — O N W 0 � 'ap 0F L N u _ o (nO 0O O(dm L (° CO -0 C acocoo) cocn 0(n O T� a) c aciLo -0 2 LoC O_ n "a) a(n) Q Occ w.mcN c om � ovi Owww =— E aoa)c (n a) u) a2 () c m0 a) a a) - > - c b 5a0 " ( o 'c o o o o o oc � o) oap Ca (n � � oCz 0c i :3 (D O co D) a) E ? tz a o c a) Lo �o o -0 a) � 0 0 - w 00 _0 n 0 ) u=) o U) ai a) cc L c c o a) 0 m 0 -0 � c 0 w a) f (n o co a) o Q o a co) a) -0 co d H �) o E a O N Q Cn O > O U -0 =3C U -0 Et= N (o O En a c" � c c 0 E o- C) N a) (n w c a) pCZ N L o n E U m O a) 0 0 N T U) L > -oa) _ co a) >-. L U O_L-.. _0 O cz C O u0i in `O 0 a U C o c — L N Q U N E O O U a) 0) cud U a) 0 E Q C C O Q) Q E (D Q) O O cn 15 C U � 41 V 0) a O O N O U ERZ > V] Ca jG�.yIi as �* mU 6C nCQLa) C aa) a) �.a0 a �Q) 0 M a)> CcuO C C o " v, co OL a) Y0-C U>a) � o Uo ) - m O E mo0o ` 'o O aQo cuaw2 � a) Q a) c m 3 o cn a) o .o c am— o a) Q L E L o c -0 N 0) ate) ac) 3 0 o c E o _ _ N E (� m T n O o L o L o L .O ami c c o C O (6 Y U C to _ ._ C C Cr (O 0@ U O-U N (a Q U d E O Y (a O (a te O .� C O a) a) a) o E amici a) c �) E o a) cn �_ o aci o a) o o aci o N m a) a) c° '� -0 o a) o o a`) a cO a"i > a) M �) o C E — L-. c - U 0) L c U T'p � 41 - 0 (d Q) U g °) L coi 3 c a� c o c — 3 m a) c Q a) c o L a) (6 � V) c '3 O (4 N a) ca C cin -.> (O a O c6 = - . C (a — > 0)� � o 2 c m o_ p c CoLn v a � � co 0 a o oL ' �_ x a) L o N o O CZ c c O a) 0 a is cn o ca m c N 0-H 3 t v =o o a) ca 4) O) Q. �p O .� 0 U 0)L .O C a) N a) C ""' � � .--. U C U O N T p C C O O C N .fl- a) m I .�- N O d O d C c/) O O -- ) 3 Q z a) a) -o m E o 45 c E a) ca U °) n a)Ll ca U o N M d U m Q E C 0 U C 0) _T a7 C O d U O C - (6 @ N .Q U N O O N co N Q7 d U O C N N C6 Q (n C Q O ea a�C) N c 0 0 U co -c 0 N co 0 a� m U .0 O c 'D cz O .O 2 C (d J N m N m U C K O ) .O cm UO O o O E .� _ C U m O Ozo _ v _ xs a O C C C N N 4t O O O a 0 zm a O 4k V] 1n E O Ccu m co EQ .V O U :p Op Q0a ac0a U O A W v �' ca co a o > �_ -000 v � U >O. T � 0 cn = � a o a D 2 (n a c > > (n E t o m 2 c w o c E Q Z a Z co cn Q o p c n fl cr (D u' a' _v' a> cn c '� (oj 3 O O v v > .2 — a> 2 'o a� m c aEi ca a) ca FO3 = M o 70iv a> E = 3 o0 a� a Q p U N o o > @ m a� (D ca o c v o f a`> > a� 1 -0 c E o o0 c cn L E vi c c mo a) -0 a) o Y a� ly cu Ca N N L O y N N �' 2 m o a 3 y EcU gn cEv) o .c co _ o ° � 'ao o ` -Moof n a ao E -o cio `o 0m � cO- > o 'oOo_ s m aE a) FA- Lm.. c in 0c0 O cuO - p 0 p U o _ E o E Q a> u, o cL a> o;lsaEi c � Ln co c o ca:� o a�`Ei ca 0 O' a) —aoi U) co o a w v aa)CU W E Q co > co -o c.