HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01241995 - H.4 H.4
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on January 24 , 1995 by the following vote :
AYES :Supervisors Rogers, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, and Bishop
NOES :None
ABSENT: Supervisor Smith
ABSTAIN:None
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Hearing on Appeal of DeBolt Civil Engineering and Roman
Catholic Bishop on Subdivision 7898, Alamo Area.
This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors for hearing on the appeal of DeBolt Civil
Engineering (appellant) from the decision of the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission Board of Appeals on the request by
DeBolt Civil Engineering (applicant) and Roman Catholic Bishop of
Oakland (owner) for a vesting tentative map (Subdivision 7898) to
subdivide 9 . 72 acres into 18 lots . This application includes
variances to lot width where a minimum of 120 feet is required
for the following lots : Lot 3-118 feet requested; Lot 4-112 feet
requested; Lot 5-105 feet requested; Lot 6-105 feet requested;Lot
7-105 feet requested; Lot 8-108 feet requested; Lot 13-116 feet
requested, in the Alamo area.
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented
the staff report on the appeal .
Mitch Avalon, Public Works Department, presented the staff
report on drainage .
The following persons presented testimony:
Eric Hasseltine, 1250 Treat Boulevard, Walnut Creek,
representing Cortland Properties;
John Henderson, 2445 Southview Drive, Alamo, representing
Alamo Improvement Association.
Mr. Hasseltine spoke in rebuttal .
Milton Kubicek, Public Works Department, answered concerns
relative to flooding and financing.
Following further discussion, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED
that the hearing on the above matter is CONTINUED to January 31,
1995, at 2 P.M. in the Board Chambers .
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct
copy of an action taken and entered on the
minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the
date shown C l
ATTESTED: 6 G� '11�.
PHIL BAT 1-ORC k oft he Board
of per rs and o ty Administrator
cc : Community Development gy,; 6 '4 Deputy
Public Works
County Counsel
DeBolt Civil Engineering
Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland
Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Costa
ot
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON �.� �""j0° is County
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT '•, b
DATE: JANUARY 24, 1995 s'a c 1UN t't
SUBJECT: APPEAL BY THE APPLICANT (DeBOLT CIVIL ENGINEERING) OF THE SAN RAMON
VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF SUBDIVISION #7898 IN
THE ALAMO AREA.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
Uphold the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's decision
to deny Sudivision 7898 and deny the Applicant's appeal as
described in Alternative I below.
ALTERNATIVE BOARD ACTIONS
Listed below are four possible alternative actions that the Board
could take on this appeal.
Alternative I (Deny the Project)
Adopt a motion to:
A. Declare the Board's intent to deny the Applicant's appeal and
sustain the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's
denial of Subdivision 7898.
B. Direct staff to prepare findings for Board adoption and final
Board action on the appeal.
Alternative II (Approve the Project).
A. Adopt a motion declaring the Board's intent to:
1. Accept the Negative Declaration determinatio for the
project.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: 8 YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMME ION OF IBO
D COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:.Rose Marie Pietras 646-2031 ATTESTED
cc: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Public Works Department
County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
DeBolt Civil Engineering AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
RMP:df
Page Two
2. Approve Subdivision 7898 as approved by the Zoning
Administrator.
B. Direct staff to prepare findings for Board consideration and
final Board action on the appeal.
Alternative III (Approve the Project with Modified Conditions
to storm drainage and , sight distance
requirements)
Follow the actions listed in Alternative II but declare intent to
approve project with modifications recommended in the memorandum
from Public Works dated December 29, 1994.
Alternative IV (Refer Appeal back to Planning Commission)
Adopt a motion to refer the Applicant's Appeal to the San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission for further hearing and report
to the Board.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The project was submitted on February 25, 1994. Staff's
Environmental Initial Study review determined that a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance is justified. The
application was heard by the Zoning Administrator and approved for
17 lots on October 10, 19941 The Zoning Administrator's decision
was appealed by the Alamo Improvement Association for reasons of
culvert inadequacy under Miranda Avenue and the consequential
flooding.
This item was heard by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission on December 14, 1994. At that time, staff presented the
project in detail and the Commission took public testimony. After
taking public testimony the commission considered to continue the
project to give time to the applicant to submit additional
information on traffic and drainage issues. The applicant did not
want'to continue the project and requested that the Commission make
a decision at that hearing. The Commission therefore, granted the
appeal and denied the project.
In a letter dated December) 16, 1994 the applicant appealed the
denial decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission to the Board of Supervisors.
i
DISCUSSION
In a memo dated January 13, 1995 from the Public Works Department,
staff has responded to the applicant's appeal.
In this memo, the Public Works Department has suggested modified
Conditions of Approval in the event that the Board is inclined to
grant the applicant's appeal.
4
APPEAL
DeBOLT CIVIL ENGINEERING (Applicant)
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF OAKLAND (Owner)
COUNTY FILE ,#SUBDIVISION 7898
A request for approval of a vesting tentative map to subdivide
9.72 acres into 18 lots, with variances, located on the east
side of Miranda Avenue, approximately 100 feet southeast of
the intersection of Bunce meadows Drive,
Alamo area.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
JANUARY 24, 1995 - 2:00 P.M.
• � i �E S E•L•.0�, .
Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS l* Costa
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON
County
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: JANUARY 24, 1995 STatix`c�
SUBJECT: APPEAL BY THE APPLICANT (DeBOLT CIVIL ENGINEERING) OF THE SAN RAMON
VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF SUBDIVISION 17898 IN
THE ALAMO AREA.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) h BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
Uphold the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's decision
to deny Sudivision 7898 and deny the Applicant's appeal as
described in Alternative I below.
ALTERNATIVE BOARD ACTIONS
Listed below are four possible alternative actions that the Board
could take on this appeal.
Alternative I (Deny the Project)
Adopt a motion to:
A. Declare the Board's intent to deny the Applicant's appeal and
sustain the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's
denial of Subdivision 7898.
B. Direct staff to prepare findings for Board adoption and final
Board action on the appeal.
Alternative II (Approve the Project)
A. Adopt a motion declaring the Board's intent to:
1. Accept the Negative Declaration determinatio for the
project.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: B YES SIGNATURE
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR r RECOMMENDAK ION OFIB COMMITTEE
_ APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES.OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:.Rose Marie Pietras 646-2031 ATTESTED
cc: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Public Works Department
County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
DeBolt Civil Engineering AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
RMP:df
i
i
Page Two
2. Approve Subdivision 7898 as approved by the Zoning
Administrator.
I,
fi
B. Direct staff to prepare findings for Board consideration and
final Board action on the appeal.
Alternative III (Approve the Project with Modified Conditions
to storm drainage and sight distance
requirements)
Follow the actions listed in Alternative II but declare intent to
approve project with modifications, recommended in the memorandum
from Public Works dated December 29, 1994.
Alternative IV (Refer Appeal back to Planning Commission)
Adopt a motion to refer the Applicant's Appeal to the San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commissionlfor further hearing and report
to the Board.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
i
The project was submitted on February 25, 1994. Staff's
Environmental Initial Study review determined that a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance is justified. The
application was heard by the Zoning Administrator and approved for
17 lots on October 10, 1994. The Zoning Administrator's decision
was appealed by the Alamo Improvement Association for reasons of
culvert inadequacy under Miranda ,Avenue and the consequential
flooding.
This item was heard by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission on December 14, 1994. At'that time, staff presented the
project in detail and the Commission took public testimony. After
taking public testimony the Commission considered to continue the
project to give time to the applicant to submit additional
information on traffic and drainage ,issues. The applicant did not ._.__�.__,�
want to continue the project and requested that the Commission make
a decision at that hearing. The Commission therefore, granted the
appeal and denied the project. j
In a letter dated December 16, 1994 the applicant appealed the
denial decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission to the Board of Supervisors.
DISCUSSION
i
In a memo dated January 13, 1995 from the Public Works Department,
staff has responded to the applicant's appeal.
In this memo, the Public Works Department has suggested modified
Conditions of Approval in the eventlthat the Board is inclined to
grant the applicant's appeal.
I
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DATE: January 13, 1995
TO: Rose Marie Pietras,Project Planner
G
FROM: R Mitch Avalon, Assistant Public Works Director, Engineering Services
SUBJECT: Subdivision 7898,Miranda Avenue/Alamo Area
The project applicant has appealed the denial of this project by the San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission. The denial was based on an Alamo Improvement Association(AIA) appeal
of the previous approval. The AIA appeal was based on potential drainage impacts on Miranda Creek,
particularly the portion of Miranda Creek at, and downstream of,Miranda Avenue.
The existing creek culvert crossing Miranda Avenue is inadequate. This project's drainage enters
Miranda Creek downstream of Miranda Avenue so there is no impact to the culvert crossing Miranda
Avenue. Storm water from the project drains to the southwest toward Miranda Avenue and is then
conveyed by pipe across Miranda Avenue and then to Miranda Creek, downstream of the Miranda
Avenue creek crossing. A flap gate at the outlet into Miranda Creek prevents stormwater from
backing up from Miranda Creek and flooding the southerly portion of this Subdivision when the water
level is high in Miranda Creek. The flap gate may also prevent stormwater from this property from
entering Miranda Creek during major storms.
If the flap gate prevents stonnwater from the Subdivision from entering Miranda Creek during larger
storms and the Subdivision storm waters overflow onto Miranda Avenue,then the stormwaters would
flow southerly along Miranda Avenue toward Bolla Avenue. A detailed drainage analysis will be
required to determine if drainage will flow southerly along Miranda Avenue during larger storms.
The creekbank along the northerly property line is steep. The velocity of the creek in this area is
relatively fast. The steep sideslopes and high velocity of the creek will result in unstable creekbanks
subject to erosion. In addition,this section of the creek may be inadequate. To resolve the stability
of the creekbanks and any capacity problem, the applicant should be required to flatten the southerly
bank to a 2 1/2:1 slope. The slopes may be contoured in the vicinity of significant trees to preserve
those trees. If the creek bank is shaped to a 2 1/2:1 slope, then the applicant shall provide a storm
drainage easement instead of a structure setback along the creek.
This project will be paying Drainage Area 76 fees for improvements to Miranda Creek downstream
of Miranda Avenue. They are also required to pay$0.10 per square foot of impervious surface for
improvements to Miranda Creek outside of the DA 76 project area. The $.10 per square foot fee will
1
I
be used to improve inadequate sections of the creek upstream of Miranda Avenue. This would include'
the section of creek along the subdivision. The developer is, therefore, entitled to receive credit for
the capacity improvements to the creek. The developer, however, recognizing that there are still
drainage improvements in the watershed that need to be completed, has offered to waive the credit
and pay the fee. This will generate additional fees of approximately$8900 to help fund improvements
to inadequate sections of the creek or the crossing of Miranda Avenue, which this watershed
otherwise would not have had.Paying the DA 76 fee,the$0.10 fee, and creek improvements is more
than this developer's fair share of regional improvements to the watershed.
Although the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission recommended denial of this
application,the Public Works Department had recommended the following additional conditions for
approval of this Subdivision,which the Board of Supervisors should also consider(recommendations
have been modified to reflect a storm drainage easement in lieu of a structure setback reflecting
shaping the creek bank to a 2 1/2:1 slope):
14.H.6) The applicant&0 take additional representative cross sections along Miranda Creek
at locations specified by the Public Works Department between the easterly boundary
of the project downstream to the west side of Mranda Avenue. Public Works will
perform a drainage study based on the design storm with freeboard and recommend
appropriate mitigation' subject to the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
w,.:!%�f.??•;C:•:{?+.�rFf f;:{{{::.I•$}L•.:•},:'::
frir•:'{.r•i{{•<i:.},.¢•y•:/q.:•.};.<.x{':::,f:x<^:•?:•?.?.::?�•}.:v.!..;{.f:{i: }:.f:v9,:.6...x..:.a-.....v::;\•:<na ,i:-i-Sv'X.-i}.'•-Y:.};rr•:.;r'•,;"x{ .f..,{{..vv. rxvf{..YN Ar:v .•� ca?r`y:}:S{.:'?:SY.•:iC'�:,.}+;;{.y.}};.:.Ev•{:.:JtGr-•+v:;.xF.!:!v.r:;K:}:•},::o!v:r.{:..};oz,.:::!.:ti"{?:nq}}^•`?}i•.`.fi:v!::;:X.::{:f3.Y.�{.•`Sr{•;K.f;
a�•.x
14.H. / t . v{:,4.{r•S??v}c'v:?-}::^?:^•}..?:'i?v'.^:.^•:-
..•
y},;. ;:•s:y..-::::..; ? .,a.•:•{:x•::33:.: •. •::GkE:.: �.T?•:: r::.+::{r.;Ry ,f}2,;::{:"•.2;. ,r,.F:}{;.,•::;;•:
iva` r: t0. � aekaF } osa € al
•i'l:.'}}:3{{} }:'•: .M... Y:4:.wv:i+++'wr'.++:.., ?';f:?i':: ?..fr •v.4i4i::}j..
:}`F;?`r.•:c:":':::•<:.-::?•r.Yv??>Dr•• }}:-.......:........� -+`^<r-:S:x::;}:c.Ss.::Y.c6)#} :e:<i}%>,.•::%}.::r:• :{:p v: :{:i,},•:,C.-;:',{:,�{..?:-{�•a}•.{.:.nrw..{!..-:::!ec}'....