> 0 LD U - co u> E W m w � .O C O L O C U U > 'O U cu U ? O C O L 4 > C CC O (n c/) OU O O O c ?•. O).- > O O -FzJ C > c6 > op m a> E E � U d J -co- U � > O C U O C -- (O 76 CIQ N U _ `— O O j � U a) co d c a) a) � Q c c 0 n 0 E 0 co a) 0 D U U 6 6 "D a) a) a) rn c U C_ U C C O .O DE E U _ m Cd Q1 a) O .� .0 O O C, C ~ > O O O O U _ iT O n O ) .0 d. co O d O CY) O c O c c c c`u o a`) M a) O C1 O CZ 0 E c c Hz > � Ea o 0 �WyO � QUQ QUQ O (1) -6 O Q O A c`a o cYi ? E . a sz o o .� ca 0 70 W ami 0) '-ff v voi amicoo m m m O O Oco co 0 o c_n o f a) _ o -0 a) o °� U = rs. U U vi c c U _ in ca vi Q Cto L C @ D CD N N O C O a) N O O C 'D w c a) co .N E Co .o �. D�j — C CO N .O C C .� O C N O C Q) U N �T, 7 c d F O D D @ D) C a) @ M m O to " �m aoi = Q c ai m c 'c E a`5 — T C t co -0 omco aa) m ) dac o 1) 22 E cO o oo C° v o 0co.CUZa0 Oo WiN d U 6 cu U ac CO ca a) COLoU — U D'� o E� 0 ai-W. .L 0 o oa) a �7Nm ocma Sco -oa) 15 a<n) 2 a) oo> o cn m w _ c o w cn E L o E O co t " ? 0 c c o 0 0 T L a) in M- -0 >' ca c E io -D = a o m c i c� '� c c cco @ co C_0c c m to O to c 0 0 c tT o � ca o c(B .1T Cd C6 a1 .0 N (1 O c m o a) YU o D) 3 WQ tO .. od' � m n U c ) �E p 0 o n a) u) O vc) cCn O cn U > _0 N cn 0 in E > L) W m _T � C co -D m �� � a o c@ m > o o C con t_n O Q) L con U N C C OC - U > "O U -o U) Cn X L ` c � ca- 0 O O> Cd �_ 41 .M O "D C O .O m C E U) mN 6 U U) O D O a) O p N O C O O - C (6 U Q) m C CQ to Q) m C > ME >O a) E� . 0 n E p mw E E 0 o0 w con o O QU (6 C6 9 > LEL—ff a) o) ca d U C Q) Q) U � C C O a) Q E a) i 0 U o -o a) o) c c cca m o o .o � E m U o)is N a) c cL= c 0-u) E - L .o o) co m ~ > O o -0 U Q) O 4 _0 -2 . CL S -o m O � (CO m O z en M a0 0 O O O co V E c] In U F� Z > Va ca _ it off o W � A CL a � pcsa � Qua A o o a) a) V Z a3 Q cv o rc7i dOW o o a) o 0E 49 ao a) E c c m � E m gaoi-o o � E a) v u7 ca - cv c d E (D m E o a) c c ca r� C U CO Q7 L O- 7 v U to a) Q a) •_-' —~' - U m cu U fn H 7 O N c O c Y � = 0) rn � N 0 C 'N H C L O ] Q) .cll N C ` U O m a) CSO O O O O C N a) a) 7 > N C () Q) O E a, o co a a) `o o m o ca _ .o� a n c E u) -o O L--. QO c ca � � U d m 'cn O E > z co 5 c6 U O C O C cz N o -_ O d A L 2 cca c .� U)O o) a '� cna v7 a a) 3 -o >` m o a) >, U - - a) fn O O U _0 a) C '— - U _ — U t > o t w o E c @ '� voi aci E in c a) rn S m m a>'i o f `n o d) "m o io L o O m a) a) o f )i CO CL cca a) E .as 0 -T '3 o o a CD L o o ¢ cn U o ui ii b _ Z5 -z- cu a) O T L O OU m L.