....f :�..A..:..::..?...;:v.a�.. n:: v:..{..:.} ..n..:• .:}.,•:¢}\: v��'R;:n: .,.
iro
�y:AAs.{•.,,.+.f•:.••'.:{Y t;:f.}:;r::{y.-.,�;a..,..F.•,.1 {.�,.r,..,}:::;.•,•r:. ,.:; h.{y;;{.{r :..;y,.. ;,{: ?�,?':r.{:.u}y.{y,.:.?r..{.;,.:.,:...R. :-";vy.:.:}:+{
:. ;: '�•"•.0;?5,::a:.:-a}!<:c:}�
row.,
:v;`.?.- .•fr9 ',:SG� ,6'• i•:k r °y !.'•} w• ?+rf. f f a• r�..m�L�rh, ,Or•;...r.,
}:•:O? :.p6{{{}i}:v}�i+.-?:?^?^};•;4:�}:f}}:ti/v':.}^}:4?}?:••:tt':{9:!{^}*i}... .;;n;.v}�}:�};:;::.4??:-? 10,�C•S,C: v:/ �}Y:%f^%•ff:?^Y^W:}:^.:,
•::.r.::?:f:•f.+:r:x:x•x::-m::::xtO
::.v::::::4++:k:..•n•.vr...vX-::.-•fi.t:.. ::.::::vr...{.::f.:.:F-•.:vv?`•-4F..u'•r::....w:nA ?... {:.::.:${u}:::.:f'i'`{};••?:... 1t:.: .,:.v:r:.v.
v:.::•.f::•.•:.vv::::?.v:}::ry •..::{{, :::>..:. •{::{:.;:v:: .3•:."�•.:}{:::::K:'/.•:::}�ry':::::.y
>:`nle: ntersects::he>:firushed: : € u r%ewt :<:haw
Co , vp,afi� � .......tosb€alles .?
Strad>MIN .. . # .. <>:.>}}:::: ...
::1 .::::.
::: :.::............v,..:.::::::.........:..:. :....
..:. ....... r.cs........ �er ........ .. .. r.. . ..I.. e .
:<:' Ysl<a ea.. x sla <. e.. . utZ :1 :`{"::`...
e}�x# i vim...
..}.:.............5...}Y•%r: F::`-`+it::'{:�.^•.....r...:.. ..ar... ............... +i+>S<ii'%........n
FR'+?'^:v:;}.,}:�r,'•:2.••;:••$:•:i:�:v}:?•}i}:4}•::.;......:. f. x:.:::::w:.v:.......nvvvvv..... :: •.}v!:.:i::::vv-.?+.-•::�:•'{>•xv.:{4$'i::.ii::v
x\•::v}}}::v:":.vv:.}::v?l:?w:}::: •:. ... v{fiy-:•• -.,fa•. .n}.:•:x:•:•l::G'v.
: 'azor:: rl:<=lard<le> ait: <;. aic .r: ap :-: via
f•}i??f:?•i}}}}:>. :{ y{.}}};{:::::.:::::x::::.v:.v::. x:.::w.i'�:}.f{^.}:Jf4: •::f.:i::}}t;w::::v{rry. ....
..}x:YvO.w?}..f............:... ':?f•}f•'fv'•%�:•:'i:ii}Y.R�}.L}:�:�'..C...i}}}:
14.H.8 Gl ri fie tie that The! applicant required to design drainage facilities
conveying stormwater from areas less than 1 square mile to convey the 10 year design
storm. If the existing culvert which directs flow from this area to Miranda Creek
cannot convey the 10 year storm, the applicant should be required to improve the
facility to convey this flow, or,collect and convey the additional flows to an adequate
storm drainage facility near Bolla Avenue, subject to the review and approval of the
Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. The applicant will be
required to substantiate that any manmade drainage facility conveying stormwater
from this property is adequate.
2
I
i
Any drainag(;analysis for the design capacity of Miranda Creek will be based on a 25
year design storm since this portion of Nfiranda Creek collects water from an area of
between l and 4 square miles.
4I.
1
In accordance with discussion at the December 14, 1994 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission hearing, consider modifying Condition 14.D. to read:
14.13. SIGHT DISTANCE:
Grading,trimming of vegetation, pavement widening and realignment of the proposed
access shall be performed to provide adequate sight distance for a design speed»of 45
miles er hour in accordance with CALTRANS standards-:f �!aypff � ae
»}:tt•}x.!;ca.:: :fara:c:ttXo::r....e..,y: ,.y}rnxv+n:•Jru�v::oJ:a• ,.:J}>rn:!n'?t•»rft+r:: .:-w:at:ta;..v :•.,y,�•1:...... .},.fT•:.xro':,�;�!.c`J>:•}}:•:
`•:;ctt!•:!•}:.::-: :t tt?t•:`:!?•.`,•.:•}J:-� ::::'.a, r..:::::.�:.....,r. :xa: :!•-t ft:-:a;}.:•}:!+v;:: 'i:::...}:.....?...:.;....:;.'•:t:.}Jx•:� :»u;�:•?:........J:o}..
z`t'3�iz�:.. :. ..... . vb.:>. i '>; -;c r� `<:Pii#It > dS
`'�?'v,'f<',�."`�3.3'.. ,:3:�i.'t•yy: ..,/.-...'Yv '`•r.'�: t•' �:'f•?.! 21
.�;:: ..:}�?-: •:..N .it,v`•,•�,;:•:: >; }:•,'•::
.a...:.•.},•:..:......t,.:, :}.,�r:'.,r...;F.tf•.x-`.:nS,., :.7•�i...9•'.�r.J:'-'::.;whit: w*k`�t{?2?�
.:T,•}�i"'•� `!ti!::Yt::::-::+J.;:i{.:r?J{Y$i:..,.:••:::.. e.:f::}}ji:y:.v::?•ir:irv,.?Y:ft{ki!?{.:..;?.:{...:..:y`{{:!fi-f. {:V:}•:
�ii:�'}}}�:}•J:,?i..;k:...vw:•i:X}v..{•:J:vJ.y,!:iiit:v:::•!{:� :r•`rt}:$y� :v.Kvi: .:JJ:J::?Cv.tv;nw:•.� .v!!!,.•:{::p>.4:{:'l.:t:=r...!y}''::•X;::.
:`:W.}:':•:: ;:y�:.;{•:�}}'{;:ii`:vnu.vnuu:a.n•�.A.vw.r::}^:"w..•.}:.v:.»v.Wv..::.. \• •:ll "M<r>r. t,u.a.}:.iv v5:• ..4Jv.J..uv..x.:vivS.vu.,-- ...
RMA:SJW:cl
SUB7898.t1
CC: D.Barry,Community Development
M.Fleming,Community Development
R.M.Pietras,Community Development
M.Kubicek,Deputy P.W.Director
P.Harrington,Flood Control
R.Faraone,Engineering Services
M.Morton,Flood Control
3
RESOLUTION NO. 2-1995
BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEAL
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPEAL - DeBolt Civil Engineering, Applicant
Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland, Owner
Subdivision #7898,
Alamo area
WHEREAS, on February 25, 1994, DeBolt Civil Engineering
(Applicant) & Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland (Owner) , filed an
application for approval of a vesting tentative map to subdivide
9.72 acres into 18 lots, with variances, located on the east side
of Miranda Avenue, approximately 100 feet southeast of the
intersection of Bunce Meadows Drive, in the Alamo area; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance was posted for this application on July 21, 1994; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a
public hearing was held by the Zoning Administrator on September
26, 1994 and was closed for decision and continued until October
10, 1994, and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 1994, the Zoning Administrator
considered . and Approved with revised conditions the applicant's
request, and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 1994 an appeal was filed by the Alamo
Improvement Association stating that inadequate concern was given
to Miranda Creek and possible flooding, and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a
public hearing was held by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission Board of Appeals on December 14, 1994, and
WHEREAS, on December 14, 1994, the San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission Board of Appeals considered and Upheld the
Appeal and Denied the applicant's request, and
Page Two RESOLUTION 2-1995
BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing DENIAL was given by vote of
the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission in a regular
meeting Wednesday, December 14, 1994 as follows:
AYES: Commissioners - Gibson, Matsunaga, Naidorf,
Jones
NOES: Commissioners - Harvey
ABSENT: Commissioners - Kaplan, Pancoast
ABSTAIN: Commissioners — None
BE IT 'FURTHER RESOLVED that the decision of the San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission Board of Appeals was appealed
by the applicant, DeBolt Civil Engineering on December 16, 1994.
ATTEST:
arvey E. braon, Secretary
of the San Ram n Valley Regional
Planning Commission, County
of Contra Costa, State of
California
RMP/df
7898.res
CONTRA COSTA DeBolt Civil Engineering
811 San Ramon Valley Boulevard
94 DEC 19 AM 8: Danville, California 94526
42 510 J 837-3780
commuvy
December 16, 1994 DE VELOpM' DEPT
Job No. 93174 +
Mr. Harvey Bragdon
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Harvey:
We hereby appeal the decision of the San Ramon Regional Planning
Commission rendered on December 14, 1994, to deny Subdivision 7898 on
Miranda Avenue in the Alamo area. We feel this is an excellent in-fill project
which should be approved by the Board of Supervisors.
Enclosed is a check for $125.00 to cover the cost of the appeal, and another
set of stamped envelopes to be used for mailing notices to property owners
within 300 feet.
We look forward to appearing before the Board in order to explain how this
project will be such a fine addition to the Alamo area.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
DeBolt Civil Engineering
4*'•
Q6�—� -
Eu a F. DeBolt
EFD:sk
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Pete Champlin
Lv
7 Y S-0-7 f
LH 7M3SJ
gone
.
Y
LVOV
U1�
reef, Room 196
A 94553 �•
Wv
1�
- -� CP
r
�( b
�Lv / 4
r
Job No. 93174
12/15/94
300'Owners
192-161-006 192-300-004
Christopher L. & Laurinda Stout Lucille Gerace
914 Ina Dr. ✓ 10671 Harbor Rd. >�
Alamo, CA 94507 Kelseyville, CA 95451
192-161-007 192-300-019
John Stuart Willy McLean M & Carolyn J. Qutami'/
Donna & Patricia A,1 2853 Miranda Ave. ✓
900 Ina Dr. Alamo, CA 94507
Alamo, CA . 94507
192-300-020
192-162-006 Ruth Foster
Jack & Edna Kusaba 2857 Miranda Ave.
915 Ina Dr. Alamo, CA 94507
Alamo, CA 94507
192-310-001
192-162-007 Kevin & Kathy Storms
Morton & Robin Newman 55 Bunce Meadows Dr.
385 David Dr. Alamo, CA 94507
Alamo, CA 94507
192-310-007
192-164-001 Kenneth V. & Lisa Bowers
Craig & Nancy Elliott 76 Bunce Meadows Dr.
901 Ina Dr. '� Alamo, CA 94507
Alamo, CA 94507
193-050-008
192-164-002 Jerry Carl & Eileen Frith
Donald & Frances McArthur / 28 Lahoma Ct.
390 David Dr. ✓ Alamo, CA 94507
Alamo, CA 94507
193-060-002
192-164-003 Thomas L. &Joanne C. Border
Stephen & Terrie Bonovich, 11 Via Alondra
380 David Dr. ✓ Alamo, CA 94507
Alamo, CA 94507
193-060-003
192-164-004 Michael E. &Joan C. Jayko
Douglas & Carmen Doods 2828 Miranda
370 David Dr. Alamo, CA 94507
Alamo, CA 94507
Job No. 93174 .
12/15/94
300'Owners
Page 2
193-060-008 193-060-020
Robert L. & Ellen S. Hanley / Frederick J. & Anelh P. Stamm
2874 Miranda Ave. ✓ 2846 Miranda Ave
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
193-060-012 193-060-022
Lawrence & Ofelia Ramirez ✓ Loren A. & Brigid M. Ayers .
16 Via Alondra 11162 Lakeshore So.
Alamo, CA 94507 Auburn, CA 95603
193-060-014 193-060-025
Richard M. & Carol Buffenbarger David T. &Alan P. Whippy
28 Via Alondra 2848 Miranda Ave.
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
193-060-015 193-060-026
George & Frances M. Pacheco Alvin Lewis
32 Via Alondra 2830 Miranda Ave
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
193-060-016 193-060-027
Marcella R Herzig, Tre ✓ Alvin Lewis
31 Via Alondra 2830 Miranda Ave
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
193-060-017 193-060-028
J. Kent & Sharon L. Murray, a Jeffrey & Cheryl Wirch
25 Via Alondra 2882 Miranda Ave.
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
193-060-018 193-060-029
Richard J. & Catherine Kelleher Tempe C. Hertel
24 Via Alondra, c/o Chester R. Tempe
Alamo, CA 94507 2858 Miranda Ave.
Alamo, CA 94507
193-060-019
Russell & Janice Darby 193-070-008
26 Via Alondra KBG Development Corporatioyi
Alamo, CA 94507 P.O. Box 504
Alamo, CA 94507
Job No. 93174
12/15/94
300'Owners
Page 3
193-070-013 193-272-004
KBG Development Corporation George L. & Sheryl Neely /
P.O. Box 504 ✓ 20 Flagstone Ct. ✓
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
193-070-021 193-272-005
County Superintendent Schon s Leroy D. &,Mary L. Elkin /
2964 Miranda Ave. 26 Flagstone Ct. ✓
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
193-070-022 193-272-006
Andrew & Beverly J. Littorno Thomas R & Patricia A. Lucas,
2890 Miranda Ave. 25 Flagstone Ct. X
Alamo, CA 94507 ✓i Alamo, CA 94507
193-271-001 193-272-012
Janet C. Neilsen ✓ Robert A. & Joyce C. Agren
2974 Limestone Rd. 2973 Limestone Rd.
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
193-271-008 / 193-281-009
Chi-hwan Oh ✓ William Paul & Phyllis Holme
2966 Miranda Ave. 2199 Granite Dr.
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
193-272-001 193-281-010
William G. & Cecile A. Dime�y L. Keith & Diana Lee Silva /
2187 Granite Dr. ✓ - 2193 Granite Dr.
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
193-272-002 193-401-004
John E. & Dolores F. Leonard Richard & Margaret Thayer
2183 Granite Dr. 112 Garydale Ct.
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
193-272-003 193-401-005
Michael E. & Susan L Jord n Duane H. & Gloria A Karsten
14 Flagstone Ct. 116 Garydale Ct.
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
Job No. 93174
12/15/94
300' Owners
Page 4
193-401-006
Susan Ostrosky Farago &
Peter Ostrosky ✓
120 Garydale Ct.
Alamo, CA 94507
193-401-007 /
Dale J. & Diana M. Rodgers
121 Garydale Ct.
Alamo, CA 94507
193-401-008
William K. & Denise E. Villalon ,
117 Garydale Ct.
Alamo, CA 94507
Agenda Item #2
Community Development Contra Costa County
SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1994 - 7:30 P.M.