-. N F- U o) _ N 0 U 7 a) 41 c0 CD U Qcu cn E U U a) L �O U c O lo cn m Q ) O >O -O O..'O c c a) o o cD3 2) o a o a) u) > v7 "37 Nco 0 cu 3 O L Q C Q) C C cd 'o cn 'o O � L a) C U O C - m (a N E ` o O � � U ' a0) m d U O (L) � Q U) � C C O (L) CL E a) ry, m CL � U U � O O -0 O a) Mc a) m -a .--� o .o C6 E U cz T E h cm 'N C i1 E a) O cmC a) O C0 L--. = C ~ > O 5 -0 0Q. O O 'O O a) C a O a) 13 m `o -ca (10m `o � a) N OLO c W O O C C CO a ►ti O a) O OL O *k fl- O cn E c — c — Fz > cr Qa o 0 E Wp � It ac) Q ¢� Q 0-4 cn � — � o 70 o -a 0 � a) L c a) a) rn V Z A c c c O aa) - F O �' m -U5 m cu u a) 3 ) m m ao O 0 o * 'a C -L N cC c 0--o ) E2 . a ` cca ' oa) o O nO m o a � c -0rn0c s C,2 .5 o a. ao ao a)m 0 o COAL iia `� co -m- -0 nc cn O o O .U) O a) > 'a a U) L in -� elf C U) C :W: a) c 2- 0 N m C:lO a1 a) O m C C C a) ,� V) m � > U) C .- U a) C O U) 7 cn O a) c �c E a a) o � a) a) c O d LE N 'C U ( � co U) N U U N72 — S-D N O L. C L d -C _o) m cco a) V)~ _ ~ o ~ o cc .� co o D o vi O -O co O a) �. •f -O O D c 41 U N O) O c U) a N rn E m 12 o -0 ami o co N n U ) Q a' o E C c a) E o a) 'N 0 o a) _`o_ : 0 ai .a- o- E i (1) C U O C .— mm N Q U N U � Q) c m U C Q) co � U co 0- a)CDU o m U O U o 0 a) m cn U C N Q1''' C cz m O 0)is u) 0) m a) O m m o 0 0 p O .0 -Op �_ _5 p C d m O d 0 r� C O _ M M M � .� M n 0 *k n 0 z�t z 0. c a a c a O W 0 CL Q U Q Q U Q W m a) a) o � o c c mM o Q — � na)� o c o � .c a) n 00 � O tao)'Qcv p vac v> - c o a E M ca E — n o a) p o 0 on c .o o — im cn o aw'N E � O N O M QCo aU _ ocs a) cz cn o at co °' o �= cn c E m c cu m o > ami L a) cn U aci _0 � o cn cm 0) a (D = c C, ° iD 0) `o is o > E m o — U a) c a) m U o a) a`� () m c v m a) L M > cn _m a) ' > m O C C M C n 0 D1 0) Q1 L 5 m fn .L--� @ E ' O p C m O p U 0 m 2 > a C > E M p U C U 0 m '� a) M M G7 Co Y m c cu (n .o) C C Q7 U � L._. O O m _O a) L O 0 0 � c O m O U O Q cc6 U m m m m L m 0- �_ p U p .0 y E O Q) C E O o in a) -o o N a) c o Ln E -o E E a) > .E E cn p ' a) c- c-) a) m m a) d o 'o= c-) n cn (3) c m a s Q > aci 1E m o a 3 m mo N p m O a) .O ca m 2 L- cz > > d Q� Ear T T c L M cz CL cn-c a) a) M 'O T m C m a) -o M 0 n a) w(n O a) m T 3 L C w C Q E , O o - 0 0 Ncn Cf5N O -O C d Q >, 2 n c m J a) o m c > P- =3 m 0U O fn m m o Q W v 2 E > O C U o C -- m @ Na U N U a) U) m U C m m m Q LL U � U CL U 0 U 0 .o CU U a) o � � U o ai c c > o .0 v a)m co C U C w C O O U O