BOARD OF APPEALS
I. INTRODUCTION
SUBDIVISION 7898 (Applicant - DeBolt Civil Engineering) (Owner - Roman Catholic
Bishop of Oakland): An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of a vesting
tentative map application to subdivide 9.72 acres into 18 lots. This application
includes variances to lot width where a minimum of 120 fest is required for the
following lots: Lot 3 - 118 feet requested; Lot 4 - 1 12 feet requested; Lot 5 - 105 feet
requested; Lot 6 - 105 feet requested; Lot 7 - 105 feet requested; Lot 8 - 108 feet
requested; Lot 13 - 116 feet requested. Subject property is located on the east side
of Miranda Avenue, approximately 100 feet southeast of the intersection of Bunce
Meadows Drive, in the Alamo area. (R-20) (ZA: Q-1 5) (CT 3461 .02) (Parcel #193-
080-011 and' -012).
The Zoning Administrator approved the project and denied the variances by reducing
the subdivision from 18 lots to 17 lots.
II. BACKGROUND
This application was heard by the Zoning Administrator on September 26, 1994 and
continued to October 10, 1994 after notice was issued. A representative of the Alamo
Improvement Association was present and submitted a list of concerns to the Zoning
Administrator.
The staff report from the hearing is.attached. The Zoning Administrator approved this
project with modifications to the Conditions of Approval which are attached.
The applicant's variance request for average width for Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 13
was denied by the Zoning Administrator. The subdivision was reduced from 18 lots
to 17 lots.
III. APPEAL
On October 17, 1994 the Alamo Improvement Association (AIA) appealed the Zoning
Administrator's decision. See attached letter.
The AIA's concerns are about flooding onto local neighbor's properties and the culvert
inadequacy under Miranda Road.
2
IV. Public Works Department Comments
Attached is a memorandum dated November 29, 1994 from the Public Works
Department responding to the appeal points made by the AIA in their appeal letter.
V. ALTERNATIVE COMMISSION ACTIONS
If.the Commission feels that the Appeal is without merit, then the Commission should:
A. Accept the Negative Declaration determination for this project.
B. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
C. Deny the appeal.
D. Sustain the Zoning Administrator's approval decision with Conditions of
Approval as approved by the Zoning Administrator.
If the Commission feels that the appeal has merit, then the appeal would be granted
and the subdivision denied.
If the Commission feels that additional 'environmental review is warranted and the
applicant has no objection to a delay in the required timeframe for the Commission to
act on this appeal (ref. Section 66452.5 of the Government Code), then the
Commission could continue the matter as appropriate to allow for modifications to the
environmental documentation and any required public comment period.
RMP/aa
SUBXVI/7898.RMP
12/5/94
Agenda Item #,5
Community Development Contra Costa County
COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1994 - 1 :30 P.M.
I. INTRODUCTION
DeBOLT CIVIL ENGINEERING (Applicant) - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF OAKLAND
(Owner), County File #SUB 7898: The applicant requests approval of a Vesting
Tentative Map to subdivide 9.72 acres into 18 lots. This application includes variances
to lot width where a minimum of 120 feet is required for the following lots - Lot 3 -
1 18 feet requested; Lot 4 - 112 feet requested; Lot 5 - 105 feet requested; Lot 6 -
105 feet requested; Lot 7 - 105 feet requested; Lot 8 - 108 feet requested; Lot 13 -
1 16 feet requested. Subject property is located on the east side of Miranda Avenue,
approximately 100 feet southeast of the intersection of Bunce Meadows Drive, in the
Alamo area. (R-20) (ZA: Q-1 5) (CT 3461 .02) (Parcel #193-08J-01 1 and -012).
This project was initially heard by the Zoning Administrator on September 26, 1994
and continued for decision to October 10, 1994.
II. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Vesting Tentative Map for SUB 7898 be approved for 18
lots with conditions of approval.
III. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. General Plan: The County General Plan designates the area of this proposal for
Single Family Residential-Low Density.
B. Zoning: R-20, 1 unit per 20,000 sq. ft.
C. CEQA Status: A Negative Declaration with Mitigations h ; been posted on July
21 , 1994.
D. Previous Application: MS 213-64.
E. Regulatory Programs:
1 . Flood Hazard Zone: Subject site is within Flood Zone,A area of 100-
year flooding along Miranda Creek and Flood Zone C area of minimal
flooding on the remaining portion of the site. Pagel #435B.
2. Active Fault Zone: The subject site is not within an active earthquake
zone.
2
3. 60dBA Noise Control: The subject site is not within a 60dBA noise
control zone. Noise impacts have been projected at the 60 - 62 dBA
noise level. The General Plan Noise Element policies requires that
development is conditionally acceptable.
F. Related _Application: On November 24, 1992 the Board of Supervisors
approves Subdivision 7693 on the site adjoining this site. In approving the
project, the Board granted several variances to the minimum lot width
requirement and eliminated a trail requirement which had been required by the
San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission.
IV. SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site is located about a mile east of Alamo's business district, in a valley at
the base of a hill. The land is roughly rectangular and it contains orchard trees and a
seasonal creek at the northwestern boundary. The bulk of the priperty is at elevations
from 330 to 340 feet above sea level, with the beginning of the hillside rise at the
eastern end.
V. AREA DESCRIPTION
Prior to development of the area,the neighborhood consisted of scattered trees, annual
grasses, and thicker brush along the creekside. The area has been evolving from small
farms, to ranch style homes built in the 1950s, to residential neighborhoods with
executive style housing adjacent to the site on the south side of 'Vlauzy School for the
handicap.
VI. AGENCY COMMENTS
A. Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division: Memorandum
dated March 23, 1994.
1 . Sewage Disposal: Prior to recordation of the map, the subdivider should
provide written documentation from the sewer systems providing sewer
services that they can and will provide said service. Sewer service shall
be from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. All wastewater
generated on the properties shall discharge to this system.
2. Water Supply: Prior to recordation of the map, the subdivider shall
provide written documentation from the public water system providing
domestic water service that they can and will provide said water
service. Domestic water supply shall be from t�-a East Bay Municipal
Utility District.
3. Other: Prior to recordation of the map, the subdivider shall destroy any
on-site wells and septic tanks in accordance with Environmental Health
Division regulations. Appropriate permits and inspections for this work
shall be obtained.
3
B. Building Inspection Department, Grading Division: Memorandum dated March
18, 1994. Requires preliminary soils, grading permit, erosion control plans,
Non-Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.
C. Historical Resources File System: Memorandum dated March 25, 1994. The
proposed project area has the possibility of containing archaeological resources.
A study is recommended prior to commencement of project activities.
D. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District: Memoranda dated March 28, 1994
and May 2, 1994. See attachments.
E. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District: Memorandum dated March 24, 1994.
F. East Bay Municipal Utility District: Memorandum dated March 29, 1994.
Property is in EBMUD.
G. Alamo Parks and Recreation Committee: Memorandum dated March 30, 1994.
At their March 24, 1994 meeting members of the Alamo Parks and Recreation
Advisory Committee CSA R-7A considered the matter of the proposed
subdivision off Miranda Avenue. Noting its location close to Stone Valley
Middle School they wish to advise you of the need to reserve a right of way
which will permit a path so that students living in the Roundhill area can safely
get to school by bicycle or on foot.
H. Alamo Improvement Association: Memoranda dated April 8, 1994 and May 13,
1994. See attachments.
VII. GEOLOGICAL AND SOIL CONSIDERATIONS
The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Reconnaissance Report dated received by the
Community Development Department on February 25, .1994. Section D - Mitigation
Measures - dist measures which need to be implemented to preclude soil-related
problems on the site.
On March 28, 1994 County Geologist, Darwin Myers Associates, reviewed the above
report. In summary of that review, mitigation measures are recommended found on
page 4, Section Evaluation as follows:
The applicant has agreed with all mitigation measures of both reports and attached is
a mitigation monitoring program submitted by the applicant.
VIII. ARBORIST REPORT
The applicant submitted an Arborist Report prepared by William F. Owen, Certified
Arborist, dated received on May 6, 1994 by the Community Development Department.
A list of recommendations found on page 3 of the Arborist Report, agreed with by the
applicant, state the following:
4.
A. Trees that are to be preserved as part of this subdivision must be protected
from damage and soil compaction beneath their drip-lines. It is particularly
important that the routing of underground utilities be such that they are
designed and placed to the outside of the drip-lines of the trees being
preserved. This is particularly important relative to the oak trees, whose
upright structures have resulted in rather narrow canopies. However, the root
systems can be expected to extend at least twice the radius of the canopies,
making it particularly important that the trenching and other construction
activities be restricted to areas beyond the drip lines.
B. Although the creek embankment is beyond the limits of grading, it is important
that fill soil not be allowed to spill down the embankment and accumulate
against the trunks of the existing oak trees on the bank. To avoid the
possibility of this occurring a temporary protective fencing should be installed
along the trop of the bank opposite each of the large oaks along the creek.
Recommended locations of such fencing are shown on the attached annotated
plan.
C. The same precautions should be taken regarding grading, trenching and other
construction activities within the drip-lines of the existing oaks along the
southerly property line.
D. In addition to the oak trees that are six inches or greatr;r in diameter (which
have been shown on the plans and Tree Inventory), there are numerous smaller
oaks along the southerly property line. These trees also can be retained as part
of the development wherever they are not in the way of grading, utility
placement or other construction activities.
E. A number of the oaks along the southerly property line are directly beneath the
overhead utility lines and telephone cable. The trees have grown to a height
where'the tops of their canopies are into these wires. Where the condition is
beginning to severely impact the wires this has been noted on the Tree
Inventory and corrective trimming recommended. The situation is not so acute
that trimming must be done at this time on all of the trees that are in the wires.
It is assumed that the utility companies will trim the trees from the wires
several years from now when all of the trees will require such work.
F. As noted in the Tree Inventory, a number of the trees that will overhang future
residences and/or are branched so low that construction equipment will be
unable to operate over the site are to be trimmed fo, safety and to clear
equipment, respectively. Also, some trees are to be trimmed to improve their .
structural condition, as noted in the Tree Inventory. All of this trimming work
should be done prior to the grading work on the site and be done by a certified
arborist experienced in the trimming of oak and walnut trees.
5
G. Particular care must be taken during construction activities on this development
to avoid any equipment operations or parking of vehicles; storage of materials;
dumping or depositing waste materials(cement/plaster washings, paint or other
chemicals) or other deleterious material under the drip-lines of the trees or
within the areas defined by the tree protection fencing.
H. It is further recommended that the new property owners of those lots on which
existing trees have been preserved be advised of the need for regular--
preferably at least once a year--observations of these trees by a certified
arborist experienced in the care of California native oaks; and the accomplish-
ment of any trimming, pesticide application, fertilizing, or other remedial work
(including removal if necessary) required to maintain the health and vigor of the
trees and to alleviate any safety hazards associated with the trees.
I. Prior to any construction activities on the site, the contractor(s) are to be
instructed in the procedures required to protect and to avoid any damage to the
trees and their root systems. Also, a copy of this report should be provided
prior to the beginning of construction.
IX. ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The applicant submitted an Archaeological Study of Subdivision 7898, prepared by
Annmarie Medin, Project Coordinator, under the supervision of Dr. Adrian Practzellis
(Member, Society of Professional Archaeologist), Department of fimthropology,
Sonoma State University, dated received by the Community Development Department
on May 10, 1994. On page 3 of this report are the results and recommendations
agreed with by the applicant.
Results and Recommendations: No prehistoric or historic archaeological resources
were identified through an archaeological records search and field survey of the study
area, and no further study is warranted at this time.
It is possible that subsurface archaeological remains may be pr.;sent on the property
and could be encountered during ground-disturbing activities. Prehistoric archaeologi-
cal materials include, but are not limited to, chert and obsidian flakes or artifacts;
milling equipment, such as mortars or pestles; locally darkened soils, often containing
shell and bone dietary debris (midden); and human burials. Section 7050.5 of the
California Health and Safety Code states that it is a misdemeanor to knowingly disturb
a human burial. If human remains are encountered, the County Coroner must be
contacted.
There is also a low possibility of encountering subsurface historic-period materials,
such as tone or adobe foundations or walls, structural remains with square nails, and
backfilled wells or privies, and other refuse deposits. If prehistoric or historic materials
are encountered during ground disturbing activities within the project area, it is
recommended that work in the immediate vicinity of the finds halt until a qualified
archaeologist has evaluated the situation.
6
X. EASEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
The applicant submitted dated received on July 21 , 1994 by the Community
Development Department a copy of the release of easement agreement through
Subdivision 7898 in Alamo, between Courtland Properties, Inc., a California
Corporation ("Courtland") and KGB Development Corporation, a California Corporation
(„KGB").
XI. VARIANCES
The applicant is requesting seven variances for lot width:
Lot 3 - 118 feet width.
Lot 4 - 112 feet width.
Lot 5, 6 & 7 - 105 feet width.
Lot 8 - 108 feet width.
Lot 13 - 116 feet width (1 20 feet required).
To justify the variances, staff has made the following findings.
The lot width variances for SUB 7898 shall not constitute a grant of a special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective
land use district in which the subject property is located.
The subject property is zoned R-20 for the development of single family residential
dwelling units on lots of a minimum area of 20,000 square feet, and with lots depths
and widths of 120 feet. The applicant is seeking seven lot width variances, ranging
from 2 to 15 feet. Each of the 18 lots for which the applicant is seeking approval
meets the requirements of the R-20 zoning district as to the required minimum area
and lot depth.
Due to special circumstances, the applicant must seek seven lot width variances. The
granting of the requested seven lot width variances for the subject property does not
constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties in the vicinity of the subject property which are also included in the R-20
zoning district in which the subject property is located. The applicant submitted a plot
map locating all lots at variance attached as Exhibit A, each of the lots in the
immediately vicinity of the subject property that is shaded on the map does not meet
at least one of the three requirements of the R-20 zoning district in which they are
contained. This substandard lot inventory reveals a number of lots in the immediate
vicinity of the subject property do not meet at least one of the three requirements of
the R-20 zoning. Moreover, the nine lot subdivision approved in 1992 adjacent to the
northeast of the subject property was granted lot width variances for two of its lots.
Due to the special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size,
shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the respective
zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district.
7
Given the location of a creek on the northerly boundary of the subject property, a
setback for the building envelope on the lots within the subject property is required in
excess of that normally required in the R-20 zoning district. As a result of the
requirement for that increased setback, applicant has been required to modify the
street and lot configuration within the subject property, leading to the loss of one lot
in the subdivision of the subject property unless the requested lot width variances are
approval. The strict application of the lot width requirement of the R-20 zoning district
will deprive the applicant from developing the subject property in the manner that the
majority of the properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject property have been
developed, which properties although in the same zoning district have. not been
required to strictly comply with all of the requirements of the R-20 zoning.
The lot width variances shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the
respective land use district in which the subject property is located.
The land use district in which the subject property is located is one for the develop-
ment of single family detached residential dwelling units on lots of a minimum of
20,000 square feet in area. Even if the lot width variances being requested by the
applicant are approved, each of the 19 lots to be included in the subdivision of the
subject property shall meet the minimum required lot area of 20,000 square feet. The
seven minor variances from the specified lot width of 120 feet will not result in
improved lots but of character with those in the surrounding properties. Moreover,
addition of one lot to the residences to be constructed within the subject property will
not have an adverse impact on the property values of the existing residences on
surrounding properties, will not negatively impact the surrounding property owners'
enjoyment of their residences, and will not create a significant impact on the utilities
and services the subject property and the properties in the vicinity of the subject
property.
XIII. STAFF CONSIDERATIONS
The subject site consists of a 9.72 acre site in Southern Contra Costa County. The
property is located on the east side of Miranda Avenue approximately 100 feet
southeast of the intersection of Bunce Meadows Drive, in the Alamo area. This area
has rapidly evolved from a farming area to a highly urbanized residential community.
An initial site plan provided for project access road along the southern boundary. At
the request of staff, the site plan was modified which resulted in the access road
extending along the middle of the site.
XIV. FINDINGS
A. Staff finds this application does comply with Title 9 County Ordinance Article
92-2.2.
B. Each parcel of this application does satisfy the provisions of Article 84-38.4.
C. Staff finds that the variances to lot width where 120 feet required for Lot 3,
118 feet requested, Lot 4, 112 feet requested; Lots 5, 6, and 7, 105 feet
requested; Lot 8, 108 feet requested; Lot 13, 116 feet requested in accordance
with County Zoning Ordinance Code 26-2.2006.
XV. ROAD AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
The attached conditions of approval based on the tentative map (revised April, 1994)
include road and drainage requirements. The applicant should be fully aware of the
County Subdivision Ordinance Code requirements as they pertain to this development.
XVI. SCHOOLS
A copy of the application was forwarded to the San Ramon Valley Unified School
District on March 25, 1994. Staff has received no comments to date from the
District.
XVII. CONCLUSION
Based on the above staff report, staff recommends that County File SUB 7898 be
approved.
RMP/RHD/aa
SUBXV/7898.RMP
9/13/94
9/28/94
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVfSfON 7898
1 . This application is approved, generally as shown on the Revised Vesting Map dated
received April 7, 1994 by the Community Development Department for 4-9 t`:7: lots on
the 9.72 acre site. Unless otherwise indicated, the following conditions shall be
complied with prior to filing the Final Map.
2. The approval is for a three (3) year period which may be extended for an additional
three (3) years. An extension request must be submitted prior to expiration of the
initial approval and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. An extension
request is subject to review and approval of the appropriate hearing body.
3. This approval is based upon the exhibits received by the Community Development
Department listed as follows:
A. Exhibit A - Revised Vesting Tentative Map received April 7, 1994 for 18 lots
by the Community Development Department for 18 lots and (single family
residences) on the 9.72 acre site.
B. Exhibit B - Grading plan for site (shown on same sheet as (Revised) (Vesting))
Tentative Map.
The approval is also based upon the following reports:
A. Geotechnical Reconnaissance Report prepared by Diablo Soil Engineers, Inc.
dated received February 25, 1994 by the Community Development Department.
B. Arborist Report prepared by William F. Owen dated received on May 6, 1994
by the Community Development Department.
C. Archaeological Study of Subdivision 7898 prepared by Anmarie Medin dated
received May 10, 1994 by the Community Development Department.
.,ts of Seetien 26.7 2.2006 of the r,.unty Ordina.-ee Gede:
Lot 3 118 feet appFeved.
Let 4 1 1 2 feet n e d.
I=ets 6, 6, and :7 105 feet appFeved.
bet 13 1 1 6 feet ed
5. At least 60 days prior to recording the final map, any revision of the internal circulation
plan or lot layout shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
Prior to recording the final map, submit for the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator a site plan showing: driveways, fencing plans, street tree locations.
2
6. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including the subdivider
or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Cosa
County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this
subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such
claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense.
7. At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map, plans shall be submitted for review by
the Community Development Department, Graphics Section, to obtain addresses and
for street name approval (public and private). Alternate street names should be
submitted in the event of duplication and to avoid similarity with existing street names.
The Final Map cannot be certified by the Community Development Department without
the approved street. names and the assignment of street addresses.
8. Comply with the following archaeological resource requirements:
A. 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.
B. Appropriate mitigation of the cultural resources may include monitoring of
further construction and/or systematic excavation of the resources. Any
artifacts or samples collected as part of the initial discovery, monitoring or
mitigation phases shall be properly conserved, catalogued, analyzed, evaluated
and curated along with associated documentation in a professional manner
consistent with current archaeological standards.
9. The applicant shall show proof that water and sewage service is available prior to
recording the Parcel Map.
10. The applicant or owner shall submit grading/tree preservation plans for review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a grading permit for the
purpose of tree preservation. All of the recommended actions continued in the May
6, 1994 Arborist Report are mandated. Prior to submittal to the Zoning Administrator,
a licensed arborist shall have an opportunity to comment on the proposed plan relative
to compliance with required,tree preservation measures.
3
11 . At least 60 days prior to recording a Final Map, issuance of a grading permit, or
installation of improvements or utilities, submit a preliminary geology, soil, and
foundation report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.420
for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator following review by the Planning
Geologist. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall carry out the recommenda-
tions of the approved report.
A. The report required above shall include evaluation of the potential for liquefac-
tion, seismic settlement.
B. Record a statement to run with deeds to the property acknowledging the
approved report by title, author (firm), and date, calling attention to approved
recommendations, and noting that the report is available from the seller.
C. The report shall evaluate the hazard posed by liquefaction. This would require
a subsurface investigation that includes borings at least 25 feet deep. The
focus of the exploration program should be the northern portion of the site
(Let 3-6, 8 10, 14 16) (Lots; 1 thru 9). If sands are encountered, the
. .............................:
........................................
steps in the analysis procedure and all assumptions shou'd be clearly presented
in the report. The applicant shall submit two copies for the review and
approval by the Zoning Administrator and Planning Geologist.
D. The sloping hillside area of Lots 441.0 and �8 9># may be sensitive to grading.
The geologic map in the DSE report indicates it is a "dip slope", with an
inclination of 16 degrees (est.). No grading should be allowed on this slope
without elevation by an engineering geologist.
12. The owner of the property shall participate in the provision of funding to maintain and
augment police services by voting to approve a special tax for the parcels created by
this subdivision action. The tax shall be $200 per parcel annually (with appropriate
future Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment). The election to provide for the tax
must be completed prior to the filing of the Final Map. The property owner shall be
responsible for paying the cost of holding the election. The fee for election costs will
be due at the time that the election is requested by the owner.
13. Prior to recording a final map, provide evidence for the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator that the access easement along the southern boundary of the site
has been quitclaimed.
14. Conditions of Approval from the Public Works Department:
A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
1) Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be
submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services
Division, along with review and inspection fees, and security for all
improvements required by the Ordinance Code for the conditions of
4
approval of this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary
traffic signage and striping plans for review by the Transportation
Engineering Division.
2) This development shall conform to the requirements of Division 914
(Drainage) of the Subdivision Ordinance. The following requirements
must conform with Division 914: .
a. Drainage, road and utility improvements shall require the review
and approval of the Public Works Department. This development
shall comply with the requirements of (Title 9) and (Title 10) of
the County Ordinance Code. Any exceptions therefrom must be
specifically listed in this conditional approval statement.
b. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined below shall
require the review and approval of the Public Works Department
and are based on the plan dated April, 1994.
B. PUBLIC ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (Frontage):
1) Applicant shall construct curb, four-foot six-inch sidewalk (width
measured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and transverse
drainage, street lighting, and necessary pavement widening along the
frontage of Miranda Avenue. Applicant shall construct face of curb 20
feet from the ultimate right of way line.
2) Applicant shall install safety related traffic signs and striping on Miranda
Avenue as approved by the Public Works Depar-ment, Transportation
Engineering Division.
C. ACCESS TO ADJOINING PROPERTY:
1 ) Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineer-
ing Services Division, 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, road or drainage improvements.
2) Relinquish abutter's rights of access along Miranda Avenue with the
exception of the private road shown on the tentative map.
D. SIGHT DISTANCE:
Grading, trimming of vegetation, pavement widening and realignment of the
proposed access shall be performed to provide adequate sight distance for a
design speed of 45 miles per hour in accordance with CALTRANS standards.
' 5
E. PRIVATE ROADS:
1) Applicant shall construct to County private road standards a 32-foot
paved private roadway (width measured curb to curb) within a 42-foot
easement, to serve all parcels in this proposed subdivision, as shown on
the tentative map.
2) Applicant shall construct a turnaround at the end of the proposed private
road.
3) Applicant shall develop and enter into a maintenance agreement that will
insure that the proposed private road will be maintained, and that each
property that uses the proposed private road will share in its mainte-
nance.
F. ROAD DEDICATIONS:
Applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the right of way
necessary for the planned future half-width of 30 feet along the frontage of
Miranda Avenue.
G. UTILITIES/UNDERGROUNDING:
All utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground, including the
existing overhead distribution facilities along the frontage of Miranda Avenue.
H. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS:
1 ) Division 914 of the Ordinance Code requires that all storm waters
entering or originating within the subject property shall be conveyed,
without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a
natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing
adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters
to a natural watercourse.
2) Storm drainage facilities required by Division 914 shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with specifications outlined in Division 914
and in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Depart-
ment.
3) Storm drainage originating on the property and conveyed in a concen-
trated manner shall be prevented from draining across the sidewalk and
driveways.
4) To reduce the impact of additional storm water run-off from this
development on Miranda Creek, one cubic yard of channel excavation
material will be removed from the inadequate poi:ion of Miranda Creek
for each .50 square feet of new impervious surface area created by the
6
development. All excavated material shall be disposed of off-site by the
developer at his cost. The site selection, land rights, and construction
staking will be by the Flood Control District.
Upon written request, the applicant may make a cash payment in lieu of
actual excavation and removal of material from the creek. The cash
payment will be calculated at the rate of $0.10 per square foot of new
impervious surface area created by the development will be based on
the Flood Control District's standard impervious surface area ordinance.
The Flood Control District will use these funds to work on the creek
annually.
5) To reduce the impact of additional storm water run-off from this
development on San Ramon Creek, one cubic yard of channel excava-
tion material will be removed from the inadequate portion of San Ramon
Creek for each 50 square feet of new impervious surface area created
by the development. All excavated material shall be disposed of off-site
by the developer at his cost. The site selection, land rights, and
construction staking will be by the Flood Control District.
Upon written request, the applicant may make a rash payment in lieu of
actual excavation and removal of material from the creek. The cash
payment will be calculated at the rate of $0.10 per square foot of new
impervious surface area created by the development will be based on
the Flood Control District's standard impervious surface area ordinance.
The Flood Control District will use these funds to work on the creek
annually.
I. CREEK STRUCTURE SETBACKS:
Applicant shall relinquish "development rights" over that portion of the site that
is within the structure setback area of Miranda Creek. The structure setback
area shall be determined by using the criteria outlined in Chapter 914-14,
"Rights of Way and Setbacks", of the Subdivision Ordinance. "Development
rights" shall be conveyed to the County by grant deed.
J. FEMA FLOOD ZONE:
The project lies within the 100-year flood boundary as designated on the
Federal Emergency Flood Rate Maps. The applicant shall obtain a floodplain
permit pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and
the County Flood Plain Management Ordinance (Ordinance No. 90-118) prior
to the filing of the final map. All finished flood elevations shall be constructed
above the 100-year flood elevation plus sufficient freeboard (for this property,
the finished floors shall be elevated above 335.0 feet).
7
15. Acoustic Report: Prior to filing a final map, the applicant shall submit two copies of
a report prepared by a qualified acoustic engineer based on projected noise conditions
affecting this site as documented in the Noise Element of the General Plan. The report
shall make recommendations for mitigation of noise impacts. The report shall be
subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. The approved recommen-
dations shall be incorporated into the design of the project.