OO c O r� V 0) O O C o QIC O O 0- 0 V kn z � A a9-- Q ►Wyeal ¢c0a W FSI �] I�■I �� ` O m a) Q) -o ?. � � C O a) L � Q � Q) "p a) a) a) cc, Y 7 m N D U 3c L C o C2 O rW Q L z E w L V) m m o m _ m m � c .0 m 3 o uS ate) U co ' m 30 -o v m m U U 3 m v c c a) o 0).r i a' 70 O c E cn o .S E o m c in > m cu C) t m o Q > m a L E � c m o E 2 C) _0 3 n m > o a Q ai aC -0 ami o` o0 U) �" a) ai Q m In °) c a) - c 0 a) — a io o aci .fl N I..L Q> > c O .� :3a u) x ` E V) M CL U m m oQ TU) cv m m c o LQ EEO m a -0 CD- U) aocD c> m N �coa� a a)Q 0 E - � o ` oQo a c o mV) m ' 3 � =0 m Q ° n EoN (D 5 0 0 m co E o aoi a) X 0 3 o .c .cB a) a U) m (D o a) .o (D rn o N a f - 0 L 0 -5 .E io -2 = 0 m n c).� c a) m o o a) 'n a) 3 m o m m E u) U o m c`o Y (n (n p C O 2 .a) 76 O C W N E .cn � U a) co U N Co O — O Q O O L L o a) m O t' (D C a) ,�O (p n d U in v) a- o � C) a.n E n a) a cn -0 E E Q O m m ri :t(/--) E (1) �' c`o L a) OU L N m QL U m 0- E E C M U .E 2n c O d O C v o c — Cd (B N Q U N O O O U � � a) (II d U C C Q C C C O O Q) U) C O W o c 0 5 7 (6 O aD U = c o O s C U � O O i d CL en Ozo ISI O p O O Q- o V] In U C - -y .- E o n o Q Q O W L aqi co oo m fl a@i o U ca- .c o 5 mas _ E co > N.cn mU)z z @ ° fl .0 c i 0 c aE — f t a_ _ Ea .o 0,7m c 3U 3 m ao ao� U3inc o o � o a _ c c o E E m o c O L... C d (O 'O o .o cG O y C `J N X M O (6 (a >_ O O C = - C2. a) O a) > W > -D Y co °) E cn o c > w a3 o m o > E ca a) a O a _o �_ cu — a� m o _ m c a o (D E o ca > Q a aa) o3 a� t L s �_ .� Cl) a cm .E n aoi c a-) o ca c°n cz Qcv c � O Q = in .� 4 E a cL m o as a� In U —_ m m '� c _ o vci m E t o a> o T a> m e > E a v U = 16 :s -3 (1) _ ' -� cu> .nz coQcn o o oa3 m mn a> c ` E aiQ mo . > - � o =(�cDo O n o-a M 45 m o vw E o U ' -> > o a> o ca o LU 3 E cn :E-:: EL Om moc a 2 ca Y ca Cd Q cu a� Q J O M Q— U E < N E Q.� a) Nc o -0oa oa 0 W a )m N c c Q O Q co CDO = a c o 0- a> M a) > o- -0(D op (- 10c (3 (B a) a" p td .� a : C J � UO =1 E > a) C U O C -- @ cu N d U N O O U N cm a) Cd Cl- C:C C: U N C C O d) d E N CL N (D c o .o o)m C U Ozo aCo ac) o F2 U QQ �w C 0-.4 � E ca - o QOW � a) o70 �� n a�Z (n � ' >46 > -a a) a) . O C U O .a) Q ` C O C m O ca O p n O Y — m a oo m o o `° a -o o o o ) ncn v o - T.= 'm - 0, 2, p ) T � . - � � o L L E m � cv a) �' ca 8 O cn m.ca- _ vi as 'X :3 (n fl o cn ca -0 aa)) @ cn 3 n 'o o a) m —' � E .