ADVISORY NOTES
PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUT
ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED
FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE
REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITF DEVELOPMENT.
A. The applicant/owner should be aware of the renewing requirements prior to recording t
the Parcel Map or requesting building or grading permits.
B. Applicant shall comply with the Park Dedication Fee Ordinance.
C. Comply with provisions of the Heritage Tree Ordinance adopted by the Board of
Supervisors.
D. Comply with the requirements of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District.
E. Comply with the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District.
i
F. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department, Environmental
Health Division.
G. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Building permits
are required prior to the construction of most structures.
H. Comply with the requirements of the East Bay Municipal Utility District.
I. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish & Game.
The applicant should notify the Department of Fish & Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville,
California 94599, of any proposed construction within the development that may
affect and fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code.
J. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the
Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Alamo Area of Benefit as adopted by the
Board of Supervisors.
K. The applicant shall be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for
Drainage Area 76 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
8
L. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal,
construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water
Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San
Francisco Bay - Region II or Central Valley - Region V).
M. 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.
N. The project lies within the 100-year flood boundary as designated on the Federal
Emergency Management Agency Flood Rate Maps. The applicant should be aware of
the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Flood Plain
Management Ordinance (Ordinance No. 87-65) as they pertain to future construction
of any structures on this property.
0. The applicant will be required to pay an environmental review fee of $1 ,250.00 for the
Department of Fish and Game at the end of the appeal period. Failure to do so will
result in fines. In addition, the approval is not final or vested until the fee is paid. A
check for this fee shall be submitted to Contra Costa County for submittal with the
final environmental documents.
P. Vested Rights and Fees: This project is subject to the development fees and
regulations in effect under County Ordinance as of May 7, 1994, 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 $2,000.00 per residence.
Child Care $400.00 per residence.
An estimate of the fee charges for each approved lot may be obtained by contact the
Building Inspection Department at 646-4992.
Q. The applicant is advised that the tax for the police services district is currently set by
the Board of Supervisors at $200 per parcel annually (with appropriate future
Consumer Price Index (CPI] adjustments). The annual fee is subject to modification by
the Board of Supervisors in the future. The current fee for holding the election is $800
and is also subject to modification in the future. The applicable tax and fee amounts
will be those established by the Board at the time of voting. The applicant is advised
that the election process takes from 3 to 4 months and must be completed prior to
recording the Final or Parcel Map.
9
R. Expiration of Vested Rights: Pursuant to Section 66452.6(g) of the Subdivision Map
act, the rights conferred by the vesting tentative map as provided by Chapter 4.5 of
the Subdivision Map act shall last for an initial period of two (2) years following the.
recording date of the final/parcel map. These rights pertain to development fees and
regulations. Where several final maps are recorded on various phases of a project
covered by a single vesting tentative map, the initial time period shall begin for each
phase when the final map for that phase is recorded.
At any time prior to the expiration of the initial time period, the subdivider may apply
for a one-year extension. The application shall be accompanied by the applicable filing
fee. If the extension is denied by an advisory agency, the subdivider may appeal that
denial to the Board of Supervisors by filing a letter of appeal with the appropriate filing
fee with the Clerk of the Board within 15 calendar days.
The initial time period may also be subject to automatic extension pursuant to other
provisions of Section 66452.6(g) relating to processing of related development
applications by the County.
At the expiration of the vesting time period, remaining development (i.e., new building
permits) within.the subdivision shall be subject to development fees and regulations
in effect at that time.
RMP/RHD/aa
SUB;XV/7898C.RMP
9/13/94
10/10/94-ZA (a)
12/5/94
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Response and mitigation #1: The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Reconnaissance p-q--t
Report dated received by the Community Development Department on February D"�°S•
25, 1994. Section D - Mitigation Measures - list measures which need to be
implemented to preclude soil-related problems on the site.
On March 28, 1994 Darwin Myers Associates reviewed the above report and
recommended mitigation measures found on page 4, Section - Evaluation, 1,
& 2.
The above mitigation measures have been agreed upon by the applicant and
will be integrated in the staff report as Conditions of Approval.
Response and mitigation #2: Same as #1 .
Response and mitigation #3: The applicant submitted an Arborist Report prepared by
William F. Owen, Certified Arborist, dated received on May 6, 1994 by the
Community Development Department. A list of mitigation measures are found
on page 3 of the Arborist Report. The applicant has agreed with all mitigations
and fully understands that such mitigations will be integrated into the
Subdivision's staff report as Conditions of Approval.
Response and mitigation #4: The applicant submitted an Archaeological Study of
Subdivision 7898, prepared by Anmarie Medin, Project Coordinator, under the
supervision of Dr. Adrian Praetzellis (Member, Society of Professional
Archaeologists), Department of Anthropology, Sonoma State University. On
page 3 of that report is a list of recommendations that the applicant has agreed
with and fully understands that they will be integrated into the Subdivision's
staff report as Conditions of Approval.
Environmental Checklist - Page 14 of 14
A
-Lit-
Aa
//��Cli
1 a i
• •aI
r ^ Y '
i
All
I
d O� ..r•tt•w�.�S � o
s
n9,
Cyd M i � b 0 ~\/
_711 sea,
ta•ss '�
r, •,.
1.
3?
s
63 K,+1559 L 1560 ao j561s ._ lobz
16 {s1 y► p
Yj r,fir 4+ "• z 't �! ! 3 t � 1 ,,� `"t,9 ;"'
e6a •.. 0 118- K �[ i .wy t
• �1 itt' tf s ,.o r,. •n ,int 4 y C,ta • f ,o, f4 0 4R qc `�tLx
Y
,t to c6 •=0r „e tib er+ � it Jr rS p rr ,rat t �$+ OAD i•.
3 1 tsps fl n 4J p h r,Nt „1 � ` t
6 K t 3 a�"°• t
+ 1 f Ap so •°• �° --� _ «v 7+ ft SUB ` r,x
fflgt 43 �O M 1 +e T K f+n tJ
�+
To
• li i c
ka
40 41 fo= f� sf� i3 f ,~41 cx " nx ¢402 r+.r
•` N �- llv 41
•s '
,,, r • ,''" ,f1•r,, � tna,
as
S BI is 3T u �+:49 •na Ts
*4 ~•• •y `M K 40 47r e3 a�y 104 r=j 4ae ('�. x0 vf'a�3t+Y'ta4 f w{t 1
i N °• • 41 K if til { 3
11L IIe'f 4'-0r to
4r i Mtt Ot6 vr• N ter+ f 36 u
Mr st so at ti tat I.er ¢ „ t
tf L. e, „ IN I 113 • w ZONE C
' "� -
I t / O Lia' si : 'i I.t 11{ ttt__ err �+
2 ATO sf ft rnt „ rr
� rex Osla
j'� f
is to „ :-,i H • "if 115 = i4
ZONE ff4 lier nr t?, rsrn N 3.
-�— >. `" ISI i t 4t
tt a;s a�y�i rll it= Inr * m a 10 i3 n t
• or , e, - n uT
21 1i K fi tx tyf tit+ fif .7f is fN I�i1 ase 7 '�sl K la
•••r ` `0 »r Ir=• ,r m 4 3973 4T
if 1{ „ ,� cif •N+i. K s
i N bt dt
15 49
QI
ALAMO ` 112 is so
xt / 2.iLb It3 rx ! = 4T f
rr be n
3 t
r t
SCHOOL t„o7Tift fn1: $ E J
1 I ts0 rr LIVDgNA ss
1 ash 7 ; •.i_sstn4�a„sus�xss RD
T _• t
xt •s�� �i ' t:
£ t 1 tt 23 i+
t `�``� �I�� M I S 4 c •er 1 �
24' .a
to 24 •4
t,p 3 If 2T �f
�• a
++ a xs •`
Nf na ten r., a 'c li ♦� '+to f
+rn t�'jOa ae <b
00a n49
K Qr
Wt / fi �,�t t mow`\fn _ - - � `^ '�e+ � t 't+ �. f� •+
t lyp ..� ym •. _ „�-.. :� � ft• 1 .4 4� 31 t 1p •• t:
I - 1
1'pe tet t� `f-" • t 1 t t13 � �• 12
ti
t.n r e f+ t1 40 s2
VE It
r 11
' rrn ,r. .f 1s ha ,Q t •f
�\ if
.Wtv
0 0� I p R. t f f• ! T�c
`;\`\\\ I I _ -•••, --'— - ZONE B =e ZONE
-ZONE `"r •
\�A\\ ti
\� 1 302�ree o
t}p ZON t t'
\\*\�
\ Ie
Ll I t lt. u _ N 3t MAUZY
\ \ =` 5\ T ► SCHOOL 3,
l�\�\,1 '�l� f�!�'�'sue *ess• � �i ;n'
ZONE
. AllONrs��?t'd' \ \\\ r ;'7 1 �—^z`-. `�*;-r.-,.�:. .,� ...�' ,�, rio��" ,e.=a3 t9�'ei• so ,+ --
a`' t—f u idloAb blr teTi /`fit 53r '3"S
�
C Z s
1558 1559 1560 1561 R15 1562
i, ot$e Contours Figure 11-50
Rk—
I • ! \''_.. ` \ �'\.�. 0 1 •i•� IIS. � a s
80
ti
e � .`rte _r �' _ 1' �-� •• ': :....:�>� � '~' \ d •)OS•\ 0 /r
_ 1 �
d. ! ! \ 1 Irl' :•I \ \L1• ; ,� —\ :,:.1
r
•rte... '.. ..-.��
16
ml
21
NL
20
:
r' I / L �• r ' �'
jd.•...;`�• `' !mak�s-:�. 19r` 10 u i i a ', • // 1
�\..�,v,..:�11 r'.� F• �/f t � •r, / •� / ' \ �/ l/ ••, ` /'
31 32
31
x ;.:::r i- 'x!4\ 1 c
\\°:� ,(.�� �\ ,•rte ,. ':`, ?� � I � •i
' +� �'•1•vt•l '• t•
° ' f: ' /.110+~11•i�'•• '' _: .. .! :, 1 1 ; ",.: {
32
° .....
17 ,-
i
If
LEGEND Las Trampas Ridge
� 2005 DNL and CNEL NOISE LEVELS (dB)
Roadways are DNL K 0 1 MILE
---- Trains are DNL
4* 1000 0 1000 9000 5000 7000 FEET
' NORTH
11 Z1
I
Figure 11-6 ,
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS
COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE
LAND USE CATEGORY Ldn OR CNEL,dB
55 60 65 70 75 60
RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY
SINGLE FAMILY,DUPLEX,
MOBILE HOMES
v' ii4iiry'Yti:
RESIDENTIAL-MULTI FAMILY
TRANSIENT LODGING-
MOTELS,HOTELS
SCHOOLS,LIBRARIES, """'"'"'
CHURCHES,HOSPITALS,
NURSING HOMES
AUDITORIUMS,CONCERT
HALLS,AMPHITHEATRES
SPORTS ARENA,OUTDOOR
SPECTATOR SPORTS
PLAYGROUNDS, »:<:<: <:...
NEIGHBOURHOOD PARKS
GOLF COURSES,RIDING
STABLES,WATER
RECREATION,CEMETARIES pug
I
OFFICE BUILDINGS .BUSINESS < ' r' `
COMMERCIAL AND
PROFESSIONAL
INDUSTRIAL,MANUFACTURING,
I TUR G
UTILITIES,AGRICULTURE
NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE
Specified land use is satisfactory,based upon the New construction or development should
assumption that any buildings involved are of normal generally be discouraged.If new construction or
conventional construction,without any special noise development does proceed,a detailed analysis
insulation requirements. of the noise reduction requirements must be
made and needed noise insulation features
® included in the design.
CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE
New construction or development should be CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE
undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise New construction or development dearly should
reduction requirements is made and needed noise not be undertaken.
insulation features included in the design..
For lands within 3 miles of Buchanan Field and the East Contra Costa County Airports noise compatibility shall be
adjusted to those of the ALUC which are roughly 5 CNEL lower than shown on this table.-
11-43
C 0
all
0c)
• ,•o oto0
0 SOO)
Q eco
(D
0 U-
co
CC)
co
e:. C)
0
0
0
CD 'SO to
(3) <. .2 0 co pU) 0 Nom`
-c:
C- �5 0) 3;
co .0 '— w
to 0
n .0
0 0) co
d tt \ 6 c�' ` d v „, tt is °
0) ot
0 S 0 3;
A -c-
0 CO V-Wo CO c (1) 0
� c)a) I !��
t 0) -;�
Q a) cv�--� t,40 6 -
C: 15 C-' dG 0 c:
'=' A --0 (1) 0) 0
b
0
1. o 0 0 U:—() V- ,
0 c: Ck. lLn W 0
.00
S-0 SS C,) IL
o 0 U) \ 0) CD
co co -a) , 0 CO -CT
'k O 1 co 0 r
Ir- 10
.0
0
co
r- co
co
co
0
—ca C6 I- (.) 0
M jq? 0�—o
0
U, 0 CO -C)--C)-CO
—co cc-> Ir-
4a)
COs C G 0
0 V-
.0
C)
0
03
-Z
U- 0 43)
JL> to O0
CF)
N
O
o 0
0,
V(5
0
0
co
0)
7-:I�
co
CD 0 C; .0
d � �` }` CSG y \ y ¢ ts y � ` 0
NN
(3) 0
` Q `` c a- �, ` E d tL ova
�
77 0
cgi .- r-- -
0
(D 0)
0
0 -Z '4� CO.) coc-
3�
-00
6
co C:� occ� C
0) .0
yU
0
' (1) o r-
%- -00
0 e
O C3- —
3�
'0 0
S L)
0 0
OW *-' 0 \(1) �--
0 0
S-0
00 0 0 nO0)
Ln0G. 0
Li —C;5
00
3; CD`� p ` ���,oco•vco ��;;G
llie-, . (D
0)
L) t`3 cn
C-�
1
ALAMO IMMOVEMENT AMOCIATION
for re
A. O. Box M • K&40.QUYOW %%n • 010)exam
r,.i •�= lam;�
May 13, 1994
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
County Administration Building
651 Pine St. , 4th Floor, N. Wing
Martinez, Ca 94553-0095
Attn: Ms. Rose Marie Pietras
Re: File No. 7898, Application for a Subdivision on Miranda
Road, Alamo, made. by DeBolt Engineering.
Dear Ms. Pietras:
The Alamo Improvement Association recommends denial without
prejudice of the application for a subdivision on Miranda Road,
made by DeBolt Civil Engineering. This recommendation is based
on the following circumstances which came out in the AIA Planning
Committee' s public hearing on May 11 , 1994. and the public Board
Meeting on May 12.
1 o The original subdivision vesting tentative layout map dated
Feb. 22, 1994 , was issued for review and comments by you with the
original application on Feb. 25, 1994. However, as we notified
you by my letter of April 05, the applicant requested deferral of
his presentation to AIA until our May meeting, since he was in
the process of making ma,Lor changes in the layout. He mailed me
copies of the April 6 rev�'3-i-on of the layout on April 6, but as
of today, we have received no transmittal from you asking for
comments on the revision, and are uncertain as to the County' s
attitude and acceptance of it.
o The applicant supplied AIA a summary table listing seven width
variances and no depth variances. AIA strongly feels that no
width variances should be approved on a new subdivision, and
recommends that the layout be revised with fewer lots, so as to
avoid width variances.
o The applicant advised us that the former road easement along
the entire southern border of the .property had been vacated and
its width was used in calculating the net area of the southern
lots. AIA requested copies of the documentation for this
vacating, and applicant promised to send it to you and to AIA.
AIA considers this essential to approval .
o Neighbors reported that the culvert under Miranda road is too
small for the present creek peak runoff, and applicant advised
that the subdivision surface drainage (which will presumably
i
increase over its present runoff) would flow into the creek via
the existing 15-inch storm sewer on the east side of Miranda.
This would worsen the culvert capacity inadequacy. The formal
area drainage study, promised by the applicant at a later stage,
should be accellerated so it can be a part of this approval
process.
o Applicant' s map shows a 6-inch water main along the entire
south border of the property, about 25 feet north of the border.
He advised that he knows of no easement for this pipe, but would
research the matter. This matter must be researched and cleared
up before approval.
o In response to concern voiced by both by neighbors and the AIA
Board that the additional children who would undoubtedly live in
the subdivision would not be able to be admitted -to -the over-
loaded Alamo schools, the Developer (who was also present at the
AIA hearings) stated that this situation would be told to poten-
tial buyers. AIA recommends that this be required as an approval
condition.
o - o -
Thank you for giving the AIA the opportunity to review this
request. AIA would appreciate the opportunity to review this
proposed subdivision again, after the above matters have been
resolved.
Sincerely,
. H. Henderson
Chairman, AIA
Planning Committee
cc: Rob Fates
Secretary, AIA
Applicant
:i Lr,.j•j�1 F
Central Contra $ta Sanitary District
PAf .;
.P� ROCERJ.DOL4N
CeneratManager
March 21, 1994 ChierEngineer
KEhTONL AGN
Counsel for the District
(510)938-1430
JOYCE E.MURPHY
.Secretary o(the District
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
ATTENTION: ROSE MARIE PIETRAS
Ladies and Gentlemen:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
VTM 7898, 18-LOT RES. SUBDIVISION
MIRANDA ROAD, OPPOSITE INA DRIVE, ALAMO
APN: 193-070-011 & 012
WS: 34N
THOMAS BROS. LOC.: 78A2
The above-referenced project has been reviewed by this office.
1 . SEWER SERVICE AVAILABILITY--AND GENERAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS
1 .1 The project site is within the CCCSD boundaries, and sewer service has
been planned for this area.
1 .2 The plans submitted for District review do not show the proposed project
sewers. To avoid potential future delays in the sewer plan approval
process, the developer should promptly contact the District's Plan Review
Section at (510) 229-7367.
1 .3 The developer should be aware that District policy requires gravity sewers
in preference to pumped systems and the location of public sewers in public
streets rather than in off-street locations to the extent possible. Variances
from this policy are discouraged. However, the District will consider
alternatives on a case-by-case basis where the project engineer justifies
such alternatives to the District's satisfaction.
Receded Pars HR
' f
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
Page 2
March 21, 1994
Specific requirements are:
Gravity Service. Sewers are to be designed to operate under gravity flow
to the District's existing sanitary sewer system. The use of sewage pumps
for individual lots will not be permitted unless it is economically impractical
to construct a main sewer to provide gravity service. The District's current
"Standard Specifications" document provides criteria for allowing the use
of sewage pumps at individual lots.
Easements. An exclusive public sewer easement must be established over
the alignment of each public sewer in an off-street or private street location
to provide access for future maintenance. The following criteria are used
to determine the public sewer easement width:
O The sewer easement width shall be 15 feet where the public sewer
is less than 12 inches in diameter and the depth is 9 feet or less.
• The sewer easement width shall be 20 feet where the public sewer
is 12 inches and larger in diameter or the depth is greater than 9 feet.
O If new public sewers are being installed across properties where
existing improvements will remain in place adjacent to the new public
sewers, sewer easement width may be reduced at the discretion of
the District, .but in no case can the width be less than 10 feet.
In addition, all-weather access for the District's maintenance vehicles to all
manholes and rodding inlets in off-street locations is required. All-weather
access typically consists of a 10-foot wide cross section with a surface
course of turf-block, 2 inches of asphalt concrete, or other equivalent all-
weather surface acceptable to the District, over 6 inches of aggregate base.
The use of sanitary sewer easement surfaces shall be limited to paving,
shrubbery, gardens, and other landscaping, excluding trees. Parallel surface
drainage ways and permanent structures including, but not limited to,
buildings, swimming pools, decks, and retaining walls are not permitted
within the easement area.
2. SOURCE CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
The District has reviewed this project for source control requirements. Base
wastewater flow from this project appears to be domestic wastewater such as
from residential, office, or church sources. Specific source control requirements
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
Page 3
March 21, 1994
are normally not applicable to domestic wastewater. However, materials such as
gasoline, oil, sand, paint, pesticide residues, or other toxic substances are
prohibited from being introduced into the District's sewer system.
3. SEWER CAPACITY
The District has completed -a capacity study for the existing sewer system
downstream of the proposed project. This study determined that the existing main
sewer is adequate for the additional wastewater which will be generated by the
proposed project based upon current conditions. District facilities do not have
adequate flow carrying capacity under the District's current design criteria for
ultimate conditions. Improvements to correct the deficiencies are in the District's
Capital Improvement Plan. Improvements to the District's existing facilities that are
required as a result of new development will be funded from applicable District fees
and charges. The developer will be required to pay these fees and charges at the
time of connection to the sewer system.
4. PRIVATE SEWERS
The proposed project includes side.sewers. A side sewer is defined as a private
sewer which is owned and maintained by the property owner and which connects
the plumbing system of the building to the main sewer. The side sewer begins at
the point of connection to the building plumbing system 2 feet outside the
foundation line or building wall and terminates at the point of connection to the
main-sewer. _
District policy requires that the developer be responsible for installation of the side
sewer, and the property owner be responsible for operation and maintenance of the
side sewer. District review of the design and inspection of the work on the side
sewer shall in no way constitute our acceptance of any responsibility 'for
maintenance or damage to property due to construction and subsequent operation
and maintenance of the side sewer.
The design intent of the typical side sewer details included in the District's current
"Standard Specification" document is to reduce the amount of rainfall and
groundwater that will infiltrate the sewer, thereby avoiding unnecessary pumping
and treatment costs. The typical side sewer details are not intended to meet the
geotechnical, structural, or drainage requirements of special situations.
The Sanitary District must review and approve any construction plans involving work on
the public sewer system prior to the developer's applying for a building permit. The
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
Page 4
March 21, 1994
District's Permit Section will receive and process the construction plans. Also, contact
the District's Permit.Section regarding fees applicable to this project.
Sincerely,
Russell B. Leavitt, AICP
Planning Assistant
RBL:ns
c: DeBolt Engineering
811 San Ramon Valley Blvd.
Danville, CA 94526
David Staal
Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland
2900 Lakeshore Avenue
Oakland, CA 94610
- I
SAN MWON VALLEY FIRE PROTECT I Qft DISTRICT
PROJECT NAME Stall Subdivision FP # SD 7898
ADDRESS Miranda Ave @ Ina Dr. Alamo �*3?;kEF#
OCCUPANCY CLASS R-3 DESCRIPTION Sincxat�Dami ly Dwellinct
CONSTRUCTION TYPE VN DESCRIPTION Wood Frame
CHECK ONE: NEW CONST TENANT IMP X PLANNING APPLICATIONS
ADDN AFES FIRE ALARM OTHER
BLDG/PLAN AGENCY Contra Costa County Planning APN# 193-070-011 , 012
AGENCY #
APPLICABLE CODES/ORDINANCES 1991 UFC, SRVFPD Ord. #14
ADD'L INFO: BLDG AREA FLR AREA # OF FLRS
SPECIAL FEES WATER ACCESS EBMUD
ACCESS GATES LOCK BOX OTHER
REVIEWED BY: Michael Mentink #148 DATE:_ May 2, 1994
FIRE DISTRICT COMMENTS:
Rose Marie Pietras
Community Development Dept.
Contra Costa County
1. Fire hydrant(s) are required. All hydrants must be EBMUD. standard
steamer type (1-41/2" and 1-21/2" outlet) . (UFC, 1991, Sec. 10.401,
S.R.V.F.P.D. Ord. #14)(s_1�
2 . NOTE ON FIELD PLAN: Identify the fire hydrant locations by installing
reflective "blue dot" markers adjacent to the hydrant 6 inches off
center from the middle of treet. (UFC, 1991, Sec. 10.105(c) )ts-z)
3. Fire apparatus roadways must be capable of supporting the imposed weight
of fire apparatus and must be provided with an all weather driving
surface. onlyap ved surfaces are considered to be all weather driving
surfaces . (UFC, 1991, Sec: 10 .204(b) )(s-6)
4 . NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
Fire apparatus roadways must be installed and fire hydrants in service
prior to commencement of framing:
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF FRAMING, CONTACT THE SAN RAMON VALLEY FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT TO SCHEDULE AN INSPECTION OF ROADWAYS AND-FIRE
HYDRANTS. (UFC, 1991, Sec. 10.502 )(s=10)
5. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings in such a position as to .be plainly visible and legible from
the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast
with their background. Individual suite numbers shall be permanently
posted on the main entrance doors of tenant spaces. (UFC, 1991, Sec.
10.. 301a)(P_19)
(over)
AN
u
6. For homes constructed of type V NR under 3600 square feet, a minimum -
1000 gpm fire flow at a minimum 20 psi for a two hour duration shall be
standard.
For homes constructed of type V NR 3600 square feet and under 4800
square feet, a minimum 1500 gpm fire flow at a minimum 20 psi for a two
hour duration shall be standard.
For homes from 4800 square feet to 6200 square feet, a minimum of 1750
gpm at 20 psi 'for two hour duration shall be standard.
All homes- over 5000 square feet shall have installed an approved
residential automatic fire extinguishing sprinkler system (in addition
to required fire flows) .
For homes over 6200 square feet, refer to UFC Table A-III, A-I. (UFC
1991, Appendix III-A5)(P-22)
7. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
Approved spark arrestors shall be installed on each chimney/flue/vent
used for fireplaces and heating appliances in which solid or liquid fuel
is used. (UFC 1991, 11 .505)(P-23)
8. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
Approved smoke detector(s). shall be installed according to current UBC
standards. (UBC 1991, Sec. 1210)(P_24)
9. Any/all new street names and addressing shall be submitted for approval
to Administrative Mapping Division of San Ramon Valley Fire Protection
District. (UFC 1991, Sec. 10 . 206, S.R.V.F.P.D. Ord. #14, 10: 301(c) )(P_26)
10. Plans are acceptable contingent upon compliance with the above listed
comments. (C_87)
11. Only one set of plans were received and will be retained at this office
for reference. Applicant wi`l-I!�_Qnly receive this comment sheet.(C-88)
12. Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve of any
aspects of the design or installation which do not strictly comply with
all applicable codes and standards; i.e. , additional comments may be
added during subsequent drawing review or field inspection. Please call
if there are any questions . (t-93)
Michael Mentink, Fire Inspector
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District
838-6686
Plan Review Fee: $ 30.00
2 - -
�AI AMO WQOVEMENT A(MOCIAnON
P. O. BOX ZIl • AWfO.CNUFCdA 94507 • (510)820-2802
October 17, 1994
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
County Administration Building
651 Pine St. , 4th Floor, N. Wing
Martinez, Ca 94553-0095
Attn: Mr. Harvey Bragdon, Director, Community Development
Re: File No. Sub 7898. Appeal of Zoning Administrator' s Approval
of Subdivision Application on October 10, 1994.
Dear Mr Bragdon:
The Alamo. Improvement Association appeals the approval on October
10, 1994 of the application for. subject subdivision. A check in
the amount of $125.00 is attached.
Also attached are copies of the AIA letter of May 13, 1994 and
the Flood Hazard Map contained in. the Staff Report prepared for
the Zoning Administrator hearing. You are referred to the fourth
subparagraph in the AIA letter, concerning culvert inadequacy
under Miranda Road, and concerns by local residents about
consequent flooding. Almost half of the proposed subdivision is
within the shaded flooding area on the Flood Hazard map.