� E aa) a c ca'i '� 3 0 a'o U ai _ ca co, c 0- 8 c ca a) `o > `� a) �_ c ." a`� > w o a) Q o aoi a cam) c =o cv a) N O a) -0 = cn 'O � a) L OL > 'O _ Q a`> 3 a) T 'n cv o co ' o m o-o o o N cUo ca a ca i U O — co m c`a ca n Q o ca a) a) 3 a) a7 � ca p o 0 iF Qoi - is fl W E as 3 va)i �' n o m aa) .� o a) c c c 3 cn O _ c co c -0 C c _ U (B C ,Q1 a) c o a) m Q �� o U a) ca n n ate) aa) c E ami a o .0 U ' Fz co m 03 7 in @ Q ON' a ca 0 .0 .0 'a n M O -p a) O N a) c U) az cn m U Q) U53) U) (3). c 3 Q a a.� >..� t L) 'o S .� a) U D U Q C (O U C U) T (6 C m 0 � o c '- m CB N Q U N E O O N U > cv a> a) m 2 U C a) a) n L Q ) C C (n Q (3) Y_ 0 E O (3) .l U U U d Cl °) co `o m o 0.) c O c Qc) 6) Co m E w _ -o c q o E Q CL d a -0 �i 0 c CY O o aci o Ffz� o a`n� oc t ` o - kn E C7Q> E LEo = c vm0 W O Q U Q Q U Q 0) U) 0 c w c o LO U) d O A GTr w .m L O _ C C a) o c 0 W CU O m c co a`) o ca � mQ ate) (3.) E 0 _-0N d O C~ o n o 6 -oc nC° co> 0 a) n� 1(5 o E ` > � m o a) Cf) m -= L) cL ammmc> ,.,, eo >c, � cm > ma a> —7 mm meoa> L UoEc o C) E -m -0 OU -0 m@ �� o _ Qm i � -E CL a) -o vi ooo U) o c m ca0)-F,3 u Fn m nU p `0 m a) L U 0 o (D 72 �a) m NOo U mEomn.m cn a o icacmC>9 m u) O -p >' E U UNQu -0 � Lc `- v o ca)o a)m ap ) oE 'n 0 0 > ID �5 LO 0 o � F 5> a) Mn (Z c ma) o c ` Q) Q F ai o aQ o -0o f m a) 0 o o E '<n E O -0 o p co - U � E O 7 m a) U E o n n n 0 U n a) a> U (° U ~ a) _o a`) Q n 70 o f '� m O a> ° 3 O U)C)"O N - o 0 .N N -2n L a) Cep Cn O .� `m 3 o is 0 - - ate) > a) F- oco Ea a o � me > a E2 m > � v, cn0ow U) U) En oC� � n -n o ai ami c o N = o o E o > o ao> > CO m c p rn'� co E o O n (D a) L a) m > a) C 6, 0 O 0 t -p UO N �-2 Q Cn U N -p N O LCoo C m a) -c O 7 0 C O m a) w N 00 to p 3r. V) o CLL n.� E a> E aw) c U E m a) m .0 0 0 •-• O L �n CO "p O 0Z:3 0 c a) a) — C ^ O to L U 0 m -cm <n cn Cn U 0 F- O � d > > C) G / R / / % R / � _ § \ � o § \f ca- 3 m / / 0 = a 5 2 » /_ ° -0 ?� cu '2 2 =3 - + ® \ 0 3 ._ .= \ \ 2 s -0 = o c \ \ ¢ a) / kv / 7 � \ « 2 a~ \ \ cz > a\ a ■ � za � \ S \ \ ® o 0 � 21 >4 ° e § % & 222 \ & 2m \ a R % r \ § cuE \ 2 \ 0E % ƒ \ 20 " L2 - ® \ e / :/ \ / ) § �ƒ \ J \ \ � \ 2 m « Q ® o 75 ° % / O % e { � .% / ) a \ G % \ _ » Q a E£ § 7 \ / G e § / ± ƒ ° » o 2 � @ � 7 / m 7 G — m = e ° wee ® % 6 2 \ / / / o - \ 2 » » 0E a)-jb 7 / _ fg = r \ 217 > /$ 3 — 7 % § g \ cgs / % = c � e g § s \ \ t / \ 6 $ k 2 e § . . 2 to � o ° Gca \ \ 2/ -2 JE x E £ g \ m g r / f$ \yf \ ƒ 3 o-0% _ / - ƒ j — / \ \ = &to ' / § \ \ Gt - \ z \ 70 U)0 \ \ � ? / » 5 § e/ ® 0 \ \ � \ f / \ / 5 � d %m f 2