The staff report contains nothing from the County Flood Control
organization, and the Staff Report' s Conditions of Approval on
pages 5 and 6 have only the standard phraseology about creek
dredging vs. cash payment, plus a requirement as to the minimum
floor elevation of the future residences.
The AIA is keenly aware of the recent flooding experience along
Miranda Creek (which borders the entire north side of the subdiv-
ision) , especially in the Bunce Meadows area just downstream.
The storms causing this flooding were surely not "100 year
storms" . The water flow rates and flooded area boundaries estab-
lished in the original Federal maps have not been updated for the
several large subdivisions upstream of Miranda Road, all of which
create a greatly increased impervious area runoff into Miranda
Creek. This will expand the potentially flooded area at the
subdivision and raise the flood elevation.
By this appeal, AIA strongly recommends that this subdivision and
other future major subdivisions along Miranda Creek not be ap-
proved until a County Flood Control project to substantially
increase the capacity of Miranda Creek along its entire length
from San Ramon Creek up to the area of this subdivision is
approved, funded and started.
Sincerely,
H. Henderson
I11,-.4 v...-..... A T
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DATE: November 29, 1994
TO: Rose Marie Pietras, Project Planner /
FROM: Steven J. Wright, Associate Civil Engineer, Engineering Service
SUBJECT: Subdivision 7898, Appeal by the AIA (THIRD REVISION)
Public Works recommended conditions of approval for Subdivision 7898 which would satisfy
the requirements of Title 9 of the Ordinance Code. The applicant was required to comply
with the requirements of the Drainage Area 76 Fee Ordinance which is proposed to resolve
a drainage problem along Miranda Creek downstream of Miranda Avenue, and they were
required to provide additional mitigation equivalent to $0.10 per square foot of additional
impervious surface area on both Miranda Creek and San Ramon Creek.
Public Works and Flood Control have looked at the downstream drainage problem along
Miranda Creek at the Miranda Avenue crossing which is located downstream and offsite of
Subdivision 7898. Based on our analysis, the design storm will result in water leaving the
banks of Miranda Creek and overtopping Miranda Avenue.
Most of the actual Miranda Creek channel is located on the property to the north.
However, the Miranda Creek structure setback extends well into this property. Based on
the FEMA flood maps and preliminary analysis by the County this portion of Miranda Creek
does not appear to be adequate.
The following issues are important to consider with action on this appeal:
1. COLLECT AND CONVEY REQUIREMENTS: Division 914, "Drainage," of the
Subdivision Ordinance requires the applicant to adequately collect and convey
drainage from the subdivision (based on the 25 year storm in this case) to an
adequate man-made drainage facility or to a natural watercourse. The drainage
analysis must be based on sufficient freeboard and storm water anticipated from
ultimate development within the watershed in accordance with the County General
Plan.
11. FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS: A large part of this property is located within the FEMA
100-year Floodplain. A portion is also located within the FEMA Floodway. In
addition to complying with the requirements of the County Drainage Ordinance, the
applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Floodplain
Management Ordinance. All structures will have to be sufficiently elevated to reduce
the potential for flooding from the base flood. Development within the Floodway
would require substantiation that there will not be an appreciable increase in the
water surface of the Floodway.
III. EXISTING CREEK AND CULVERT UNDER MIRANDA AVENUE: Based on a
preliminary analysis, it appears that the downstream culvert under Miranda Avenue
is inadequate and the design storm may result in overtopping of the roadway. If the
Miranda Avenue culvert was not a constraint, the Creek upstream of Miranda
Avenue still may not contain the design storm. The extent of flooding will not be
known until appropriate creek cross sections are developed and a drainage study
performed.
Downstream of Miranda Avenue the culverts under Erselia Trail are adequate. A
subdivision on the north side of Bunce Meadows Drive, between Miranda Avenue
and Erselia Trail, has been conditioned to assure creek capacity through that
property. The creek improvements have not been assured. Portions of Miranda
Creek downstream of Miranda Avenue are inadequate. There are known drainage
problems at the curve in Miranda Creek west of the Stratmore ditch.
Additional drainage studies are necessary along the portion of Miranda Creek
upstream of Miranda Avenue to determine the extent of appropriate drainage
mitigation.
IV. DRAINAGE AREA FEE ORDINANCE AND DRAINAGE POLICIES IN THIS
AREA: The applicant is being required to provide substantial drainage mitigation:
A. Under Drainage Area 76, the applicant will be required to pay a drainage fee
based on approximately $0.70 per square foot of impervious surface. These
funds are designated for drainage mitigation downstream of Miranda Avenue.
Flood Control has proposed to build the Miranda Creek bypass project with
these funds.
B. The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has
looked at this study area and determined that additional Miranda Creek
drainage improvements are needed. The County has been requiring
developers in this area to reduce the impact of additional storm water run-off
from Miranda Creek by excavating one cubic yard of channel material from
inadequate portions of Miranda Creek for each 50 square feet of new
impervious surface created by the development. The site selection and
construction staking would be performed by the Flood Control District. Upon
written request, the applicant may make a cash payment in lieu of actual
excavation and removal of material from the creek. The cash payment will be
calculated at the rate of$0.10 per square foot of new impervious surface area
created by the development. The Flood Control District will use these funds
to work on the creek. The cash payment will be kept in a separate trust fund
for work in the Miranda Creek drainage area.
While the Drainage Area 76 Fee Ordinance is proposed to mitigate impacts
on the lower portion of Miranda Creek, other drainage impacts exist along
this Creek. Public Works recommends that the applicant be required to
provide this creek mitigation for the portion of Miranda Creek upstream of
Miranda Avenue.
C. The applicant is also conditioned to excavate one cubic yard of channel
material from inadequate portions of San Ramon Creek for each 50 square
feet of new impervious surface created by the development. Or, as stated
above, upon written request, the applicant may make a cash payment in lieu
at the rate of $0.10 per square foot of new impervious surface area created
by the development.
V. AREAWIDE WATERSHED MITIGATION: Developments in the area have widened
portions of the downstream drainage channels and have installed detention basins to
reduce the downstream drainage impact. Money from the Miranda Creek Trust
Fund has been used to place a parallel culvert under Erselia Trail this last year and
Flood Control has considered implementation of a project to install a bypass pipe
along a portion of the creek.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Negative Declaration with Mitigations was posted
on July 21, 1994. The Negative Declaration did not identify any significant impacts
along Miranda Creek. If the Commission finds that reasonable consideration was not
given to significant drainage impacts, they may want to require that the significant
adverse impacts be identified and mitigated. The Commission may: require
preparation of an environmental impact report; require additional information to
determine the extent of impacts and potential mitigation, prior to project approval;
OR, deny the project.
VII. IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION: Downstream drainage problems along
Miranda Creek upstream of Miranda Avenue were identified in the AIA's letter to
Rose Marie Pietras dated May 13, 1994. The County does not have a separate
record of this drainage complaint. However, the County's preliminary analysis
indicates that neither the culvert under Miranda Avenue nor the creek immediately
upstream is adequate to carry the design storm. Other drainage problems have been
noted downstream of Miranda Avenue. Again, a large portion of this property is
located within a FEMA Floodplain area and a portion appears to also be located
within a FEMA Floodway.
Flood Control is considering construction of the proposed Miranda Creek bypass
project downstream of Erselia Trail which would divert some of the flows from
entering Miranda Creek in an area of the creek which is subject to drainage impacts.
Public Works finds that the applicant's Drainage Area 76 Drainage Area fee
mitigates their impact on the portion of Miranda Creek downstream of Miranda
Avenue. However, if the Commission does not find that this mitigation is adequate
they could consider one or more of the following additional mitigation measures to
mitigate impacts on the portion of Miranda Creek downstream of Miranda Avenue:
A. Installation of the Miranda Creek bypass pipe discussed above. This drainage
facility is estimated to cost approximately $700,000. Installation of this
drainage facility appears to be beyond the scope of this project.
B. Acquisition of a flowage easement along the inadequate portions of Miranda
Creek which would legally limit construction of new structures or obstructions
and limit liability along this portion of the creek.
C. Improve Miranda Creek to adequately convey the design storm. The
improvements shall consider the impacts on the riparian corridor. These
improvements appear to be beyond the scope of this project.
D. Construct floodwalls along the inadequate portions of Miranda Creek. The
floodwall could be constructed as the foundation for back yard fencing. These
improvements appear to be beyond the scope of this project.
E. Improve Miranda Creek and construct floodwalls to adequately convey the
design storm. The improvements shall consider the impacts on the riparian
corridor. These improvements appear to be beyond the scope of this project.
F. Payment of a 50% additional Drainage Area 76 fee surcharge in order to
advance the schedule of construction of necessary drainage improvements in
Miranda Creek, downstream of Miranda Avenue. The applicant could enter
into a reimbursement agreement with the County to obtain reimbursement of
a portion of the fee surcharge in accordance with the County's reimbursement
agreement from future fees.
Potential measures which would mitigate the project's drainage impact on the portion
of Miranda Creek at, and upstream of, Miranda Avenue include the following
mitigation:
G. Replacement of the culvert under Miranda Avenue with a pipe, or pipes, of
adequate capacity to convey the design storm with adequate freeboard.
H. Improvement of the portion of Miranda Creek along this property's frontage
and downstream to Miranda Avenue. Widening of the channel would require
considerable offsite easement acquisition. An alternative would be widening
along the creek frontage of this property with a floodplain concept with
additional grading in the vicinity of the southerly top of bank and connection
to the channel. The floodplain concept would require more land which would
be occasionally flooded.
VIII. CONCLUSION: Based on the above, Public Works recommends:
A. That the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission consider the
drainage mitigation which has been incorporated into the conditions of
approval for this project. This mitigation consists of the collect and convey
requirements of Division 914, "Drainage," of the County Ordinance Code;
mitigation work on Miranda Creek and San Ramon Creek, or, subject to
written request of the applicant, a cash payment toward that mitigation;
payment of the Drainage Area 76 drainage fee; and, a grant deed of
development rights over the structure setback area along the creek.
B. If the Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration with
Mitigation is inadequate they may:
1. Require preparation of an environmental impact report to evaluate
new significant adverse impacts.
2. Deny the project.
3. Require the applicant to provide additional information prior to further
consideration of this project. The additional information shall consist
of additional cross sections along representative portions of the creek
extending from the easterly portion of the property downstream to
Miranda Avenue. The Public Works Department would analyze the
water surface elevation based on the design storm with freeboard and
the capacity of the existing drainage facilities and recommend
appropriate mitigation. - Public Works suggests that the applicant's
share of the mitigation be limited to the following potential additional
Conditions of Approval:
a. Take representative cross sections along Miranda Creek at locations
specified by the Public Works Department. Public Works will perform
a drainage study subject to the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
b. Improvement of the Miranda Creek culvert under Miranda Avenue to
convey the design storm, if necessary, based on the drainage study.
Improvement will require replacement of the culvert with one of
adequate capacity or possibly installation of a second barrel. The
culvert work shall be credited toward the applicant's $0.10 per square
foot of impervious surface for Miranda Creek mitigation up to the
amount of that fee.
C. In addition to providing a structure setback in accordance with the
requirements of Division 914 of the Ordinance Code, the applicant
shall also provide a storm drainage easement which would allow
construction of necessary drainage improvements along this
development's Miranda Creek frontage in the future, if the
improvements will be required according to the drainage study. The
storm drainage easement must be fenced off for future creek
improvements.
SW:sjw
0789911
CC: M. Morton, Flood Control
P. Harrington, Flood Control
R. Faraone
The Subdivision Map Act,
66452.4.If no action is taken upon a tentative mapby an advisory agency which is authorized by local ordinance Approval by inaction
to approve,conditionally approve,or disapprove the tentative map or by the legislative body within the time
limits specified in this chapter or any authorized extension thereof,the tentative map as filed,shall be deemed
lobe approved,insofaras it complies with other applicable requirements of this division and local ordinance,
and it shall be the duty of the clerk of the legislative body to certify or state his or her approval.
(Added by Slats.1974,Ch.1536.Effective March 1,1975;Amended by Stats.1987,Ch.982.)
66452.5.(a)The subdivider,or any tenant of the subject property,in the case of a proposed conversion of Appeats
residential real property to a condominium project, community apartment project, or stock cooperative
project,may appeal from any action of the advisory agency with respect to a tentative map to the appeal board
established by local ordinance or,if none,to the legislative body.
The appeal shall be filed with the clerk of the appeal board,or if there is none,with the clerk of the legislative
body within 10 days after the action of the advisory agency from which the appeal is being taken.
Upon the filing of an appeal,the appeal board or legislative body shall set the matter for hearing.The
hearing shall be held within 30 days after the date of filing the appeal.Within 10 days following the conclusion
.)of the hearing,the appeal board or legislative body shall render its decision on the appeal.
(b)The subdivider,any tenantof the subjectproperty,in the case of a conversion ofresidential real property Decision on appeal
toacondominiumproject,communityapartmentproject,orstockcooperativeprojectorthe advisory agency to include findings
may appeal from the action of the appeal board to the legislative body.The appeal shall be filed in writing
with the clerk of the legislative body within 10 days after the action of the appeal board from which the appeal
is being taken.
After the filing of an appeal,the legislative body shall set the matter for hearing.The hearing shall be held
within 30 days after the date of a request therefor filed by the subdivider or the appellant.Within 10 days
following the conclusion of the hearing, the legislative body shall render its decision on the appeal.The
decision shall comply with the provisions of Sections 66473,66473.5,and 66474,and.shall include any
findings required by those sections.
(c)If there is an appeal board and it fails to act upon an appeal within the time limit specified in this chapter,
the decision from which the appeal was taken shall be deemed affirmed and an appeal therefrom may
thereupon be taken to the legislative body as provided in subdivision(b)of this section.If no further appeal
is taken,the tentative map, insofar as it complies with applicable requirements of this division and local
ordinance,shall be deemed approved or conditionally approved as last approved or conditionally approved
by the advisory agency,and it shall be the duty of the clerk of the legislative body to certify or state that
approval,or if the advisory agency is one which is not authorized by local ordinance to approve,conditionally
approve,or disapprove the tentative map,the advisory agency shall submit its report to the legislative body
as if no appeal had been taken.
If the legislative body fails to act upon an appeal within the time limit specified in this chapter,the tentative
map,insofar as itcomplies with applicable requirements of this division and local ordinance,shall bedeemed
to be approved or conditionally approved as last approved or conditionally approved,and it shall be the duty
of the clerk of the legislative body to certify or state that approval.
(d)Any interested person adversely affected by a decision of the advisory agency or appeal board may file
a complaint with the governing body concerning any decision of the advisory agency or appeal board.The
complaint shall be filed with the clerk of the governing body within 10 days after the action of the advisory
agency or appeal board which is the subject of the complaint.Upon the filing of the complaint,the governing
body may set the matter for hearing.The hearing shall be held within 30 days after the filing of the complaint.
The hearing may be a public hearing for which notice shall be given in the time and manner provided.
Upon conclusion of the hearing,the governing body shall,within seven days,declare its findings based Findings to be
upon the testimony and documents produced before it or before the advisory board or the appeal board.It may declared after
sustain,modify,reject,or overrule any recommendations or rulings of the advisory board or the appeal board. hearing
and may make any findings which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter or local ordinance
adopted pursuant to this chapter.
(e)Notice of each hearing provided for in this section shall be sent by United States mail to each tenant of
the subject property, in the case of a conversion of residential real property to a condominium project,
community apartment project,or stock cooperative project,at least three days prior to the hearing.The notice
requirement of this subdivision shall be deemed satisfied if the notice complies with the legal requirements
for service by mail.Pursuant to Section 66451.2,fees may be collected from the subdivider or from persons
appealing or filing a complaint for expenses incurred under this section.
(Amended by Stats.1982.Ch.479;Amended by Stats.1987,Ch.982; Amended by Stats.1988,Ch.1408.)
66452.6.(a)An approved or conditionally approved tentative map shall expire 24 months after its approval or Expiration of
conditional approval,or after any additional period of time as may be prescribed by local ordinance,not to tentative map
1992 Planning,Zoning,and Development Laws 129
COURTLA�TD 1.r 0PERTIES, INC.
Ill PI\E Si ITF 1550
`''f
SA *FRA-NCISCO. 'n`is3 �Iw 94111
FPHO-,E:(415) 421-0753
44 AX:(415) 433-2411
July 13, 1994 MFNj��p
T
Ms. Rose Marie Pietras
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: JOB NO. 93174
SUBDIVISION 7898 — ALAMO, CALIFORNIA
Dear Ms. Pietras:
We are in receipt of your proposed mitigations for Subdivision 7898 on Miranda
Avenue in Alamo. We agree that these mitigation measures should be included in the
conditions of approval for said Subdivision.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
OUR ,9Chmp
ER S, I
Peter G.
Vice President
/lm
cc: DeBolt Engineering
California Environmental Quality Act
NOTICE OF
Completion of Environmental Impact Report
xxx
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
651 Pine Street North Wing - 4th Floor- Martinez, California 94553-0095
Telephone: (510) 646-2091 Contact Person Rose Marie Pietras
Project Description and Location:
DEBOLT CIVIL ENGINEERING (Applicant) - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF OAKLAND
(Owner), County File # Sub 7898: The applicant requests approval of a Vesting Tentative
Map to subdivide 9.72 acres into eighteen (18) lots. This application includes variances to
lot width where 120' is required for the following lots - Lot 3, 118' requested; Lot 4, 112'
requested; Lot 5, 105' requested; Lot 6, 105' requested; Lot 7, 105' requested; Lot 8, 108'
requested; Lot 13, 116' requested. Subject property is located on the east side of Miranda
Avenue, approximately 100 feet southeast of the intersection of Bun(-e Meadows Drive, in
the Alamo area. (R-20) (ZA:Q-15) (CT 3461 .02) (Parcel # 193-070-011 and 012)
THIS IS A NOTICE OF STAFF'S DETERMINATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE
ABOVE PROJECT. YOU WILL BE FURTHER NOTIFIED OF THE PROJECT'S HEARING DATE
WHERE YOU CAN COMMENT ON THIS DETERMINATION AND THE PROJECT IF YOU WISH.
The Environmental Impact Report or Justification for Negative Declaration is available for
review at the address below:
Contra Costa County Community Development Department
4th Floor, North Wing, Administration Building
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553-1229
Review Period for Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration: -7- 2-1- 11
thru
AP 9 R 12/89 By
Community Development Department Representative
h
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
(INITIAL STUDY)
I. Background
1 . Name of Proponent: DeBolt Civil Engineering
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 811 San Ramon Valley Blvd.,
Danville, CA 94526
3. Date Checklist Submitted: July 1 , 1994
4. Name of Proposal: Sub 7898
5. Special Circumstances: None
II. Environmental Impacts
Quad Sheet Las Trampas
Parcel # 193-070-011 ,012
Date of Site Visit March 29, 1994
Note: Panel numbers indicated below refer to 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map
sheets located in the Community Development Department offices at 651 Pine Street
2nd floor, North Wing, Martinez, California 94553.
S 1
1 . Earth. Could the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures? X
Project Description/Site Visit
SUB 7898/August 30,1993
Geology Report Dated: Geotechnical Reconnaissance
Report prepared by Diablo Soils Engineers, Inc. dated
received by the Community Development Department on
February 25, 1994.
Environmental Checklist - Page 1 of 14
S =Significant 1 =Insignificant
d ,
S
The above report was reviewed by Darwin Myers
Associates. The submitted report was dated received by
the Community Development Department on March 28,
1994.
Response and mitigation #1 .
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over-covering of
the soil? X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 1 .a.
Geology Report Dated: February 25, 1994
C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 1 .a.
Geology Report Dated: February 25, 1994
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same. as 1 .a.
Geology Report Dated: February 25, 1994
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or
off the site? X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 1 .a.
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion whicri may
modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of-the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 1 .a.
Environmental Checklist - Page 2 of 14
S =Significant I =Insignificant
S i
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or
similar hazards? X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 1 .a.
U.S.G.S. Quad Overlay System No. 3 - High Potential of
Liquefaction
Response and mitigation #2.
2. Air. Could the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Sub 7898/March 29, 1994
b. The creation of objectionable odors? — X
BAAQMD Letter dated: N/A
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 2.a.
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 2.a.
3. Water. Could the proposals result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Sub 7898/March 29, 1994
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface water. X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 3.a.
Environmental Checklist - Page 3 of 14
S =Significant I =Insignificant
S Ir ,
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X
F.E.M.A. Flood Map - Panel # 435-B
Flood Zone A & C
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water
body? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit -- -
Same as 3.a.
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of
surface water quality, including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 3.a.
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground
waters? X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 3.a.
g. Change in the quanity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of
an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 3.a.
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise
available for public water? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 3.a.
i. Exposure of people or property to water-related hazards
such as flooding or tidal water. _ X
F.E.M.A. Flood Map - Panel# 435-B
(Flood Zone-A & C
Environmental Checklist - Page 4 of 14
S =Significant I = Insignificant
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Response and mitigation #1 : The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Reconnaissance P-ev-1
Report dated received by the Community Development Department on February
25, 1994. Section D - Mitigation Measures - list measures which need to be
implemented to preclude soil-related problems on the site.
On March 28, 1994 Darwin Myers Associates reviewed the above report and
recommended mitigation measures found on page 4, Section - Evaluation, 1 ,
& 2.
The above mitigation measures have been agreed upon by the applicant and
will be integrated in the staff report as Conditions of Approval.
Response and mitigation #2: Same as #1 .
Response and mitigation #3: The applicant submitted an Arborist Report prepared by
William F. Owen, Certified Arborist, dated received on May 6, .1994 by the
Community Development Department. A list of mitigation measures are found
on page 3 of the Arborist Report. The applicant has agreed with all mitigations
and fully . understands that such mitigations will be integrated into the
Subdivision's staff report as Conditions of Approval.
Response and mitigation #4: The applicant submitted an Archaeological Study of
Subdivision 7898, prepared by Anmarie Medin, Project Coordinator, under the
supervision of Dr. Adrian Praetzellis (Member, Society of Professional
Archaeologists), Department of Anthropology, Sonoma State University. On
page 3 of that report is a list of recommendations that the applicant has agreed
with and fully understands that they will be integrated into the Subdivision's
staff report as Conditions of Approval.
Environmental Checklist - Page 14 of 14
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.
Based on the foregoing review, the project will not result in any
potentially significant environmental impacts.
IV. Determination.
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect-on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there will not be a significant effeci in this case
because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE
PREPARED. X
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
6Aa 1
Date Signature
These measures are agreed upon by the applicant and will be integrated as Conditions
of Approval in the staff report for the Subdivision 7898.
Reviewed By:
:gMScAshkeir1.at
Environmental Checklist - Page 13 of 14
S
21 . Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Sub 7898/March 29, 1994
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A
short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs
in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term
impacts will endure well into the future.) _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 21 .a.
C. Does the project have potential impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A
project may impact on two or more separate resources
where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of these impacts on the
environment is significant.) _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 21 .a.
d. Does the project have environmental effects which could
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly? X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 21 .a.
Environmental Checklist - Page 12 of 14
S =Significant I =Insignificant
S
19. Recreation. Could the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational opportunities? — X
Project Description/Site Visit
Sub 7898/March 29, 1994
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Could the proposal result in the alteration .of or the
destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? _ X
Sonoma State Notification dated: March 22, 1994
Project Description/Site Visit
Sub .7898/March 29, 1994
Response and mitigation #5.
b. Could the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic
effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or
object? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 20.a.
C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a. physical
change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 20.a.
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 20.a.
e. Will the proposal result in destruction of or adverse physical
effects to significant paleontological resources? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 20.a.
Environmental Checklist - Page 11 of 14
S =Significant I =Insignificant
. S I
15. Energy. Could the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X
Project Description/Site Visit
Sub 7898/March 29, 1994
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of
energy, or require the development of new sources of
energy? X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 15.a.
16. Utilities. Could the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities: — X
Project Description/Site Visit
Sub 7898/March 29, 1994
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District/Memo dated 3-21-94
East Bay Municipal Utility District/Memo dated 3-23-94
17. Human Health. Could the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard
(excluding mental health)? — X
Project Description/Site Visit
Sub 7898/March 29, 1994
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Sub 7898/March 29, 1994
18. Aesthetics. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic
vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetic offensive site open to public view? _ X
U.S.G.S. Quad Overlay No. 14
Environmental Checklist - Page 10 of 14
S =Significant I =Insignificant
• J e t )
S I
14. Public Services. Could the proposal have an. effect upon, or result in
need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following
areas:
a. Fire protection? _ X
Fire District Memo Dated 5-2-94
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District
b. Police protection? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Sub 7898/March 29, 1994
C. Schools? X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 14.b.
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 14.b.
Alamo Parks and Recreation Committee - County Service
Area R7-A/Memo dated 3-29.94
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 14.b.
f. Other governmental services? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 14.b.
Health Services Department - Environmental Health
Division/Memo March 21, 1994
Building Inspection Department/Memo dated 3-18-94
Environmental Checklist Page 9 of 14
S =Significant I = Insignificant
S 1
12. Housing. Could the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing — X
Project Description/Site Visit
Sub 7898/March 29, 1994
13. Transportation/Circulation. Could the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X
Project Description/Site Visit
Sub 7898/March 29, 1994
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new
parking? — X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 1 .a.
C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? _ X
U.S.G.S. Quad Overlay No. 17
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement
of people and/or goods? — X
U.S.G.S Quad Overlay No. 17
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 1 .a.
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? _ X
U.S. G.S. Quad Overlay No. 15
Environmental Checklist - Page 8 of 14
S =Significant I =Insignificant
S I
7. Light and Glare. Could the proposal produce new light or glare? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Sub 7898/March 29, 1994
8. Land Use. Could the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the
present or planned land use of an area. _ X
General Plan Land Use Designation: Single Family Residential - Low
Density
9. Natural Resources. Could the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Sub 7898/March 29, 1994
10. Risk of Upset. Could the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset
condition? X
Project Description/Site Visit
Sub 7898/March 29, 1994
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or
an emergency evacuation plan? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 10.a.
11 . Population. Could the proposal alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of an area? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Sub 7898/March 29, 1994
Environmental Checklist - Page 7 of 14
S =Significant I = Insignificant
S
5. Animal Life. Could the proposal result in:
a. Change in diversity of species, or numbers of any species
of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Sub 7898/March 29, 1994
U.S.G.S. #5
Department of Fish & Game/Memo dated 3-28-94
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of animals? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 5.a.
U.S.G.S. #5
c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or
result in a barrier to the migration or movement of
animals? X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 5.a.
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 5.a.
6. Noise. Could the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Sub 7898/March 29, 1994
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels. _ X
U.S.G.S. Quad Overlay No. 16
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 6.a.
Environmental Checklist - Page 6 of 14
S =Significant I =Insignificant
S f
4. Plant Life. Could the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and
aquatic plants)? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Sub 7898/March 29, 1994
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 4.a.
U.S.G.S. #5
Response and mitigation #3.
Arborist Report prepared by William F. Owen, Certified
Arborist dated received by the Community Development
Department on May 6, 1994.
C. Introd,iction of new species of plants into an area, or in a
barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Same as 4.a.
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? _ X
Project Description/Site Visit
Sub 7898/March 29, 1994
Response and mitigation #4.
Environmental Checklist - Page 5 of 14
S =Significant I =Insignificant